New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer

The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare: chemicals threaten our bodies.

The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report on Thursday, warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching consequences for our health.

I’ve read an advance copy of the report, and it’s an extraordinary document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer, including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals.

Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The President’s Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/opinion/06kristof.html?th&emc=th

see www.radiation.org for updates on how radiation from nuclear power plants is getting into our children's baby teeth and bones and causing birth defects in utero and increasing infant mortality.

forewarned is forarmed

And they are far healthier than Americans.

see

www.nirs.org for details (I suggest the Greenpeace report there in PDF)

btw last year the France nuke program was so messed up they had to IMPORT electricity because their reactors were unable to produce...

They use a ton of electricity that is derived from nuclear plants. I didn't say that their nuke program is perfect, but was rebutting your statement about nuclear power plants causing health problems.

This is one useful analysis I found easily accessible:
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/43

And you find that even with the nuclear power plants' increased risk of cancer, the U.S. still beats France by a fair amount in cancer per capita.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer

United States: 391 deaths per 100,000
France: 286 deaths per 100,000

Perhaps our other means of deriving energy (coal, natural gas, etc.) are more carcinogenic than nuclear? Maybe it's our shitty health care system?

Also, if you look at this data: http://www.irdes.fr/EcoSante/DownLoad/OECDHealthData_FrequentlyRequestedData.xls (it's an Excel document, so view at your own risk - I didn't have any problem)

You'll see that the infant mortality rate in France is 3.8 per 1,000 live births vs 6.7 per 1,000 live births in the U.S.

It would be far better to have a super cheap form of energy (nuclear) and a top-notch universal health program in the U.S. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the cost savings from nuclear energy alone could pay for a universal health care system for Americans.

Americans have worse health care and lots of nuclear pollution.

There is no convergence of benefits from nukes AND better health care.

None whatsoever.

Nukes will make us sicker and while better health care may reduce the death rates overall, WHY keep using shit that makes us all sicker every day?

Crazy and nonsensical.

The study you listed about nuke power plants does NOT support your assertion that nuke plants make anyone "sicker". It's purely correlative with not one shred of causation evidence, and doesn't explain why people who live CLOSER to the nuke power plants don't have higher cancer rates. In other words, anyone who tries to make the causation case you're trying to make is peddling junk science.

For further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Two different empirical studies found that nuke power plant workers have LOWER risks of cancer compared to the general population. These are people who work INSIDE the plant. Not 10 miles away.
http://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/mediacentre/updates/health.cfm

You get far more radiation standing next to a granite building than you would standing next to the fence of a nuke power plant.

Wouldn't it be nice if organics were subsidized in the same way that corn is, and that organics were suddenly being found in *everything* the way that HFCS is?

I can dream can't I?

Federal and state governments bankroll the R&D for the commercialization of organic methods. The National Organic Program is federally funded and your tax dollars pay for the marketing of organic products. The federal government manages the organic accreditation and certification program. The federal government also manages organic compliance and enforcement. No other food standards program receives that level of federal support. Agricultural subsidies are based on commodities produced, not agricultural methods, which means organic farmers are eligible for the same subsidies any other farmer receives.

The so-called "organic" market is now big business. Every major US food producer is heavily invested in organic products.

:kick: