Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
questionmark

2,518 9/11 responders have cancer

18 posts in this topic

NEW YORK, July 28 (UPI) --More than 2,500 of the responders to the 9/11 attacks and Ground Zero workers have been diagnosed with cancer as a result of their exposure at the site.

The New York Post reported that the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City recently tallied 1,655 responders in the World Trade Center Health program who have cancer as a result of their work at Ground Zero. The 1,655 is among the police, hard hats, sanitation workers, other city employees and volunteers under the program's supervision.

That number rises to 2,518 when paramedics and firefighters are included -- the FDNY announced 863 cancer patients in their last tally Friday.

Well, that sucks....

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that sucks....

And nobody will give a sh!t either :/

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do they determine if the cancer was caused by 9/11 or just something else like drinking alcohol or smoking or diet etc?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And nobody will give a sh!t either :/

not only that, but they wont get paid till 2015-16 either, the longer they wait the less they'll have to pay out.

also if type into google 911 responders, you will see that more fdny, nypd, hard hats...etc, do not wear masks working on the site, than the ones that wear them. hundreds if not thousands of pics.

my building was 3 blocks from there, and i worked everyday to clean up my air handlers, and cooling towers, the smell in the air was bad, and i did wear mask pretty much all day long. you had to be dumb to believe what christine whitman said about air, when smell alone would tell you something is not right.

Edited by aztek
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do they determine if the cancer was caused by 9/11 or just something else like drinking alcohol or smoking or diet etc?

It could be that some of those cancers are not related, but here we are talking about ~10% of the first responders developing cancer within a few years of 9/11.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would have to see how they compare to other responders in the population who were not there. Firemen breathe in a lot of cancer causing stuff on the job. They don't have to eat bad or smoke to get cancer or bad hearts. It is not what I call a healthy workplace kind of job. If they get sick from it we should care for them, they gave their lives for us.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do they determine if the cancer was caused by 9/11 or just something else like drinking alcohol or smoking or diet etc?

That piece did not go into it, and at the end rather glossed it over with the statement "they also have PTSD", but the cancers observed were most unusual for young and otherwise healthy adults.

The cancers include Leukemia, non-Hodgkins Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, and are very much present also in the survivors of Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Matt Tartaglia RIP of Perkasie PA who worked there for some days, described nuclear decontamination protocols in place as he was working. His teeth fell out and eventually he died.

But many folks will sit there with a straight face and declare that there was no radiation event at WTC, rather like Whitman did.

Ah, The Emperor's New Clothes are truly splendid, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be that some of those cancers are not related, but here we are talking about ~10% of the first responders developing cancer within a few years of 9/11.

What are your thoughts regarding the identical epidemiology between these who worked at Ground Zero and those who survived places like Chernobyl and Nagasaki?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are your thoughts regarding the identical epidemiology between these who worked at Ground Zero and those who survived places like Chernobyl and Nagasaki?

Different cancers. More likely to have been caused by asbestos and burned plastic. But I am not a specialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

But many folks will sit there with a straight face and declare that there was no radiation event at WTC, rather like Whitman did.

do not know about ground zero, but 3 blocks away it was not any higher than before 911, our security dept checked it few times, over several days span, staring on sept 17, if there was you could not hide it, anyone with giger counter could spot it. there was tonns of other harful chemicals there, enough to cause sickness. but radiation, was not one of them.

as for Whitman, she said the thruth, if you know how to read politicans, everything they say, is the opposite of truth

Edited by aztek
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's neither here nor there unless you do a comparison among similar cohorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do not know about ground zero, but 3 blocks away it was not any higher than before 911, our security dept checked it few times, over several days span, staring on sept 17, if there was you could not hide it, anyone with giger counter could spot it. there was tonns of other harful chemicals there, enough to cause sickness. but radiation, was not one of them.

as for Whitman, she said the thruth, if you know how to read politicans, everything they say, is the opposite of truth

I wonder if your department was using a Geiger Counter in its detection effort? Did you know that Geiger Counters detect only A, B and Gamma radiation? That it cannot detect neutron radiation?

Any thoughts on why the American Chemical Society meeting in Orlando of April 2002 would discuss, among other things, "Elevated Tritium Levels at WTC"?

Any thoughts on why a USGS crew collecting samples at 35 locations within a 1km radius on 17 and 18 September would have detected the presence of Thorium at levels 6 times the concentration of the lowest levels found in that survey?

Any thoughts on why Matt Tartaglia would go public with the fact that nuclear decontamination protocols were being used there?

He eventually lost his teeth, and then his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes it was giger counter, and according to it, there was no rise in a,b, gamma radiation.

i'm not sure what nuclear decontamination protocols he was refering to, but i sure did not see anything other than responders\contractors, working there, with no special equipment, some even did not wear masks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i did hear numerous CTs, some said there was no planes there, at all (and i saw second one hit, with my own eyes,) other theories claim there was mini nuke that went off, again i was there and watched them fall with my own eyes, i think i would spot a nuclear explosion, 3 blocks away from me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Any thoughts on why the American Chemical Society meeting in Orlando of April 2002 would discuss, among other things, "Elevated Tritium Levels at WTC"?

