Cancer remains one of the most pressing public‐health challenges in the United States. Although genetics plays a role in many individual cases, environmental pollutants are widely believed to contribute to elevated cancer rates.
Our project asks: Where in America do cancer rates run unusually high, and does exposure to particular pollutants seem to explain some of those patterns?
One of our group members moved away from their home county due to concerns about fracking and industrial pollution—and feared these factors might increase cancer risk. This personal experience motivated us to investigate whether a broader pattern exists between environmental pollution and cancer incidence across the United States. This project also draws on the DuPont C-8 lawsuit, where contaminated water was linked to increased cancer rates in communities that resided within a close range of the plant. Geagraphic vissualizations were a key part of the of discovering and aruging the case. You can view our video presentation here.
Below is the county map colored by age‐adjusted cancer incidence averaged over a five year period from 2018 to 2022. Each county is placed in one of five quantiles based on cancer incedents per 100,000 people. You are able to hover over individual counties to observe their cancer rate. Use the dropdown to switch among cancer types. Pollutant layers are disabled here so you can focus solely on the spatial distribution of cancer rates.
Note the annotated areas on the map: These areas ares characterized by high concentrations of cancer incedents. We have laid boxes over these areas on the following maps to help the viewer see different patterns.
We also wondered if water quality might correlate with cancer rates, so we gathered 2025 county‐level water scores. On the map, the West Coast region appears to have cleaner water, which aligns with its lower cancer incidence from the previous section. Conversely, some of the annotated regions in the middle of the country show dirtier water and correspondingly higher cancer rates.
Next, we look at fine particulate matter (PM₂.₅) across counties. This data was collected by the EPA and averaged over a two year period from 2017 to 2019. Cancer incidence and other layers are disabled so you can focus just on the PM₂.₅ distribution.
Next, we considered air pollution. However, the relationship is not straightforward: the California region shows higher PM₂.₅ levels despite low cancer rates; Minnesota has relatively clean air but high cancer incidence; Idaho and Wyoming appear to have clean air and low cancer rates; and the Kentucky/Mississippi region has more polluted air and high cancer rates. Thus, air pollution alone does not fully explain cancer patterns.
Now we overlay large industrial facilities (e.g., power plants, refineries) on top of the cancer map. The industrial data was collected in 2023. Air pollution and income layers remain disabled. Hover over each dot to see its facility name and On‐Site Release Total.
We expected industrial emissions might align with cancer hotspots. Indeed, similar to water quality, the West Coast area has fewer large industrial facilities and lower cancer rates, whereas the East Coast annotated area has many polluting facilities alongside high cancer incidence—suggesting a possible link. Note that highly concentrated areas of high cancer incidence have a correspondingly high densities of chemical and plastic facilities.
Finally, we look at county‐level median income. Cancer, air pollution, and industry layers are disabled here so you can see how income alone is distributed.
We also explored whether socioeconomic factors play a role, so we included median household income. The Idaho/California region shows higher incomes and lower cancer rates. Mississippi and Kentucky have lower incomes and high cancer incidence. However, Minnesota has moderate to high income but still experiences high cancer rates, indicating income alone cannot fully explain the patterns.
We recognize that cancer risk arises from a complex mix of factors, including genetics, lifestyle, and family history. Our goal was to explore whether visual patterns emerge when comparing cancer incidence with environmental conditions across the U.S. By layering data on water quality, air pollution, industrial facility locations, and income. We observed that proximity to industrial plants showed the strongest spatial correlation with higher cancer rates. While drinking water contamination and poor air quality also aligned with elevated cancer in some regions, these measures do not capture which specific pollutants are most influential. Higher-income areas generally showed lower cancer rates, suggesting potential disparities in exposure, resources, or access to care. While these visual relationships do not imply causation, the patterns suggest that environmental pollution—especially from industrial activity—may play a meaningful role in cancer risk and warrant greater public awareness and further investigation.
It is important to note that our analysis is purely observational and does not establish causation, however there are several documented incedents of industrial pollution leading to increased cancer rates in nearby communities. Overall, our findings should convince experts and regular people to take a closer look at industrial pollution as a potential contributor to cancer risk and to continually remain attentive to industrial activity.
Now that you’ve seen each layer one by one, here’s the full interactive dashboard. Use the dropdowns to turn on or off any combination of cancer subtype, air pollution (PM₂.₅), industry facilities, and income. Zoom to specific counties with the search bar, or reset to the national view at any time.