Talk:Cancer Alley

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 13 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blr119, Missyfaith92.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Julienpleb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aburk398.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV issues - Environmental Justice section
Definitely not a neutral point of view in this section. If such a conspiracy is really alive and active, it would certainly merit its own entry. 70.117.148.39 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issues
This is ridiculous. The one citation for this article is a study conducted by the company which owns the chemical plants in the area. 192.68.112.136 (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

POV check
I added the POV check template to the article since it doesn't appear to adhere to the NPOV policy. --Viriditas | Talk 10:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
The following statement was removed from the article due to lack of NPOV. It should be added back into the article and expanded to conform to policy: Although there have been numerous studies documenting unusually high rates of brain tumors among children, the local and state governments have been slow to act. --Viriditas | Talk 10:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

13 Dec 2006 addition moved to talk
''I moved the below anon addition to talk due to concerns about lack of encyclopedic tone or reference. -- Infrogmation 19:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)''

A few notes on Cancer Alley: - Cancer Alley: Lots of toxic waste and chemical factories. (85 miles of factories) - 1/3 of taxes in LA is paid by petrochemical taxes, 165,000 people are employed - 1/3 of toxic waste, 25% of all chemicals made in the US come from this area - The industrial waste corporation Rollins created the 4th largest waste site in the US, but the community in which it was placed didn’t know it was coming. There was no disclosure about Rollins, only rumors of new jobs. - From 1980-1985: 100 federal/state violations were given, but company hasn’t paid a dime! - In 1981, lawsuit filed, settled on Christmas eve in 1987 ($3000 given to each plaintiff). Stipulation in settlement that Rollins cannot be sued again.

Encyclopedic tone
As a chemical engineer (retired) and one who has followed and studied the culture of the oil and gas business I am disappointed that this subject must be discussed in sterile tones. This situation is real, and it is disastrous to the health and safety of humans. The attitude of industry is very similar to that of the tobacco industry when it was discovered that tobacco smoke is carcinogenic. Talking about this topic in encyclopedic tones serves the purposes of industry. It is time to show appropriate concern about the sociopathic attitudes of corporations and force them to clean up their operations. A sterile tone helps to create public doubt about the importance of this knowledge.

This is my considered personal opinion based on the known facts. I cannot express this opinion in sterile terms. If this post is deemed by WikiOfficials to be inappropriate for this Talk page I would appreciate feedback as to why it is so considered. Texas Star Thrower 12:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zambaman (talk • contribs)

Plagiarism issues and expansion possibilities
The entire "history" section of this article is directly plagiarized from pollutionissues.com. In addition, the statistics listed by this particular source are poorly, if it all, cited. It appears that some of the information present in the "history" section would also be better suited for the "cancer studies" section; however a lack of material may be preventing this. I have added a potentially useful source for collecting further information. I also think it may be helpful to add an image of the actual geographical region that is known as Cancer Alley, like a map. If someone is familiar with the text, the last study listed in the "cancer studies" section would benefit from an elaboration on the the findings of the book. --Mliou (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Expanding on history and implications of Cancer Alley
This article would benefit from the addition of information about how, when, and why petrochemical industries became disproportionately clustered in this one region of the United States. I think it is worth characterizing the communities that are most directly impacted by the industries and noting how they are being impacted as well as how they have responded to the industries. One source that should be looked at is an article titled "An Analysis of Pollution and Community Advocacy in ‘Cancer Alley’: Setting an Example for the Environmental Justice Movement in St James Parish, Louisiana" from the International Journal of Justice and Sustainability. Lastly, I think that there could be mention of how Cancer Alley can be seen as environmental racism, with a link to the environmental racism Wikipedia page. RiceStudent (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Cancer Alley used to refer to New Jersey
When I was growing up, Cancer Alley referred to New Jersey, because being between NYC and Philadelphia, when the wind blew one way, NJ got toxins from one, and when the wind blew the other way, it got pollution from the other, and so had the highest cancer and asthma rates in the nation. It would be useful for this article to mention that, and to mention when NJ stopped having the highest cancer rate and Louisiana started. When I first heard a news item about Cancer Alley and LA, I was confused. Perhaps it should be referred to as 'the new Cancer Alley' since that term meant somewhere else for many years? WordwizardW (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is clearly being edited by someone on behalf of the chemical industry
The edit made by 68.11.233.114 adds "However, facts have consistently shown that there is no cancer alley and that this designation is a falsehood" and then links to an opinion piece by the president of the Louisiana Chemical Association. That is not an unbiased source. There are other examples of extraneous details that have been added to attempt to make the chemical industry look better. I am new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure how to fix that but come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwaring (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Louisiana Population
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana

Population 4,657,757 46 People Per Million At Risk Of Developing Cancer In Cancer Alley; We Are Looking At What, 200 People Or So? What Does That Even Mean?

This Is An Absurdity; Most Residents There Probably Personally Know 20 People Who Have, Had, Or Died From Cancer. The Actual Cancer Rate Statistics Are Likely Much Higher. VerifyTruth927 (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Cancer Statistics
https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/#!/state/Louisiana VerifyTruth927 (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Lack of statistics about actual cancer rates
The article contains a lot on activism but little on cancer rates. Most Google Scholar results are indeed on activism but that doesn't mean that this article wouldn't benefit from a summary of reliable facts on actual cancer rates.

In September 2023, removed precisely such content as off-topic. It would be good to review the deletion and see what can be salvaged. Maybe BC can explain why they thought this was off-topic. Diff AncientWalrus (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Some was off-topic (i.e. not about 'Cancer Alley'), and some was just not WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks you're right! I see that the major source was "lungcancercentre.com". There must be better sources. I'll have a look. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be great if there were. The EPA were going to do that but they got shut down it seems due to politics (God Bless America, eh!). So far as I'm aware there is simply no authoritative information on the cancer rates, so everything remains a ideological/political shouting match. Bon courage (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at these articles. There are researchers besides the EPA.
 * https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4360
 * https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fijerph9124365
 * MiseDominic (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, chiming in here. I recently did some expansions to the History and Pollution and cancer rates sections, most of which were reverted by @Bon courage. I left a message on their talk page, and they simply responded by saying it didn't meet the WP:MEDRS requirement. I think the current one sentence is woefully inadequate, and simply saying "there is a debate" might go against the Neutral point of view false balance guidelines. It seems most scientific papers point to elevated cancer rates. In lieu of literature reviews, which seem to be in short supply, I think it would be helpful to add more research from authoritative sources.
 * I propose adding information from the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment, and its successor, the Air Toxics Screening Assessment. The 2005 and 2014 National Air Toxics Assessment found significantly elevated cancer risks from point sources of pollution in 2005 and 2014. And similarly, so have numerous yearly analyses by the Air Toxics Screening Assessment. I think adding these give a much more comprehensive picture than simply saying "there is a debate", which references just one paper that itself found that Cancer Alley is "a region of excessively high cancer risk". Thanks, Amtoastintolerant (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The trouble is for biomedical knowledge we need WP:MEDRS sources. And a letter/primary data is not that. It's true there is a debate and Wikipedia cannot decide which is the 'winning' side. Is 'Cancer Alley' a myth or not? (Add I see this is in press, but unfortunately it doesn't say anything particularly meaty). Bon courage (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello. I understand your concern about WP:MEDRS. I have therefore removed the remaining one sentence blurb from the Pollution and cancer rates, as it itself does not meet the secondary research bar you alluded to. I'm not sure how much of a debate there is, but until we can reference a substantive metanalysis, I think it's best we abandon this. Amtoastintolerant (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying 'there is a debate' is not WP:BMI, so removing that leaves the article without even the accepted knowledge on this. Bon courage (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Map of Parishes Misidentifies St. Charles Parish
The map of the parishes in Cancer Alley lists parish "7" as Lafayette parish. It should list Saint Charles parish instead. FYI, the list of parishes in the article correctly lists Saint Charles parish. The map was apparently supplied by @WWWHHHHYYYYYY. JohnofPlano (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Attention: @WWWHHHHYYYYYY JohnofPlano (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

We are supposed to cover multiple sides of a topic
@Bon courage has clearly been suppressing certain types of content on this article, repeatedly and for some time now. If the literature is published, including by peer reviewed and government sources, would it not be appropriate to mention it in the article, and then give counterpoints? BC is using reverts to editorialize. MiseDominic (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Leave the pathetic personal attacks alone and get a clue. We are constrained by Wikipedia's WP:PAGs which we need to follow. Bon courage (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained yourself well in your edits (see above, and your talk page), so it is you who needs to get a clue about communicating with others when you remove their work. Merely citing a rule doesn't make you right, nor does merely being on Wikipedia a long time. I agree that we need to follow WP:PAGs, but that is not necessarily the same as what you are doing. MiseDominic (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Right so what are you proposing that "follows the WP:PAGS" ? Bon courage (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't be obtuse. The articles that people want to include showing higher incidence of cancer are not "medical" articles, and there is not going to be a large-scale clinical trial to prove the cancer. Point me to the rules about public health information, or ecological information, not medical information. Otherwise, let people include this valuable information in the article. Readers don't have to believe further than what the sentence says, "A 2022 study found...." With your standard, there will probably never be quantitative information in this article. MiseDominic (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is fine if there is no accepted knowledge to relay. WP:BMI needs WP:MEDRS sourcing: that's the WP:PAGs you want to follow. If you have some " ecological" sources for WP:NOTBMI, please add it. Bon courage (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. WP:MEDRS states "Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable (any given primary source may be contradicted by another). Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. " Emphasis added by me. We don't have secondary sources or lit reviews to go to, which would be preferred. But not also that the guidelines allow for text that does rely on primary sources, with proper framing. Let us use this guideline. What is a framing of these two articles that would appease you and not get reverted? MiseDominic (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no case for primary sources here, see the discussion in sourcing at WP:MEDFAQ for the 'rare cases' where consensus can usually be found to use 'em. There is sufficient secondary sourcing to cover the topic without using unreliable sources (especially if they are misrepresented, as in your edit to shift correlation into causation – richly ironic consider the POV-pushing accusations you're spitting everywhere). Bon courage (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Shame on you, is all I have to say. MiseDominic (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)