« Why are kids still watching TV? | Home | Is organic and local food too elite? »
Why is there so much leukemia in Fallon, NV?
By AngryToxicologist | May 15, 2007
The city of Fallon (pop. 7,536) is in Churchill County, NV. It is surrounded by melon and alfalfa fields, a Naval Air Station, and two tungsten refining operations. It also has a lot of childhood leukemia.
The Study
In 2000 local health officials noted that an extraordinary number of children from Fallon had been diagnosed with leukemia (16 from 1997-2002) for such a small town (based on the size of the town, the average rate should be one). The Center for Disease Control came in and did a large study looking at the differences between those with the disease (cases) and random children from the area (controls) without the disease in the following areas: pesticides (blood sample), tungsten (blood sample), arsenic (blood sample), ionizing radiation (history of X-rays), parental age, birth weight, duration of breast-feeding, and parental military service. The study, which underwent multiple peer-reviews was published in Janurary and found no significant association between any of the above factors and concluded that well, we don’t know what it is, but it’s not what we tested for. Both the community and the local public health officials were unhappy with the results. So, is this the last word?
Problems with the study:
While there may not be a difference between the cases and controls in the study, the level of tungsten and arsenic is elevated for all the kids in Fallon. The CDC study notes that we don’t know anything about tungsten and cancer but the National Toxicology Program is currently testing the carcinogenicity of tungsten in animals. A study done 2 years ago by the military found that tungsten implanted in animals rapidly causes rhabdomyosarcoma (it’s a fast-growing cancer which accounts for over half of the soft tissue sarcomas in children that arises out of a muscle stem cell called a rhabdomyoblast). The military did this study because they were worried about tungsten alloys being used in artillery, it didn’t have anything to do with Fallon. You’ll notice there was a separate comment on the paper saying that it has nothing to Fallon and Fallon shouldn’t be mentioned, but pay it no mind. Why? Notice who wrote the letter? The tungsten industry reps. So, while the study was done for a different purpose, it did show that tungsten may be highly carcinogenic in some form.
So, as I’ve harped on before, it’s quite possible that all the kids are exposed to the same tungsten and arsenic but only some are susceptible. In fact a study published this year found that the case children from Fallon all had a certain type of copy of a gene for a sulfite oxidase enzyme, while all children without that copy were leukemia free. Although sulfite oxidase is essential in the body to breakdown certain amino acids, there isn’t a specific function associated with tungsten or arsenic that would explain the leukemia (I could come up with a couple of round-a-bout ways that they could be connected, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot as cells are so interconnected it’s easy to do with almost anything).
The other problem with the study is that they tested what children are exposed to now, not what they were exposed to when the cancer may have been forming. This is a pretty simple concept but not one that gets much mention in the CDC report. A study that came out this month supports the idea that at one point in Fallon’s history tungsten and cobalt exposure levels were higher than they are now in the years just before the cancer cases started appearing. They studied tree rings and found that while the tungsten and cobalt were higher other metals did not show the same increase, which significantly bolsters the tungsten (or cobalt, for that matter) case.
Angry Devil’s Advocate jumps in:
People are always interested in cancer clusters because there has to be some reason, right? Well, not always. Here’s a little experiment for you. Take a sheet of paper; that’s your square United States. Now take a pencil and close your eyes and start making random dots all over the page. Open your eyes and look what you made. Are the dots even all over the page? No; there a places with no dots and places with lots of dots. This is what random looks like, clusters. So even though a cluster is big, it still could be chance.
Conclusion
The CDC report isn’t the last word on this.While the cluster might be chance, it’s not likely, the estimates are that a cluster like this would occur in the US about every 22,000 years. Additionally, the temporal relationship between high tungsten exposure and the leukemias (which have a short period between exposure and disease, unlike, say, lung cancer) as well as the evidence about tungsten’s toxicity make this a question that still needs to be pursued.
Topics: Toxics, scientific study |
May 18th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I’ve been a long-time believer in the “some are susceptible” thinking when it comes to disease. I don’t have any training or study on which to base that hypothesis, other than observing the world around me, so I guess it’s roughly equivalent to saying, “Yeah, E=mc^2 sounds about right.”
One question I have is how many “additional factors” are knowable? Is there such thing as “enough” short of “all?” Probably, but how do we know when that point is reached? Someone looking at hundreds of millions of dollars in liability is bound to err on the side of profit. And it’s not just about parting with a bunch of money. Visions of criminal liability, bankruptcy, becoming a social pariah…It’s a tangled web. But it would be nice if it turns out to be as simple as “a=b.”
On a side note, I find it very interesting that people assume “random” means “evenly distributed.” It truly is the stuff of which conspiracy theories are made. I dare say, that may be a doctoral thesis in the making: Faulty analysis of chance and its role in the evolution of humans. Maybe that’s what makes us unique as a species: we always assume that everything happens to us or because of us.
Matt
May 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
The known biological properties of tungsten have shown it to be an inhibitor of the auto-immune system, plus it is a know DNA affecter. Good indicators of potential risk as a carcinogen. Moreover, this is long standing knowledge, as is the fact that tungsten metal powder was soluble. Given the available information on tungsten this last 20 years as to its potential effect on the body as a toxicant and co-toxicant, the assumption that these material are of such low risk as to be considered ‘non-toxic’ enough to warrant their open sale and promotion as such are acts of utter technical incompetence and grave commercial risk taking. God help the tungsten companies 5 years out after the attorneys take their pound of flesh.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:48 am
[…] 1) Much of science is counterintuitive. The easiest example of this is that of the earth being a sphere, when all personal experience points to flatness. More complexly, people don’t usually believe studies when it conflicts with anecdotal evidence from their own life (e.g. “I was exposed to tungsten and I didn’t get cancer, they can’t be related” or ̶…“) […]
June 1st, 2007 at 8:38 am
[…] the incompetence, the heat, the lack of water, lack of schools, the prostitution, the gambling, and the leukemia, how is this such a growing state? Let’s let Chuck Muth of NV answer. “as long as Governor […]
June 26th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Angry T… It was very good to see this report. I also have an autoimmune disease (but not lukemia). One of the problems with finding the cause of these types of diseases is that there could be more than one trigger. Doctors and scientists are looking for only one trigger.. You see the problem?
I was exposed to tungsten and trichloroethelene in the Navy. I had my first crisis about nine years from that time. I do believe that these chemicals have a cumulative effect on the body. –Just my opinion.
Cyn