Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 06-05-2010, 12:29 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,085
Default Report on chemicals out today

Op-Ed Columnist
New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer



By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: May 5, 2010

The Presidentıs Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical
mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join
ranks with the organic food movement and decla chemicals threaten our
bodies.

The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report on Thursday,
warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have
far-reaching consequences for our health.

Iıve read an advance copy of the report, and itıs an extraordinary
document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer,
including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals.

Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits,
self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The Presidentıs
Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving
preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and
microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic.

more at

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/op...ristof.html?hp

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden
What use one more wake up call?

  #2   Report Post  
Old 06-05-2010, 12:54 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jan 2009
Posts: 386
Default Report on chemicals out today

On 5/6/2010 7:29 AM, Bill who putters wrote:
Op-Ed Columnist
New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer



By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: May 5, 2010

The Presidentıs Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical
mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join
ranks with the organic food movement and decla chemicals threaten our
bodies.

The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report on Thursday,
warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have
far-reaching consequences for our health.

Iıve read an advance copy of the report, and itıs an extraordinary
document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer,
including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals.

Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits,
self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The Presidentıs
Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving
preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and
microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic.

more at

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/op...ristof.html?hp


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.
  #3   Report Post  
Old 06-05-2010, 01:54 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible,sci.chem
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jan 2009
Posts: 386
Default Report on chemicals out today

I'm not going to wade through the whole thing:

http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp.htm

but I glanced at top report and see fallacious statement up front that
talks about the 80,000 chemicals in the US market that are largely untested.

The number is suspiciously close to the number of chemicals on the TSCA
inventory and those of us familiar with industry know that registration
does not mean the chemical is in use and also know that the bulk of
these materials are polymers and essentially innocuous.
  #4   Report Post  
Old 06-05-2010, 06:31 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,438
Default Report on chemicals out today

In article ,
Frank wrote:

I'm not going to wade through the whole thing:

You mean, why deal with facts to reach a conclusion?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/op...ristof.html?hp

but I glanced at top report and see fallacious statement up front that
talks about the 80,000 chemicals in the US market that are largely untested.

What part is fallacious, Frank, hmmmmm?

The number is suspiciously close to the number of chemicals on the TSCA
inventory and those of us familiar with industry know that registration
does not mean the chemical is in use and also know that the bulk of
these materials are polymers and essentially innocuous.


So there ARE 80,000 chemicals, why didn't you say so? So there are
80,000 chemicals sitting on the shelf, already to go, but not
necessarily being used. Is that the point you were trying to make, Frank?
Of this 80,000, only about 3,000 have been submitted with health and
safty data. Let's see 80,000 chemicals minus 3,000 chemicals
= 77,000 chemicals
for which there is NO health or safety data. That sounds like they are
mostly untested. Right, Frank?

These numbers may not make sense, unless you keep on reading, Frank ;O)

So again, what was the fallacious statement that was up front. I'm still
looking for it, Frank.
-----

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...mical-controls

April 2010, Scientific American
p. 30
Chemical Controls

.. . . 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.

The EPA has been able to force health and safety testing for only around
200.

BPA is a case study of what has gone wrong. Although scientists
identified potential problems decades ago, regulatory changes have been
slow to follow. First synthesized in 1891, the compound became essential
to the plastics industry as a building building block of the
polycarbonates in our eyeglass lenses, the polyesters in our clothes and
the epoxy resins in the lining of our cans. In the 1930s BPA was
identified as a potent mimic of estrogen; it could bind to the same
receptors throughout the human body as the natural female hormone. But
the Toxic Substances Control Act explicitly allowed chemicals already
employed at the time of the law's passage‹BPA and more than 60,000
others ‹ to continue to be used without an evaluation for toxicity or
exposure limits.

.. . . So the EPA is gearing up to try to regulate chemicals,
establishing a list of "chemicals of concern" that echoes a similar list
developed by regulators in the European Union under a recent law
requiring that chemicals be tested for safety before being sold.
Congress has begun to debate how to support this effort. It should begin
by reforming and strengthening the Toxic Substances Control Act to
require reviews of chemicals for safety, force manufacturers to provide
adequate health data on any chemical under review, and empower agencies
to restrict or ban the use of chemicals with clear evidence of harm.
Industry groups such as the American Chemistry Council have recognized
that such measures are needed to ensure public confidence in their
products. Ultimately, the goal of oversight is simply to reflect the
best available science, so that people are protected from the
demonstrable risks posed by chemicals such as BPA and can rest assured
that the chemicals industry says are safe really are.
------

Let me just paraphrase that last sentence so that we all understand.

Ultimately, the goal of oversight is simply to reflect the best
available science, so that people can rest assured that the chemicals,
that "industry" says are safe, really are.

Sounds like somebody has some doubts about the honesty of industry.

Oversight?!!!, and the neo-nuts go wild.

Chemical industry don't need no stinkin' regulation.
Food industry don't need no stinkin' regulation.
Oil drillers don't need no stinkin' regulation.
Fossil fuel burners don't need no stinkin' regulation.
Banks don't need no stinkin' regulation.
Wall Street don't need no stinkin' regulation.
Government don't need no stinkin' regulation.

Right Frank?
How about another cup of tea, hmmm?


For those of you who would like chemicals tested before they are
released into the environment, you may want to look at a synopsis of
"The Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2009" on Senator Feinstein's
web-site
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/i...wsRoom.PressRe
leases&ContentRecord_id=01832cd5-5056-8059-76db-c984d14b7fce&Region_id=&I
ssue_id=551e9cd8-7e9c-9af9-771b-7176768bc4b6 .

