EPA Blocks Warnings on Cancer-Causing Chemical: Report (politico.com) 173
The Trump administration is suppressing an Environmental Protection Agency report that warns that most Americans inhale enough formaldehyde vapor in the course of daily life to put them at risk of developing leukemia and other ailments, a current and a former agency official told POLITICO. The news outlet adds: The warnings are contained in a draft health assessment EPA scientists completed just before Donald Trump became president, according to the officials. They said top advisers to departing Administrator Scott Pruitt are delaying its release as part of a campaign to undermine the agency's independent research into the health risks of toxic chemicals.
Andrew Wheeler, the No. 2 official at EPA who will be the agency's new acting chief as of Monday, also has a history with the chemical. He was staff director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2004, when his boss, then-Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), sought to delay an earlier iteration of the formaldehyde assessment. Formaldehyde is one of the most commonly used chemicals in the country. Americans are exposed to it through wood composites in cabinets and furniture, as well as air pollution from major refineries.
Andrew Wheeler, the No. 2 official at EPA who will be the agency's new acting chief as of Monday, also has a history with the chemical. He was staff director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2004, when his boss, then-Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), sought to delay an earlier iteration of the formaldehyde assessment. Formaldehyde is one of the most commonly used chemicals in the country. Americans are exposed to it through wood composites in cabinets and furniture, as well as air pollution from major refineries.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Because Jesus and the bible.
Re:Leukemia (Score:4, Funny)
Because Jesus and the bible.
Thank you Jesus!
Re: (Score:1)
Experts from all over the EU would be flying in to study most people in the USA to fill their own publications with study after study.
Medical work in the USA looking at most Americans would be career making for medical experts globally. Reputations made tracking the formaldehyde from its origins to the lungs of the wider US population and the results. Slide after slide and book chapter after book
Re:Leukemia (Score:5, Funny)
If most Americans got sick in that way, US pathologists and epidemiologist would have book chapters on that.
This is just like coal - Coal is actually good for you. This bullshit of leftists trying to besmirch the effects of chemicals is leading to the downfall of western civilization. Even CO2 is critical for health, and god fearing common sense Americans should breath a atmosphere of 100 percent CO2 for at least 5 hors everyt day. There are no substances that are bad for you. God would not put anything on earth that would harm his greatest creation.
Yours in Christ Jesus.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to learn the difference between christians and cops.
Re: (Score:1)
Difference is, the muslims will kill you. The christians will bring round coffee and donuts.
I'm neither Christian nor Muslim, but your generalization is off. Muslims historically have been the more tolerant religion. Whilst Britain was squabbling over protestant or catholic kings and spain's Jesuits were having their Spanish Inquisition- most Muslim controlled areas, even back then practiced freedom of religion. Sure- you'd pay more taxes for believing the wrong thing but most could live in peace.
Today the huge majority of muslims still believe in freedom of religion. Yeah, there are obviously
Re: Leukemia (Score:1)
You're conflating Islam teachings with Arabian progress. True, they were conquering large swaths of land and were world leaders in science and maths in the western Dark/Middle Ages but that ended when conservative Islam became the state religion.
Re: (Score:1)
Difference is, the muslims will kill you. The christians will bring round coffee and donuts.
I'm neither Christian nor Muslim, but your generalization is off. Muslims historically have been the more tolerant religion.
ISIS and the Taliban have been tolerating the living shit out of other Muslims in their holy quest for peace. Change my mind.
Re: (Score:1)
Difference is, the muslims will kill you. The christians will bring round coffee and donuts.
The ones that raised me might beat the shit out of you in god's name, or the men of gawd, who deliver his holy word might butt fuck you or want you to help Father O'Malley in the special sacrament of helping him make white wee-wee. Though perhaps they hand out donuts afterward.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new... [nydailynews.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.amazon.com/Train-U... [amazon.com] The official beat your child to death or you hate them guidebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Religion is a cancer, and
Re: (Score:1)
Don'tt be a coward. Blaspheme Allah, too. Do it on the street right in front of a mosque/
You might be making the mistake of thinking that my distaste for Fundamentalist Christian means I support Muslims. Religion is a cancer, and any religion that supports killing those who don't agree with it needs terminated with extreme prejudice.
Hope I cleared that up.
Re: (Score:2)
Both your quotes. Pick the one that projects what you actually believe.
I'll pick the second quote, because the first quote was from Oswald McMeany, not me.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you were serious for a second or two LOL.
