FIRST ARRIVING NETWORK
First Arriving Network
Powered by the First Arriving Network,Reaching 1M+ First Responders Worldwide

NIOSH, 9/11, WTC and Cancer

NIOSH says, "No, for now."

First things first, NIOSH stands for National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. They are part of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) with whom they have often had a relationship that perhaps can best be described as strained. (Think of the CDC as a wealthy but stingy and slightly jealous mother-in-law.)

This rather modest "David" of a federal agency has become the "Goliath" in the post-9/11 responder health debate since they are effectively responsible for deciding which medical conditions will be covered under the $2.775 billion Victims Compensation Fund (VCF). Their entire annual budget is $300 million thus giving them out-sized influence in a highly controversial area, something they would probably prefer to do without.

NIOSH headquarters, Washington, D. C.

The Victims Compensation Fund operates through 2017. Importantly, during the first five years of the fund the maximum total payout is capped at $875 million with the "lion’s share", $1.9 billion, being paid out in the sixth year. Does this mean that congress expects the medical claims associated with 9/11 exposure to skyrocket in the out years?

The reaction to NIOSH’s decision, after a comprehensive literature review, to delay including cancer as a covered illness, has been predictable and unfortunate. NIOSH has come in for a shellacking from 9/11 responders and their families for failing to concede the obvious: they have been stricken with cancer and their work at Ground Zero is the reason.

But, not so fast. It is widely accepted that the resultant cancers from many occupational exposures take many years and sometimes decades to develop. NIOSH is simply doing their job by awaiting proof of 9/11 cancers to appear in medical journals and other treatment or research related documents. Criticizing them for adhering to professional standards is a little bit like the ignorant bystanders at a fire expecting firefighters to skip the supply line or SCBA so they can be quicker stretching a line: it may look good but the results could be disastrous.

All federal agencies are "political." NIOSH is part of the executive branch and they rely on Congress, part of the legislative branch, to provide them with funding. And, of course, depending on who is in the White House, the policy of these federal agencies can swing significantly, as it should. Having said (all of) that, NIOSH is consistently and appropriately dedicated to protecting the health of America’s workers regardless of who is in the WH or in the majority on the Hill. Their agenda is to make the workplace, wherever it may be, as safe as it can be made given constraints.

If cancer is a consequence of 9/11 duty, the studies will soon clearly show it and we can be sure that NIOSH will respond accordingly. Now is not the time to undermine the federal agency most dedicated to worker safety generally, and firefighter safety, specifically.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Comments - Add Yours

  • John Mitchell

    Your point is taken, Eric.  f  the NIOSH arm of government  needs more time to adequately do their job, then so be it.

    However,I can’t help but cry out against the EPA-arm of government, who wasted absolutely no time whatsoever to ensure the rescuers at “the pile” that the levels of contaminants and carcinogens in the air were safe to work in.

    Now we’re told that there isn’t enough scientific data to link the
    toxic atmosphere with the cancers that have developed, despite nearly
    ten years having passed!

    This is an unacceptable contradiction within the role that the government plays in worker safety.  Firefighters who worked on “the pile” continue to die cruel and unnecessary deaths every year.

    You may call the reaction “predictable and unfortunate'”  I agree.  Let’s hope that we begin to see some honesty and timely research that guarantees our government will no longer fail our brave rescuers. The EPA was wrong in the beginning, and now NIOSH doesn’t doesn’t have enough data, nearly a decade later?

    We have every right to be pissed off.

    • Eric

      John-

      If my (frail) memory serves me correctly, Guiliani fought the attempt to declare GZ  a superfund site as it would slow down work there and I do recall that there were misleading statements about airborne and other hazards.

      I do think that NIOSH has our best interests in mind, however.

      Eric

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NDJ5TSPY5NCVG4ODDPNRYJ2TLQ david howard