9/11: Can the lingering medical and emotional effects be measured?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


The long-term effects of the 9/11 attacks aren’t merely existential. Whether the collapse of the Twin Towers and exposure to the stew of dust and chemicals caused disease, and the emotional toll it took on witnesses, are scientific questions, too.

New estimates suggest that of the more than 400,000 people who were directly exposed to the strikes, 35,000- to- 70,000 developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and 9,700-to-2,000 people experienced serious psychological distress. Some 3,800 to 12,600 people may have developed asthma, New York City epidemiologists report in this month's Journal of Urban Health.

Most of those people who developed asthma did so in the year following the attacks, but some may not have shown symptoms until as long as three years later, Deputy Health Commissioner Lorna Thorpe told the Associated Press. The city's newly published data from its World Trade Center Health Registry documents diagnoses within the first three years after 9/11; the estimates are based on surveys of more than 71,000 Ground Zero rescue and clean-up workers, residents, students and downtown building occupants.

Notable is the 3 percent incidence of new adult asthma cases since the attacks, which is two-to-four times higher than estimates of new adult cases nationally, scientists write in the study. The rate of PTSD symptoms among registrants is magnified by the same degree over national rates from various traumas.

How long will the trauma of 9/11 last? Victims of previous catastrophes such as the Holocaust, genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda and the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma have shown trauma symptoms years or decades later.

But seven years later, controversy still swirls around  a link between exposure to the Pile and illnesses such as sarcoidosis that some rescue and recovery workers developed later.

Proving a connection between the environmental exposures and cancers, respiratory and digestive diseases remains a dicey — and highly political — proposition, doctors who are treating workers and city residents have found. A lung biopsy of the first of those workers to have his name added to the official list of those killed by 9/11 (James Zadroga) found no trace of World Trade Center dust, according to a piece in this week’s New Yorker. A lawyer for Zadroga's family told the New York Times that the police detective would still be alive if not for 9/11.

(Image from Joel Meyerowitz/Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs)

 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe