news-record.com

Information about cancer cases around the White Street Landfill means one thing: More information is needed.

A state review found about twice the expected number of pancreatic cancer cases among people who lived near the landfill in northeast Greensboro and a similarly higher incidence of multiple myeloma, a cancer of the blood plasma cells. There weren't enough cases of the latter disease to declare statistical significance, but the pancreatic cancer numbers raise legitimate concerns that warrant further explanation.

At first glance, they might confirm fears of residents who for years have believed the landfill was making people sick. But, based on what's known so far, no conclusions can be drawn.

The report, written by the Central Cancer Registry of the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, does not identify any cancer-causing substances in the landfill to which residents may have been exposed. It further notes that "there are potentially many causes of cancer that are not related to the physical environment ... Thus, a causal link between the observed elevated rates and exposure to the landfill cannot be established based on the findings of this investigation."

In fact, "it is virtually impossible to tell what caused a specific person to develop pancreatic cancer," according to information on the Web page of the Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

It does identify risk factors, including genetics, smoking, race (it is more common among African Americans), chronic pancreatitis, diabetes, obesity and diet high in meats and fried foods.

A weakness of the state investigation is that it did not take into account possibly greater risk factors among residents of the study area, which is much more heavily African American than the general population. Therefore, it apparently understated the "expected" occurrences of pancreatic cancer.

At this point, it would be helpful if city officials organized a community meeting where state health experts could explain their findings and outline what steps can be taken next to determine whether proximity to the landfill has made anyone ill. This is important as leaders explore possible future uses of the solid-waste facility, including proposals to reopen it to household garbage -- an idea strongly opposed by residents.

There was some reassuring information in the state report: It didn't find unusually high occurrences of other cancers, nor did it raise concerns about water or air exposure in the area. No problems were discovered in relation to the nearby Glass Landfill, a private facility long closed.

Nevertheless, questions remain. Are there other possible health effects that state analysts didn't examine but should? Are health officials confident that air and groundwater monitoring has been thorough enough? Do they have a complete picture of contaminants contained in the landfill? People who live nearby deserve as many clear answers as possible.