you wrote:
>I have never met Dale, but after looking over this little rejoinder
>I'd rather meet him than meet Alex.... what a vicious little twit!
if you cannot convince by facts, show others, what a famous
insulter you can be !!!
why do people not take a look into papers from the experts instead
of just claiming false statements out of the blue ?
so let's have a look into the national library of medicine in
bethesda (i did it 3 years ago, data should not have changed
significantly in these 3 years):
----
U.S. Cancer Incidence and Deaths in 1992, and the Percent Change
in Age-Adjusted Rates of Incidence and Death per 100,000 U.S.
Population, 1950-1992.
.
. -----ALL RACES------- ------WHITES---------
Cancer Incidence Deaths Percent Percent
type in 1992 in 1992 change in change in
. (estimated) incidence, deaths,
. 1950-1992 1950-1992
----------------------------------------------------------------
stomach 24,400 13,630 -74.8 -77.6
cervix 13,500 4,641 -76.6 -74.5
rectum 45,000 7,785 -21.3 -66.9
colon 111,000 49,204 +21.6 -15.0
larynx 12,500 3,966 +50.9 -7.4
testicles 6,300 355 +113.6 -69.6
bladder 51,600 10,705 +57.1 -34.8
Hodgkin's disease 7,400 1,639 +17.3 -67.8
childhood cancers 7,800 1,679 +4.9 -62.4
leukemias 28,200 19,417 +8.7 -2.1
thyroid 12,500 1,111 +115.3 -49.5
ovaries 21,000 13,181 +5.2 +2.5
lung 168,000 145,801 +267.4 +264.0
skin melanomas 32,000 6,568 +393.3 +155.0
breast (female) 180,000 43,063 +55.9 +0.2
prostate 132,000 34,238 +266.4 +20.7
kidney 26,500 10,427 +120.6 +37.2
liver 15,400 9,554 +107.3 +22.8
non-Hodgkin's
lymphomas 41,000 20,058 +183.6 +123.1
multiple myeloma 12,500 9,247 +235.8 +194.0
brain 16,900 11,941 +85.2 +50.4
pancreas 28,300 26,070 +13.6 +17.8
.
All types ex- 962,000 374,747 +40.8 -15.0
cluding lung
.
All types 1,130,000 520,548 +54.3 +9.6
=================
Source: C.L. Kosary and others, editors, SEER CANCER STATISTICS
REVIEW 1973-1992 [National Institutes of Health Publication No.
96-2789] (Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 1992), Table
I-3, pg. 17. NIH says historical data for non-whites are not
considered reliable spanning the period 1950-1992 so historical
data are only given for whites.
-------------------
this is in no way a definite proof, that pesticides do NOT cause
cancer, but it is a proof, that the statement "every 2.
american dies by cancer" is not correct and montagues information
are also wrong (no. 1 WAS and WILL be lung cancer).
otherwise this would mean: 80 millions americans total population.
it would be wrong to downplay the problem, but let us stay by the
facts. if you ask toxicologists, they would tell you, that they
would expect a rising cancer rate in kidney and liver cancers and
leukemias due to pesticide exposures and in fact that's, what IS
really happening. but anybody ever asked the question, if exactly
these kind of cancers also would be expected by uptake of
mycotoxins, drugs, alcohol ?
mycotoxins: in germany on the rise (heavily) due to increasing
monoculture of cereals and especially corn. how's the situation
in america ? a good argument for a good mixture of fruits, a bad
one for minimal tillage. and looking at the prices here for
unsubstituted market fruits: no solution for farmers under
financial pressure...
-------------
(for misha, who posted the information about fusarium against
cannabis:
greenberg mr. martell j.
ethical dilemmas and solutions for risk assessment scientists
journal of exposure analysis & environmental epidemiology.
2(4):381-389, 1992 oct/dec.
a sample survey of u.s. scientists who belong to the society
for risk analysis (sra) was made to ascertain their
observations of unethical behavior in the workplace and their
opinions of the likely success of programs to prevent
misconduct. sra, an international organization with almost
1,700 u.s. members, includes toxicologists, epidemiologists,
industrial hygienists, engineers, and social scientists, as
well as experts in exposure assessment, statistics, and risk
communications. respondents reported relatively low rates of
clearly unethical acts such as data destruction and fabrication
(7%); however, 21% reported at least one observation of
plagiarism. reporting of other problematic behaviors ranged
from less than 4% for human subjects violations to 51%
observing deliberate overstatement of positive and deliberate
understatement of negative results. sra members did not think
that government intervention would be effective in reducing
misconduct. they were more supportive of formal education,
seminars, videotapes, and a hotline that could be called for
advice.
which means: please don't believe everything you read. it's good
to have one's eyes wide open like you do (and many thanks for
your "personalized" mails like the one with the dandy driver and
the homeless - i really enjoy them very much !! what would live
be with nothing but facts and without personality ?), but my
experience is, that most of these announcements is pure hype (the
principle: publish or perish). it's an ugly trend and in my
opinion those 7% are no LOW rate and the believe of self
regulation among the scientific community is nothing but a nice
wish. you may believe in it, but you mustn't !!
-------------
drugs (medical and recreational): rising !
alcohol: last month i had a talk with a friend (a professor, who
passed the last year as a guest professor in pharmaceutics at the
university of san diego). he told me, he was shocked about the
amount of alcohol, which is consumed in america and with a smile
he said, that he would expect the americans to disappear in the
next century mostly due to impotence and to liver cancer (he
laughed, which means: a LARGE grain of truth)
and finally nutrition: i found the following article in "bild
der wissenschaft" (the german edition of "scientific american", you
also should find it there in one of the last editions):
Droht Handelskrieg um Gen-Food? "Amerikanische Lebensmittel die
schlechtesten der Welt."
translation:
trade war about gene-food ? "American food the badest in the world"
i did not forget the question mark behind the last sentence, there
wasn't any !!
which finally brings me back to the most important question (and
back on topic of sustainable agriculture):
how would you define QUALITY OF FOOD ????
it certainly isn't mere absence of toxins and pesticides or the
presence of all vitamins and minerals. but what is food quality
really ??? (beside a very good argument for the farmer for
convincing the "couch potato" to invest some more money in
healthy food and less money in entertainment.)
comments please... (i think it a VERY important argument for a
change in breeding targets, pure breeding for high yield seems to
be a "no win" for nobody! example: the rapes low in
glucosinolates are good for weight gain of animals, but as it
seems to turn out quite bad for human nutrition, as these
ingredients have a positive effect on cancer reduction. so the
circle to the initial cancer rates is closed again ;-)))
klaus
---------------
klaus wiegand
+-[Quote of the day, powered by k. wiegand]-----------+
| |
| ERST WENN DAS LETZT COREL-CLIPART VERBRAUCHT IST |
| WERDET IHR BEMERKEN, DASS SPEISEKARTEN NICHT WEH |
| TUN MUESSEN! |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail