MN Health Dept. to Release 1990s Fridley Cancer Data Soon

Prompted by the dramatic growth of the , which has tripled in size to more than 1,100 members in the last week, the Minnesota Department of Health is undergoing a thorough examination of cancer data in Fridley.

John Soler, a state epidemiologist, said he will release data in the coming days about Fridley cancer rates between 1988 and 2000 and that he is re-examining , which showed the city’s cancer rates as 10 percent higher than the state average between 2000 and 2009, according to data from the Minnesota Cancer Surveillance System.

Soler said that before 1988, cancer records were not kept by the state in Fridley.

Lung cancer rates were 30 percent higher than expected during the last decade, with incidence among women elevated 48 percent above the state average, figures Soler called “statistically significant.

“We recognized that there is considerable concern,” Soler said. “That’s something of a no-brainer.”

Soler said he thinks the initial data may have overstated Fridley’s cancer rates by underestimating its population, and he said he’s comparing census figures with other documents, such as mortality records and school populations, to gain a more accurate view.

“We’re trying to put it in perspective—the types of cancers, gender, behaviors and risk factors,” he said. “If you see an excess in females and not males, it’s less likely to be an occupational exposure, whereas males traditionally worked in these blue-collar, smokestack industries, particularly in Northeast Minneapolis.”

On March 22, . The investigator, Bob Bowcock, said he would map the “contamination plumes” that he said are migrating beneath Fridley’s soil with reports of cancer he receives from Fridley residents. His aim: to determine if there is a correlation or causation.

Soler said that while this strategy of mapping contamination against population had some merit, it was not generally a sound scientific practice.

“The problem with doing that is people have not lived in their homes that long,” Soler said. “The latency period for cancer is decades.

“You have a real mismatch, or watering down, of the data. What does it mean in the end? Someone moves into their house, and three years later they’re diagnosed with cancer—it happens to be close with one of the Superfund sites. Does it really have anything to do with the Superfund site? No. A lot of the mapping stuff doesn’t meet good scientific practice. There’s a place for it, sometimes, but those places are few and far between.”