Exposure to environmental contaminants has a stronger impact on cancer risk than previously believed, according to a new report from the President's Cancer Panel.Moonbats.
Despite a growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer in recent years, the panel noted that it was "particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated."
However, there has been a decidedly mixed reaction to the report. Some experts and organizations have applauded the effort and hailed it as a landmark document; others are concerned that it overstates the risks.
The report, entitled Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now , points out that although there are nearly 80,000 chemicals currently on the market in the United States, many of them have not been studied, have been understudied, and are largely unregulated.
Exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread, and the National Cancer Program has not adequately addressed "the grievous harm" from this group of carcinogens, the panel concludes.
"There remains a great deal to be done to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and to eliminate those that are known from our daily lives — our workplaces, schools, and homes," said panel chair LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., MD, professor of surgery at Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, DC.
"The increasing number of known or suspected environmental carcinogens compels us to action, even though we may currently lack irrefutable proof of harm," he said in a statement.
The panel advises President Obama "to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase healthcare costs, cripple our nation's productivity, and devastate American lives."
Panel vs ACS?
Michael J. Thun, MD, vice president emeritus, epidemiology and surveillance research, at the American Cancer Society (ACS), feels that the perspective of the report is unbalanced because it implies that pollutants are the major cause of cancer, and because of its "dismissal of cancer prevention efforts aimed at the major known causes of cancer," which include tobacco use, obesity, alcohol, infections, hormones, and sunlight.
"The report is most provocative when it restates hypotheses as if they were established facts," Dr. Thun said in a statement. "For example, its conclusion that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated does not represent scientific consensus. Rather, it reflects one side of a scientific debate that has continued for almost 30 years."
Public policy by conjecture.
It is literally impossible to overstate how profoundly stupid these people are.
Maybe their mental decline is due to Type 2 diabetes.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment