A new state health review found elevated lung cancer diagnoses in parts of northern Seneca County over a 26-year period, but did not find a consistent pattern tying those rates to the Seneca Meadows Landfill.
The report, prepared by the New York State Department of Health’s Cancer Surveillance Program, reviewed lung cancer incidence in the towns of Junius, Tyre, Waterloo, Seneca Falls and Fayette from 1996 through 2021. The study was requested after community concerns, a request from the Seneca Falls Town Board and involvement from the state Department of Environmental Conservation as Seneca Meadows seeks approval for a landfill expansion.
The review found statistically significant elevations in some census tracts, including parts of Waterloo, Seneca Falls, Junius and Tyre. But state health officials said those findings were not consistent across time periods, sex or age groups. The report also said the areas with the clearest elevations were primarily farther from the landfill, not closest to it.
The findings are likely to draw attention from residents, local officials, environmental groups and landfill representatives as the state continues reviewing Seneca Meadows’ proposed Valley Infill expansion. The landfill, the largest in New York, is located in Waterloo, west of Seneca Falls.
Why the state studied lung cancer rates
The review was conducted after the Seneca Falls Town Board asked the state Department of Environmental Conservation in October 2023 to examine lung cancer incidence around Seneca Meadows. The town’s request cited publicly available state cancer mapping data that had shown elevated lung cancer incidence in a broader area of northern Seneca County.
The Department of Health said the purpose of the review was to give residents an overview of available Cancer Registry data for communities around the landfill. The report examined diagnosed lung cancer cases among residents who lived in the evaluation area at the time of diagnosis.
Health officials compared the number of observed lung cancer cases in the area to the number that would have been expected based on lung cancer rates in New York State, excluding New York City. The state excluded New York City because smoking rates there are significantly lower than in the evaluation area and in the rest of the state. Since smoking is the leading risk factor for lung cancer, officials said using New York City in the comparison group could have skewed the results.
The report notes that cigarette smoking causes about 80% of lung cancer cases. Other risk factors include radon gas, secondhand smoke, certain metals and organic chemicals, radiation, air pollution, diesel exhaust and genetic factors.
The evaluation area included census tracts in Fayette, Junius, Seneca Falls, Tyre and Waterloo. A map included in the report shows the landfill near the border of census tracts 9504 and 9505, with the broader study area extending west through Waterloo, Junius and Tyre and south through Fayette.
What the cancer data showed
The report found several statistically significant elevations in lung cancer diagnoses when the data was reviewed by individual census tract over the full 1996-2021 period.
Among males, census tract 9504 in Seneca Falls had 49 observed cases compared with 36 expected cases. Census tract 9506 in Waterloo had 71 observed cases compared with 46.9 expected cases. Among females, census tract 9506 had 61 observed cases compared with 42.4 expected cases.
When the data was grouped for more detailed review by time period and age, the clearest elevation appeared in census tracts 9501 and 9506, covering Junius, Tyre and western Waterloo. Over the full 26-year study period, that area had 99 observed lung cancer cases among males compared with 73.8 expected cases. Among females, there were 87 observed cases compared with 63.9 expected cases.
Other parts of the evaluation area did not show the same pattern over the full study period. In eastern Waterloo and Fayette, the report found 120 observed cases among males compared with 102.4 expected, and 105 observed cases among females compared with 100.1 expected. In Seneca Falls, there were 134 observed cases among males compared with 113.2 expected, and 106 observed cases among females compared with 105.9 expected. Those grouped totals were not marked as statistically significant in the report.
The time-period analysis also produced mixed findings. Among males, the report found no statistically significant differences in any of the five time periods reviewed for the three grouped areas. Among females, eastern Waterloo and Fayette showed one statistically significant elevation from 2011 to 2015, with 32 observed cases compared with 20.6 expected. Junius, Tyre and western Waterloo showed statistically significant elevations among females from 2006 to 2010 and from 2016 to 2021.
The age-group analysis also showed limited statistically significant findings. In Junius, Tyre and western Waterloo, males age 65 and older had 69 observed cases compared with 51.6 expected, while females under 65 had 40 observed cases compared with 21.6 expected. Most other age categories did not show statistically significant differences.
Why the state did not link the findings to the landfill
Despite the elevated numbers in some areas, the Department of Health said the overall pattern did not point to the landfill as a cause.
The report said health officials did not find consistent elevations over time, by sex or across age groups. It also said the areas showing elevated rates were primarily distant from the landfill. Census tract 9505, one of the tracts closest to the landfill, did not show statistically significant elevations. Census tract 9504, also near the landfill, showed a statistically significant elevation among males but not females.
The state also reviewed available information about landfill gas, how gas is controlled, air monitoring and scientific literature on cancer near municipal solid waste landfills. The report said studies from Canada, the United States and Europe are inconsistent and do not demonstrate an overall association or causal connection between living near landfills and cancer.
Seneca Meadows is regulated under state solid waste and air permits. According to the report, the landfill uses a gas collection system to collect gas generated within the landfill, with most recovered gas sent to a separate energy recovery facility and some controlled through flares. The facility is also required to monitor the landfill cap for gas leaks, repair leaks and continuously monitor hydrogen sulfide at the landfill perimeter.
The report said hydrogen sulfide exceedances have occurred but are infrequent. It also noted that a 2018 Community Air Screen by the state Department of Environmental Conservation did not detect concentrations of volatile organic compounds or formaldehyde near Seneca Meadows that required follow-up testing.
State officials also revisited earlier cancer mapping that had helped fuel local concern. The older mapping used statewide cancer rates, including New York City, as the reference point. When the state repeated similar mapping using New York State excluding New York City, the elevated lung cancer area no longer included Seneca County.
What the report could not determine
The report includes several major limitations.
Health officials said this type of review cannot prove whether a specific exposure caused or contributed to health outcomes in a community. It also cannot determine the cause of any individual person’s cancer. That would require individual-level information about residential history, past and current exposures, smoking history, occupational exposures, family history and other factors. The state said that information was not available through the Cancer Registry data used in the review.
Cancer latency also complicates the analysis. The report said lung cancer can develop years after exposure, often with a latency period of at least 10 years and sometimes much longer. People may live or work in different places during the period between exposure and diagnosis.
The Cancer Registry data also identifies where a person lived when they were diagnosed. It does not include former residents who moved away before diagnosis, and it does not show how long each person lived in the evaluation area before being diagnosed. That means the study cannot fully account for residential migration.
The smoking data also has limits. The report used self-reported current smoking data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. But it did not have individual smoking histories for people diagnosed with lung cancer, and current smoking data does not capture past smoking behavior or former smokers, who remain at higher risk for lung cancer.
The Department of Health concluded that the review cannot determine why sporadic elevations occurred in certain census tracts. It also cannot say whether any specific person’s lung cancer was related to living in the area, or whether current residents are likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer in the future.
The report’s central conclusion is narrow: Lung cancer elevations were found in parts of northern Seneca County, but the available data does not show a consistent pattern of higher lung cancer rates associated with Seneca Meadows Landfill.
FingerLakes1.com is the region’s leading all-digital news publication. The company was founded in 1998 and has been keeping residents informed for more than two decades. Have a lead? Send it to news@fingerlakes1.com.