On May 7, 1:17*pm, phorbin wrote:
In article 73ccf623-9d9e-4acf-9b47-1659c7d28a23
@o8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, says...



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.

Then there's Billy - need I say more

Unfortunately, I am *absolutely* right.

There are no degrees of political, only degrees of skill at handling
political issues.

On the whole I like Billy's online persona. --You can say no more with
my blessing.

Billy's a wacko - aren't we all?
His problem is that he's too touchy

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

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.

In article
,
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"
What was the erroneous use of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Frank?
saying

"that most chemicals are not tested"
Do you contend that most chemicals have been tested, Frank?
"and their throwing in the BPA controversy."
Why, as a case in point, is mentioning BPA equated to chemophobia, Frank?
"Politicians and the general public will not go beyond this."
Where else is there to go, Frank?

That is why the report is biased.

Again, Frank, where is the bias?

1) That the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is egregiously flawed is
the whole point in reforming it, Frank.

2) TSCA grandfathered in approximately 62,000 chemicals, Frank.

3) Because companies are REQUIRED by TSCA section 8e to report
information about known health hazards caused by any of their products,
to AVOID LITIGATION or the costly ban or restricted use of a product,
chemical companies generally DO NOT CONDUCT TOXICITY TESTS.

4) Asbestos has been known to be harmful to human being since before
Christ, and under the TSCA it can't be banned.

5) BPA has been known since the 1930s to be a potent mimic of estrogen;
it could bind to the same receptors throughout the human body as the
natural female hormone, but it was grandfathered in with the TSCA.

Nor did the act give the EPA the power to reevaluate chemicals in light
of new information‹such as the concerns about BPA that emerged in the
1990s. Researchers in a genetics laboratory noticed that a control
population of mice developed an unusually high number of chromosomally
abnormal eggs. The reason? BPA leaching from their plastic cages. From
this serendipitous discovery, scientists began to explore anew BPA and
other chemicals like it, known collectively as endocrine disruptors.
Studies since then have linked BPA to asthma, behavioral changes, some
cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity. The National
Toxicology Program warned in 2008 that "the possibility that bisphenol A
may alter human development cannot be dismissed." Some health effects
from BPA may even be passed from one generation to the next, and in
contradiction to textbook toxicology, low doses of BPA may be as harmful
as high doses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found
that 93 percent of Americans have detectable levels of BPA by-products
in their urine.
-----

Executive Summary
p.32

Weak Laws and Regulations
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA)101 may be the most
egregious example of ineffective regulation of environmental
contaminants. This legislation was intended to give EPA authority to
control health risks from chemicals in commerce.

TSCA grandfathered in approximately 62,000 chemicals; today, more than
80,000 chemicals are in use, and 1,000*2,000 new chemicals are created
and introduced into the environment each year.102 Yet TSCA does not
include a true proof-of-safety provision.103 At this time, neither
industry nor government confirm the safety of existing or new chemicals
prior to their sale and use. In fact, because companies are required by
TSCA section 8e to report information about known health hazards caused
by any of their products, to avoid litigation or the costly ban or
restricted use of a product, chemical companies generally do not conduct
toxicity tests.

Under TSCA, EPA can only require testing if it can verify that the
chemical poses a health risk to the public.104,105 Since TSCA was
passed, EPA has required testing of less than 1 percent of the chemicals
in commerce and has issued regulations to control only five existing
chemicals. Companies are required to provide health and safety data for
new chemicals and to periodically renew approvals for the use of
pesticides, but historically, chemical manufacturers have successfully
claimed that much of the requested submissions are confidential,
proprietary information. As a result, it is almost impossible for
scientists and environmentalists to challenge the release of new
chemicals.106

In 1989, EPA issued a ban on asbestos based on 45,000 pages of
documentation on its risks. However, TSCA stipulates that chemicals
should be restricted using the least burdensome regulations available.
In 1991, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals nullified EPA¹s ban, ruling
that EPA had failed to show that asbestos posed an unreasonable risk, as
defined by TSCA, that was best addressed by banning it.107 Because of
TSCA¹s constraints and weakness, EPA also has been unable to
substantially restrict or eliminate the use of other known carcinogens
such as mercury and formaldehyde, and has not attempted to ban any
chemical since the 1991 court ruling.
---

Please use citations this time, Frank, you know, like a professional,
and don't just pull the answers out of your backside.
--
- 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

On May 8, 12:47Â*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,



Â*Frank wrote:
On May 7, 7:01Â*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. Â*The world is not all black and white.. Â*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. Â*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? Â*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"

What was the erroneous use of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Frank?

saying
"that most chemicals are not tested"

Do you contend that most chemicals have been tested, Frank? "and their throwing in the BPA controversy."

Why, as a case in point, is mentioning BPA equated to chemophobia, Frank?"Politicians and the general public will not go beyond this."

Where else is there to go, Frank?

That is why the report is biased.

Again, Frank, where is the bias?

1) That the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is egregiously flawed is
the whole point in reforming it, Frank.

2) TSCA grandfathered in approximately 62,000 chemicals, Frank.

3) Because companies are REQUIRED by TSCA section 8e to report
information about known health hazards caused by any of their products,
to AVOID LITIGATION or the costly ban or restricted use of a product,
chemical companies generally DO NOT CONDUCT TOXICITY TESTS.

4) Asbestos has been known to be harmful to human being since before
Christ, and under the TSCA it can't be banned.

5) BPA has been known since the 1930s to be a potent mimic of estrogen;
it could bind to the same receptors throughout the human body as the
natural female hormone, but it was grandfathered in with the TSCA.

Nor did the act give the EPA the power to reevaluate chemicals in light
of new information‹such as the concerns about BPA that emerged in the
1990s. Researchers in a genetics laboratory noticed that a control
population of mice developed an unusually high number of chromosomally
abnormal eggs. The reason? BPA leaching from their plastic cages. From
this serendipitous discovery, scientists began to explore anew BPA and
other chemicals like it, known collectively as endocrine disruptors.
Studies since then have linked BPA to asthma, behavioral changes, some
cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity. The National
Toxicology Program warned in 2008 that "the possibility that bisphenol A
may alter human development cannot be dismissed." Some health effects
from BPA may even be passed from one generation to the next, and in
contradiction to textbook toxicology, low doses of BPA may be as harmful
as high doses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found
that 93 percent of Americans have detectable levels of BPA by-products
in their urine.
-----

Executive Summary
p.32

Weak Laws and Regulations
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA)101 may be the most
egregious example of ineffective regulation of environmental
contaminants. This legislation was intended to give EPA authority to
control health risks from chemicals in commerce.

TSCA grandfathered in approximately 62,000 chemicals; today, more than
80,000 chemicals are in use, and 1,000Â*2,000 new chemicals are created
and introduced into the environment each year.102 Yet TSCA does not
include a true proof-of-safety provision.103 At this time, neither
industry nor government confirm the safety of existing or new chemicals
prior to their sale and use. In fact, because companies are required by
TSCA section 8e to report information about known health hazards caused
by any of their products, to avoid litigation or the costly ban or
restricted use of a product, chemical companies generally do not conduct
toxicity tests.

Under TSCA, EPA can only require testing if it can verify that the
chemical poses a health risk to the public.104,105 Since TSCA was
passed, EPA has required testing of less than 1 percent of the chemicals
in commerce and has issued regulations to control only five existing
chemicals. Companies are required to provide health and safety data for
new chemicals and to periodically renew approvals for the use of
pesticides, but historically, chemical manufacturers have successfully
claimed that much of the requested submissions are confidential,
proprietary information. As a result, it is almost impossible for
scientists and environmentalists to challenge the release of new
chemicals.106

In 1989, EPA issued a ban on asbestos based on 45,000 pages of
documentation on its risks. However, TSCA stipulates that chemicals
should be restricted using the least burdensome regulations available.
In 1991, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals nullified EPA¹s ban, ruling
that EPA had failed to show that asbestos posed an unreasonable risk, as
defined by TSCA, that was best addressed by banning it.107 Because of
TSCA¹s constraints and weakness, EPA also has been unable to
substantially restrict or eliminate the use of other known carcinogens
such as mercury and formaldehyde, and has not attempted to ban any
chemical since the 1991 court ruling.
---

Please use citations this time, Frank, you know, like a professional,
and don't just pull the answers out of your backside.
--
- 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=Arn3l...Zinn_page.html

You are a first class jerk.
I could sit and pick this apart bit by bit, but for what end, to
satisfy you?
Not worth my time. I get paid for regulatory consulting.
For someone who says they are a working chemist, you are chickenshit
when it comes to chemicals.

In article
,
Frank wrote:

On May 8, 12:47�m, Billy wrote:
In article
,



�rank wrote:
On May 7, 7:01�m, "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. �he world is not all black and white. �
would say there are varying degrees of political.
Cited report came from one I consider on the high political side.

You might be right. �ut 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? �K 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"

What was the erroneous use of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Frank?

saying
"that most chemicals are not tested"

Do you contend that most chemicals have been tested, Frank? "and their
throwing in the BPA controversy."

Why, as a case in point, is mentioning BPA equated to chemophobia,
Frank?"Politicians and the general public will not go beyond this."

Where else is there to go, Frank?

That is why the report is biased.

Again, Frank, where is the bias?

1) That the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is egregiously flawed is
the whole point in reforming it, Frank.

2) TSCA grandfathered in approximately 62,000 chemicals, Frank.

3) Because companies are REQUIRED by TSCA section 8e to report
information about known health hazards caused by any of their products,
to AVOID LITIGATION or the costly ban or restricted use of a product,
chemical companies generally DO NOT CONDUCT TOXICITY TESTS.

4) Asbestos has been known to be harmful to human being since before
Christ, and under the TSCA it can't be banned.

5) BPA has been known since the 1930s to be a potent mimic of estrogen;
it could bind to the same receptors throughout the human body as the
natural female hormone, but it was grandfathered in with the TSCA.

Nor did the act give the EPA the power to reevaluate chemicals in light
of new information�uch as the concerns about BPA that emerged in the
1990s. Researchers in a genetics laboratory noticed that a control
population of mice developed an unusually high number of chromosomally
abnormal eggs. The reason? BPA leaching from their plastic cages. From
this serendipitous discovery, scientists began to explore anew BPA and
other chemicals like it, known collectively as endocrine disruptors.
Studies since then have linked BPA to asthma, behavioral changes, some
cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity. The National
Toxicology Program warned in 2008 that "the possibility that bisphenol A
may alter human development cannot be dismissed." Some health effects
from BPA may even be passed from one generation to the next, and in
contradiction to textbook toxicology, low doses of BPA may be as harmful
as high doses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found
that 93 percent of Americans have detectable levels of BPA by-products
in their urine.
-----

Executive Summary
p.32

Weak Laws and Regulations
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA)101 may be the most
egregious example of ineffective regulation of environmental
contaminants. This legislation was intended to give EPA authority to
control health risks from chemicals in commerce.

TSCA grandfathered in approximately 62,000 chemicals; today, more than
80,000 chemicals are in use, and 1,000–2,000 new chemicals are created
and introduced into the environment each year.102 Yet TSCA does not
include a true proof-of-safety provision.103 At this time, neither
industry nor government confirm the safety of existing or new chemicals
prior to their sale and use. In fact, because companies are required by
TSCA section 8e to report information about known health hazards caused
by any of their products, to avoid litigation or the costly ban or
restricted use of a product, chemical companies generally do not conduct
toxicity tests.

Under TSCA, EPA can only require testing if it can verify that the
chemical poses a health risk to the public.104,105 Since TSCA was
passed, EPA has required testing of less than 1 percent of the chemicals
in commerce and has issued regulations to control only five existing
chemicals. Companies are required to provide health and safety data for
new chemicals and to periodically renew approvals for the use of
pesticides, but historically, chemical manufacturers have successfully
claimed that much of the requested submissions are confidential,
proprietary information. As a result, it is almost impossible for
scientists and environmentalists to challenge the release of new
chemicals.106

In 1989, EPA issued a ban on asbestos based on 45,000 pages of
documentation on its risks. However, TSCA stipulates that chemicals
should be restricted using the least burdensome regulations available.
In 1991, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals nullified EPA¹s ban, ruling
that EPA had failed to show that asbestos posed an unreasonable risk, as
defined by TSCA, that was best addressed by banning it.107 Because of
TSCA¹s constraints and weakness, EPA also has been unable to
substantially restrict or eliminate the use of other known carcinogens
such as mercury and formaldehyde, and has not attempted to ban any
chemical since the 1991 court ruling.
---

Please use citations this time, Frank, you know, like a professional,
and don't just pull the answers out of your backside.
--
- 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=Arn3l....thirdworldtra
veler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

You are a first class jerk.
I could sit and pick this apart bit by bit, but for what end, to
satisfy you?
Not worth my time. I get paid for regulatory consulting.
For someone who says they are a working chemist, you are chickenshit
when it comes to chemicals.

That's quite a potty-mouth, you have there, for the big HE-MAN you posture yourself to be, Frank. g
You always say things without supporting evidence, Frank.
Why is that, Frank?
Why can't you do that, Frank?
That's not very professional of you, Frank.
Could I have a citation, or shall we just chalk this up to another load
out of your backside, Frank? g

" I get paid for regulatory consulting." ROLF, snark, g
--
- 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

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

Shah Polymers developing and marketing, Suppliers of Engineering Plastics, Polyacetal (POM), Polycarbonate, Polyurethane (PU), Polymers, Acrylic, Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), PVDF Suppliers, Styrene Acrylonitrile (SAN), PolyUrethane (PU), Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA), Poly acetyl, K Resin (NSBC), Nylon (PA 6, 66), manufacturing and marketing superior quality Polycarbonates Sheets for the building and construction industry in Bangalore, India.
Polyacetal (POM), Polycarbonate, Polyurethane PU, K Resin (NSBC), Engineering Plastics, (SAN) Styrene Acrylonitrile, (SAN) Styrene Acrylonitrile, Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Nylon (PA 6, 66), Acrylic (PMMA), polyvinylidene fluoride suppliers, Shah Polymers, Manufacturers, Bangalore, India.