Subject:  Endocrine disruptors and cancer (Guru)....
Date:     Wed, 4 Aug 1999 055700 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------

Hi everybody:

......The NAS (National Academy of Science) that is the origin of
the following news report ... is the same NAS that so badly obfuscated
its findings in the EMF/childhood leukemia case a few years ago.

This industry-funded and controlled institution should change its name:
the National Academy of Obfuscation.....

There is insufficient evidence to make a "definitive conclusion" they
say.  Those words, "definitive conclusion," need to be taken out of the
science vocabulary.....  Our knowledge of Mother Nature does not come to
us "definitively".... It comes in bits and drabs until finally the
best hypothesis emerges....  That is going to be based upon the "weight of
the evidence" ... which you use as a basis for health policies -- until
more evidence directs you to different policies....

To wait for the "definitive" answer is to exchange people-protecting
policies for vested interest-protecting policies....  It is to allow
sickness, misery and death for the benefit of the industry/government
cabal.....

Cheerio......(In the following story, I suggest that the headline-
conclusion is one of those self evident truths that **cops-out** on the
real issue:  How "little" is too much?  The same question we are
asking in the EMF saga....  And getting the same "industry protective"
answer.....)

Cheerio....

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
EMF-L web-site can be found at: 
EMF-L archives can be found at: 
..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................

     _________________________________________________________________

07:40 PM ET 08/03/99

Some Chemical Exposure OK for Humans

 By H. JOSEF HEBERT=
 Associated Press Writer=
           WASHINGTON (AP) _ Low-level exposure to chemicals that disrupt
 hormones won't necessarily lead to additional cancers or
 infertility, a scientific panel said Tuesday, stressing that more
 research is needed.
           While it is clear that exposure to these chemicals at high
 concentrations can affect wildlife and human health, the National
 Academy of Sciences' 16-member research panel said, ``the extent of
 harm caused by exposure ... in concentrations that are common in
 the environment is debated.''
           Far too little is understood about the possible harmful effects
 from low-level exposure to such chemicals, the panel said.
           Environmentalists and numerous health experts have argued there
 is growing evidence that synthetic chemicals affect estrogen levels
 and even at low doses may lead to cancers, neurological problems
 and infertility.
           These chemicals, called ``endocrine disrupters,'' are the
 subject of a massive screening process directed by the
 Environmental Protection Agency with as many 15,000 chemicals to be
 tested. The tests are being conducted mostly by industry.
           The NAS panel's report said the current literature does not
 support an association between exposure to low levels of these
 chemicals and breast cancer or a variety of other hormonally
 sensitive cancers.
           The scientists acknowledged there has been evidence of adverse
 reproductive and developmental effects in wildlife and laboratory
 animals because of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. But
 it said that increases in male reproductive disorders in humans
 cannot be linked to the chemicals at doses found generally in the
 environment.
           Similarly, the panel agreed there is ample evidence that fetal
 exposure to high doses of these chemicals _ such as exposure to
 high amounts of pesticides in fish or other foods _ have been found
 to hinder nervous system development in humans as well as birds and
 animals.
           But the study said the data on the effects of these chemicals on
 human nervous system development at levels in the environment is
 insufficient to make a definitive conclusion.
           In all these areas, the panel said additional studies are
 needed, especially on children whose mothers were exposed to such
 chemical agents during pregnancy.
           ``Determining the risks to humans from contact with these
 chemicals in the environment is difficult because ordinary exposure
 of these agents has not been routinely monitored, said Ernst
 Knobil, of the University of Texas and chairman of the panel.
           But several scientists, including a member of the panel, said in
 interviews that the data on which the study was based is now two
 years old and that more recent research suggests a closer link
 between endocrine disrupting chemicals and human health.
           There is a ``plausibility of human harm'' that cannot be
 ignored, Frederick vom Saal, a professor of biological sciences at
 the University of Missouri, said in a telephone interview.
           Vom Saal, a member of the research panel, said the degree to
 which there is consensus on the effects of these chemicals at the
 molecular level on wildlife and on laboratory animals suggests the
 likelihood of impact on humans as well.
           Peter deFur, an environmental biologist at the Virginia
 Commonwealth University, who reviewed the report, said more recent
 research not covered by the study implies ``a closer link to human
 health'' impacts than the study suggests. ``There is a tremendous
 amount of research activity going on a number of these questions,''
 he said.

     _________________________________________________________________



Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com