Re: U.S. facing 'grievous harm'

[Guest guest]

Was there some new information in there or just a call for expanded government regulation, by the government?If only 5% of cancers are caused by chemicals and pollutants why not more focus on the 95%? I support Obama's program to reduce childhood obesity, maybe she could also work on reducing smoking by residents of the White House. I guess since this group should not contain the overweight and smokers, we should be more interested in the 5% of cancers caused by other vectors. They mention the difficulty in outlawing asbestos? It seems the tort lawyers have put several companies through bankruptcy already and those mesothelioma ads on late night TV are more aggressive lawyers applying their tortious pressure in the free market. Simply proving something is cancerous is usually enough to suppress it's use.Regarding over regulation and in light of the new found awareness that energy surplus also promotes (imo not causes) cancer, I wonder how many lives were net saved or lost by banning cyclamates? The bladder cancers in that one unreplicated 240 rat experiment was at a human equivalent of 350 cans of diet soda daily. Prohibiting use of that very effective sugar substitute may have actually cost lives. Presidents have been rededicating our efforts to find a cure for cancer as long as I can remember. To perhaps connect some dots, there was a report posted here recently about a new (antibody based) cancer medicine that cost some $90k for 3 month (average) lifespan extension. IMO this looks more like ongoing research, into whether this new medicine has broader use and more effectiveness if applied earlier. A rather interesting issue since funding all short term life extension would bankrupt us. So this expenditure makes more sense if it has potential benefit for the greater good beyond the one patient. While I expect that individual surely believes it justified. ========On the subject of cancer research, they recently stopped a trial using our favorite red wine (grape) extract on some advanced cancer, because patents were dying of complications. There is no suggestion that the grape extract was the cause of the complications, but prudence is always advised when testing low probability (magical food) cures. It didn't prevent the complications, that often happen with late stage cancers. Cancer is a rather complex malady and I don't think it's a simple as outlawing my current fire ant poison.. Since they already classified our breath (CO2) as toxic pollution, maybe they need to regulate our caloric intake, to protect us from cancer, and diabetes, and heart disease..... (NO I'M NOT SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT). Moderation, moderation, moderation... JROn May 7, 2010, at 6:38 AM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

By Lyndsey Layton

Friday, May 7, 2010

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.Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

..

[Guest guest]

I’m interested in the “5 % is grossly underestimated” and the “environmental and occupational exposures” mentioned below. AFA soda, food and such stuff, I don’t like it but I can control what I put in my mouth.

On 5/7/10 10:18 AM, " john roberts " <robertsjohnh@...> wrote:

Was there some new information in there or just a call for expanded government regulation, by the government?

If only 5% of cancers are caused by chemicals and pollutants why not more focus on the 95%? I support Obama's program to reduce childhood obesity, maybe she could also work on reducing smoking by residents of the White House.

I guess since this group should not contain the overweight and smokers, we should be more interested in the 5% of cancers caused by other vectors. They mention the difficulty in outlawing asbestos? It seems the tort lawyers have put several companies through bankruptcy already and those mesothelioma ads on late night TV are more aggressive lawyers applying their tortious pressure in the free market. Simply proving something is cancerous is usually enough to suppress it's use.

Regarding over regulation and in light of the new found awareness that energy surplus also promotes (imo not causes) cancer, I wonder how many lives were net saved or lost by banning cyclamates? The bladder cancers in that one unreplicated 240 rat experiment was at a human equivalent of 350 cans of diet soda daily. Prohibiting use of that very effective sugar substitute may have actually cost lives.

Presidents have been rededicating our efforts to find a cure for cancer as long as I can remember. To perhaps connect some dots, there was a report posted here recently about a new (antibody based) cancer medicine that cost some $90k for 3 month (average) lifespan extension. IMO this looks more like ongoing research, into whether this new medicine has broader use and more effectiveness if applied earlier. A rather interesting issue since funding all short term life extension would bankrupt us. So this expenditure makes more sense if it has potential benefit for the greater good beyond the one patient. While I expect that individual surely believes it justified.

========

On the subject of cancer research, they recently stopped a trial using our favorite red wine (grape) extract on some advanced cancer, because patents were dying of complications. There is no suggestion that the grape extract was the cause of the complications, but prudence is always advised when testing low probability (magical food) cures. It didn't prevent the complications, that often happen with late stage cancers.

Cancer is a rather complex malady and I don't think it's a simple as outlawing my current fire ant poison.. Since they already classified our breath (CO2) as toxic pollution, maybe they need to regulate our caloric intake, to protect us from cancer, and diabetes, and heart disease..... (NO I'M NOT SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT).

Moderation, moderation, moderation...

JR

On May 7, 2010, at 6:38 AM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

By Lyndsey Layton

Friday, May 7, 2010

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.

Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests. <http://us.ard./SIG=15r7mmrnk/M=493064.14012770.13963757.13298430/D=grphealth/S=1705060950:MKP1/Y=/EXP=1273239523/L=17372a66-59cd-11df-bce1-4fc52807dc3f/B=Pu42IdGDJHM-/J=1273232323713963/K=kGHfQ5cPLjo7eyPh5u5ZQg/A=6015306/R=0/SIG=11vlkvigg/*h>

<;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGZ0ajQzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzMzk0MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwOTUwBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjczMjMyMzIz>

Switch to: Text-Only <mailto: -traditional ?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> , Daily Digest <mailto: -digest ?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> • Unsubscribe <mailto: -unsubscribe ?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use <>

..

[Guest guest]

We (us) should be, but show us the science... Cancer is very fuzzy for cause and effect. Many are exposed to the same stressors without getting cancer. Autopsies on many older seniors show evidence of cancer despite dying from other causes. Life causes cancer, if we get enough life. We weren't supposed to live this long. I don't want to project my opinions too much much in interpreting what they say, but I believe that they have an agenda, like any bureaucrat to protect and expand their job security. Some might characterize government bureaucracy as cancerous, but that is too easy a joke. Seriously, cancer is very easy to be scary about, and scaring the public seems a popular tactic to manipulate them with emotional appeals. Trust me, I am personally very interested in cancer. (government some too.) :-)Even if chemical exposure is 10% that leaves 90% IMO "grossly" under managed. The tobacco companies have cut deals with government to the point that government doesn't want to kill the golden goose feeding them a revenue stream (talk about cutting a deal with the devil). I suspect any government attack on obesity, could end up in a similar deal with the big food industry. They have a working example of the winning business model to copy with tobacco class action settlements. I view the government as a little too easily manipulated by industry, and perhaps less altruistic than they pretend or should be. of course I could be wrong.. JR On May 7, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

I’m interested in the “5 % is grossly underestimated” and the “environmental and occupational exposures” mentioned below. AFA soda, food and such stuff, I don’t like it but I can control what I put in my mouth.

On 5/7/10 10:18 AM, "john roberts" <robertsjohnhbellsouth (DOT) net> wrote:

Was there some new information in there or just a call for expanded government regulation, by the government?

If only 5% of cancers are caused by chemicals and pollutants why not more focus on the 95%? I support Obama's program to reduce childhood obesity, maybe she could also work on reducing smoking by residents of the White House.

I guess since this group should not contain the overweight and smokers, we should be more interested in the 5% of cancers caused by other vectors. They mention the difficulty in outlawing asbestos? It seems the tort lawyers have put several companies through bankruptcy already and those mesothelioma ads on late night TV are more aggressive lawyers applying their tortious pressure in the free market. Simply proving something is cancerous is usually enough to suppress it's use.

Regarding over regulation and in light of the new found awareness that energy surplus also promotes (imo not causes) cancer, I wonder how many lives were net saved or lost by banning cyclamates? The bladder cancers in that one unreplicated 240 rat experiment was at a human equivalent of 350 cans of diet soda daily. Prohibiting use of that very effective sugar substitute may have actually cost lives.

Presidents have been rededicating our efforts to find a cure for cancer as long as I can remember. To perhaps connect some dots, there was a report posted here recently about a new (antibody based) cancer medicine that cost some $90k for 3 month (average) lifespan extension. IMO this looks more like ongoing research, into whether this new medicine has broader use and more effectiveness if applied earlier. A rather interesting issue since funding all short term life extension would bankrupt us. So this expenditure makes more sense if it has potential benefit for the greater good beyond the one patient. While I expect that individual surely believes it justified.

========

On the subject of cancer research, they recently stopped a trial using our favorite red wine (grape) extract on some advanced cancer, because patents were dying of complications. There is no suggestion that the grape extract was the cause of the complications, but prudence is always advised when testing low probability (magical food) cures. It didn't prevent the complications, that often happen with late stage cancers.

Cancer is a rather complex malady and I don't think it's a simple as outlawing my current fire ant poison.. Since they already classified our breath (CO2) as toxic pollution, maybe they need to regulate our caloric intake, to protect us from cancer, and diabetes, and heart disease..... (NO I'M NOT SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT).

Moderation, moderation, moderation...

JR

On May 7, 2010, at 6:38 AM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

By Lyndsey Layton

Friday, May 7, 2010

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.

Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests. <http://us.ard./SIG=15r7mmrnk/M=493064.14012770.13963757.13298430/D=grphealth/S=1705060950:MKP1/Y=/EXP=1273239523/L=17372a66-59cd-11df-bce1-4fc52807dc3f/B=Pu42IdGDJHM-/J=1273232323713963/K=kGHfQ5cPLjo7eyPh5u5ZQg/A=6015306/R=0/SIG=11vlkvigg/*h>

<;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGZ0ajQzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzMzk0MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwOTUwBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjczMjMyMzIz>

Switch to: Text-Only <mailto: -traditional ?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> , Daily Digest <mailto: -digest ?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> • Unsubscribe <mailto: -unsubscribe ?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use <>

..

