Frank wrote:
On May 7, 7:01 pm, "David Hare-Scott" wrote:
Frank wrote:
On May 6, 6:24 pm, phorbin wrote:
In article ,
says...

As a retired chemist, chemo-phobia has always been a sore point
with me. "President's cancer panel" smells of politics.

There are already several international recognized authorities
that are essentially apolitical.

LOL

I used to believe in apolitical until the real world made its
presence known.

There's no such thing as apolitical.

You're absolutely right. The world is not all black and white. I
would say there are varying degrees of political.
Cited report came from one I consider on the high political side.

You might be right. But before I accept your view some details
please.

What is the reason that makes you infer that the PCP is not
supplying fair medical and scientific advice?

Do you think it is beholden to some vested interested and serving
their point of view? OK which ones and where is the evidence?

David

I did not look at the whole report but just executive summary which is
what reporter used.
My chemophobia comment is based on the erroneous use of TSCA saying
that most chemicals are not tested and their throwing in the BPA
controversy. Politicians and the general public will not go beyond
this. That is why the report is biased.

So now it is biased. By your judgement. It is your judgement that there is
not enough evidence that BPA is potentially harmful even for restriction
under the precautionary principle. OK, other disagree but OK for now.

Now back to the original point. What political end is being served by this
bias? Why is the PCP biased?

David