I know only smart people read this blog but I think I have to give the context or subtext of this article. I am assuming that\u00a0 Kristoff highlighted that the two doctors in the 3 doctor panels were both appointees of former president bush to inform the readers of how grave these results\/reviews appear to be. The Bush appointees have had a long reputation proven time and time again of an ideological problem with regulation and in general government intervention of any kind. To declare make a report like this is akin to a climate change skeptic (the rational evidence based ones) warning against climate change. Now my problem with this is what the fuck do I drink when I travel?\u00a0 damn.<\/p>\n
Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The President\u2019s 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.
\nIn particular, the report warns about exposures to chemicals during pregnancy, when risk of damage seems to be greatest. Noting that 300 contaminants have been detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn babies, the study warns that: \u201cto a disturbing extent, babies are born \u2018pre-polluted.\u2019 \u201d
\nIt\u2019s striking that this report emerges not from the fringe but from the mission control of mainstream scientific and medical thinking, the President\u2019s Cancer Panel. Established in 1971, this is a group of three distinguished experts who review America\u2019s cancer program and report directly to the president.
\nOne of the seats is now vacant, but the panel members who joined in this report are Dr. LaSalle Leffall Jr., an oncologist and professor of surgery at Howard University, and Dr. Margaret Kripke, an immunologist at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Both were originally appointed to the panel by former President George W. Bush.
\n\u201cWe wanted to let people know that we\u2019re concerned, and that they should be concerned,\u201d Professor Leffall told me.
\nThe report blames weak laws, lax enforcement and fragmented authority, as well as the existing regulatory presumption that chemicals are safe unless strong evidence emerges to the contrary.
\n\u201cOnly a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety,\u201d the report says. It adds: \u201cMany known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated.\u201d
\nvia Op-Ed Columnist – New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer – NYTimes.com<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"I know only smart people read this blog but I think I have to give the context or subtext of this article. I am assuming that\u00a0 Kristoff highlighted that the two doctors in the 3 doctor panels were both appointees of former president bush to inform the readers of how grave these results\/reviews appear to … <\/p>\n