The Great 9/11 Dust Debate

Science finds no link between WTC dust and cancer. Politicians want to pay for treatment anyway.

Federal scientists exhibited rare bravery this summer when they stated that there was no evidence the dust kicked up in the World Trade Center attacks caused cancer. But instead of applauding the exhaustively thorough review of the available data by the Centers for Disease Control’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)—the first of a series—members of New York's congressional delegation and other interest groups are trashing the science of the very federal researchers they appointed to do the analysis.

At stake are billions of dollars from the controversial James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which set aside money for 9/11 rescue workers and survivors with health claims. The Zadroga Act allows people who worked, lived, or attended school near Ground Zero to claim compensation for a broad range of diseases, from asthma to depression, without a requirement to demonstrate that the diseases were caused by dust from the terror site. But the bill, which came with a hefty $4.3 billion price tag, passed only after proponents agreed to the utterly reasonable requirement that compensation for cancer be justified by a causal link. 

The power of parochial politics trumps science, however, for Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Peter King (R-N.Y.), authors of the Zadroga bill, who said in a statement, "we are disappointed that [NIOSH] administrator Dr. John Howard has not yet found sufficient evidence to support covering cancers."

They’ve become so caught up in bringing home federal dollars they actually seem to want there to be compelling evidence that 9/11 dust causes cancer, even though none yet exists. Either that, or despite their busy fundraising schedules, they think they know better than the federal scientists they appointed to study the complex issue.

Perhaps we should resign ourselves to the fact that politicians will inevitably root for findings that result in cash for their constituents. We should expect for more from scientists. Yet Dr. Phil Landrigan, head of a key federally funded 9/11 health program at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, isn't satisfied with the NIOSH report either.

Landrigan, who has long partnered with compensation-seeking unions and served as an expert witness for trial lawyers, has distorted 9/11 science in the past. Abandoning objectivity for advocacy, he and his researchers have completed self-selecting studies which ensure that people who are ill participate in far greater numbers than people who aren’t, suggesting a link that simply isn’t there. Now, Landrigan is promising to flood NIOSH with more of his distorted and data-mining "evidence."

Any sick or dying patient appeals to our most human sympathies and 9/11 first-responders are heroes in the grandest sense of the word. These men and women risked their lives to save others on the day our country was attacked and they deserve the highest honors. But that doesn't mean that every one of them who got cancer in the last decade was a victim of 9/11 dust.

Headlines alleging that "federal aid won't cover 9/11-related cancer” are simply off the mark. The feds simply found no cancer link, but remain open to allowing aid if a causal relationship is later discovered—just as the law requires.

Science, not emotion, should guide officials in determining the cause of any cancers, and thus whether federal funds from the Zadroga Act will cover their medical expenses. As the cohort of heroes grows older, we should expect to see more cases, since cancer increases in prevalence with age.

In the meantime, the politicians should get out of the way and allow the science to prevail, no matter how at odds it is with their political agenda. Pressuring scientists for different results stinks of exploitation of the country's appropriate goodwill towards New York after 9/11.

Jeff Stier is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Follow him on Twitter at @JeffAStier. 


Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Federal scientists exhibited rare bravery this summer when they stated that there was no evidence the dust kicked up in the World Trade Center attacks caused cancer.

    That's specious reasoning. They haven't found evidence that Iraq possessed WMD but we know they did because otherwise why did we go there?

  • Curious||

    Why don't you tell us?

  • ||

    I get so goddamned tired of the "Iraq didn't have WMD's" narrative. It isn't true, unless you narrowly define WMD's as "ready to fire nuclear topped missiles". We've found chemical weapon shell. We've found hidden labs for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons development. We've found delivery systems that, by treaty, Iraq wasn't supposed to have. There is an argument for the position that we shouldn't have invaded, but "There were never any WMDs" isn't it. It's a lie, and calls any other arguments from the anti-war faction into question.

  • Ted S.||

    When that idiotic Lancet study claiming there were ~600K killed in the Iraq war, my response was "Where are the bodies?"

    If you can use the same reasoning for the lack of WMD, you can use it for the Lancet's bad science.

  • jtuf||

    Actually, the Lancet study concluded that the Iraq War killed 58,000 Iraqis plus or minus 50,000. Then the general media put a death toll of 100,000 in the headlines reporting on it.

  • Your Elbow||

    Enough of your 'facts' and 'margins of error'.

    We don't like yer kind round here.

  • Veronica Palmer||

    Ah, the octo-chicken. We had such hopes for that.

  • ||

    I'm not up on my chemical-weapons in Iraq side of WMD - other than the capacity we thought they had was grossly overstated to what was there - but 'nuclear laboratories?' Gimme a break.

    Total hardware discovered relative to any schemes for an atomic bomb consisted of one dis-assembled, dysfunctional, very marginal centrifuge buried in a garden in Baghdad.

    No enrichment facility. No hot cell. No accelerators. No calibrated explosions facility or even instruments. No refining capacity for UO2. Much less conversion facility for U-hexfluoride.

    They had no nuclear capacity whatsoever. In that realm of WMD (the King of the WMD hill) Iraq wasn't shit.

  • ||

    This very magazine reported that hidden labs had been found that were so radioactive that Army SOP required that they be examined in protective gear. There is a loud faction that has an awful lot of political capitol invested in "Bush Lied", and they have been pushing it for all they are worth. You seem to have bought at least some of their swill.

  • jtuf||

    + 5 to C.S.P. Schofield

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    We've found delivery systems that, by treaty, Iraq wasn't supposed to have.

    If that was true, then why does Jon Stewart make a funny face every time he talks about the idea of WMD in Iraq? Why is Bush a well-known liar on the subject?

  • steve||

    "haven't found evidence that Iraq possessed WMD"
    The bodies of dead, gassed Kurds wasn't enough evidence?

  • Old Mexican||

    Perhaps we should resign ourselves to the fact that politicians will inevitably root for findings that result in cash for their constituents.


    Take, for instance, Global Warm... I mean, Climate Change.

  • ||

    After the recent Gore hissy fit, they should call it climate rage.

  • Almanian||

    STOP SAYING "CLIMATE", GOD DAMN IT!!!

  • ||

    To avoid any more cl----e rage, I suggest using an anagram:

    Magical Thence
    Galactic He Men
    Cachet Mangle I
    Mecca Ale Night
    Lactic Ham Gene
    Ache Acing Melt
    Cheat Nag Clime

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I vote for "Lactic Ham Gene".

  • ||

    I can't decide!

    Mecca Ale Night makes me wonder if the whole climate change business isn't a secret CIA plot in the WoT.

  • Ronald Bailey||

    Don't fuck with me, Old Mexican.

  • Old Mexican||

    Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Peter King (R-N.Y.), authors of the Zadroga bill, who said in a statement, "we are disappointed that [NIOSH] administrator Dr. John Howard has not yet found sufficient evidence to support covering cancers."


    "We have the finding, we now need the evidence! That's how it works in Lysenkoland!"

    Take, for instance, Global Warm... I mean, Climate Change.

  • ||

    You mean Lactic Ham Gene.

  • jacob||

    no he means I mangle Cheact

  • Damn Sceptics!||

  • Janeane Garofalo ||

    These scientists are nothin' but teabagging rednecks, straight up. You see, they're craniums are not large enough for their brains, so the cerebellum is pushin' up against their skulls...and stuff. So...they don't understand what's is making them angry. It's the Koch brothers who have stolen their jobs that they should be angry at...Right, Keith?

  • Keith Olbermann||

    Right, I agree.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  • FatHead Michael Moore||

    Off to the prison camps with all of them!

  • Ed Shultz||

    We need a jobs program to get these scientists back to work. I look around, and all I see are unemployed scientists. These corporate fat-cats have got to learns that scientists come before profits.

  • Rachel Maddow||

    Ed, I had the same thought.

    As a matter of fact, we could get these scientist back to work building dykes. I look at this great country, and I realize what makes it so great are the gigantic dykes out west. Dykes are wonderful, and they can help jumpstart this economy.

