Nuclear LewPort

Scott Leffler · Guru

Nuclear LewPort

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

applause , applause and more applause .

NuclearLou · Senior Member

Hey Mike: Not knowing or wanting any hand waving at me--I will direct your applause at the Good Doctor Janette D. Sherman, M.D. I'll add some more here in a little bit. Thanks for your continued concern with this situation. Best, Lou

Scott Leffler · Guru

This isn't nearly as user friendly as I'd like it to be ... but some kudos needs to go to New York State for even making the information available. New York Cancer Rates by Zip Code (comparative)

Scott Leffler · Guru

For anyone who missed Tuesday's show, the podcast is up.

Just click here.

James Hufnagel · Veteran Member

Here's another NYS Health Dept web site:

http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/cancer/nyscr/table7/countykids.htm

that shows Niagara County's cancer rate among 0-19 years old is not as high as some counties (including Cattauraugus and Columbia) and actually indistinguishable from just about any other county when the confidence interval is taken into consideration.

Comments?

Dovey · Senior Member

-- Edited by Dovey at 15:10, 2005-06-08

-- Edited by Dovey at 06:53, 2005-06-09

alwayswatching · Guru

mike of the mountain wrote:

applause , applause and more applause .

No lou, this goes to you for getting us heard. Thanks you were great. AW

NuclearLou · Senior Member

Scott: Thank you for posting the link to the NYSDOH and the other linkages too.
I will post some more about the Lewiston Porter Youngstown Plutonium and the email letter exchanges between doctors.

This is a more robust representation of local cancer statistics that were also
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/cancer/sublevel/csii.htm

released by the New York State Department of Health. While the 0-19 comment given may be from the same study, it is a result of "bulk statistics" in that it is not 'type of' Cancer specific, it does not show a separation of males or females of any age and it is not geo-specific (such as zip code location) beyond the entire size of Niagara County.

This means that while the "0-19" comment may be accurate in one statistical sense, this number is in fact including ALL kids aged 0-19 here in Niagara County with all cancer, all ages, etc thrown into a one "bucket" category regardless of where they live even if right next to a landfill.

Not a very accurate way to show this number and actually very misleading. Please notice the use of the word by DO "Confidence." Odd choice I'd say considering the situation. Statistical language is intended to be representative of what the statistician wants to portray. Anyone will tell you this.

I don't know if the NYSDOH has done a more finite breakdown--but if not, this clearly shows that it should be done.

I am pleased to be allowed the ability to explain this discrepancy in the statistical representations of the New York State Health Department regarding 'Kid Cancer' and BULK Reporting.

Best,

Lou Ricciuti

*For those that would like to see the document that refers to the Lew-Port Schools recommended being closed, that was done by Dr. Ute Lehrer and mentioned above in another post, I would be happy to supply it to anyone that contact me. I have supplied it to others and it (was or is) here in other spots of the forum archive. I believe this is the reason many have become concerned and involved. This award winning study is the one that Town of Porter and Lewiston_porter Schools officials have disregarded and once was removed from the Web. I have the letter requesting its return.

-- Edited by NuclearLou at 22:16, 2005-06-07

James Hufnagel · Veteran Member

It is most certainly "Cancer specific". What are "bulk statistics?" What does "geo-specific beyond the size of Niagara County" mean?

The "bucket" contains probably about 50 kids, over several years, according to the chart we're talking about and the population of Niagara County. If you have statistically significant evidence of increased cancer near toxic landfills, why not post it here?

Confidence interval is a very commonly used statistical measure of the error inherent in results. There is nothing misleading or odd about it.

NuclearLou · Senior Member

Looking at "Cancer Specific" statistics near to Starpoint Schools

http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/cancer/sublevel/
STATISTICS
Breast cancer
14132 Sanborn 50 to 100% above expected
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/cancer/sublevel/breast/niagara.pdf

Lung cancer male
14094 Lockport 15 to 49% above expected
14095 Lockport included with 14094

Female lung cancer
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/cancer/sublevel/lungf/niagara.pdf
14094 Lockport 50 to 100% above expected
14095 Lockport included with 14094

Prostate cancer
14132 Sanborn 50 to 100% above expected

Only one thing "confident" about these numbers. This is all the more I care to address.

Additional stats are available at the URLs given below. The second one is very easy to use and contains the info in blue below.

-------------------

http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/cancer/sublevel/

The below link is much more friendly and in html instead of pdf format. Use the box at the bottom of the page. http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/cancer/sublevel/countyl/iniagara.htm

County ZIP Code Index

-- Edited by NuclearLou at 22:51, 2005-06-07

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

James Hufnagel wrote:

<While the 0-19 comment given may be from the same study, it is a result of "bulk statistics" in that it is not Cancer specific, it does not show a separation of males or females of any age and it is not geo-specific beyond the size of Niagara County.> It is most certainly "Cancer specific". What are "bulk statistics?" What does "geo-specific beyond the size of Niagara County" mean? <This means that while the "0-19" comment may be accurate in one statistical sense, this number is in fact including ALL kids aged 0-19 here in Niagara County with all cancer, all ages, etc thrown into a one "bucket" category regardless of where they live even if right next to a landfill. > The "bucket" contains probably about 50 kids, over several years, according to the chart we're talking about and the population of Niagara County. If you have statistically significant evidence of increased cancer near toxic landfills, why not post it here? <Not a very accurate way to show this number and actually very misleading. Please notice the use of the word by DO "Confidence." Odd choice I'd say considering the situation.> Confidence interval is a very commonly used statistical measure of the error inherent in results. There is nothing misleading or odd about it.

ahhh , play nice says mike -

the question is not "are there statistics and studies already performed that show increased incedence of cancer and cancer mortality in niagara county" the answer to that is yes , have a look here .

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.cgi/article-page.html?article=57510009&hilite=breast%20cancer

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.cgi/article-page.html?article=62800009&hilite=breast%20cancer

from a seperate entity .

as demonstrated above it is possible to be infected [for want of a better word] with exposure to cancer causing toxins from the enviornment as a child that will cause actual cancer much later in life , so the fact the cancer incedence in children in a certain area is low does not actually mean that the children have not been infected . nor does it mean that there is not actual enviormental problems in the area in question .

the question here is "why have these studies not been acted on already and why has cdc and nys doh not taken over and used their vast resources to identify and remidiate or isolate the actual enviornmental cause of increased cancer incedence and cancer deaths in the area?"

NuclearLou · Senior Member

I just want to rewind and back this train wreck up--

The show Dialog yesterday included a medical doctor and toxicologist. During Scott's show it was discussed that there are documents between Dr. Janette Sherman, M.D., and Residents for Responsible Government, where RRG's president asks Dr. Sherman if "PLUTONIUM was O.K. to be in the Lewiston drinking water." Quite the off-hand and casual question. Be concerned. Very concerned about this!

The good doctor told the President of RRG, Mr. Vince Agnello over a month ago and in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that there was NO AMOUNT of Pu in drinking water that is safe! None. RRG DID NOT issue a press release about this information, but instead, continues to make comment about the phantom PCBs THAT ARE NOT coming here from the Hudson River.

If the content of the letter (and local water supply pipes) proves to be true, and I can't imagine why this question would be asked of a doctor behind the scenes, and then NEVER MENTIONED to the public unless it were true, then at the minimum there may be the need for a water advisory or declaration of an emergency. Niagara County Health Department is not capable of making this test for Pu and should not be relied upon for this type of protection or information any longer. It seems as if WE are being "protected" only from this potentailly deadly information and NOT the deadly materials themselves.

If you have friends or family in any of the above mentioned areas, you may want to advise them to not consume ANY amount of tap water until this is resolved--proven or disproven through testing. Consider this your only warning and advisory as one did NOT come from the Niagara County Healty Department OR the Residents for Reponsible Government group.

Since Vince Agnello's letter to the doctor is not absolutely clear about where this Pu infiltration is suspected (or has been detected)--this means that the deadly element may be available in the coffee water being used this morning around that area, in the drinking water fountain of Lewiston-Porter Schools and ALL local residences and businesses below the ridge.