Here you go. Two seconds on Google found this: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4xq88667

Pro Tip: When someone makes a claim such as the one you're parroting, simply go do your own research. That's the only way not to be a sheeple.

223rd American Chemical Society National Meeting, Orlando, FL, April 7-11, 2002

Division of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology

Proceedings of the Symposium on Radioanalytical Methods at the Frontier of Interdisciplinary

Science: Trends and Recent Achievements

Elevated Tritium Levels at the World Trade Center

Thomas M. Semkowa,b,, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha,

Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina,b, Robert L. Rabune,

and Philip G. Williamsf

Abstract

Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at [the]World Trade Center (WTC) ground

zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A method of ultralow-background liquid scintillation

counting was used after distilling HTO from the samples. A water sample from the WTC sewer,

collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.174±0.074 (2σ) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected

on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L,

respectively. Several water and vegetation samples were analyzed from areas outside the ground

zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Kensico Reservoir. No HTO above the

background was found in those samples. All these results are well below the levels of concern to

human exposure.

Several tritium radioluminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of

the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that [the]Boeing 767-222 aircraft

operated by the United Airlines that hit WTC Tower 2 as well as [the]Boeing 767-223ER

operated by the American Airlines, that hit WTC Tower 1, had a combined 34{.3} Ci of tritium

at the time of impact, contained in emergency signs. WTC hosted several law-enforcement

agencies such as ATF, CIA, US Secret Service and US Customs. The ATF office had two

weapon vaults in WTC Building 6. Also 63 Police Officers, possibly carrying handguns, died in

the attack. The weaponry containing tritium sights was therefore a likely and significant source

of tritium. It is possible that some of the 2824 victims carried tritium watches, however this

source appears to be less significant than the other two.

I'm at the ACS meeting in San Francisco next week. If you've got any specific questions about this study, let me know and I'll see if I can ask the researchers directly.

Edited by Rafterman
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go. Two seconds on Google found this: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4xq88667

Pro Tip: When someone makes a claim such as the one you're parroting, simply go do your own research. That's the only way not to be a sheeple.

223rd American Chemical Society National Meeting, Orlando, FL, April 7-11, 2002

Division of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology

Proceedings of the Symposium on Radioanalytical Methods at the Frontier of Interdisciplinary

Science: Trends and Recent Achievements

Elevated Tritium Levels at the World Trade Center

Thomas M. Semkowa,b,, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha,

Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina,b, Robert L. Rabune,

and Philip G. Williamsf

Abstract

Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at [the]World Trade Center (WTC) ground

zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A method of ultralow-background liquid scintillation

counting was used after distilling HTO from the samples. A water sample from the WTC sewer,

collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.174±0.074 (2σ) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected

on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L,

respectively. Several water and vegetation samples were analyzed from areas outside the ground

zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Kensico Reservoir. No HTO above the

background was found in those samples. All these results are well below the levels of concern to

human exposure.

Several tritium radioluminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of

the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that [the]Boeing 767-222 aircraft

operated by the United Airlines that hit WTC Tower 2 as well as [the]Boeing 767-223ER

operated by the American Airlines, that hit WTC Tower 1, had a combined 34{.3} Ci of tritium

at the time of impact, contained in emergency signs. WTC hosted several law-enforcement

agencies such as ATF, CIA, US Secret Service and US Customs. The ATF office had two

weapon vaults in WTC Building 6. Also 63 Police Officers, possibly carrying handguns, died in

the attack. The weaponry containing tritium sights was therefore a likely and significant source

of tritium. It is possible that some of the 2824 victims carried tritium watches, however this

source appears to be less significant than the other two.

I'm at the ACS meeting in San Francisco next week. If you've got any specific questions about this study, let me know and I'll see if I can ask the researchers directly.

Thanks much for all that. What you posted is nearly identical to what Prager noted in his book about the subject.

As a layman, I find it interesting that ACS would be discussing it at all if it were so meaningless, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

How can we possibly know how much tritium source chemicals either airplane was carrying if the actual airplanes, serial numbers, were never ascertained. Considering that most people who called in to the police after the first strike described the airplane as NOT an airliner, but rather something smaller like a commuter or corporate aircraft, it seems to be rather forcing the issue to claim the airliners as a source for the tritium to me. Certainly not in accord with scientific principles.

Have you any thoughts on the other questions I posed to Aztek regarding Thorium levels?

Have you any thoughts on the epidemiology, the thread subject? Any thoughts on Tartaglia's statements regarding nuclear decontamination protocol being employed? The hot spots recorded by Landsat 7 or IKONOS satellite? Or the elevated levels of Uranium, Beryllium, Strontium, Hg and Pb?

In other words, do you think the epidemiology is related to a radiation event, or do you see these 2518 sick people as just a statistical anomaly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sounds of silence, and what might be inferred.

Now it seems that burning office furnishings can not only collapse modern buildings, but also mysteriously induce cancers typical of radiation events. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.