  • ||

    I jump started a dyke once. Swore off lime vodka soon after.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  • ||

    HAHAHAHA!!!!

  • ||

    HAHAHAHA!!!!

  • Rachel Maddow||

    Janeane, stop by sometime, let's have each other for lunch.

  • Joy Behar||

    What... leftovers, again -- ?!?

  • Kathy Griffin||

    It's just so darned difficult to find a really nice place for seafood nowadays, isn't it...?

  • Rosie O'Donnell||

    Yeah. You guys should try the Beluga whale...if you know what I mean.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Did WTC cancer-dust cause this to happen?

    http://www.youtube.com/results.....ney+frank+

    Bonus: MediaMorons commenters blame "vinyl chair" for the sound.

    Seriously, though... shouldn't a Barney fart sound more like a light breeze blowing through a drainage-ditch pipe?

  • Hoi Polloi||

    ZOMG!!!!!!! Y DO U HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!!!

  • ||

    Glad to see Reason is featuring Jeff Stier's work. I've been reading his work for a couple years and he always brings a new perspective into things.

  • ||

    First responders were not heroes. They were and are government employees doing the job they are paid to do. The citizen who stayed in the office with the disabled coworker was a hero. Cops and firemen earning their pay are not.

  • So||

    Government workers, regardless of their actions, can never be heroes, while private workers, regardless of their mediocrity, can, because they are not government workers. Gotcha.

  • ||

    LOL! Can't wait to see how that turns out! HAHA!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Exactly, So.

    God that was a good pun.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    There are no good puns.

  • Byron||

    Reading comprehension fail. Strawman torched. So impressive.

  • steve||

    The two Marines who stopped what they were doing to rush to the site and proceeded to find survivors after the first responders left the scene: heroes

  • steve||

    Throw in there purple heart recipients. Can't stand these guys sometimes w/ their special license plates and veteran hats. Yes, you spilled blood for your country and made a sacrifice, but it's still just an (un)luck of the draw medal. Heroes do a little more than just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  • ||

    Ever talk to a purple heart recipient? They'll tell you exactly what you just said about them. Getting a free license plate =/= tooting your own horn or demanding special privileges.

  • Think Before You Write||

    Heroes do a little more than just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    The Purple Heart is not awarded for acts of heroism.

    "While clearly an individual decoration, the Purple Heart differs from all other decorations in that an individual is not "recommended" for the decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria."

    Interested individuals may educate themselves here:
    http://www.recognizethesacrifi.....teria.html

    Others may remain ignorant and foolish and prove it daily on H&R.

  • You should consider suicide||

    "Getting a free license plate =/= tooting your own horn "

    Um, it does when you accept and use it you blathering moron.

  • ||

    Equates to a vanity plate reading RAN2SLO.

  • ||

    Right on, Cheeseburger! Fuck the Man and his minions! You can't be a hero and work for the State, 'cause the State is Evil!1! One pizza delivery boy is worth 1000 firemen any day! And the pizza delivery boy is serving a vital need (unless he works for Domino's, of course, which is also evil) while the fireman is just doing his job! No heroes in the new world order, just toilers. Anarchists, UNITE!1!

  • ||

    so typical of your skewed mentality

  • moocher_central||

    two words:

    SCIENCE RULES!!!!!*

    (*not applicable to greenhouse gasses)

  • AlmightyJB||

  • Almanian||

    Not gonna lie - glad this is the finding, not surprised at the response from the pols.

    This all started (to me) when Bush et al agreed to pay some amount to the families of the people killed....they went through that whole deal figuring out what each person was "worth" by some actuarial approach, etc.

    I forget the rationale - just remember that I was enraged - "how is this something that is the responsibility of the taxpayers????!!!!! Why am I now yourinsurance policy???!!!"

    The "THEY DESERVE TEH EVERYTHING CUZ TEH HEROOOZZZZZ YAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!11!!" is just the continuation of that fucked-up thinking.

  • Mr Curious||

    So the same federal workers who decided that even one whiff of second hand smoke can cause a heart attack should be believed about this?