I would like to say that this thread did not start about cancer statistics and someone's personal interpretation of these numbers as they are very self explanatory and startling. Rather the thread was started by Scott to dicuss the issue of this material being in drinking water as the documents state.

If you are concerned or upset by this (and you sure as hell should be), call or write the health department with your outrage and demand that independant verifiable testing be conducted immediately!! The Niagara County Health Department can no longer be trusted to tell the public the truth around the Lake Ontario Ordnance Works site, Lewiston, Youngstown, Ransomville and Porter. There IS plutonium available for uptake and Pu is deadly in any amount.

The letters will be posted here today between RRG president Vince Agello-who, BTW is also a Niagara University professor, and Dr. Janette Sherman, M.D. dated more than a month ago saying that this is an IMMEDIATE HEALTH CRISIS. Agnello teaches law at NU in addition to being the RRG head. Mr. Vince Agnello is a DISBARRED attorney due to charges laid by the NYS Appellate Court for malpractice and unprofessional conduct. Good leader for the RRG group. Niagara University professor Agnello is also associated with a local environmental "cleanup" company that holds numerous government contracts around the United States.

To this I attest,

Louis Ricciuti

Citation--

*According to the NYS Appellate Div. office of Attorney Grievance, RRG President and Niagara University law curriculum professor Mr. Vincent Agnello, was first censured on March 8, 1996 and then finally DISBARRED from the legal profession on December 31, 1997, for malpractice/misconduct.

This is the sort of representation the public gets around Niagara County with serious and potentially deadly issues? There's more buried and out of view than just waste!

-- Edited by NuclearLou at 07:45, 2005-06-08

James Hufnagel · Veteran Member

I've avoided criticizing RRG for years now because I didn't want to detract from anything they were doing to prevent the importation of PCB's or anything else they might be doing.

I was in on the ground floor of that organization and let me tell you, what a bunch of clueless locals. The first thing they did in response to the threat of Hudson River PCB's was not formulate a strategic plan, mount a campaign to educate the public, start contacting politicians and the media. Oh no. The first thing they did is got a lawyer and sued.

Did they hire a competent environmental attorney? No, somebody knew somebody who knew a lawyer on Main Street, and this attorney left out so many important legal issues in the initial lawsuit that the subsequent star attorney who handled the appeal was hamstrung. Every time the judge threw it out of court without comment, RRG was "shocked" that Judge Sperazza dismissed it in 15 minutes. It was because they had no case, the morons. Yet they kept having fundraisers and plowing money into legal action.

It was because Bill Choboy got elected to the Porter Board and voted to retain the Robert Moses Parkway that I left RRG in disgust. Hey, look, anyone who wants to call themselves an environmentalist has to support all environmental issues. It's called coalitioning.

I remember the first couple RRG meetings where Choboy ran the meeting and sat up on the dais fully two feet above the ten of us present. I never voted for him.

One meeting to their astonishment I stated the Sen. Maziarz was against us. "Oh, no!" cried the assembled Porter and Lewiston Republicans who called themselves RRG, "He attends our public hearings and furrows his brow whenever anyone says something, he really does care!" Of course, they changed their tune after a couple of years of nothing coming out of the NYS Senate with the PCB's and King George finally killing a bill at the last minute which would have resolved the issue once and for all. They I started to hear that they were finally disenchanted with them.

The very name "Residents for Responsible Government" should tell you something. I begged them to change the name to anything, even "F*** CWM" was suggested by somebody.

There is an RRG member I consider a good friend who knows none of this is directed at him. I felt it was time to join the chorus as far as RRG is concerned.

alwayswatching · Guru

I have posted a comment to Mr. Hufnagel's last posting on the "All in this Together thread". This topic is to important for this type of dailog. Let's please stick to these very important facts, and post our oppinions elsewhere.

