TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. - A congressional panel will investigate why a federal agency is withholding a report describing potential health threats near 26 heavily polluted areas in the Great Lakes region,

The handling of the matter by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "raises grave questions about the integrity of scientific research" at the agency, "as well as the treatment of its scientists,"

It said many of the 26 counties where the "areas of concern" are located have abnormally high rates of cancer and other health problems such as infant mortality, low birth weight and premature births. Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland and Milwaukee are among the areas of concern.

Altogether, the areas have more than 100 sites polluted with toxic wastes such as PCBs, mercury and dioxins, the report said. Of those, 71 were identified as having "a potential human health impact."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080229/ap_on_go_co/great_l...xzOCrOtn6FzxeBVZ24cA


abnormally high rates of cancer??

wait a min here.. didn't the antis push through the smoking ban to get rid of the cancer risks knowing that smoking is responsible for every ailment know to man kind..

from this news story there is something else causeing the abnormally high rates of cancer..

quote:

Dingell and Stupak said they had been told De Rosa was demoted after pushing for release of the Great Lakes report. Nowak said De Rose was reassigned, but that he didn't know whether the move was related to the report. He declined further comment, saying the CDC would not discuss personnel matters.

I'm sorry, but when your paycheck comes from taxpayers, it's not personal any longer.

I don't know how many articles I've seen where a government employee, city, state, or federal, was caught viewing porn at work (and fired), and that made the news. That's sounds a bit personal to me.

Ganging up on these government types sure does make for a good time. And when it is warranted, please count me in.

This article gives no specific information, but only gives conclusions that seem to be driven on a fear-based agenda of specific interests.

I see these types of arguments many times on these forums and , though there are some legitimate reasons to question the statistics specifically related to smoking, I don't think that it's useful to look for some kind of silver bullet to tell us that smoking is unrelated to lung cancer, because smoking is statistically related to lung cancer. Heavily.

The findings on which these claims are based are likely to be findings similar in epidemiological result to the relationship between ETS and lung cancer. In other words, they may, in reality, be non-existent.

Under Federal Law any government report must include an economic impact study of it's findings.

This is why there have been fewer reports from the government on smoking.

Perhaps this is a reason the Surgeon General is now in private practice.