I sometimes come very close to a Poe.
Re: (Score:2)
If most Americans got sick in that way, US pathologists and epidemiologist would have book chapters on that.
TFA doesn't say anything like that. It says there's an increased risk. Are you really not able to understand the difference between the statements "you have an increased risk of a disease" and "you have a disease"?
Re: (Score:2)
Peer review and US wide data collection on health would be telling going back decades.
Advanced nations like the USA do keep looking at averages over generations of health and know what is happening any given decade.
The US can afford its own epidemiology reports.
Brain experts, kidney experts, lung experts, heart experts, diabetes experts all look at what happened and report.
Massive jumps in the numbers resulting in most people in
Re:Leukemia (Score:5, Interesting)
Poorly worded, but as you probably know it gives you a "chance" there's people who smoke 3 packs a day and live to 100 years old without cancer too, others get cancer and die after only 3 years of smoking. Humans aren't binary
As far as diseases go, leukemia is a pretty rare one. Formaldehyde has been commonly used for decades.
What exactly is the risk? If the risk is 1 extra person out of 1 million get it that's not significant. If it is 1 out of 1000, we'd be seeing a lot more people with it. The fact that leukemia is so rare makes me think that this is probably a non-event.
I'm not pro any sitting President stopping scientific announcements, don't get me wrong. I don't approve of Trump's actions; but I think in this instance the warning is probably for something minor.
Re:Leukemia (Score:5, Interesting)
What exactly is the risk?
We might be able to find out if the corrupt weasels in the EPA would publish this research. But no.
The warnings are contained in a draft health assessment EPA scientists completed just before Donald Trump became president, according to the officials. They said top advisers to departing Administrator Scott Pruitt are delaying its release as part of a campaign to undermine the agency’s independent research into the health risks of toxic chemicals......The current EPA official told POLITICO that political appointees have managed to avoid creating written evidence of their interference with the formaldehyde assessment by refusing to send emails or create other records that eventually could become public, instead using what the official described as “a children’s game of telephone."
Interestingly, this research comes from the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
Industry has long faulted the IRIS program, the agency’s only independent scientific division evaluating the health risks of toxic chemicals, whose assessments often form the basis for federal and state regulations.
Why would the chemical industries have issues with IRIS?
The small office of about 35 experts pores over the huge body of existing research on chemicals, including industry-backed studies aimed at proving the substances safe, to independently assess their risks.
Lol. So they actually dig into the industry backed studies and call BS on them. I can see why they'd be a threat.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is the risk?
We might be able to find out if the corrupt weasels in the EPA would publish this research. But no.
Actually it's pretty simple if you know there are expected to be 174,250 cases in US in 2018 and there are 327 million US citizens then the odds of contracting Leukemia sometime in a given person's life is maybe close to 4% (though effectively a bit less for actually detecting it etc).
Of course, that says nothing about the effects of one or any toxic chemical. That's just the overall average risk to all US citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, internal documents show, a trade group representing businesses that could face new regulations and lawsuits if the study were released had frequent access to top EPA officials and pressed them to either keep it under wraps or change its findings.
...and the cover-up is (usually) worse than the crime. They never learn. You think tobacco would be the whipping child of the courts these days if it had been a simple case of "oh, when we found out we put warnings on the boxes right away"? These interest groups are a liability to their industries but the industries can't get enough of them.
Re:Leukemia (Score:4, Insightful)
Poorly worded, but as you probably know it gives you a "chance" there's people who smoke 3 packs a day and live to 100 years old without cancer too, others get cancer and die after only 3 years of smoking. Humans aren't binary
As far as diseases go, leukemia is a pretty rare one. Formaldehyde has been commonly used for decades.
What exactly is the risk? If the risk is 1 extra person out of 1 million get it that's not significant. If it is 1 out of 1000, we'd be seeing a lot more people with it. The fact that leukemia is so rare makes me think that this is probably a non-event.
I'm not pro any sitting President stopping scientific announcements, don't get me wrong. I don't approve of Trump's actions; but I think in this instance the warning is probably for something minor.
Too many announcements is itself bad. So yes, it matters very much how great the risk is.
We're already at the point where most people just throw up their hands and say "ok, I guess everything causes cancer."
Too many warnings, too low of a threshold, is not only not useful; it's harmful.
Re: Leukemia (Score:2)
With cancer specifically it's also the fact that cancer happens so often and is such a broad disease that you can link pretty much everything to it.
Drink too much wine or too little wine has some correlation with some form of cancer. These studies are generally too small to make accurate statements against and you can P-hack anything to increase or decrease your cancer risk and populations can often not be compared across studies because they collect different data or use different tools.
You would have to d
Re:Leukemia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Leukemia (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not impressed by anti-cancer hysteria therefore I am anti-science? I don't treat any random pronoucement from any random "authority" as the word of god, therefore I am anti-science.
YOU I think have no clue what that term really means.
Those of YOU treating the ALL parts of the scientific establishment as if they are the Pope, are the real anti-science crowd.
Re: (Score:3)
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and highly toxic. Go right ahead and ignore it, you can serve as an example of others for what not to be.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Naw, it's ok to question the media coverage, but if you're questioning the paper without reading it, then yeah, you're anti-science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Dehumanizing people you don't like. This will end well.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Accuses me of generalizing
Writes an entire paragraph of generalizations himself
Generalizes ME as well
TROLLOLOLOLOLOL. Fuck off.
Re: (Score:1)
Forgive me, how were you or anyone generalized in that comment?
Seems like the AC agreed with you that anti-science is on the rise. Accusation != generalization.
I am starting to worry about your physical health. Maybe there will be studies on the physical effects of prolonged TDS and California will put cancer warnings on all political activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't understand sarcasm [slashdot.org]
Bugger off.
Re: (Score:1)
This comment is known to cause cancer in the State of California.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oooo so biting. So brave. Are you going call me a cockroach or an ant now? Are you going to wave the flag of science while defending anti-science?I am ready for your boot to squash me like a dehumanized cancer for the betterment of your sanity. The world would be utopia if everyone thought just like you. amirite.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The same to you. Science is not a body of facts that you treat like religious dogma. It's a method of asking tough questions and finding answers that may contradict your own preconceived bias and make you uncomfortable. What we know at any given point time is a "best guess" and is ALWAYS subject to revision or being completely turned on it's head.
This is what separates science from religion.
Re: (Score:1)
Just lucky. I knew a very kind and successful man who got a scratch while golfing that wouldn't heal as his first symptom. A year later he had wasted away and died from leukemia. It was horrific. He had everything, and saw the best specialists money could buy, but that could not protect him from the disease.
I have (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Point taken; but still, it's not one of the more common cancers. If formaldehyde were linked to autism, adhd, lung cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, something relatively common... etc I can see being worried and thinking "so that's why those are so prevalent". If it's something we're all over exposed to and yet it is linked to one of the least common forms of cancer- it can't be a huge risk- and maybe (not my judgement call) it's worth the risk for the benefits it gives. If there is a safer altern
Re:I have (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, according to cancer.org [cancer.gov], it is the tenth most common kind of cancer:
Although this is actually something of a lie, as the source they got their numbers from intentionally excludes non-melanoma skin cancers (presumably because the case fatality rate for carcinoma is two orders of magnitude lower). Really, that means it is #11. Either way, it ranks ahead of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, all forms of brain cancer, bone cancer, etc.
And by fatality count, it rises to #7. Also note that if we could get everyone to stop smoking, it would move up another notch, both in fatalities and incidence.
And that top ten list doesn't have that wide a probability spread, either. Breast cancer and lung cancer are each only about 4x as common as leukemia [cancer.gov]. It is not a rare cancer by any means.
That's also not true. Most forms of Leukemia have no familial link [cancercenter.com]. There is an increased prevalence in first-degree relatives and twins of people with leukemia, but this is likely because those people lived in the same house, drank the same water, breathed the same air, went to schools in the same classrooms, etc. When you see only a first-degree link and no broader familial link, this strongly suggests that environmental factors are the predominant cause, not genetics.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you should say that about cars, last monday on the way into work, some idiot trying to overtake managed to miss my car and smashed into the car behind me. That was just luck it wasn't me and absolutely was just a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time for the people in the car behind me. They did nothing to cause this accident.
You tend to think if you drive safely, you will be fine, it's not a certainty.
Your younger than me and I have to note that while i was in the first half of the avera
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
If we're breathing in enough formaldehyde to get leukemia, why have I never met anyone with leukemia? Am I just lucky and I put out a lucky aura that protects those around me?
Because you play with yourself when no one is looking?
