=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #127
—May 2, 1989—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
COUNTIES WITH SUPERFUND DUMPS ALSO HAVE EXCESSIVE CANCERS.
A new study by federal EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
personnel reveals excessive cancer deaths in counties that have
Superfund dumps (which we call “Superfund counties”), compared to
counties that do not have such dumps (“non Superfund counties”).
Counties that have Superfund dumps have excessive deaths from
cancers of the lung, bladder, esophagus, stomach, large
intestine, and rectum among white males; the same counties have
excessive deaths from cancers of the lung, breast, bladder,
stomach, large intestine and rectum among white females.
The study was conducted by two staff members at the EPA Health
Effects Research Laboratory in Research Triangle, NC, and by a
professor at the University of Miami School of Medicine in Miami,
FL.
The study team used EPA data to identify 593 Superfund dump sites
where there was laboratory-confirmed evidence of chemical
contamination of groundwater supplies and where there was no
alternate public water supply (in other words, where groundwater
was the sole source of drinking water). The selected 593 dumps
are located in 339 counties in 49 states. The study team used
National Cancer Institute data on deaths among white males and
females, 1970-1979, for 13 types of cancers to make the
comparisons.
The excess cancers became apparent when the Superfund counties
were compared to all non-Superfund counties, nationwide. The
study team tried to match Superfund counties with other
individual counties selected to have the same size white
population over age 64, the same percent in-migration (people
moving into the county during the study period), same median
family income, and the same percentage of workers employed in
manufacturing. However, 64 Superfund counties were unique (e.g.,
Los Angeles County, CA; Kings County, NY; Harris County, TX), so
they abandoned the effort to find matching counties.
The study team then looked at geographical regions to see if they
could identify a national patterns of disease. In EPA region 1
(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vermont) they compared 23 counties with Superfund sites vs. 44
counties without Superfund sites; in the counties with Superfund
sites they found increased deaths from female breast cancer. In
EPA region 2 (New York and New Jersey) they compared 40 Superfund
counties vs. 43 non-Superfund counties and they found no
excessive cancer deaths in the Superfund counties, compared to
the non-Superfund counties; in EPA region 3 (Delaware, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia) the team studied 11
Superfund counties vs. 83 nonSuperfund counties and they found
excessive deaths from bladder cancer in females, cancer of the
large intestine among males and females, and cancer of the rectum
in males; in the remaining EPA regions, 4-10, (which include all
the rest of the U.S. except Alaska) they studied 241 Superfund
counties vs. 2500 non-Superfund counties and they found excessive
deaths from lung cancer in males and females, female breast
cancer, and bladder, esophagal, and rectum cancer among males.
[We note that an earlier study of New Jersey, using different
techniques, identified several cancers that occurred at excessive
rates in municipalities having Superfund dumps, compared to
municipalities lacking Superfund dumps. See G. Reza Najem and
others, “Clusters of Cancer Mortality in New Jersey
Municipalities; With Special Reference to Chemical Toxic Waste
Disposal Sites and Per Capita Income.” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
EPIDEMIOLOGY, Vol. 14, No. 4 (1985), pgs. 528-537.]
EPA region 3 (Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
Virginia) is the only geographical area where deaths from cancers
of the gastrointestinal tract occurred among both men and women.
The researchers point out that their study does not prove that
the Superfund dumps caused the observed patterns of disease. They
note, for example, that the excess cancer deaths in Superfund
counties may have occurred not because of direct contamination
from the dumps, but because companies that produced the wastes
may also have contaminated local food supplies, local air, and
local water directly by emitting chemicals into the local
environment. Another possibility is the Superfund dumps are
located in heavily industrialized areas, or may be located in
areas that differ from non-Superfund-site locations in other
important but unknown ways. (Our experience with Superfund sites
indicates that they tend to be located in sparselypopulated rural
areas, not heavily-industrialized urban areas. –Editors)
Get: Jack Griffith and others. “Cancer Mortality in U.S. Counties
with Hazardous Waste Sites and Ground Water Pollution.” ARCHIVES
OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vol. 44, No. 2 (March/April, 1989), pgs.
69-74. Free reprints available from: Jack Griffith, Ph.D., USEPA,
Health Effects Research Laboratory (MD-55A), Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: cancer; health effects; superfund;
landfilling; landfills; leaks; studies; epa; drinking water;
water pollution; groundwater; gender; male; female; race; white;
exposure