Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer
NY Times ^ | May 6, 2010 | NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Posted on 05/09/2010 5:50:48 PM PDT by neverdem

The President’s 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 declare: 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.

I’ve read an advance copy of the report, and it’s 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 President’s 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.

In particular, the report warns about exposures to chemicals during pregnancy, when risk of damage seems to be greatest. Noting that 300 contaminants have been detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn babies, the study warns that: “to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’ ”

It’s striking that this report emerges not from the fringe but from the mission control of mainstream scientific and medical thinking, the President’s Cancer Panel. Established in 1971, this is a group of three distinguished experts who review America’s cancer program and report directly to the president.

One of the seats is now vacant, but the panel members who joined in this report are Dr. LaSalle Leffall Jr., an oncologist and professor of surgery at Howard University, and Dr. Margaret Kripke, an immunologist at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Both were originally appointed to the panel by former President George W. Bush...

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cancer; chemicals; health; medicine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last
“the nocebo effect” — real, adverse physiological reactions people sometimes develop when they learn they have been exposed to something — even if there is no evidence it may be harmful.

What about all the contraceptive hormones in the water supply?

1 posted on 05/09/2010 5:50:48 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Yes. These are shocking findings from a Presidential Commission, given that we have a president who would like to regulate everything.


2 posted on 05/09/2010 5:53:12 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The govt report is, as you might imagine, a crock and scientists have said so.


3 posted on 05/09/2010 5:53:19 PM PDT by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“...warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation..”

Is there one damned thing these ass hats don’t think they should regulate?


4 posted on 05/09/2010 5:54:22 PM PDT by bitterohiogunclinger (America held hostage - day 393)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So if Chemicals are so bad why is our life expectancy increasing every year?


5 posted on 05/09/2010 5:54:51 PM PDT by stubernx98 (cranky, but reasonable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“It’s striking that this report emerges not from the fringe but from the mission control of mainstream scientific and medical thinking, the President’s Cancer Panel.”

The world is turned upside down with this president. The fringe is now presented as the mainstream.


6 posted on 05/09/2010 5:55:21 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
...more rigorous regulation...

ObamaNation likes "more rigorous regulation".

7 posted on 05/09/2010 5:58:28 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Had enough "history" yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

8 posted on 05/09/2010 5:59:42 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save the Earth. It's the only planet with Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the Real fifi
The govt report is, as you might imagine, a crock and scientists have said so.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. Yes, we test effects of INDIVIDUAL chemicals, but we ingest so many chemicals over so many years, who can say what the cumulative effect might be over a lifetime. That being said, life expectancy does continue to increase.
9 posted on 05/09/2010 6:00:42 PM PDT by BikerJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bitterohiogunclinger

They even want to regulate our lack of daisies. Dang it, I like snapdragons better, okay?


10 posted on 05/09/2010 6:01:51 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Amateurish," agreed Janet Napolitano, the White House amateurishness czar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Man is now living far longer than ever before. Up to an average pushing 80. All these old folks alive today lived thru all those years with little or no regulation, but now we’re told everything is killing us and we’re doomed unless we immediately introduce more regulation.


11 posted on 05/09/2010 6:02:19 PM PDT by umgud (Obama is a failed experiment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stubernx98

I dunno, do you think that maybe some of these “artificial” chemicals could actually have beneficial effects?


12 posted on 05/09/2010 6:02:22 PM PDT by freespirited (There are a lot of bad Republicans but there are no good Democrats.--Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
... we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms.

I stopped reading after he confused "reducing risks" of cancer with diagnosis of cancer. We can reduce risk by (for example) quitting smoking, eating a high-fiber diet, or using sunscreen.

13 posted on 05/09/2010 6:03:58 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Amateurish," agreed Janet Napolitano, the White House amateurishness czar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The panel consists of THREE people!

Link to report:

http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf


14 posted on 05/09/2010 6:04:54 PM PDT by LibFreeOrDie (Obama promised a gold mine, but will give us the shaft.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching consequences

Everything oput of this administration is all about more "regulation."

The tyranny has slipped its bonds and is on the loose.

15 posted on 05/09/2010 6:07:17 PM PDT by sionnsar (IranAzadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5:SONY|Remember Neda Agha-Soltan|TV--it's NOT news you can trust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Everything we eat is chemicals.
Most occur in nature, some don't.
Some man-made chemicals are exact replicas of natural compounds.
Many thousands of natural chemicals are poisons.
Almost anything can be toxic in large enough quantities or certain combinations.
There is absolutely no end to the amount of damage politicians can do with this.
16 posted on 05/09/2010 6:07:52 PM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stubernx98

If you have cancer, I don’t think your life expectancy is increasing every year.


17 posted on 05/09/2010 6:08:17 PM PDT by sissyjane (He had a dream. We got a nightmare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

After seeing real science papers about global warming I no longer believe anything the government says. When a government agency says “It’s for your own good” I say let’s start searching for who’s saying it and who profits if this is regulated.

I am not going to be managed. I am not the property of some bunch of rich politicians benefitting by passing laws & regulations which enrich them.

I am not the property of the government. I am not a serf.

Get out of my life. I pay you taxes keep the the foreigners from invading & keep the thieves from raiding my house. Other than that to all of government MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.


18 posted on 05/09/2010 6:10:09 PM PDT by Bhoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
Preparation for obamacare shifting funds from "expensive tertiary treatment" to "long run prevention." Never mind the science, it's a money thing.
19 posted on 05/09/2010 6:15:39 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

“Preparation for obamacare shifting funds from “expensive tertiary treatment” to “long run prevention.” Never mind the science, it’s a money thing.”

I think you’ve got it — however, it’s laughable since by the Food Modernication Act — their going to have some problems with Monsanto & their seeds & organic farming.

What a bunch of clowns.


20 posted on 05/09/2010 6:19:32 PM PDT by Bhoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Carcinogen identification and risk analysis is scientifically and mathematically flawed to the point of uselessness.

Spend a few hours reading about the concepts of threshold, lower bounds, multiplications factors and absolute risk. Until the EPA stops torturing the numbers, the politicians have no business regulating.

On top of that, the greenies would happily let a million real people die from food and water borne disease to prevent one mathematically predicted death. Just think of how many lives have been saved since the ban on DDT.

Remember, these are the same people that found that not smoking in a smoker’s house can be more deadly that actually smoking, I think they may have actually felt shame or at least embarrassment and walked that one back.


21 posted on 05/09/2010 6:21:39 PM PDT by dangerdoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

More horse-pucky aimed at alarming the public so the Obamatrons can save us yet again.

http://bigjournalism.com/rtrzupek/2010/05/08/government-cancer-scare-report-so-bogus-even-the-new-york-times-noticed/


22 posted on 05/09/2010 6:23:06 PM PDT by Stosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

They should have checked with Agricultural people. It is a simple fact that the overall yields are less with organic foods. That is why they cost more. You cannot feed our current population purely on organic foods. Modern chemistry, mechanization and genetics have allowed us to increase yields to meet population demands. We would be back producing at 1900 levels without the progress we have made in these areas. Can’t go back.


23 posted on 05/09/2010 6:27:23 PM PDT by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

“Carcinogen identification and risk analysis is scientifically and mathematically flawed to the point of uselessness.”

Yet, millions of dollars are paid out by industry for toxic torts.

I think it is a cost of doing business (in other countries we call it bribes): lawyers on both sides & the courts. They just pay up & nobody really pays any attention to the science.


24 posted on 05/09/2010 6:29:02 PM PDT by Bhoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BikerJoe

Yes, it does..Amazing , isn’t it...especially as every minute we are being warned every second that WE ARE GOING TO DIE...


25 posted on 05/09/2010 6:34:53 PM PDT by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This must be the “report” which Dennis Prager referred to last week.....basically saying we should be raising our children in “bubbles”.....even the AMA or some other similar organization called this report over the top!


26 posted on 05/09/2010 7:03:20 PM PDT by goodnesswins (Destroy AMERICA.....Vote DEMOCRAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

You are all going to die.

Having said that, let’s not allow these a-holes make our time ALIVE a living death.

Up yours, comrade Soetoro!


27 posted on 05/09/2010 7:27:24 PM PDT by Boucheau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitterohiogunclinger
Is there one damned thing these ass hats don’t think they should regulate?

Is there one thing that they already don't?

28 posted on 05/09/2010 7:37:02 PM PDT by !1776!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This is an emotional witch hunt.

My original degree is in nutrition, as in the chemistry of foods and feed. “Organic” does not mean a damn thing in scientific circles. It’s a feel-good marketing ruse. Molecules do not have souls, some more virtuous than others.

American food is many times safer than what our great-grandparents ate before refrigeration became widespread. Food preservation was less than perfect, and eating was full of risk. Fresh foods and meats fit to eat were not easily come by all year. A 100 years ago dairy cows lived in cow hell-towers in cities fixed in stanchions where they lived and made milk until they died, because fresh milk could not be transported far.

Spoilage and breakdown by-products were commonly ingested. Prior to federal regulation, even canned goods could not be trusted, since dyes were added to make food appear “fresh”.

“Chemicals” are not demonic molecules. “Chemicals” include all the molecules known. Not even all pesticides are dangerous to humans—to make that point, one scientist consumed DDT straight, undiluted, but that did not suit the campaign to demonize DDT, which led to its ban and the deaths of tens of millions of black, brown and yellow people in places far away from the people who hysterically wanted DDT banned. They continue to die, for lack of cheap DDT.

Clean water has not always been available. The ability to drink freely whatever comes out of your tap is a great and wonderful thing—no microbial disease threat, no sulfurous odor. In many cases, it’s cleaner than the water people buy in little plastic bottles.

If one is to be hysterical about exposure to “chemicals”, then one should give up the use of makeup and hair dye, the use of shampoo, the use of cleaning solutions, and use only the simplest of soaps, forget the use of air fresheners, and bring nothing into one’s home that might outgas volatiles over time—including foam cushions, anything painted or varnished, and give up any kind of fried food, since that tends to create free radicals.

The sanest route is to exercise some good sense. Pregnant women probably should not handle toxic waste—but they should be just as careful not to develop fevers which might lead to fetal deformities.


29 posted on 05/09/2010 7:44:12 PM PDT by Nepeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stubernx98
So if Chemicals are so bad why is our life expectancy increasing every year?

Mainly due to reduced infant mortality, actually; but I agree in principle. IOW, DDT is a good thing.

30 posted on 05/09/2010 7:44:38 PM PDT by Chuckster (Domari nolo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc
Spend a few hours reading about the concepts of threshold, lower bounds, multiplications factors and absolute risk. Until the EPA stops torturing the numbers, the politicians have no business regulating.

My favorite is their trick of using zero exposure as a reference point to zero risk. Straight line from zero/zero to an effect level, cut that by a factor of 1000 or more for a safety cushion and you just got yourself a cancer causing chemical in very small doses...

Nobody really looks to see what kind of data supports a 1 in a million risk. They look even less closely at exposure type, duration, etc., that is needed to support a risk level.

Ignorance is grounds for panic, and regulation I guess...

31 posted on 05/09/2010 7:45:41 PM PDT by !1776!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie

Thanks for the link.


32 posted on 05/09/2010 7:49:04 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms”

.
What a crock!

All that does is increase your chance of paying a high price for a “medical” proceedure that is guaranteed to shorten your life!
.


33 posted on 05/09/2010 7:55:10 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

If 10% of that BS is true I would have been dead more than 50 years ago!


34 posted on 05/09/2010 7:59:32 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stubernx98

“So if Chemicals are so bad why is our life expectancy increasing every year?”

.
It isn’t!

The upper life expectancy level hasen’t changed for 2000 years or more. The young risk takers changes in behavior will nudge overall statistics up or down from time to time, but the life expectancy of a person that shuns medical intervention has remained at 89 years for millenia.
.


35 posted on 05/09/2010 8:00:52 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Stosh

Thanks for the link.


36 posted on 05/09/2010 8:07:32 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Next week: the results of the Presidential Commission on the Elimination of All Sharp Corners.


37 posted on 05/09/2010 8:10:15 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (TATBO! - "Throw All The Bums Out!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
In addition to the many great replies, almost everything we come in contact with, including ourselves, is a chemical or made of chemicals. The exceptions being things like sunlight and cosmic rays. Air is made of chemicals. All food is nothing but chemicals. All medicines are nothing but chemicals.

It sounds as if the Administration is trying to advance their tyranny by hoping to take advantage of a widespread chemo-phobia.

38 posted on 05/09/2010 8:11:14 PM PDT by freedom_forge (http://libertyphysics.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1

“Everything we eat is chemicals.
Most occur in nature, some don’t.”

.
Depends on what you mean by “eat.”

Prescription drugs are all un-natural and deadly, and putting them down your gullet is a form of eating.

“Some man-made chemicals are exact replicas of natural compounds.”

.
A statement that omits 99% of the relevant facts.

Our bodies use just about every known naturally occuring chemical, but not in their pure state. We are designed to consume only once-living substances, that contain literally millions of different chemical compounds, but arranged in complex structures that are readily useable by our bodies.

Our bodies cannot synthesize nucleic acids from raw isolated compounds; we make our nucleic acid from the existing nucleotides in our food. If we ingest things that are not once living, we must destroy some of our own cells to deal with those substances. In most cases those destroyed cells are in our kidneys, where the non-life garbage must go to be dumped.
.


39 posted on 05/09/2010 8:13:50 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This is just another method of the state to control the food supply and increase the public’s dependency on the government. It is the USDA who says what constitutes an organic food product and everyone knows that enemies of the state don’t grow safe organic food.

Look at Senate bill 510 the “Food Safety” bill. I’m sure everyone here knows just by the name it has nothing to do with food safety and more to do with controlling your lives.


40 posted on 05/09/2010 8:16:51 PM PDT by Lewis Morris (Having lost sight of our goals, we redouble our efforts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marsh2
They should have checked with Agricultural people. It is a simple fact that the overall yields are less with organic foods. That is why they cost more. You cannot feed our current population purely on organic foods. Modern chemistry, mechanization and genetics have allowed us to increase yields to meet population demands. We would be back producing at 1900 levels without the progress we have made in these areas. Can’t go back.

Of course we can go back. What are a few million starvation deaths when we're talking about a potential handful of deaths caused by eeevillll chemicals? < /end liberal thinking >

41 posted on 05/09/2010 8:31:22 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I just want them to take DDT off of the banned list. Maybe we can save a few million lives here and there.


42 posted on 05/09/2010 8:36:36 PM PDT by rlmorel (We are traveling "The Road to Serfdom".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

The idea that they’d want to cook up an excuse to do just that is absolutely amazing.


43 posted on 05/09/2010 8:58:16 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Our bodies cannot synthesize nucleic acids from raw isolated compounds; we make our nucleic acid from the existing nucleotides in our food. If we ingest things that are not once living, we must destroy some of our own cells to deal with those substances. In most cases those destroyed cells are in our kidneys, where the non-life garbage must go to be dumped.

I'm not sure I get your claim about non-living things. Salt, zinc and a host of other, necessary, minerals were never alive. Are you saying that eating them is killing us? Many synthetic compounds are identical to their naturally occurring counterparts. How can our body tell a synthetic molecule from a "natural" one if the molecules are identical?

44 posted on 05/09/2010 9:10:54 PM PDT by freedom_forge (http://libertyphysics.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: freedom_forge

The only way we can utilize any metal is through ingesting a plant that is capable of absorbing and using it in their cellular structure.

.
“How can our body tell a synthetic molecule from a “natural” one if the molecules are identical?”

.
They’re not “identical,” they are included in the cellular structuer of another once living substance, as a much more complex molecule.

The reason for eating vegetation is to absorb the necessary nutrients through their cellular structure.
.


45 posted on 05/09/2010 9:27:43 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; tiamat; PGalt; Dianna; ...
Enhancing the Placebo

Is OJ as good a source of vitamin D as supplements?

A Study to Evaluate the Effect of ASP1941 in Adult Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Suppressing activity of common intestinal bacteria reduces tumor growth

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

46 posted on 05/09/2010 10:13:15 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

ONNTSA!


47 posted on 05/09/2010 10:15:15 PM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chaguito

Correction:

OJNTSA!


48 posted on 05/09/2010 10:17:36 PM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

“The idea that they’d want to cook up an excuse to do just that is absolutely amazing.”

Sorry. Can’t imagine what I was thinking.


49 posted on 05/09/2010 10:48:34 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I strongly recommend Steve Milloy’s www.JunkScience.com Here’s the latest on the chemical scares
http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2010/05/06/eline/links/20100506elin010.html

Besides “Green Hell” (on the climate change junk science), he’s got another book, “Junk Science Judo,Self Defense Against Health Scares and Scams.” http://www.amazon.com/Junk-Science-Judo-Self-Defense-against/dp/1930865120/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273472526&sr=1-2


50 posted on 05/09/2010 11:24:21 PM PDT by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson