Talk:Toms River, New Jersey

New Jersey B‑class Mid‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cancer Cluster

The information which is repeatedly replaced onto the Toms River page about the Cancer Cluster should be kept off. It is endangering the future growth of this community, which is unacceptable. Suppose someone who was thinking about moving here looked at this page and then changed his or her mind due to the cancer cluster section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.147.199 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed this section before, and it is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia, not a PR pamphlet for Toms River. Facts are facts, and cannot be omitted from an article because they may have a negative impact. The section is an improvement over the version of months ago, and is not written in some salacious, negative way. Perhaps someone can add more about the resolution of the problem? And if there has been no documented resolution, maybe it's not so bad that potential buyers not move there. But I assure you, if the property values and increased building in Toms River are any indication, the growth of the area is not in jeopardy. Hopefully, others will weigh in on this ongoing issue. TAnthony 03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we leave it to people who actually live here, not California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.147.199 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you make that designation proves that you just don't get it, and that your contributing to the article at all is a conflict of interest. No one is trying to malign TR here, this is not the place to make TR look worse or better. And for the record, my entire family lives there, so I don't have some secret agenda to sabotage growth and property values. TAnthony 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) I live here (and wrote the entire history section) and B) that's irrelevant. TAnthony is absolutely correct. Please read WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. Do not remove this section again. Trnj2000 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification to remove this section, which is fully sourced and documented. While there is the distant possibility that potential homebuyers may look at this Wikipedia article as part of their homebuying decision, the integrity of this encyclopedia is far more important. For that matter, any buying a home in the area should know the facts, and all the facts, before making a decision. Knowing the "reason" for why this section has been removed only makes it all the more unjustified. Alansohn 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you, but it's just annoying when people talk about the water after it's been perfectly fine for ten years. It's history, done, over with. And the fact that someone from North Jersey, the armpit of America, of all places, is backing you up. Maybe we should find the dirty details on one of the nastiest towns in New Jersey. I used to live in Ridgefield, New Jersey. That's two towns away from Teaneck, so I know what it's like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.147.199 (talk • contribs)

Are you serious?! This is not a war; no one is trying to malign TR and you shouldn't be maligning other places. Perhaps you would vote to strip all mention of the Holocaust from the articles on Germany to promote tourism? We all know that the water problem is in the past and has been resolved, but more positive way to handle this is to find SOURCED FACTS that show that. TAnthony 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's find and add sources that show that the issues in the past with the water have been cleared up. This way, all of the relevant information is in the article. Let me know if I can help. Alansohn 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing, as a resident, we are not getting papers sent home telling us that the water is anything but normal. They have last year. They need to if anything whatsoever goes wrong, and they haven't so therefore it is fine. I would not drink tons of it everyday if it wasn't fine. The chemical plant closed so long ago. The water is safe and only six people were diagnosed with cancer in 2006 in Toms River. Out of 100,000 thats very good. Those cases of cancer were not from the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.147.199 (talk • contribs)

These facts sound great but where do they come from? And I can think of 3 people I know in TR who were diagnosed with different types of cancer in TR within the last 3 years (none having to do with smoking); I'm not saying it was caused by the water, but it makes me think that 6 cases in 2006 is a little off. TAnthony 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I'm new to this article but if people think that no news is good news when it comes to local politicians, they need to wake the Hell up. The poisonings WERE caused by water contamination and the Ciba-Geigy plant is STILL purging ground water and will continue to do so for the next decade. Between 1979 and 1995, 90 children in the township were diagnosed with cancer. And you don't think you should still worry about it? The New Jersey Department of Health and the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry conducted a study to evaluate the relationship between the environmental exposures and the cases of cancer. It concluded that An association was found between prenatal exposure to the contaminated water and leukemia in female children; and An association was found between prenatal exposure to the air from the Ciba-Geigy plant and leukemia in female children diagnosed prior to 5 years of age. --MCWicoff 02:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aight, so I added a couple of lines, and will probably do some more editing. 68.39.147.199's later points are well taken, though there is no justification for leaving it out entirely. Trnj2000 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, these edits are great! TAnthony 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So...where the hell is the Cancer Cluster section? Can we get a lock, or something? This is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.253.110 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now incorporated into the "Mid and Late 20th Century" section; not my choice but I guess the "Cancer Cluster" heading was what was freaking people out? Whatever. TAnthony 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably correct to not have a seperate section dealing with the CC on the Toms River page. I think a seperate page would be appropriate, however.Trnj2000 13:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

Now that the name change is official, we need to figure out how to handle it. I would like to suggest that we merge much of the historical information in the Toms River, New Jersey article into the Dover Township, New Jersey article. I suggest that we rename Toms River, New Jersey to Toms River CDP, New Jersey, to avoid any confusion as to the two Toms Rivers. Then we need to request a move from Dover Township, New Jersey to Toms River, New Jersey. This should address the issues. The new Toms River article can then be modified to explain the past name of Dover Township. Alansohn 07:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some of it Aspensti 21:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revised the old Toms River history to include the history of Dover Twp., Toms River, and an explanation of the name. Trnj2000 16:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC) PS--Does the Toms River CDP page serve any purpose? Can we just delete it?Trnj2000 17:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep the Toms River CDP article. This is what was Toms River for Census Bureau statistical purposes before the whole township was renamed. There will be very few references to it, but it needs to be retained. Alansohn 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]