Gee, I’m almost disappointed.
David B. Caruso of the Associated Press wrote an article, “Immune system cancer found in young 9/11 officers” that immediately raised my guard based on the headline. I was prepared for a typical, sensationalistic article based on Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc fallacies, anecdotes, and an ignorance of statistics. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised.
It was a well written article. It presented the facts objectively, didn’t cherry pick details to support an agenda or skew the story, and made no unsuported conclusions. Additionally, the conclusions that were drawn were very reserved and reasonable.
Points made in the article:
-Numbers of incidence of multiple myeloma in the sample are tiny.
-Numers of incidence are within predicted parameters, but high for one age group in question.
(8 cases, but 4 under 45: should only be 1 under 45)
-Currently no evidence to support causation.
-Continued, increased surveillance is advised.
-Timing is in question as research show that not enough time had passed for multiple myeloma to develope due to environmental exposeure to a carcinogen, suggesting a non-causal relationship to 9/11.
I was even more surprised to learn from Googling his name that David Caruso does not appear to be a dedicated science reporter. Maybe there’s hope for mainstream science reporting these days after all, even from non science reporters.
I though that Mr. Caruso deserved a Kudo for the kind of quality repoting that is increasingly rare these days: Way to go David! :)