U.S. facing 'grievous harm' from chemicals in air, food, water, panel says

[imurhuckleberry]

Source: Washington Post

An expert panel that advises the president on cancer said Thursday that Americans are facing "grievous harm" from chemicals in the air, food and water that have largely gone unregulated and ignored.

The President's Cancer Panel called for a new national strategy that focuses on such threats in the environment and workplaces.

Epidemiologists have long maintained that tobacco use, diet and other factors are responsible for most cancers, and that chemicals and pollutants cause only a small portion -- perhaps 5 percent.

The presidential panel said that figure has been "grossly underestimated" but it did not provide a new estimate.

"With the growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the unacceptable burden of cancer resulting from environmental and occupational exposures that could have been prevented through appropriate national action," the panel wrote in a report released Thursday.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/06/AR2010050603813.html

[FailureToCommunicate]

1. The "Western" environment, diet and lifestyle is killing us. And to make matters worse,

we are 'on our own' to resist, because the corporations that spew out this stuff -stuff we wear, eat, breathe, and live in- have plenty of lobbying dollars in congress to keep them mum about the hazards.

My younger brother died a year ago this week from cancer. It is still unreal to me...

I just keep trying to learn more and make small changes for the better...

We all owe it to our kids to try harder to leave them a better planet then we probably will...

"...environmental and occupational exposures that could have been prevented"

Just don't find that statement too comforting.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. How soon they forget. People have to constantly relearn the lessons of the past because our sunny

optimistic dispositions constantly lull us into forgetting en mass about some things we would rather not think about anyway.

About four generations from the great depression and everybody totally forgot why they passed all those reform safeguard laws that regulated the financial sector.

The same phenom happened with offshore drilling. Everybody forgot why it was banned in the first place.

People have just ignored the fact that thousands of chemicals haven't been tested if they were grandfathered in when chemical environmental risk regimens were being phased in.

Europe is so far ahead on banning chemical time bombs like PVC and other stuff that's known to be hinky.

[kestrel91316]

3. Too bad, folks. It's FAR more important that the corporations making all

those chemicals continue to make ever-increasing profits. It would be unfair and unpatriotic to make them clean up their acts.

[Proletariatprincess]

4. It is way past time we start looking at what our environment is doing to us

instead of always blaming the victim for life style choices. Actually, at this stage in the US decline, I'm surprised that the panel ever arrived at this obvious conclusion in that it does not serve the interests of corporations. However, I don't expect anything to come of it in the long run.

[villager]

5. "The entire Western world was built on things that cause cancer"

That line was from an underappreciated Australian film "Bliss," released in 1985:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088821/

It was allowed to drift into obscurity, though I understand it was recently turned into an opera in Oz...

[Igel]

6. Started to read it.

Couldn't get very far.

Advocacy science. Big conclusions based on the "precautionary" principle, but the actual recommendations are a combination of no-brainers (with a disproportionate amount of handwringing over people exposed to radioactive fallout >50 years ago) and ludicrous suggestions.

But the biggest recommendations call for a lot more research: research to find all the carcinogens that the panel firmly believes must be there but can't now state are carcinogens. To make sure that all the thousands of compounds that we're exposed to aren't carcinogens. And to increase whatever amount of regulatory apparatus is necessary to ensure the funding and that we're all kept safe. We must do it for the children.

It's science with a social stance. Scientists as policy makers in search of facts to support their policies. That's always sad to see.

[KT2000]

22. Maybe you are missing the point too

There is a mountain of research that has identified chemicals and many health problems. This research sits in the "environmental research" category that hardly ever makes it into mainstream medicine or public policy.
There is also much occupational research that remains isolated from the general public. Protections enacted for workers are not a matter of concern for the general public.

Much of the research of value is currently being done in foreign countries, many that have stricter standards than the US. They also have universal healthcare so keeping a healthy population makes dollar sense. Here sickness is profitable business for some.

I would hope an advisory board is concerned with the health of future generations and would call for adeqate testing of chemicals.

[salguine]

7. Not to worry, polluters...a few "campaign contributions" here and there, and you're off the hook.

[Judi Lynn]

8. Cancers from Environment 'Grossly Underestimated'

Source: ABC News

Cancers from Environment 'Grossly Underestimated'
Daily Exposures Cause Far More Cancers Than Once Thought, a Presidential Panel Says
By EMILY WALKER
MedPage Today Staff Writer
May 6, 2010

Environmental carcinogens are responsible for a far greater number of cancers than previously believed -- a fact that suggests eradicating these environmental threats should be a priority for President Obama -- according to the report of a presidential advisory panel.

The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated," wrote the authors of the report, "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now."

"The panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation's productivity, and devastate American lives," the report's authors wrote in a letter to President Obama.

The President's Cancer Panel was established by the National Cancer Act of 1971, when then President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer. The panel is required to submit an annual report to the president describing the status of the "war" and identifying both progress and barriers to continued advances.

The singling out of environmental causes for cancer in this year's report is considered a major -- and some said welcome -- departure from previous reports, according to a number cancer specialists contacted by ABC News and MedPage Today.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/cancers-environment-grossly-underestimated-presidential-panel/story?id=10568354

[Zorra]

9. Geez, it's about time. This is kind of a no brainer. n/t

[PDJane]

10. And the poor live closest to the pollution........

and rely the most on the fish and food that the environment provides.

That's been documented for years......

[Quantess]

23. ....and therefore are the least able to pay for the health care they are going to need.

[Cetacea]

11. "Grossly Underestimated" and grossly downplayed. eom

[avaistheone1]

12. Consider

all the environmental toxins that are found in the neoplasms of women with breast cancer. The numbers are stunning.

[glinda]

13. This is why Companies need to be fined, reigned in, etc.... and HC for all available.

%60 of all dogs now die from cancer also. Poisons in their food and environment. Cancers in sea animals.

[SoapBox]

14. Duh!

...and that's all I have to say about that.

[madmax]

20. +1

[Liberation Angel]

15. The Nuclear Industry Propaganda has grossly lied about cancer from radiation exposure

Nuke plants emit radiation every day they are operating.

It gets into our milk, our food and water and our bones, blood, teeth and organs.

Not to mention babies in utero which suffer mutations and death either during gestation or often shortly afterward (or sufffer life long debilitation and misery.

Time to shut down ALL the nuke plants.

Not coal. Not oil.

Renewables and clean energy for the future! Not deadly and unsafe technologies promoted by greedy corporofascists.

[Odin2005]

18. LOL!

Better get than tin-foil hat, the radiation is gonna get you! :rofl:

[RedEarth]

16. Cancer and as well as other health issues

[gratuitous]

17. Yeah, but whaddyagunnado?

After all, there are people making a lot of money off of all this sickness, misery and death, and they contribute big bucks to political campaigns. We can't do anything about the poisoning of our citizens because the poisoners are too wealthy and respectable. Sucks to get cancer, but gee whiz! There's an election coming up.

[Robbien]

19. You mean mercury is not good for people?

Nor arsenic?


Someone should tell the EPA

[Quantess]

21. Hearty kick and recommend.

:kick:

[chrisa]

24. It's too late.

There's already chemicals and medicine everywhere, including the water we all drink. It can't be helped. Among these are anti-depressants, and other things that get into your head.

The human race could eventually become sterile from this.

[liberalla]

25. K & R

Thanks.

[robcon]

26. Anti-science, IMO.

I think someone who makes these conclusions, then says the research "will" support them, has the cart before the horse. First research, then conclusions. These are just hypotheses.

U.S. Panel Criticized as Overstating Cancer Risks
By DENISE GRADY

"...Dr. Michael Thun, an epidemiologist from the cancer society, said in an online statement that the report was “unbalanced by its implication that pollution is the major cause of cancer,” and had presented an unproven theory — that environmentally caused cases are grossly underestimated — as if it were a fact.

The cancer society estimates that about 6 percent of all cancers in the United States — 34,000 cases a year — are related to environmental causes (4 percent from occupational exposures, 2 percent from the community or other settings).

Suggesting that the risk is much higher, when there is no proof, may divert attention from things that are much bigger causes of cancer, like smoking, Dr. Thun said in an interview.

“If we could get rid of tobacco, we could get rid of 30 percent of cancer deaths,” he said, adding that poor nutrition, obesity and lack of exercise are also greater contributors to cancer risk than pollution.

But Dr. Thun said the cancer society shared the panel’s concerns about people’s exposure to so many chemicals, the lack of information about chemicals, the vulnerability of children and the radiation risks from medical imaging tests.

The chairman of the president’s panel, Dr. LaSalle D. Leffall Jr. of Howard University, said the panel stood by the report.

“This is an evenhanded approach, and an evenhanded report,” Dr. Leffall said. “We didn’t make statements that should not be made.”

He acknowledged that it was impossible to specify just how many cancers were environmentally caused, because not enough research had been done, but he said he was confident that when the research was done, it would confirm the panel’s assertion that the problem had been grossly underestimated.

Despite the uncertainties, the panel recommended more research and stronger regulation to protect public health.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/research/07cancer.html?partner=rss&emc=rss