Talk:Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks

General list of deceased due to health effects

[edit]

I'm thinking that this list would be better formatted as a table so that the format can easily remain consistent. It's a very long list and the structure appears to break down significantly towards the end. I've already done the work of putting it into a table, I just want to see what other people think before I implement it.

QuadColour (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020

[edit]

Add the following informative paragraph to the 'Cancer Risk' section:

Through the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, individuals who have been diagnosed with cancer as a result of their physical exposure to the toxins in the World Trade Center blast zone or the surrounding New York City area between September 11, 2001, and May 30, 2002, are able to receive financial compensation for the collateral damage they personally suffered because of the attack. Through free legal guidance, affected individuals can clarify their specific eligibility for the VCF, while receiving the necessary logistic aid in order to fulfill a compensation claim by the current cut-off date for ‘timely’ applications, July 29, 2021. [1][2][3] MCN209 (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @MCN209: See diff. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "September 11th Victim Compensation Fund". Victim Compensation Fund. Victim Compensation Fund. Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  2. ^ "What happens if I register with the VCF after July 29, 2021?". Victim Compensation Fund. Victim Compensation Fund. Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  3. ^ "World Trade Center Cancer Claims Lawyer". Pintas & Mullins Law Firm. Pintas & Mullins Law Firm. June 22, 2020. Retrieved June 30, 2020./

The last (single sentence) paragraph of the lead summary should be moved to the first

[edit]

It also needs to stated somewhere within the article itself, as the lead summary should be only what its name says it is (a summary of the article). 94.246.147.217 (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the word "Radiation" and/or "Radioactive"

[edit]

I've been listening to stories about the "toxic dust" from 9/11 for decades. The dust was either tested for radioactivity or it was not. This Article should at least mention the subject of radioactivity, one way or the other. The fact that the Article is silent on the subject is an indicator that Wikipedia is complicit in some kind of cover-up. Wikipedia is not censored, and yet this question about 9/11 appears to be intentionally left-out. Here because I read an Article about a person that died from cancer after she survived 9/11 and the natural question was whether or not it was radiation that caused the cancer that killed her. Why is radiation and cancer an acceptable topic with Chernobyl, but not with 9/11. Did they test for it or not? If not, then SAY that. Make people wonder why not.72.180.111.79 (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic does not mean radioactive. There are no sources that discuss any radioactivity associated with 9/11 so it is not discussed here either. There are plenty of other dusts, like silica, that cause cancer but are not radioactive. -- Reconrabbit 15:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]