Cancer health concern for Fort Chipewyan

Limiting the collection of data to those who resided in Fort Chipewyan has skewed the findings of Alberta Health Services' report on cancer cases in the community 600 km northeast of Edmonton. And with that claim, the Nunee Health Board is insisting that its name be removed from the final report.
"We did not endorse the study. We were not an active partner in it," said Claudia Simpson, health director of the Nunee Health Board.
The report indicated that there are 30 per cent more cases of cancer in Fort Chipewyan than cancer officials had expected.
But Simpson said if the number of Fort Chip patients seeking medical treatment outside of the community was taken into consideration ­ as the Nunee Health Board had recommended ­ that statistic would be even higher.
"We do have those (additional) numbers, but we're unable to disclose them at this time," said Simpson.
Despite appeals by the board that the study be conducted on a case by case basis, highly practical because of the small population of the community, the researcher decided to use Fort Chip's postal code to track results, said Simpson.
"It was the expert opinion of the researcher on the methodology (to be used) and what would get the most results and how we would be able to compare it to other populations," explained Lee Elliott, director of public relations and communications for the Alberta Cancer Board of Alberta Health Services.
Elliott also noted that the methodology was found sound by independent peer reviewers from Austalia, New Zealand and the United States.
Researchers found that 47 residents with Fort Chip postal codes had been diagnosed with cancer between 1995-2006, with 51 cancers of varying types identified; officials had expected to find 39 cancers of varying types.
In a news release issued by Alberta Health Services, senior official Dr. Tony Fields said that Fort Chip residents had no reason to be alarmed.
The statement comes as no surprise to Simpson. "It was exactly what we anticipated them to say," she said, and that was why the health board requested that Alberta Health Services not release the findings of the report. "They undermined us by not counting the statistics as we had recommended."
The latest statement from Alberta Health Services regarding cancer numbers in Fort Chip was made in February, but Simpson pointed out that the same report was initially released in 2008. Field's latest statement is based on revisiting the report "to ensure everything had been counted," said Simpson. "They're essentially saying the same thing. They're saying the prevalence of cancer is the same throughout Alberta."
"Looking at these numbers, there is no cause for alarm," reiterated Elliott.
But Simpson's concerns aren't only centred on how the data was collected but also when the data was collected. As far as she's concerned, 51 cases of cancer over a 10 year period should not be used as a baseline for future studies.
"If an 80-year-old Elder is saying, 'I've never seen this kind of cancer in my lifetime, now I'm seeing it the last 20 years and that the young people are dying of cancer,' it says something. We should have a retroactive study, looking back, not looking forward," said Simpson.
But in moving ahead, Alberta Health Services has indicated that Fort Chip will continue to be monitored for cancer cases. What form that monitoring will take is not yet clear and will be based on discussion with the community, said Elliott.
The Alberta Cancer Board will also continue to track Fort Chip cancer cases. "We want to see if this is an anomaly or a trend going on that needs further investigation," said Elliott.
Claudia Simpson, health director of the Nunee Health Board, pointed out that if Albertans are willing to accept a 30 per cent higher than anticipated rate for cancer across the province that doesn't mean that Fort Chip residents are willing to do the same. While the report doesn't pin down the cause of the cancers in the community, environment is one of the factors, said Simpson, noting that the community is in the midst of industrial development which includes oil sands 250 km upstream, as well as uranium mining and pulp mills.
Along with environmental exposure the report recommended analyzing other risk factors such as lifestyle, family history and occupational exposures.