If you buy food commercially, and you conclude that you don't want to
eat, breath, and bath in toxic compounds, you may want to take a moment
to contact your Congressional representatives to let them know your
feelings on the issue.
--
- 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
  #5   Report Post  
Old 06-05-2010, 07:31 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,438
Default Report on chemicals out today

In article ,
Frank wrote:

On 5/6/2010 7:29 AM, Bill who putters wrote:
Op-Ed Columnist
New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer



By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: May 5, 2010

The Presidentıs Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical
mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join
ranks with the organic food movement and decla chemicals threaten our
bodies.

The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report on Thursday,
warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have
far-reaching consequences for our health.

Iıve read an advance copy of the report, and itıs an extraordinary
document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer,
including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals.

Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits,
self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The Presidentıs
Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving
preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and
microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic.

more at

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/op...ristof.html?hp


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


As a still working chemist, you strike me as a nut-case, Frank.

If you were a scientist, you know that you should first show that the
"Presidentıs Cancer Panel" is engaging in and, disseminating a phobia,
before engaging in "seat of the pants" smell evaluations.


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


Corporate then? Wouldn't that be ducky, for them, not us.

http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/...ell_guidance_c
sa_en.pdf
--
- 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


  #6   Report Post  
Old 06-05-2010, 07:42 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jan 2009
Posts: 386
Default Report on chemicals out today

On 5/6/2010 1:31 PM, Billy wrote:
In ,
wrote:

I'm not going to wade through the whole thing:

You mean, why deal with facts to reach a conclusion?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/op...ristof.html?hp

but I glanced at top report and see fallacious statement up front that
talks about the 80,000 chemicals in the US market that are largely untested.

What part is fallacious, Frank, hmmmmm?

The number is suspiciously close to the number of chemicals on the TSCA
inventory and those of us familiar with industry know that registration
does not mean the chemical is in use and also know that the bulk of
these materials are polymers and essentially innocuous.


So there ARE 80,000 chemicals, why didn't you say so? So there are
80,000 chemicals sitting on the shelf, already to go, but not
necessarily being used. Is that the point you were trying to make, Frank?
Of this 80,000, only about 3,000 have been submitted with health and
safty data. Let's see 80,000 chemicals minus 3,000 chemicals
= 77,000 chemicals
for which there is NO health or safety data. That sounds like they are
mostly untested. Right, Frank?

These numbers may not make sense, unless you keep on reading, Frank ;O)

So again, what was the fallacious statement that was up front. I'm still
looking for it, Frank.
-----

Take the speakers out of your ears. Go look at the original report,
summary page.
  #7   Report Post  
Old 06-05-2010, 08:14 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,438
Default Report on chemicals out today

In article ,
Frank wrote:

On 5/6/2010 1:31 PM, Billy wrote:
In ,
wrote:

I'm not going to wade through the whole thing:

You mean, why deal with facts to reach a conclusion?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/op...ristof.html?hp

but I glanced at top report and see fallacious statement up front that
talks about the 80,000 chemicals in the US market that are largely
untested.

What part is fallacious, Frank, hmmmmm?

The number is suspiciously close to the number of chemicals on the TSCA
inventory and those of us familiar with industry know that registration
does not mean the chemical is in use and also know that the bulk of
these materials are polymers and essentially innocuous.


So there ARE 80,000 chemicals, why didn't you say so? So there are
80,000 chemicals sitting on the shelf, already to go, but not
necessarily being used. Is that the point you were trying to make, Frank?
Of this 80,000, only about 3,000 have been submitted with health and
safty data. Let's see 80,000 chemicals minus 3,000 chemicals
= 77,000 chemicals
for which there is NO health or safety data. That sounds like they are
mostly untested. Right, Frank?

These numbers may not make sense, unless you keep on reading, Frank ;O)

So again, what was the fallacious statement that was up front. I'm still
looking for it, Frank.
-----

Take the speakers out of your ears. Go look at the original report,
summary page.


Do you want me to read it to you, Frank?
Is there something there that scares you, Frank?

BPAs are just the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17568585

http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/bendrep.asp

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...mical-controls
But the
Toxic Substances Control Act explicitly allowed chemicals already
employed at the time of the law's passage‹BPA and more than 60,000
others ‹ to continue to be used without an evaluation for toxicity or
exposure limits.

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.
-----

Wouldn't it be great if a government actually advocated for the people,
instead of just for the corporations?
It's supposed to be, "First, do no harm", not "First, get the money".
--
- 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
  #10   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2010, 12:13 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,036
Default Report on chemicals out today

Bill who putters wrote:

Potatoes need checking.


Yea you have watch them rampant and fractious potatoes.

David


  #11   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2010, 12:24 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,085
Default Report on chemicals out today

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Bill who putters wrote:

Potatoes need checking.


Yea you have watch them rampant and fractious potatoes.

David


Thanks for the new word Fractious . Bad tempered but I was cooking
their ilk.

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden
What use one more wake up call?
  #13   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2010, 01:11 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 299
Default Report on chemicals out today

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
  #14   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2010, 04:52 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,438
Default Report on chemicals out today

In article
,
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.

Then there's Billy - need I say more


No.
--
- 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
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pond chemicals TomH Ponds 5 23-09-2003 06:12 AM
slightly ot, was chemicals David J Bockman Gardening 6 11-08-2003 09:42 AM
"Chemicals" Frogleg Gardening 23 10-08-2003 01:22 AM
Need brand names of chemicals DVardner Orchids 11 02-05-2003 04:44 PM
CO2 and other chemicals question. Sudheertivare Freshwater Aquaria Plants 1 20-04-2003 06:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2021 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017