NuclearLou · Senior Member

Mr. Hufnagle writes previously:
> "when it looked like the Hudson River PCB’s were going to be shipped to CWM in Porter a couple of years ago, I walked from Albany to the gates of CWM in a barrel, 350 miles, and was on TV, radio and at least a dozen newspapers statewide. Recently, the EPA announced that Porter was an unlikely destination for the PCB’s. I may have been part of the snowball that got that avalanche rolling.">

NOTHING IS FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH

Unfortunately, the following is true and documentable--
Subj: Fwd: PCB's "most likely" not coming to Niagara
Date: 1/28/2005 6:22:35 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: NiagaraNet

I told Mr. William Choboy and Rev. Charles Lamb person-to-person and clearly in an email that these materials were not destined to be sent here, dated March 26, 2002. I cited an article in the magazine The Scientist (and Web reference--PCB Dilemma, by Ricki Lewis, March 19, 2001), that included a statement by a specific EPA spokesperson (Richard Caspe, Dir. Superfund-EPA Region 2. Dec., 12, 2001), stating the final disposition would be in Texas-by rail or barge. PLEASE SEE DATES!

I suggested at that time to RRG, that they send a letter to the EPA official asking specifically if the Hudson PCB dredgings were destined for here or not, before they launched their anti-PCB effort.This information provided to RRG was completely ignored--(or maybe not), as no inquiry letter was ever sent to this EPA official and RRG proceeded to foster the perception that the PCBs were headed to Niagara County. "The PCBs are coming, the PCBs are coming."
A great misdirection of effort. Read on.

Imagine all the human capital and volunteer energy that was expended by RRG, all the money collected, all the flyers passed, the ribbons on trees, telephone poles and sign posts--To protest the PCB's which they weren't coming here in the first place.

ALL THE WHILE The High Level African K-65 radioactive wastes were quietly reclassified through an unprecedented and little known, Bush Administration supported-2004 Energy-bill appropriations legislation, and now will remain buried here in Niagara County forever.
In addition to this--
Plutonium was found in direct contact with soils at the LOOW site, and, the LOOW site Air Force experimental test facility was demolished without a peep in Lewiston-Porter.

Literally and concurrently, RRG held press conferences about PCB's--directly across the street from where the demolition was taking place. The previous poster was also involved in these PR events. Talk about turning your back on issues! Or, perhaps more appropriately, directing the lens of the camera. "HEY, LOOK OVER HERE."

This mentions nothing about their (RRG) involvement with the L-P school grounds testing.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the name of this group should have been GRR. Government Responsible for Residents...responsible for how they think, how they vote, what they're told, how they're told to act-react, what to oppose and or not, responsible for creating public opinion, deciding who's credible, etc.

--------------------------

This really isn't about RRG or PCBs. Not at all and it never was. This continuous mention of PCB "protection" when RRG was fully informed of the EPA decision and documents as early as 2001 continues to not make any sense. Even mentioning the PHANTOM PCBS now is totally unnecessary.

This issue is about PLUTONIUM potentially being in the Lewiston Porter Youngstown Ransomville finished drinking water. The previous poster WAS involved in activities that distracted and detracted from this situation now for more than four years with the "anti-PCB" campaign. Now is not the time to "join a chorus" or anything else creating further distraction. It would be interesting to note just how many people might have become sick or that have died should Pu be determined to be present (a detect) in the finished drinking water? How's that for environmental or conservationism? Those potentially exposed would include members of the school staff and students along with all residents using the "supplied" water or wells (because of proximity) in the general Lewiston area. No test now would be acceptable without oversight by citizens. Watch soon for a press release saying that everything is just wonderful and hunky-dory (sorry Susan--not ours).

It is really unfortunate that intelligent people have been mislead or worse with political machinations and obsfucation of facts. In my honest opinion, the previous poster was indeed involved directly in this coverup, or was duped beyond what is reasonable considering education. I supplied RRG execs. with the exact PCB citation directly from the mouth of Region 2 Superfund Director, Mr. Richard Caspe.

This information was ignored by the same group and at the same time that this poster was a member of RRG. I am really not interested in these comments about 0-19 year old cancer and then joining in here with comments that run contrary to any effort at resolution of this serious situation. More distraction? You decide.
Once again, this is all I care to address.
CITATION BELOW
Water Pollution
Additional Readings

Lewis, Ricki. 2001. "PCB Dilemma: Government, industry, and public debate dredging vs. bioremediation in the Hudson River." The Scientist 15([6):1, Mar. 19, 2001. An interesting debate about natural bioremediation, dredging, and risk assessment.
------------------
NIAGARA GAZETTE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, January 26, 2003, page 3A

PCB's "most likely" not coming to Niagara

Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency announced that contaminated sediment from the Hudson River are not likely to be headed to CWM Chemical Services in Porter for disposal.

