It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
An independent laboratory commissioned by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) tested the products to determine how much cocamide DEA was present. CEH purchased these products after June 2013 from online and local California retailers, such as Trader Joe’s, Walmart, Kohl’s, and Babies R Us.
Many of the products tested contained more than 10,000 parts per million (ppm) of cocamide DEA. In all, CEH identified 98 products with cocamide DEA among the ingredients, none of which carried the warning required by state law.
"The state has not set a [safety] level specific to cocamide DEA," says Charles Margulis, Communications Director and Food Program Director of CEH, "but the levels we found exceed levels typical for carcinogens."
Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by AmateuRN
Mmm hmm. Do you know? ...100 years ago cancer was extremely rare. Now, 1 out of every 2 American men and 1 of 3 women will get cancer in their lifetime.
Obviously something has changed.
We also know quite convincingly, and all nonsensical prehistoric arguments aside, that the incidence of cancer has increased dramatically over the last century. The numbers are there. The data is there. Certainly, doctors can better diagnose tumors now than 50 or 100 years ago, but that's diagnosis before death. After death when the body is opened up, any pathologist in the last century would recognize a grapefruit sized mass in the colon as cancer. The death would be recorded as cancer. Is it 100% certain? No. It's certainly possible that doctors as recently as the 1940's and 50's were totally incompetent and never noticed tumors when they performed autopsies or treated battlefield wounds when soldiers' insides lay exposed before them. It's also possible that the extra 3-7 years that people are living now as opposed to 100 years ago have made a difference. And yes, that's all that life expectancy has really increased over the last hundred years -- once you account for the decline in infant mortality, which dramatically skews the numbers. Perhaps the risk of cancer really does increase fivefold in that small handful of extra years "adults" now live versus 100 years ago. Yes, these things are possible…but not very likely. They can only be argued because as unlikely as they are, you can't prove that they're not true -- like perpetual motion.
And finally, we absolutely know that the dietary and lifestyle choices we make and our exposure to toxins affect our chances of getting cancer. Again, arguments to the contrary are like arguments for perpetual motion. How do we know this? Quite simply, cigarettes! We know for a fact that in any sample population, cigarette smokers have a far higher incidence of numerous cancers as opposed to non-smokers. Can you absolutely prove the connection (perpetual motion) between cigarettes and cancer? Nope. You can always find someone who's smoked two packs a day for 50 years and never got cancer. But any rational person knows that if you smoke heavily, your "odds" of getting cancer are dramatically higher.
The article is generally saying "this and this " may cause cancer, but more half of the things it list are not proven.
Then you should be able to add "breathing" in this day and age as well to the list.
Air pollution and lung cancer incidence in 17 European cohorts: prospective analyses from the European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Effects (ESCAPE).
...Particulate matter air pollution contributes to lung cancer incidence in Europe.
Acid haze air pollution and breast and colon cancer mortality in 20 Canadian cities.
...Statistically significant positive associations were found between these two measures of air pollution and age-adjusted mortality rates for colon cancer in women (multiple r = +.74, p = 0.003), and men (multiple r = +.61, p = 0.03), and breast cancer in women (multiple r = +.69, p = 0.007). ...
Lung cancer and indoor air pollution in Xuan Wei, China
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]Traffic air pollution and lung cancer in females in Taiwan: petrol station density as an indicator of disease development.
...The results showed that there was a significant exposure-response relationship between PSD and risk of lung cancer in females after controlling for possible confounders. ...
Health, wealth, and air pollution: advancing theory and methods.
The effects of both ambient air pollution and socioeconomic position (SEP) on health are well documented. A limited number of recent studies suggest that SEP may itself play a role in the epidemiology of disease and death associated with exposure to air pollution. Together with evidence that poor and working-class communities are often more exposed to air pollution, these studies have stimulated discussion among scientists, policy makers, and the public about the differential distribution of the health impacts from air pollution. ...
Recent studies have linked air pollution to tens of thousands of premature cardiovascular deaths per year.
Air pollution and children's health.
Children's exposure to air pollution is a special concern because their immune system and lungs are not fully developed when exposure begins, raising the possibility of different responses than seen in adults. In addition, children spend more time outside, where the concentrations of pollution from traffic, powerplants, and other combustion sources are generally higher. ..
Protecting human health from air pollution: shifting from a single-pollutant to a multipollutant approach.
To date, the assessment of public health consequences of air pollution has largely focused on a single-pollutant approach aimed at estimating the increased risk of adverse health outcomes associated with the exposure to a single air pollutant, adjusted for the exposure to other air pollutants. However, air masses always contain many pollutants in differing amounts, depending on the types of emission sources and atmospheric conditions. Because humans are simultaneously exposed to a complex mixture of air pollutants, many organizations have encouraged moving towards "a multipollutant approach to air quality." Although there is general agreement that multipollutant approaches are desirable, the challenges of implementing them are vast.
Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Krazysh0t
I don't deny cancer has not increased, i mean, the population increased thus the ratio will increase as well. The article is generally saying "this and this " may cause cancer, but more half of the things it list are not proven.
The article seems quiet anti-science as well.
And it has everything to do with soaps, and not chemicals laden on foods, in foods, sprayed around homes inside & out, what comes out the backside of vehicles, poor health habits, bad vice choices, etc. It's ALWAYS the soaps at fault, dontcha know?
soficrow
reply to post by AmateuRN
Mmm hmm. Do you know? ...100 years ago cancer was extremely rare. Now, 1 out of every 2 American men and 1 of 3 women will get cancer in their lifetime.
Obviously something has changed.