Yes, what's all the fuss about having them around?
Copilot:
Q: are there data centers that specialize in cancer data and why all the fuss about having them around?
A: Yes — there are data centers that specialize in cancer data, and people object to them for reasons that have nothing to do with the cancer data itself, but rather with the environmental footprint of large data center infrastructure.
The most prominent examples are the Cancer Research Data Commons (CRDC) operated by the U.S. National Cancer Institute and similar institutional infrastructures at major cancer centers. These facilities exist specifically to store, integrate, and analyze massive cancer datasets — genomic, imaging, clinical, proteomic, and population‑level data — to accelerate research.
What these cancer‑focused data centers actually do:
1. Genomic Data Commons — hosts whole‑genome, exome, RNA‑seq, methylation, and other molecular data.
2. Proteomic Data Commons — stores mass‑spectrometry proteomics.
3. Imaging Data Commons — de‑identified radiology and pathology images.
4. Clinical and Translational Data Commons — clinical, biospecimen, and molecular characterization data.
These are secure, cloud‑based scientific infrastructures, not commercial server farms. They exist to support cancer researchers, not to run consumer apps or AI models.
Why people object to data centers — even when they support cancer research.
Public objections are not about the cancer data. They are about the industrial‑scale environmental impact of data centers in general. Several documented concerns:
1. Water contamination and rare cancer clusters
Investigations in Oregon linked Amazon data‑center water use to worsening nitrate contamination in groundwater, with reports of rare cancers, miscarriages, and kidney damage among residents.
68 of 70 wells tested exceeded federal nitrate limits.
Residents reported dozens of miscarriages and multiple rare cancers.
An NBC4 WCMH-TV report linked data center to rare cancers, raising questions about central Ohioans’ safety.
From NBC4 WCMH-TV MDLinx: "AI’s toxic footprint: Are data centers driving cancer and miscarriage rates up?"
While causation is disputed, the perception of harm has fueled intense opposition.
2. Air pollution and increased cancer risk.
Caltech and UC Riverside researchers project that data‑center‑related air pollution could cause up to 1,300 premature deaths annually by 2030, with a public‑health burden of $20 billion per year.
A U.S. executive order even prohibits building data centers in areas with elevated cancer risk from air pollution. (From: EL PAÍS English. "US admits data centers are harmful to health.")
3. Massive water and energy consumption.
Data centers use millions of gallons of water for cooling and enormous electricity loads, straining local grids and water systems. Communities worry about:
higher utility bills.
water shortages.
noise pollution.
light pollution.
4. Community backlash and political mobilization.
In 2026, 71% of Americans oppose local data‑center construction, surpassing opposition to nuclear plants.
$228 billion in projects have been disrupted.
300+ state bills have been introduced to regulate or halt data‑center expansion.
Why this affects cancer‑data infrastructure:
Even though cancer‑specific data centers (like NCI’s CRDC) are designed for research and operate under strict governance, they still rely on large cloud infrastructures that may be hosted in commercial data centers. Thus, public objections to data‑center expansion can indirectly affect cancer‑research computing capacity.
Summary
Cancer‑specialized data centers exist because cancer research requires enormous, secure, interoperable datasets. People object not to the cancer data but to the environmental and health impacts of large‑scale data‑center infrastructure.
If you want, I can break down:
how cancer data centers differ from commercial AI data centers
whether Gainesville (where you are) institutions participate in these cancer data infrastructures.
the environmental footprint of cloud computing used in cancer research.
Just tell me where you want to go.
A bit more:
Everything you would ever want to know about the CRDC (Cancer Research Data Commons) :
https://(https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/organization/cbiit/projects/crdc#:~:text=nci%e2%80%99s%20cancer%20research%20data%20commons%20%28crdc%29%20is%20a,you%20submit%2c%20share%2c%20access%2c%20and%20analyze%20data%20cost-effectively.
So, an instance of an activity which is hopefully advancing progress in cancer research, but which is also appearing to bring with it some unintended problems of various kinds?
Perhaps a trade off between the good that cancer data centers can bring, while accepting and/or dealing with the risks that go along with them.
Is some kind of regulation of data centers going to be necessary, or even inevitable?
Achieving the good needs to be done, but some degree of compromise, or even sacrifice, may become necessary to get it done.
Age: 80
Chronic prostatitis (age 60 on)
BPH w/ urinary obstruction, 6/2011
TURP, 7/2011
Ongoing high PSA, 7/2011-12/2011
Biopsy, 12/2011: positive 3/12 (90%, 70%, 5%)
Gleason 6(3+3), T1c
No mets, PCa likely still organ contained
IMRT w/ HT (Lupron), 4/2012-6/2012
PSAs (since post-IMRT): < 1.0
The data centers kind of came in like a thief in the night. I didn't know the bad effects of the centers until they were well on their way. From what I've seen I wouldn't want to live across the road with all the noise these centers are producing. There are problems with water contamination. When the people that are the major owners or stockholders of the data centers build their homes across the street and drink the water that they expect other people to drink then I'm ready to listen.
81GyGuy said...
...
Is some kind of regulation of data centers going to be necessary, or even inevitable?
....
Going to be necessary? So the approach you're suggestion is similar to cigarettes: We should give them the benefit of the doubt and try these gigantic centers out and live with them some number of years, and then we can start to think about the possibility of perhaps proposing some kind of study project? (Note the quintuple hedge). That's dandy. God forbid we do impact studies before granting building permission.
Djin
Post Edited (DjinTonic) : 7/27/2026 4:54:34 PM (GMT-4)
Some of them can be conveniently converted to relocation centers after AI decides it has had enough us but still needs to keep a few of us alive.
Part I 2015, Age 54. Age now 66
PSA: 20.8 Bx: All cores G7 (4+3)
RALP & Adjuvant RT
Pathology: G8 (4+4)+5
PSA nadir: 0.1, steady increase
Part II 2019
Lupron/Xtandi, PSA: <0.01 (2019 -2025)
Lupron/Xtandi, PSA <0.1 (2025 - current) Medicare changed me to LabCorp and standard PSA tests
2021: Reclast
2023: Prolia
Part I 2015, Age 54. Age now 66
PSA: 20.8 Bx: All cores G7 (4+3)
RALP & Adjuvant RT
Pathology: G8 (4+4)+5
PSA nadir: 0.1, steady increase
Part II 2019
Lupron/Xtandi, PSA: <0.01 (2019 -2025)
Lupron/Xtandi, PSA <0.1 (2025 - current) Medicare changed me to LabCorp and standard PSA tests
2021: Reclast
2023: Prolia
It’s the farmers who are against everything electric. Cars, solar, wind, and data.
R-Less RALP 2/25/19 Pathology G8 T3aN0M0
PSA .03 3/25/19 - 04/25/19 <.03. 05/19 <.02
<0.0016 for 2025
7/19 ART full pelvic with 24 months ADT.
PSA <.02 4/19-2/25. 6/25 <0.006
AUS 2023
HBOT 2024 - Radiation Cystitis
R-Less RALP 2/25/19 Pathology G8 T3aN0M0
PSA .03 3/25/19 - 04/25/19 <.03. 05/19 <.02
<0.0016 for 2025
7/19 ART full pelvic with 24 months ADT.
PSA <.02 4/19-2/25. 6/25 <0.006
AUS 2023
HBOT 2024 - Radiation Cystitis