The CWM site will "most likely not be the site" where the dirty sediment to be dredged from the Hudson River starting in 2006 will go, according to David King, director of the Hudson of the EPA Hudson River Field Office, in a release from the office of state Sen. George Maziarz, R_Newfane.

The final decision has not yet been made and will not be made for several months, according to John Haggard, Hudson River Program Manager for General Electric. Over a thirty year period, GE dumped an estimated 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson.

Sites in Texas, Michigan and Utah are the top candidates because they are all accessible by rail or barge, an EPA requirement in this matter.

CWM in Porter is not accessible by rail or barge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was going to post the letter and email exchanges betweeen RRG officials and Dr. Sherman, but unfortunately now with answering this previous message I will not have the time today. Sorry folks but look at the time already spent with just this one poster and nothing has come from it yet but time spent. I would appreciate it if my time was not wasted by these frivilous efforts at further distraction or "baiting," his word and laughter (as posted here previously by the same member).

If you have an expertise, a plan to help or comments that should be directed to the NYSDOH, local officials or a letter to the editor, please do so. Be part of a solution, any solution instead of the problem.

Sincerely,
Liouis Ricciuti

Date: Wed Jun 8 2:25 PM, 2005

So you do not have them?

James Hufnagel · Veteran Member

Why are there spaces in the two links in the previous post that purport to show cancer hot spots? Is it because the poster does not really want people to click on them to instantly view the maps that show that there isn't really more cancer in Niagara County that there is anywhere else?

Cut and paste the link into your address bar and remove the space. You will see the the areas supposedly contaminated by plutonium, like Lewiston and Porter, actually have a lower cancer rate than the rest of the county. Apparently, that is why Lockport and Sanborn are highlighted by the post.

If you don't believe me, look at the maps!

James Hufnagel · Veteran Member

www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/cancer/sublevel/breast/niagara.pdf

www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/cancer/sublevel/lungf/niagara.pdf

There, that's better.

Date: Wed Jun 8 5:46 PM, 2005

Hello ,WE are eight years later,Those are dated to 1997.It is now 2005.

James Hufnagel · Veteran Member

Well, that's one of many problems with the data.

Date: Wed Jun 8 6:13 PM, 2005

James Hufnagel wrote:

Well, that's one of many problems with the data.

Which would mean you would need new Data.Would that go under the #'s site?But I must say I think you have the idea.

NuclearLou · Senior Member

The cancer statistics are fine as to the dates they were done. They show that there is definately an increase in those years. Encourage them to do another study. It is not the statistics that are flawed. The recommendation of the PDF files over the html is a misdirection by the previous poster--PLEASE look at the address difference.

The links I provided work and were checked. The data shows a marked increase in cancer rates exactly where this poster says there are none. I will post those later.

RE: Nuclear LewPort

James Hufnagel wrote:
Well, that's one of many problems with the data.

According to statisticians, an epidemeologist, a biometician and yesterday, a Medical Doctor, apparently the poster is incorrect because each of these professionals say there are elevated rates and that things have become "manifest" with bad health. Here's that link AGAIN--and I''ll just keep posting it. If this happens again--I may be forced to put that link on every page and every post on the blog just so it doesn't get misplaced with another of the previous posters PDFs.

Additional stats are available at the URLs given below. The second one is very easy to use and contains the info in blue below.

-------------------http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/cancer/sublevel/

The below link is much more friendly and in html instead of pdf format. Use the box at the bottom of the page. http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/cancer/sublevel/countyl/iniagara. htm

County ZIP Code Index

It seems that some anonymous person is very interested in the documents between RRG and the Dr.. I'll supply them to anyone that requests directly from me.
Anonymous
Date: Wed Jun 8 3:25 PM, 2005
Views: 42
Quote | Reply
RE: Nuclear LewPort
So you do not have them?

(I REALLY DO HAVE THEM. THE DOCTOR THAT THEY WERE ADDRESSED TO IS MY FRIEND--GET IT?) If you would like to see them just drop me your name and a note. :&*)

I was going to post the letter and email exchanges betweeen RRG officials and Dr. Sherman, but unfortunately now with answering this previous message I will not have the time today. Sorry folks but look at the time already spent with just this one poster and nothing has come from it yet but time spent. I would appreciate it if my time was not wasted by these frivilous efforts at further distraction or "baiting," his word and laughter (as posted here previously by the same member).

I'll get to it eventually. Too bad there are all these attempts at minimizing such a terrible subject that is helping to sicken and kill our kids. Is everyone pleased with the misinformation that is being given out. If not, say so to the poster.

Lou Ricciuti

Here are just breast cancer and male colorectal in the areas where the poster said there were none... THIS ISN'T EVEN THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG!

Breast Cancer Incidence by ZIP Code, New York State, 1993-1997
Niagara County
14092 Lewiston 65 45.7               15 to 49% above expected
14144 Stella Niagara    included with 14092
14174 Youngstown 22 19.0          15 to 49% above expected
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COLORECTAL Male
14174 Youngstown 14 8.7 50 to     100% above expected

----------------

PLEASE MAKE COMMENT POSTER?

THE SANBORN STATISTICS WERE POSTED FOR THE BENEFIT and trying to HELP STARPOINT residents find out what dropped twenty+ kids. The interesting thing is that the previous poster was helpful to AM's cause just a moment or two ago in sending out an email release regarding the problems there at Starpoint and then diminishes the value of those numbers to her. I don't understand the vacillation with this poster jumping in and out of various-numerous and sundrie environmental campaigns and then making attempts at sabotaging this one. VERY counterproductive indeed.

I also take offense at the inference that I would somehow misrepresent these statistics in ANY way. This is a direct affront upon my personal research credability and I insist it stop. That is a vile thing to say from one who claims to know how absurd that would be for me to do in academia! If, the education were there as claimed, then it should certainly be known that there is never a recovery from lying, misrepresenting ANY number--oh, and Paper Baiting. LOL!!

It would seem to me that everyone who reads this material from the particular poster could be considered being lied to. Hey, it's happened in the past.

Sincerely,

Louis Ricciuti

-- Edited by NuclearLou at 21:34, 2005-06-08

alwayswatching · Guru

It really looks like someone is trying very hard to distort this issue. I have to wonder why when on this same thread they cliam to have disliked that about RRG. I don't get it, if you want to help the people near/on this site, why not help instead of hinder? I'm just asking!

NuclearLou · Senior Member

AW: I don't think you should have to "Just ask" this poster. Do you feel intimidated by his comments and that's why you closed this way? IF that's the case then we have JH intimidating AW and that needs to stop. This seems to have gone beyond even simple decorum or politeness of community, and is in fact dangerously misleading!

Scott will need to make a decision on which information he would like here on the board. NONE of the linkages posted here have had legitimate or forthright intent and do no help at all. You already see that.

The statistical comments that are once again being posted are BULK and misleading. Law of Large Numbers and things like that... Perhaps intentionally so, So to make this busy work.

This is an example of "Let's not do anything about radionuclides including PLUTONIUM in water ANY WATER for Christmas sake! ESPECIALLY SCHOOL WATER!" Why hinder this??

Abrasiveness is one thing but malicious actions directly effecting getting a wide spread problem resolved should be considered by all very anti-community. We need to discuss the issue of you feeling intimidated. I know you are alwayswatching--so you may want to surf around posts to find that sort of language directed at you. I can explain and perhaps the tone will be heard.

*************

So does this mean we should WAIT UNTIL ANOTHER STUDY IS DONE?

A Good Idea would be to look up the word MANIFEST..then say there's need for more study. This is what the Medical Doctor said was NOT NEEDED.

NOT SO Anonymous wrote--

Which would mean you would need new Data.Would that go under the #'s site?But I must say I think you have the idea.

I think we all have the idea-

-- Edited by NuclearLou at 22:01, 2005-06-08