First Responders' Health Risks Dubious, Says NY Post Column

I've said in the past that I take no sides in this particular debate. I sincerely hope that the first responders to 9-11 are not getting sick and dying at an elevated rate, but I'm willing to let the experts determine that. Here's a column that claims the science behind the issue is a bunch of bunkum.

He points to some of the issues that have been raised in the past:

Ironically, her bill is named after Det. James Zadroga, whose name made headlines when the New Jersey medical examiner was persuaded to link his death to 9/11, a first. But later review by New York City's medical examiner found that his death was associated with the misuse of painkilling drugs, not 9/11 dust.

And does this sound familiar?

In defense of her bill, Maloney points to "dozens of peer-reviewed scientific studies" showing injuries from "toxins at Ground Zero." But the studies she cites are generally published in journals that exist to create such claims, but lack credibility in the broad scientific arena.

Further details from Jeff Stier here.

To be clear: Some studies on Maloney's list are quite legitimate -- but they cover issues like post-traumatic stress disorder, not Trade Center dust.

Yet other publications on the list don't even pretend to about science -- they merely chronicle the fact that, as one piece puts it, "a broad and sophisticated grassroots environmental movement has arisen in Lower Manhattan to push for environmental cleanup and for access to health care for impacted populations and communities. This movement unites community, labor and environmental groups and continues to organize five years after 9/11."

That's political science, not health science.