Cancer Society Criticizes U.S. Panel as Overstating Risk - NYTimes.com

They did call for more research in the field. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to make people more aware of what they are exposed to on a daily basis. Are they maybe overplaying the risks? Perhaps, but we won't know until more work is done. Why has it taken so long for a Presidential Panel to speak out about these chemicals?

If somebody told you the number one cause of automobile deaths was driving Toyotas. Then said well no research shows that but we will do some later. Would you see an agenda?

There is harm done in hyperbole. Convince some people plastic will kill them and I bet they will die - from trying to avoid plastic. I'm sure somewhere a person will tell you cancer is caused by ill humors and for enough money they will make a study to support it. I'm not saying environmental causes aren't real, but to lie about what you know then ask for money to prove your lie is backwards and seems even more than a little self-serving.

As to why it took so long? Maybe it took awhile for a couple of unethical doctors to run the show. And yes they were appointed by GWB, so it's ok for the cool kids to hate them too.

Are they personally asking for money to do the research? I didn't see anything about that. They just said more research needs to be done. BTW are you saying that the problem that Toyota recently had should not have been mentioned to people driving Toyotas? Toyota found no problems with the gas pedal so the drivers that had problems must have been lying. Toyota is a bad example to use my dear.

They both are members of groups most likely to benefit from increased funding.

They didn't just say more research needs to be done, they claimed a conclusion then admitted later it was unsupported without more research. I said at the start they should have limited themselves to simply asking for more research first, then come out with conclusions later when you can support them.

I used Toyota exactly because of their recent troubles. The overall impact compared against all automobile accidents isn't even a rounding error. It doesn't mean nothing should be done, it means if we were to claim Toyota is responsible for most automobile deaths we would be lying. It was a apples to apples comparison, those people responsible for actually treating cancer say environmental causes play a role but not a large role. Likewise Toyota's problems of late play a role in automobile deaths but again not a large role. These two want us to believe otherwise without evidence.

First, they didn't come up with this conclusion on a whim. They talked to several experts in the area and came to a conclusion based on that. Does that mean they are correct in what they believe? No, not necessarily. They admitted that their conclusion is not based on evidence presented as of yet, but that more research needs to be done. You may like to believe they are lying, I don't think of it that way, and obviously this is something we will not agree on.

Second, despite what the ACS thinks, I don't think the scientists are trying to downplay other causes of cancer. Like I said before, I think they are trying to make people more aware of what they are exposed to in the environment. I personally think the ACS is one group that should be interested in funding more research to see if the panel is correct or not. I am a bit disappointed in their response.

KyleN-well said.