... to be completed in 6 months with no money.
From the Times-Picayune (Refinery health study hopes muted):
One of Congress' last acts before leaving Washington for its August recess may have been designed to help people who live near chemical plants and oil refineries, but it has left scientists scratching their heads.
Buried deep in the 1,725-page energy bill Congress passed July 29 is an order to the leaders of the U.S. Energy Department and the National Cancer Institute, as well as "other federal government bodies with expertise," to design, conduct, compile and submit a study of the health effects these installations pose to their neighbors.
In six months.
And with no extra money.
The study was the brainchild of U.S. Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, who proposed it after a newspaper series and state air-pollution data showed that levels of a rubber-making chemical in his Houston district were high enough to pose a cancer risk. However, state data showed no spike in the incidence of cancer cases.
Explaining that he was backing the study to get "the most accurate health information possible," Green said, "We have an obligation to get the facts."
However, scientists do not see how this is possible on a nationwide level, given the financial and time constraints.
"The magnitude of that is so great that you could not plan it and do it in six months," said LuAnn White, a Tulane University toxicologist who directs its Center for Applied Environmental Public Health.
Just do it!
What is most interesting (as opposed to sad-stupid-interesting DC politics) about this story is the discussion of the "cancer corridor." The article concludes:
Regardless of how effective monitors and the congressionally ordered study may be, White [a Tulane University toxicologist who directs its Center for Applied Environmental Public Health] said no one should expect either of them to show an increase in cancer cases for which industry can be blamed.
After collecting cancer data and correcting for such factors as heredity and smoking, cancer rates along what is called the "cancer corridor" come out about equal to those of other parts of the state and country, she said.
"There is a big gap between perception and what the data show," White said. "For 30 years, we have been talking about cancer corridor, and the data do not bear it out. . . .
"It's almost a cliché, but people say, 'I choose to smoke.' It has a much greater impact on whether you get cancer than whether you drive by a chemical plant."
There is no cancer corridor?
