Re: [Fwd: Naturally Occurring Carcinogens]]]

Craig Lanoye (lanoye@together.net)
Sun, 30 Nov 1997 22:01:20 +0000

Daniel D. Worley wrote:
>
> >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.
>

Daniel,

First, thanks for throwing in yet another opinion. I think we must also
remember that there is a difference between death rate and rate of
incidence. Lets face it, it's not a consolation to get cancer and go
through the hell of most treatments just to live a bit longer than the
previous individual with the same diagnosis. The incidence of cancer is
not decreasing or even levelling off.

A quote from the book "Reclaiming our Health" 1996, by John Robbins:

page 238 Meanwhile, the number of deaths due to cancer was
continuing to rise. In 1962, more than 275,000 Americans died of
cancer. By1995, the figure had doubled. The numbers showed a continual
and significant increase even after biostatitions made adjustments for
the growth and aging of the population.(see footnote) By the year 2000,
cancer was expected to replace heart disease and the leading killer of
Americans.

*Tim Beardsley, " A War Not Won",
Scientific American, Jan. 1994,
page 130

> >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".