    What about a second opinion?

  • Gullible Liberal||

    I was told that just walking past someone holding an unlit cigarette, could cause cancer *snap* just like that!

  • Immanuel Velikovsky||

    Ahhhhh! MY kind of science!

  • jtuf||

    + 1

  • wef||

    Thugs feel better about themselves, and feel they are not so bad after all, when they coerce other people to be charitable. Self-esteem is what's important.

  • ||

    Of COURSE they don't want to let that ruling stand. If they do, the idea that actual harm has to be demonstrated before the government can make "Deep Pocket" sources disgorge vast sums of money for 'victims', and ban things.

  • Number 2||

    "Any sick or dying patient appeals to our most human sympathies and 9/11 first-responders are heroes in the grandest sense of the word. These men and women risked their lives to save others on the day our country was attacked and they deserve the highest honors."

    Hold on there, me bucco. Who did you say the law covers? Anyone who lived, worked or attended school near Ground Zero, with no proof that their medical condition (cancer excepted) had anything to do with the dust from 9/11. What does this have to do with first responders?

    This is another disgusting example of using "heroes" or "the children" as a pretext for a boondoggle. And if public sector disability pensions are any example, just wait until you see how this fund gets scammed.

  • Cold Side of Pillow||

    "Science finds no link between WTC dust and cancer. Politicians want you to pay for treatment anyway."

    FIFY.

  • ||

    The Great 9/11 Dust Debate Debacle

    FIFY even better.

  • Reps. Maloney, Nadler and King||

    These men and women risked their lives to save others on the day our country was attacked and they deserve the highest honors. But that doesn't mean that every one of them who got cancer in the last decade was a victim of 9/11 dust.

    Excuse US. It most certainly fucking DOES.

  • ||

    Firemen, policemen, EMTs etc should have already been covered by health insurance policies on 9-11 so why should they need any public money? And shouldn't most of the people around the WTC have been covered by private insurance on 9-11? Even the people on medicaid or medicare had insurance so why is more money needed?

    It's bad enough we got the TSA because of 9-11. I expect generations of people will line up to keep feeding at the 9-11 trough until some politician has the courage to say enough.

  • WarrenT||

    HahahahaHAHAha.

  • Joshua||

    They're covered by NY funded policies and NYers don't want to pay for them any more.

  • nike shox||

    is good

  • Binky||

    OT, but here's an extra nice rant by Dylan Ratigan. The action starts ~4:20.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    ti;dl

    ("Too Insane; Didn't Listen")

  • Realist||

    "Science finds no link between WTC dust and cancer. Politicians want to pay for treatment anyway"
    No...they want us to pay anyway!

  • Tony||

    Government should pay for the lifelong healthcare of any victim of 9/11, period. Nickel and dime something else for fuck's sake.

  • ||

    Government should pay for the lifelong healthcare of any victim of 9/11, period.

    Because...?

    Brian: Peter, you do realize there's a difference between loving America and being swept up in post-9/11 paranoia.

    Peter: Brian, are you suggesting that 9/11 didn't change everything?

    Brian: What? No, I was just...

    Peter: 'Cause 9/11 changed everything, Brian! 9/11 changed everything!

    Brian: Peter, you didn't even know what 9/11 was until 2004.

  • Tony||

    Because it might demonstrate that you care about human beings in the smallest possible way--accepting the negligible expense to you of caring for people whose job it is to risk their life to save your sociopathic ass. The rich part is you want to be patted on the back for saving the expense.

  • Almanian Bot||

    Wow - that makes no sense at all when you think about it! LOL!

    www.deathbot.de

  • jacob||

    Were they heroic ... yes. Where they doing their duty ... yes. It was their job. Pay with you OWN money Toni. Getting generous with others peoples cash is bullshit.

  • ||

    So, every time there is a disaster, man-made or natural, you're cool with the government paying out huge sums of money for the rest of their lives, right?

  • ||

    What does one have to do with the other Tony? Supporting a government program funded by other people does not make you generous or caring. It just makes you a thief.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Yes, in an ideal world this should be voluntarily funded (and it really really should be), but don't you think that as long as the government's already taking your money, this is the kind of thing they should spend it on?

  • PIRS||

    It is rare that I agree with Tony but in this case I [vomits in a bucket] agree [vomits more] with him [wipes face off with a towel].

    But my motivations are probably quite different from his. I believe that the government is in many ways culpable. No, I am not a "truther" but it was from a combination of the government's incompetence and its foreign policy that this occurred in the first place.

  • Amakudari||

    it was from a combination of the government's incompetence and its foreign policy that this occurred in the first place.

    This would be more comforting if when we said the government should pay, we meant "the incompetent intelligence community and those in charge of our belligerent foreign policy should pay" rather than "the government should tax or issue debt in the names of countless people who had nothing to do with any of these problems."

    Not like such a clawback provision would ever exist, but we can dream.

    In any case, I wouldn't pat myself on the back for denying funds to first responders, but there's nothing wrong with requiring some evidential basis. If we merely want to reward first responders, that's fine and worth debating, but that should be defended on its own merits.

  • Fluffy||

    So the guy who drove a dump truck to Ground Zero to pick up a load of crap two weeks later is a "victim" of 9/11?

    Even though the science says he wasn't?

  • Your Elbow||

    This science just says that his cancer wasn't caused by 9/11. It doesn't say anything about the rest of the 9/11 health conditions.

  • Tony||

    No clearly you're the victim here because you have to pay taxes.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Well, I don't know what else you would call someone with a gun to their head. Someone who was just asking for it?

  • Tony||

    You poor thing. Nobody told you when you were born into this world that you would eventually have certain adult responsibilities. You are truly among the most oppressed on earth.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    You poor thing. Nobody told you when you were born into this world that you would eventually have certain adult responsibilities.

    Now try saying that exact same thing to someone on welfare. Hypocrite.

  • HermanLame||

    I can imagine the same being said by a hardline preacher to a gay child.
    Or by Louis XIV to the French public.
    Feel comfortable in that camp, Tony?

  • Tony||

    The very problem I'm talking about is not being able to tell the difference between oppression and paying taxes.

  • Tony||

    So long as they reliably vote Democrat, welfare recipients are living up to their rightful adult responsibilities.

  • Barack Obama||

    [::google-eyed, in white lab coat::]

    "You, my creation... are my crowning achievement! MWAH-ha-ha-haaaaaaaaaa -- !!!"

  • AlmightyJB||

    Decent article about the entitlement state.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45413

  • Sacre Bleu||

    However, this assumption is not correct, since the theory of syntactic features developed earlier cannot be arbitrary in the traditional practice of grammarians. Note that the descriptive power of the base component is, apparently, determined by irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. So far, the notion of level of grammaticalness can be defined in such a way as to impose the strong generative capacity of the theory. It may be, then, that an important property of these three types of EC is to be regarded as the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. Summarizing, then, we assume that any associated supporting element does not readily tolerate the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.
    http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl

  • AlmightyJB||

    Nevertheless, the systematic use of complex symbols cannot be arbitrary in a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), most of the methodological work in modern linguistics does not readily tolerate an abstract underlying order. It may be, then, that relational information appears to correlate rather closely with an important distinction in language use. Furthermore, an important property of these three types of EC is unspecified with respect to a parasitic gap construction. Notice, incidentally, that the descriptive power of the base component is rather different from the strong generative capacity of the theory.

  • ||

    Should be interesting to see how that all turns out. WOw.

    www.real-anonymity.us.tc

  • Almanian Bot||

    Wow! No kidding, right! LOL!

    www.deathbot.de

  • Warty||

    Nod and back away

    No2RepublicanConJob | Aug 9, 2011 04:10 PM ET
    These demonstrations in Europe are EXACTLY why the rich in Europe do not dare to screw their people like the rich in US does. Because the rich in Europe know that if they were to screw their people, by spending 100s of Billions of Dollars, to fund a lying right-wing Media as the Rich have done in US with the likes of Rush, Beck, Fixed news, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, CNBC, etc., that the European masses would pour into the street and cut off the head of the rich and their lying agents such as Rush, Beck, Murdoch, Forbes, Koch brothers, etc.

    That is WHY Europeans get FREE Universal Nationalized Health care, MUCH LOWER cost to FREE University education PLUS many other social services and values for their Taxes that Americans do not. That is why the Rich in Europe does not get richer when people are getting laid off while the Rich in US does.

    So because Europeans pour into street and riot if the Rich try to screw them, is exactly WHY their economies are doing much better than US as per Euro being much more valuable than US Dollar.

    More:
    http://www.realnewspost.com/sa.php?a=39732
  • Warty||

    Dammit, I missed a better one.

    MRABILITY | Aug 9, 2011 10:34 PM ET
    REPUBLICONS= CUTS= RIOTS

    DEMS= TAX INCREASES= CIVEL ORDER

    FU-C ALL THESE REPUBLICONS AND THE TE BAGGING LOSERS,AND THEIR MOTHERS

    This one is even sadder for attempting to make a good point, and doing such a bad job.

    Independentvoterjoliet | Aug 9, 2011 10:54 PM ET
    Here the truth IF you give EVERYONE a 50 cent an hour raise EVERY THING you buy..use.. or need will be increased by that much so the companies who make.. hire.. or provide a service can pay that increase to the people they employ..
    Joe works at Bugerking he gets a raise to provide that raise BURGERKING must raise the prices of their burgers to cover that increase and the company delivering the burgers have to pay their employees more also so THEY increase the price of the burgers.. all the way down the line.. a $2.99 burger will now cost $4.99 so fewer people will buy one therefore Burgerking has less customers THEREFORE needs LESS workers.. JOE just LOST his job.. PROBLEM SOLVED..
  • Almanian||

    Jesus Fucking Christ, Warty - some of us are trying to get to sleep (I know, "Then why are you reading H&R you simple fuck?" - I mean going to bed SOON).

    This...this level of stupid...is loose in the world. Right now.

    Oh. My. God.

    I'll have the covers over my head all night...

  • Brett L||

    Wait. Which continent's rich enacted Jus Prima Nocte and hunted their poor for sport? I know, arguing with the stupid, but still...

  • cynical||

    Huh, someone's going to be peeved about Wisconsin, then.

  • General Ursus||

    "For the first time... Ape Law has failed us!"

  • ||

    Let the first responders die and let God sort 'em out. Who cares if a bunch of guys go the way of coal miners and smokers? I mean asbestos never killed nobody - or not that fast. Takes a few decades and it's only been one. Talk to the thyroid, talk to the thyroid. Oh, I forgot. They took mine out after I stood under a shower of atomic dust back in 1953-54 as a small child. It went bye-bye recently. Course, there's just not enough evidence of the cause of those semi-suspicious growths on it. Not enough a-tall.

    Listen you guys - this is a country where sure evidence does not count for too much and people go running off on a tangent. But everyone knows that if you breathe crap into your lungs, and then you get sick in your lungs, there is a connection. Just like the thyroids of Chernobyl, Marshall Islands, Japan and prolly Nevada too.

    So erring on the side of decency, you compensate. Unless you're a skinflint.

    By the way, since my removed thyroid proved not to be cancerous, just abnormal, I do not get the big payoff. I'm just as glad.

  • Almanian||

    Cool story, bro

  • Michael Ejercito||

    But everyone knows that if you breathe crap into your lungs, and then you get sick in your lungs, there is a connection.


    What everyone knows just ain't so.

  • Rosie O'Donnell||

    But everyone knows

    "... that fire can't possibly melt steel! GOOGLE IT -- !!!"

  • ||

    Wrong on both counts. Try again.

  • Republicans||

    Hey, no fair! 9/11 mongering was OUR thing! How are we going to scare people into allowing civil liberty violating laws now?

  • Algonquin Round Table||

    Thank you for submitting your application. At this time, the membership does not feel your particular skill-set meets the minimum levels of efficacy necessary to be of use to our organization. Best of luck to you in all future endeavors!

  • Pink Lady & Jeff||

    Yeah. We're gonna have to turn you down as well, bro.

  • Sid & Marty Krofft||

    Looking for something a little less... goober. Sorry.

  • Your Little Sister||

    "Stay out of my slam book, dork-breath!"

  • JoJo Zeke||

    O/T (but too blamed funny NOT to share):

    Deaf man complains nudists would not provide interpreter

  • Pete Townshend||

    "Tommy, can you feel me...?"

  • Wicked Uncle Ernie||

    Har! Get in line, mate!

  • Fifth Blind Man||

    "An elephant is very much like a trHOLEEEEEEEEEEEE SHIT -- !!!"

  • Elephant||

    "Did anyone tell you to stop? Don't stop."

  • Fifth Blind Man||

    "This one time, at Hindu Camp..."

  • jtuf||

    New York also banned fracking. In this area, a lack of scientific proof that chemicals cause disease is viewed as evidence that we need more studies on it.

  • ||

    New York government makes about as much sense as a quadriplegic wrestler and Californian government -- that is, not at all.

    The sad part is that they're openly not giving a shit anymore about credibility. They're just wailing about it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Science is determined not by [sneer] scientists [/sneer], rather it is determined by consensus, and if that doesn't get the desired result it will be determined by the courts.

    Argue about it and we'll send men with guns to prove you are wrong.

  • With Apologies to T.T.||

    What's science got to do, got to do with it
    What's science but a sweet old fashioned notion
    What's science got to do, got to do with it
    Who needs a brain when a brain can be broken

  • ||

  • ||

    You guys know how cancer links work, right?

    First, something you inhale right now might not give you cancer for years.

    Second, when you get cancer, they can't look at the cancer cell and say "Oh, that's World Trade Center cancer." They don't know--that's just not how oncology works.

    Depending on your definition of "causal link" you may never determine a causal link to cancer, ever, for anyone.

    I don't think the federal gov't should pay for this (NY certainly could, though)...but I think that what proponents are saying, here are our two options:
    1) Deny a 9/11 responder who got cancer relying on statements from asshole politicians using 9/11 for their political gain (e.g., Guiliani) telling them that the dust wasn't harmful
    or
    2) Give a firefighter, cop, EMT, etc medical care for cancer they didn't get from 9/11

    Is #2 really such a horrible outcome? Is it worse than #1?

    Anyway, that's their argument. I tend to agree with it, but again--why can't NY pay for that free medical care?

  • NYer||

    I'm guessing Jcalton is a not a NY taxpayer. Just a hunch.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    First, something you inhale right now might not give you cancer for years.


    That depends on the nature of the substance. Does it stay in the body for years, or does it get passed out via sweat, urine, or respiration?

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u man

  • Confus||

    "Federal scientists exhibited rare bravery this summer when they stated that there was no evidence the dust kicked up in the World Trade Center attacks caused cancer."

    Ok, can someone fill me in here. I'm a little slow. I thought government scientists are full of shit? Aren't these the same people that will say anything to get funding? Or, is this article pointing to the fact that taxes are evil and people shouldn't receive any of it?

    I'm leaning towards bullshit scientists rather use tax money for their own pet projects. Meh... whatever.

  • ||

    National Institute? Kinda like the National Institute for Standards & Technology? NIST?

    The same outfit who blessed off on all the lies told about the collapse of the towers?

    Yikes, REASON is getting closer to Mainstream Media status every month!

    The dust contained the chemical byproducts of thermite use. My guess is that no federal agency has done any studies on the relationship between those chemicals and cancer.

    A most unpersuasive article in REASON.

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • Ursula Swain||

    9/11 Dust and Cancer
    I seriously doubt that dust should be of concern but rather what was in that dust such as metallic particles.
    Overheat any metal and it will melt down into liquid form making it a property of water, toxic water that is.

  • Bryce Mcminn, Meriden||

    "These men and women risked their lives to save others on the day our country was attacked and they deserve the highest honors"

    Yes

  • Bryce Mcminn, Meriden||

    Thank you

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement