Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
C&E News editorial on report by President's Cancer Panel
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. Reading the report is painful. Some samples of its inane point of view: “Limited research to date on unintended health effects of nanomaterials, for example, suggests that unanticipated environmental hazards may emerge from the push for progress.” Really? “Pesticides … contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic.” Who knew? “Sharp controversy exists in the scientific community as to possible adverse health effects from exposure to low frequency electromagnetic radiation.” “Numerous environmental contaminants can cross the placental barrier; to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’ ” The report lists 454 references, and I’m sure many of them are authoritative and legitimate. But some of them? Not so much. For example, in reference to green chemistry, the report states, “However, many chemists lack training in understanding environmental hazards and how to develop safe alternatives; they also face industry barriers to change.” The reference for this claim? A 2008 article in the LA Times. The American Cancer Society put out a press release on the report that quoted Michael J. Thun, vice president emeritus of the society’s Epidemiology & Surveillance Research unit. Thun said the report makes some valid points about environmental exposure to chemicals, but added, “Unfortunately, the perspective of the report is unbalanced by its implication that pollution is the major cause of cancer, and by its dismissal of cancer prevention efforts aimed at the major known causes of cancer (tobacco, obesity, alcohol, infections, hormones, sunlight) as ‘focused narrowly.’ ” ACC’s statement reads, in part: “We share the concerns of the American Cancer Society regarding the lack of balance in the report. It is regrettable and somewhat startling that the President’s Cancer Panel report does not provide an objective, accurate, or comprehensive overview of the current state of the science and regulation.” The statement also notes that, “whether by accident or design, the report omits significant, highly relevant information. The panel’s review is not thorough and seems to intentionally exclude many scientists specializing in these issues in industry, government, academia, and independent research institutions.” The obvious flaws in the report have not prevented it from gaining traction in the public eye. “New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer” was the head on Nicholas D. Kristof’s column in the New York Times (although the Times also ran a story the following day headed “U.S. Panel Criticized as Overstating Cancer Risks”). In the Washington Post, it was “U.S. Facing ‘Grievous Harm’ from Chemicals in Air, Food, Water, Panel Says.” Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) put out a press release titled “President’s Cancer Panel Findings Affirm Lautenberg’s Call for Chemical Safety Reform.” Hearings probably aren’t far behind. The blogosphere is lit up with commentary on the report, much of it bemoaning the public’s exposure to chemicals. Look, cancer is serious, and environmental factors, including chemicals, play a role in causing some cancers. Serious research is being done on this subject, and known carcinogens are regulated accordingly. The alarmist report from the President’s Cancer Panel does a disservice to this serious work. Thanks for reading. Rudy Baum Editor-in-chief |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
C&E News editorial on report by President's Cancer Panel
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. Reading the report is painful. Some samples of its inane point of view: “Limited research to date on unintended health effects of nanomaterials, for example, suggests that unanticipated environmental hazards may emerge from the push for progress.” Really? “Pesticides … contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic.” Who knew? “Sharp controversy exists in the scientific community as to possible adverse health effects from exposure to low frequency electromagnetic radiation.” “Numerous environmental contaminants can cross the placental barrier; to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’ ” The report lists 454 references, and I’m sure many of them are authoritative and legitimate. But some of them? Not so much. For example, in reference to green chemistry, the report states, “However, many chemists lack training in understanding environmental hazards and how to develop safe alternatives; they also face industry barriers to change.” The reference for this claim? A 2008 article in the LA Times. The American Cancer Society put out a press release on the report that quoted Michael J. Thun, vice president emeritus of the society’s Epidemiology & Surveillance Research unit. Thun said the report makes some valid points about environmental exposure to chemicals, but added, “Unfortunately, the perspective of the report is unbalanced by its implication that pollution is the major cause of cancer, and by its dismissal of cancer prevention efforts aimed at the major known causes of cancer (tobacco, obesity, alcohol, infections, hormones, sunlight) as ‘focused narrowly.’ ” ACC’s statement reads, in part: “We share the concerns of the American Cancer Society regarding the lack of balance in the report. It is regrettable and somewhat startling that the President’s Cancer Panel report does not provide an objective, accurate, or comprehensive overview of the current state of the science and regulation.” The statement also notes that, “whether by accident or design, the report omits significant, highly relevant information. The panel’s review is not thorough and seems to intentionally exclude many scientists specializing in these issues in industry, government, academia, and independent research institutions.” The obvious flaws in the report have not prevented it from gaining traction in the public eye. “New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer” was the head on Nicholas D. Kristof’s column in the New York Times (although the Times also ran a story the following day headed “U.S. Panel Criticized as Overstating Cancer Risks”). In the Washington Post, it was “U.S. Facing ‘Grievous Harm’ from Chemicals in Air, Food, Water, Panel Says.” Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) put out a press release titled “President’s Cancer Panel Findings Affirm Lautenberg’s Call for Chemical Safety Reform.” Hearings probably aren’t far behind. The blogosphere is lit up with commentary on the report, much of it bemoaning the public’s exposure to chemicals. Look, cancer is serious, and environmental factors, including chemicals, play a role in causing some cancers. Serious research is being done on this subject, and known carcinogens are regulated accordingly. The alarmist report from the President’s Cancer Panel does a disservice to this serious work. Thanks for reading. Rudy Baum Editor-in-chief http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/cancer-enviro.pdf I'd just stay away from any thing that does not rot. -- Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden What use one more wake up call? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
C&E News editorial on report by President's Cancer Panel
On 02/06/2010 23:12, 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. Reading the report is painful. Some samples of its inane point of view: “Limited research to date on unintended health effects of nanomaterials, for example, suggests that unanticipated environmental hazards may emerge from the push for progress.” Really? “Pesticides … contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic.” Who knew? “Sharp controversy exists in the scientific community as to possible adverse health effects from exposure to low frequency electromagnetic radiation.” “Numerous environmental contaminants can cross the placental barrier; to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’ ” The report lists 454 references, and I’m sure many of them are authoritative and legitimate. But some of them? Not so much. For example, in reference to green chemistry, the report states, “However, many chemists lack training in understanding environmental hazards and how to develop safe alternatives; they also face industry barriers to change.” The reference for this claim? A 2008 article in the LA Times. The American Cancer Society put out a press release on the report that quoted Michael J. Thun, vice president emeritus of the society’s Epidemiology & Surveillance Research unit. Thun said the report makes some valid points about environmental exposure to chemicals, but added, “Unfortunately, the perspective of the report is unbalanced by its implication that pollution is the major cause of cancer, and by its dismissal of cancer prevention efforts aimed at the major known causes of cancer (tobacco, obesity, alcohol, infections, hormones, sunlight) as ‘focused narrowly.’ ” ACC’s statement reads, in part: “We share the concerns of the American Cancer Society regarding the lack of balance in the report. It is regrettable and somewhat startling that the President’s Cancer Panel report does not provide an objective, accurate, or comprehensive overview of the current state of the science and regulation.” The statement also notes that, “whether by accident or design, the report omits significant, highly relevant information. The panel’s review is not thorough and seems to intentionally exclude many scientists specializing in these issues in industry, government, academia, and independent research institutions.” The obvious flaws in the report have not prevented it from gaining traction in the public eye. “New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer” was the head on Nicholas D. Kristof’s column in the New York Times (although the Times also ran a story the following day headed “U.S. Panel Criticized as Overstating Cancer Risks”). In the Washington Post, it was “U.S. Facing ‘Grievous Harm’ from Chemicals in Air, Food, Water, Panel Says.” Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) put out a press release titled “President’s Cancer Panel Findings Affirm Lautenberg’s Call for Chemical Safety Reform.” Hearings probably aren’t far behind. The blogosphere is lit up with commentary on the report, much of it bemoaning the public’s exposure to chemicals. Look, cancer is serious, and environmental factors, including chemicals, play a role in causing some cancers. Serious research is being done on this subject, and known carcinogens are regulated accordingly. The alarmist report from the President’s Cancer Panel does a disservice to this serious work. Thanks for reading. Rudy Baum Editor-in-chief There are plenty of other subtle and nasty effects from pollutants besides cancer eg http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ou-524081.html http://tinyurl.com/38hks93 -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
C&E News editorial on report by President's Cancer Panel
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
C&E News editorial on report by President's Cancer Panel
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
C&E News editorial on report by President's Cancer Panel
In article ,
phorbin wrote: In article , says... Bill who putters wrote: I'd just stay away from any thing that does not rot. ...and I'll just have another dram of single malt. It ain't "water or life" for nothing. I don't suppose that any purpose is served by pointing out that you people simply are idiots. Why don't you get jobs or something? The nature of your post suggests you should stay away from USENET until sober. I think that is an unfamiliar concept with him. -- - 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
C&E News editorial on report by President's Cancer Panel
In article wildbilly-6A824D.15055103062010@c-61-68-245-
199.per.connect.net.au, says... ...and I'll just have another dram of single malt. It ain't "water or life" for nothing. I don't suppose that any purpose is served by pointing out that you people simply are idiots. Why don't you get jobs or something? The nature of your post suggests you should stay away from USENET until sober. I think that is an unfamiliar concept with him. I won't speculate beyond the evidence of the moment. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Editorial | Gardening | |||
Editorial On Forest Health and demonizing Bush | alt.forestry | |||
A Letter and an Editorial | alt.forestry | |||
A Letter and an Editorial | alt.forestry | |||
Report says Klamath panel erred | alt.forestry |