In article <wildbilly-6A824D.15055103062010@c-61-68-245-
199.per.connect.net.au>, wildbilly@withouta.net 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.
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/environment/if-your-suntan-oil-can-change-the-sex-of-fish-what-can-do-it-to-you-524081.html
http://tinyurl.com/38hks93
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
XML site map
> > > 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.