[Guest guest]

Yes many are exposed to toxins and don’t get cancer. Even smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer 100% of the time. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to tolerate someone blowing second hand smoke into my face, as an example. I’d prefer a clean environment, but to each his own.

I’m now 70 years old. I can’t wait til all the evidence is in. (All the evidence isn’t even in for CR in humans yet, but here we are......). We all make our best guess about this stuff and act accordingly. For those who are interested, I posted the article.

On 5/7/10 2:29 PM, " john roberts " <robertsjohnh@...> wrote:

We (us) should be, but show us the science... Cancer is very fuzzy for cause and effect. Many are exposed to the same stressors without getting cancer. Autopsies on many older seniors show evidence of cancer despite dying from other causes. Life causes cancer, if we get enough life. We weren't supposed to live this long.

I don't want to project my opinions too much much in interpreting what they say, but I believe that they have an agenda, like any bureaucrat to protect and expand their job security. Some might characterize government bureaucracy as cancerous, but that is too easy a joke.

Seriously, cancer is very easy to be scary about, and scaring the public seems a popular tactic to manipulate them with emotional appeals. Trust me, I am personally very interested in cancer. (government some too.) :-)

Even if chemical exposure is 10% that leaves 90% IMO " grossly " under managed. The tobacco companies have cut deals with government to the point that government doesn't want to kill the golden goose feeding them a revenue stream (talk about cutting a deal with the devil). I suspect any government attack on obesity, could end up in a similar deal with the big food industry. They have a working example of the winning business model to copy with tobacco class action settlements.

I view the government as a little too easily manipulated by industry, and perhaps less altruistic than they pretend or should be.

of course I could be wrong..

JR

On May 7, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

I’m interested in the “5 % is grossly underestimated” and the “environmental and occupational exposures” mentioned below. AFA soda, food and such stuff, I don’t like it but I can control what I put in my mouth.

On 5/7/10 10:18 AM, " john roberts " <robertsjohnh@...> wrote:

Was there some new information in there or just a call for expanded government regulation, by the government?

If only 5% of cancers are caused by chemicals and pollutants why not more focus on the 95%? I support Obama's program to reduce childhood obesity, maybe she could also work on reducing smoking by residents of the White House.

I guess since this group should not contain the overweight and smokers, we should be more interested in the 5% of cancers caused by other vectors. They mention the difficulty in outlawing asbestos? It seems the tort lawyers have put several companies through bankruptcy already and those mesothelioma ads on late night TV are more aggressive lawyers applying their tortious pressure in the free market. Simply proving something is cancerous is usually enough to suppress it's use.

Regarding over regulation and in light of the new found awareness that energy surplus also promotes (imo not causes) cancer, I wonder how many lives were net saved or lost by banning cyclamates? The bladder cancers in that one unreplicated 240 rat experiment was at a human equivalent of 350 cans of diet soda daily. Prohibiting use of that very effective sugar substitute may have actually cost lives.

Presidents have been rededicating our efforts to find a cure for cancer as long as I can remember. To perhaps connect some dots, there was a report posted here recently about a new (antibody based) cancer medicine that cost some $90k for 3 month (average) lifespan extension. IMO this looks more like ongoing research, into whether this new medicine has broader use and more effectiveness if applied earlier. A rather interesting issue since funding all short term life extension would bankrupt us. So this expenditure makes more sense if it has potential benefit for the greater good beyond the one patient. While I expect that individual surely believes it justified.

========

On the subject of cancer research, they recently stopped a trial using our favorite red wine (grape) extract on some advanced cancer, because patents were dying of complications. There is no suggestion that the grape extract was the cause of the complications, but prudence is always advised when testing low probability (magical food) cures. It didn't prevent the complications, that often happen with late stage cancers.

Cancer is a rather complex malady and I don't think it's a simple as outlawing my current fire ant poison.. Since they already classified our breath (CO2) as toxic pollution, maybe they need to regulate our caloric intake, to protect us from cancer, and diabetes, and heart disease..... (NO I'M NOT SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT).

Moderation, moderation, moderation...

JR

On May 7, 2010, at 6:38 AM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

By Lyndsey Layton

Friday, May 7, 2010

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.

Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests. <http://us.ard./SIG=15r7mmrnk/M=493064.14012770.13963757.13298430/D=grphealth/S=1705060950:MKP1/Y=/EXP=1273239523/L=17372a66-59cd-11df-bce1-4fc52807dc3f/B=Pu42IdGDJHM-/J=1273232323713963/K=kGHfQ5cPLjo7eyPh5u5ZQg/A=6015306/R=0/SIG=11vlkvigg/*h>

<;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGZ0ajQzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIzMzk0MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwOTUwBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjczMjMyMzIz>

Switch to: Text-Only <mailto: -traditional ?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> , Daily Digest <mailto: -digest ?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> • Unsubscribe <mailto: -unsubscribe ?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use <>

..