Report: Americans Bombarded with Cancer Causes

[NormaRegula]

From Yahoo/Reuters news: _http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100506/hl_nm/us_cancer_usa

Some truths in this article as it mentions BPA, x-rays, radon, chemicals, etc., but 'eeevil' smoking is mentioned at the top of the article. To drive that point further, they have a picture of a hand holding a cigarette.

Don't smoke myself and must admit I once fell for the anti-smoking propaganda. Laura's Project Camelot interview brought up an interesting point in that they're aren't nearly as many smokers as there used to be, so one of the new lies is that second, (maybe third and fourth!) hand smoke might be the major cause of autoimmune diseases and cancer skyrocketing in the past 40 years.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Americans are being "bombarded" with chemicals, gases and radiation that can cause cancer, and the federal government must do far more to protect them, presidential cancer advisers said on Thursday.

Although most experts agree that as many as two-thirds of cancer cases are caused by lifestyle choices like smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise, the two-member panel said many avoidable cancers were also caused by pollution, radon gas from the soil and medical imaging scans.

Some of the advisers' points are not in dispute. Several government-sponsored reports have pointed to cancer risks from X-rays and CT scans, and industry and physician groups are already working on ways to lower the doses given to people...More in link above

 

[abstract]

"For example, its conclusion that 'the true burden of environmentally (pollution) induced cancer has been grossly underestimated' does not represent scientific consensus."

This was in the above article.

Now, wouldn't that be because "scientific consensus" is bought and payed for like everything else??

 

[NormaRegula]

"For example, its conclusion that 'the true burden of environmentally (pollution) induced cancer has been grossly underestimated' does not represent scientific consensus."

Now, wouldn't that be because "scientific consensus" is bought and payed for like everything else??

Yes. Scary, how many people believe a "scientific consensus" merely because the consensus was written/stated by scientists or researchers whose connections and backgrounds are rarely checked, just pushed, by a corporate-controlled media.

Sadly, my partner - an engineer who sees himself as being logical and scientific in his thinking - is extremely reluctant to counter, much less look into, alternative claims because persons with university degrees, published papers, and high-profile, high-paying positions obviously know what's best for human beings. Since I'm not a very smart person, especially when it comes to science and math, my personal choice to not heed mainstream claims such as fluoride is beneficial, there's little difference between organic and non-organic foods, and taking nutritional supplements is useless or dangerous, is looked upon as paranoid behavior. Learned early on to hide my networking and understanding of other sources so as not to cause any undue friction and avoid lectures about listening to quacks, not established authorities.