In article ,
Frank wrote:
I got flak for criticizing this report. Here's what C&E News Rudy Baum
has to say. Those that follow him will generally find him an
administration supporter, but not this time:
When the American Cancer Society and the American Chemistry Council both
take issue with a report by the President’s Cancer Panel, agreeing that
the panel’s report overstates the role of environmental factors in
causing cancer, you know there’s a disconnect.
Boy, is there ever. The 2008–09 annual report of the panel, “Reducing
Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now,” is, in a word, a mess.
The report collects seemingly every cancer-scare hypothesis that’s been
floated over the past 30 to 40 years and suggests that we really ought
to be concerned about them. It urges an extreme application of the
precautionary principle to any agent suspected of being a carcinogen,
especially chemicals. Most of the assertions in the report aren’t backed
up by convincing scientific research.
Frank, couldn't you just say ditto?
First off, Frank, last time you mounted the barricades it was defend
chemicals from a "fallacious statement up front that talks about the
80,000 chemicals in the US market that are largely untested", which you
implied was the product of chemo-phobia.
rec.gardens.edible: Thu, 06 May 2010 08:54:34 & Fri, 7 May 2010 05:11:37
I think the April 2010, Scientific American, Editorial "Chemical
Controls", p. 30, defined the problem well.
(extract)
.. . . As the law stands, the EPA cannot be proactive in vetting chemical
safety. It can require companies to test chemicals thought to pose a
health risk only when there is explicit evidence of harm. Of the 21,000
chemicals registered under the law's requirements, only 15 percent have
been submitted with health and safety data—and the EPA is nearly
powerless to require such data. The law allows companies to claim
confidentiality about a new chemical, preventing outside evaluation from
filling this data gap; some 95 percent of new submissions fall under
this veil of secrecy. Even when evidence of harm is clear, the law sets
legal hurdles that can make action impossible. For instance, federal
courts have overturned all the EPA's attempts to restrict asbestos
manufacture, despite demonstrable human health hazard.
Consequently, of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the U.S., only
five have been either restricted or banned.
Not 5 percent, five.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chemical-controls
I understand that reading isn't your strong point, Frank, but to embrace
the editor of an publication that promotes the chemical industry in the
US, with said publication being dependent on that industry for funding,
http://cen.firstlightera.com/EN/Microsites
when he defends the industry that butters his bread, all seems a little
incestuous.
Rudy Baum wrote,"When the American Cancer Society and the American
Chemistry Council both take issue with a report by the President’s
Cancer Panel, agreeing that the panel’s report overstates the role of
environmental factors in causing cancer, you know there’s a disconnect."
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/88/8822editor.html
----
Rudy ougth to look at the ACS Pressroom Blog to see that the American
Cancer Society isn't monolithic.
http://acspressroom.wordpress.com/20...e-environment/
They even deign to refer to a reporter for elucidation.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellnes...grossly-undere
stimated-presidential-panel/story?id=10568354
-----
“On what grounds do you know it's being grossly underestimated? It's a
possibility, but many hypotheses have been proposed, and unless you have
real evidence, you can’t say that it is,” said Dr. Michael Thun, vice
president emeritus of epidemiology and surveillance research for the
American Cancer Society.
Thun said the President’s panel overstates the concern about
environmental causes when the best way to prevent cancer is to combat
the largest risks that people encounter: tobacco, diet and sun.
But many environmental epidemiologists say quibbling over the numbers
becomes a diversionary tactic.
They say the American Cancer’s Society’s statement sounds a bit like a
principle espoused by industry groups – don’t act without absolute proof
of harm. Many environmental epidemiologists are in favor of moving
toward the precautionary principle – reducing people’s exposure to
environmental pollutants even if there is uncertainty about the risks.
It’s an "erroneous exercise” to try to assign each chemical or exposure
a specific fraction of cancer, said Richard Clapp of Boston University's
School of Public Health, who co-authored a 2005 review and 2007 update
on environmental and occupational causes of cancer.
"It's estimating a fiction, because nobody knows and nobody can know,"
said Clapp. "Why do we keep beating this dead horse? If there are things
we can move on, let's work on those."
Cancer is the second leading killer of Americans, and the leading cause
of death worldwide. Every year, about 1.5 million new cases are
diagnosed in the United States and more than half a million people die
from the disease, according to the American Cancer Society.
Experts agree that most cancers are caused by lifestyle factors such as
smoking, diet and alcohol. Smoking alone accounts for at least 30
percent of all U.S. cancer deaths, and another one-third is attributed
to diet, obesity and physical inactivity, according to the American
Cancer Society.
But it’s the remaining cancers – about one out of every three – that
trigger debate.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...cancers-are-ca
used-by-the-environment
Scientists, Frank, first look at the available information like the
following from the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences:
CANCER AND THE ENVIRONMENT
http://www.cancer.gov/images/Documen...a214-e9e9099c4
220/Cancer%20and%20the%20Environment.pdf
How Many Cancers Are Caused by the Environment?
May 21, 2010
Some experts say a decades-old estimate that six percent of cancers are
due to environmental and occupational exposures is outdated and far too
low
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...cancers-are-ca
used-by-the-environment
By*Brett Israel*and*Environmental Health News
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.o...s-cancer-panel
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...4/25/AR2010042
503408.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/14/local/me-greenchem14
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/19/local/me-greenchem19
And, Frank, what happens to people when they have the following
chemicals in their bodies: Organophosphate Pesticides (OPs),
Organochlorine Pesticides (OCs), Metals, Lead compounds, Organic salts,
Mercury compounds, Arsenic compounds, Cadmium compounds, Chlorinated
dioxins & furans, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Phthalates, Volatile
and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs and SVOCs), Polychlorinated
naphthalenes (PCNs), Brominated Fire Retardants, Polybrominated diphenyl
ethers (PBDEs), Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Perfluorochemicals
(PFCs), Halogenated benzenes, Substituted benzenes, Brominated dioxins &
furans, Chromium compounds, Bisphenol A & BADGE, Nitro- and polycylic-
musks, Alkylphenols, Phenols, Perchlorate, Inorganic salts?
For a complete list go to :
http://www.ewg.org/chemindex/all/607
http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/
So, you got some erudite rebuttal for me, Frank, or just your
insufficient excuses?
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html