Comments on: Scientist Smackdown: Are Environmental Toxins a Huge Cancer Threat?

By: deep water

deep water — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:12:16 +0000

I am not expert on cancer (that would be Sloan-Kettering in NYC). But I grew up in a small industrial town in South Jersey. Fifty, seventy thousand people, small hospital and a couple of baseball fields next to the dump.

In my hometown, Dr. Thun you would be called an “idiot” and a lot of other words, I suspect. Go to my hometown and ask some of the retired men about their old jobs and how their community has changed. And as they breath in hard, sucking air from a tube connected to an oxygen tank, they will tell you. Pollution is a major cause of cancer and they are the proof. If you don’t believe the first few thousand, get back to me. Communities are sick, asbestosis, myothelioma, schizophrenia, cancer. We have cancer’s no one’s even named yet.

Dr. Thun, the report is unbalanced because the situation is unbalanced, because its even worst than people think. But you know all this Dr. Thun, don’t you?

You can know something and still not really understand it. ~Charles Kettering

You can also know something and lie about it Dr. Thun, I believe you are a liar.
~G. Stone / thedeepwaterproject.com

By: ToneDeF

ToneDeF — Mon, 10 May 2010 18:40:47 +0000

nick – I’m not sure about all your claims, but the statement that the FDA doesn’t regulate cosmetics at all is not only false, but also a little silly when you consider that the congressional legislation that gave the FDA authority to regulate is called the “Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act”.

http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/default.htm

By: nick

nick — Fri, 07 May 2010 20:35:11 +0000

The ACS’s pension obligations seem to be growing by 25% a year. I guess Thun owes allegiance to where his money comes from, just like we all do. Have a look for yourself! I am trying to figure out which large corporations donate to the ACS http://www.cancer.org/downloads/AA/ACS_Combined_Financials_FY2009.pdf

Their books were audited by the same company that said Lehman Brothers was doing swell just before they collapsed and nearly took our entire economy with them.

“In fiscal years 2009 and 2008, the Society received in-kind contributions of advertising production, magazine space, public service announcements and in-store advertising materials from various retail and professional organizations with an estimated fair value of $14,431,000 and $4,175,000.”

Ah but to WHOM do they owe allegiance for this money? Because they move around quite a bit and don’t seem to disclose where it’s coming from.

At least we know our politics are swayed by campaign contributions. I’m not trying to poo-poo on the fine work the ACS is doing, but we do know that in the past, Big Tobacco has spent billions of dollars trying to sway public opinion in any way they could. The current battle is industrial chemicals, some of which find their way into our cosmetics because they’re not regulated by the FDA. At all.

That’s right, any chemical that has not been declared actually toxic is available to put into your cosmetics, which you slather on your skin, the largest organ which is also highly permeable to these products. Many of which contain organic solvents like alcohols, which aid the penetration of your skin by chemicals dissolved in them.

By: kathy

kathy — Fri, 07 May 2010 19:09:05 +0000

Mystifying as to why Michael Thun continues to take this stance against environmental medicine. Take one example, estrogen receptor positive cancers like some breast and all prostate cancers. This type of tumor is on the rise in the U.S. for smokers and non-smokers alike. It’s increasing incidence is very likely related to estrogenic substances in the environment like the hormone disruptors found in plastics. I suggest anyone wanting to understand Thun’s reluctance to accept this thesis should take a look at the ACS funding sources.