Do you remember the last time we talked about breast cancer rates in Texas?
That story is back again. It’s getting better.
Let’s look at this in chronological order. For your convenience, portions are color coded to help you wade thorough it all. Read carefully.
First, from the Center for Disease Control website:
The Texas Cancer Registry is a statewide, population-based registry… In 2009, data from the registry showed that six counties in the western Dallas-Fort Worth area had the highest incidence of invasive breast cancer in the state. These counties are Tarrant (which includes the city of Fort Worth), Denton, Wise, Parker, Hood, and Johnson.
Second, from the Denton Record Chronicle:
Invasive breast cancer is on the rise in Denton County and five neighboring counties, even as the incidence rate for the disease is lower in the state and falling across the rest of the nation.
According to a 2011 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, six counties in the western Dallas-Fort Worth area have the highest rates of invasive breast cancer in Texas.
The average of the six counties’ rates has risen from 58.7 cases per 100,000 people in 2005 to about 60.7 per 100,000 in 2008, according to the Texas Cancer Registry.
[…]
“We’re not entirely sure why that is happening,” Argenbright said, [medical director of Moncrief Cancer Institute at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas] adding that it could be a mix of a number of factors. Source
Third from Kevin Begos Associated Press article (note the lack of quotation marks):
But researchers haven’t seen a spike in breast cancer rates in the area, said Simon Craddock Lee, a professor of medical anthropology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.
David Risser, an epidemiologist with the Texas Cancer Registry, said in an email that researchers checked state health data and found no evidence of an increase in the counties where the spike supposedly occurred.
…But the Texas health department, that maintains a cancer registry [the Texas Cancer Registry], said the increase wasn’t beyond the “margin of error” and in no way could be conclusively linked to air pollution from gas wells.
“I think what it shows is a need for more research. That’s what we’re looking at now, what else can be done,” said Chris Van Deusen, a spokesperson with the Texas Department of State Health Services.
[…]
“Our researchers have gone back as prompted by some fairly recent media attention over the last several weeks…and looked specifically at the breast cancer rates,” the health department’s Van Deusen said.
“There has not been a statistically significant increase in the amount of breast cancer incidence in those counties that are mentioned in the article,” Van Deusen said.
Someone is lying or is being cagey.
Key points to consider:
The Department of State Health Services is the same state agency that conducted the Dish, Texas blood and urine study.
In statistical testing, a result is deemed statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance.
[…]
Research analysts who focus solely on significant results may miss important response patterns which individually fall under the threshold set for tests of significance. Source
If there is an elephant in the room, and that elephant is passing MASSIVE amounts of gas, are you going to blame it on the dog?
Update: I have noticed that Begos has a tendency to attribute quotes without actually quoting. He did it again when he released the DOE story.
About Sharon Wilson
Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.
- Web |
- More Posts(5121)
It depends on what statistical model they are using:
Generally speaking for research P > .06
How many must suffer and die before we become “significant”? Which Flower Mound(Texas) Elementary school had the huge spike of young mothers with breast cancer?
Love my new hat. =)
Enjoy! I saw it & knew exactly who would enjoy it, hugs my friend!
Possible reasons for disparity in figures:
– people moved before being diagnosed or shortly after?
– depends on how you define breast cancer?
– someone can’t add?
I believe there is another reason for “disparity in figures.” I believe Begos cherry picked quotes to support the position he needed for his story. If you examine the quotes carefully, only the ones in his story dispute that there was an increase are the quotes in his story.
What we know from VAST experience is you cannot trust anything coming from the state. If you look at the spin issued from the state with the Dish blood and urine story and the MANY ways they tried to explain away the obvious, then look at the actual data… <-exploding head->. It’s the same with all the air testing results and everything. Remember, all our state agencies are stacked with Rick Perry appointees and they are there to do the bidding of industry.
Yes, you are right. If you are diagnosed right after moving, then your cancer is registered in your new location. Lorrie Squibb is a perfect example of that http://www.texassharon.com/2011/10/22/cancer-rates-climb-in-barnett-shale/ Lorrie was diagnosed shortly after she moved away but she suffered from acute exposure to emissions from drilling, venting, accidental releases, flaring, flowback and etc. while she lived in Flower Mound.
Around that time there were a lot of people who were quietly trying to get out of Flower Mound because of the drilling. Several families now live where I live.
In the leukemia study, which went all the way to the governor’s office and sat on his desk for a couple of months, they did not include the children who died from leukemia. There were 2 or 3 new cases that were not included (they will be included in the next study). And there are some new cases since the study took place. Also, in the leukemia study they used a 99% margin. Normally a 95% margin is used. If that study used the 95% margin it would result in a cancer cluster.
I’ve said all along that people are going to have to start dying to get people’s notice. Sad, sad state of affairs as most will grub for $20 a month royalties and let the few die. What wicked people we live with.
So, perhaps one could “mashup” a map? Perchance this map could have earthquakes, cancer rates, and wells blended together? I know, I know, the wells would be difficult because the latitudes and longitudes for them are not readily available (likely by design), but I know the earthquake locations are available and maybe one could overlay the cancer rates on a county-by-county basis.
You might not find the proverbial “smoking gun,” but perhaps an elevation of earthquakes, cancers, and wells in the same general location might suggest that something’s up.
The GIS map on the Texas Railroad Commission site has the latitudes and longitudes. Their information is often inaccurate but, at least, it’s something.
Good idea.