Experts: Science lacking on 9/11 and cancer

Call it compassionate, even political. But scientific? Several experts say there's no hard evidence to support the federal government's declaration this month that 50 kinds of cancer could be caused by exposure to World Trade Center dust.

The decision could help hundreds of people get payouts from a multibillion-dollar World Trade Center fund to repay those ailing after they breathed in toxic dust created by the collapsing Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

But scientists say there is little research to prove that exposure to the toxic dust plume caused even one kind of cancer. And many acknowledge the payouts to cancer patients could take money away from those suffering from illnesses more definitively linked to Sept. 11, like asthma and some types of lung disease.

"To imagine that there is strong evidence about any cancer resulting from 9/11 is naive in the extreme," said Donald Berry, a biostatistics professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Yet, this month Dr. John Howard, who heads the federal agency that researches workplace illnesses, added scores of common and rare cancers to a list that had previously included just 12 ailments caused by dust exposure. Lung, skin, breast and thyroid cancer were among those added; of the most common types of cancer, only prostate cancer was excluded.

"We recognize how personal the issue of cancer and all of the health conditions related to the World Trade Center tragedy are to 9/11 responders, survivors and their loved ones," Howard said in a June 8 statement. He declined requests for an interview with The Associated Press. His decision, based on an advisory panel's recommendation, will go through a public comment period and additional review before it's final.

Several factors about the decision by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health raised eyebrows:

Of the 17 people on the advisory panel, only a few are experts at tracking cancer and weighing causal risks; they were outnumbered by occupational physicians and advocates for Sept. 11 rescue and cleanup workers.

Exposure to a cancer-causing agent doesn't necessarily mean cancer will develop. And if it does, conventional medical wisdom says it generally takes decades. But the panel agreed to cover those diagnosed with cancer within just a few years of the disaster.

The panel members favored adding cancers if there was any argument to include them. They added thyroid cancer because a study found a higher-than-expected number of cases in firefighters who responded to 9/11, even though thyroid cancer is generally linked to genetics or high doses of radiation.

Even lawyers for the first responders were stunned: They had expected to see only certain blood and respiratory cancers put on the list.

"I understand the urge to want to compensate and reward the heroes and victims," said Dr. Alfred Neugut, a Columbia University oncologist and epidemiologist. But "if we're using medical compensation as the means to that, then we should be scientifically rigorous about it."