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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 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