Re: [Fwd: Naturally Occurring Carcinogens]]]

Daniel D. Worley (dan.worley@juno.com)
Sun, 30 Nov 1997 16:39:12 AST

>The text appended in reply to Craig's post was cut directly from the
>original testimony presented to Congress, found at:
>http://mendel.berkeley.edu/center/ames.senate_testimony.html

Most of those "Misconceptions" and the associated "debunking" are
typical bad science doublespeak. Linking a fact to a semi-plausible
remotely possible effect. A few examples:

>Misconception #1: Cancer rates are soaring.
>Cancer death rates overall in the U.S. (after adjusting for age and
>excluding lung cancer due to smoking) have declined 15% since 1950
(1,2).

Sure they have. First, I am not so sure the numbers should be
adjusted for age. Second, large numbers of certain cancers have
decreased only because of changes in life styles and reduction of
occupational hazards. I have read that melanoma is on the decline in the
US; probably because of changes in life styles and public awareness
creating changes in sun exposure rates. (It is on the increase in
Australia). Black lung disease is greatly reduced due to improved
protection for the miners. Other changes have created other reductions.
But cancers resulting from long term or high levels of exposure to
ionizing radiation have long gone under reported because of the
difficulty in assessing a direct link and governmental denial.

>Misconception #2: Environmental synthetic chemicals are an important
cause
>of human cancer. Neither epidemiology nor toxicology supports the idea
that
>synthetic industrial chemicals are important for human cancer.

I don't see any supporting evidence for this statement at all. In my
opinion, it is a gross exaggeration at best.

>Misconception #3: Reducing pesticide residues is an effective way to
prevent
>diet-related cancer. On the contrary, fruits and vegetables are of
major
>importance for reducing cancer: if they become more expensive by
reducing
>use of synthetic pesticides, cancer is likely to increase.

Pure doublespeak! Reducing the quantity of pesticide residue does not
necessarily have to create increased prices. And certainly not produce
significant price increases when the true cost of production is
considered.

I will not go through the entire list. Most readers here are capable
of seeing through these thin veils anyway.

--Dan in Sunny Puerto Rico--
DAN.WORLEY@JUNO.COM or
dan_worley@compuserve.com

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".