The length of time that Formaldehyed has been know as a carcinogen pre-dates the EPA. Regardless, I have a special cocktail for you. Foprmaldehyde and Benzene and Carbon Tetrachloride with a twist of lemon, followed by a fresh garden salad covered with berrylium and asbestos. It is good for you - there are no dangerous substances, all lefty lies.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm a programmer... I don't eat salad. Just pizza.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a programmer... I don't eat salad. Just pizza.
Ah.... we have found common ground. I like a little Cheese whiz on my pizza when the wide isn't looking.
Re: (Score:3)
The chance that a person will develop leukemia at some point in his life is 0.1%. Survival rates are about 2/3, higher for younger people. This means its virtually certain you've met someone who is a leukemia survivor, they just don't wear a sign around their neck announcing the fact.
The rate of new cases in the general population is about 12 per 100,000 population per year -- about 1.2 hundredths of a percent. If you live in a small town and have a job that doesn't involve dealing with a lot of people,
Re:Leukemia (Score:4, Insightful)
> The rate of new cases in the general population is about 12 per 100,000 population per year
So... a bit like knowing a victim of gun violence.
The problem with attributing any singular cause to any cancer is that it is so poorly understood. Even when they think they have a handle on it and have identified a single gene, even have targeted therapies to deal with that gene, those therapies pretty much behave completely randomly within the patient population.
There's nothing like actually being a cancer patient to disabuse you of any notions that "the guys in the white robes" have any real clue what they are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually a lot higher than I had expected; it would be interesting to see how much of this they blame on Formaldehyde vs just normal base rate occurrence.
It's a very similar rate as death by car.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the really important issue in situations like this is preventability. How possible is it to reduce some number that represents human suffering, and at what cost?
The numbers for the impact of industrial exposure to formaldehyde are in an interesting territory. The statistical risk is not so high that you would, say, rule out taking a good job that involved formaldehyde exposure. Your risk is roughly on the order of 7/10 of 1%, which is low, but something like 700x greater than the baseline. Thi
Re: (Score:3)
1. Because they're dead.
2. Because they don't introduce themselves by telling you they have leukemia.
Everyone gets cancer if they live long enough not to be killed by other things. As far as we know, about half of it is due to natural processes, half is triggered by environmental carcinogens.
Re: Leukemia (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People with leukemia tend to congregate in certain areas ... like hospital wards. Maybe you should visit one.
Re: (Score:2)
I have met somebody that survived it. But I knew him for some months before he told the story and it was not readily obvious before. And the ones that do not make it, you do not meet.
Or to put it otherwise: You are both stupid and clueless. An ideal sheep to be manipulated into doing things that are bad for you but make others a ton of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I just lucky and I put out a lucky aura that protects those around me?
No, just lacking in reading comprehension and / or a basic understanding of logic. Or a bought and paid for troll. Only you can know the answer to that.
TFA said this:
Americans inhale enough formaldehyde vapor in the course of daily life to put them at risk of developing leukemia and other ailments
Walking in the middle of the road doesn't mean you will without a doubt be ran over. It does increase your risk. Would you be against warning people that walking in the middle of the road increases their risk of being ran over?
Re: (Score:2)
They all avoid you because you're an asshole.
Us cancer free folks avoid you as well.
Asshole.
Cool, I'm an introvert so that works in my favour, thanks.
Re:A new high. (Score:4, Informative)
OK, who here is snorting formaldehyde ?
It's in hair products apparently according to the article... so anyone who puts conditioner on their nose hair is at risk of snorting formaldehyde.
Re:A new high. (Score:5, Funny)
Haha! Jokes on them because I am bald... ... ... Oh. Now I'm sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Disgusting nostril hair? I'll have you know that I get it groomed every week. Dare I say it, my nostril hair is the envy of gods!
You think I would snort hair conditioner to get high or leukemia? Shows what you know about class and style.
Re: (Score:2)
My nostril hair is shaped like a mullet.
Re: (Score:2)
Bird cage. I won't ruin the surprise on what the 'birds' are.
Re:A new high. (Score:4, Informative)
Formaldehyde is in everything. Well, not quite everything, but a huge number of products. New clothes? Yep. That new flooring? Certainly [cbsnews.com]
https://branchbasics.com/blog/... [branchbasics.com]
https://hpd.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bi... [nih.gov]
It even occurs naturally in some foods:
https://www.foodinsight.org/ch... [foodinsight.org]
Re: (Score:2)
In beer [youtu.be] as well.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, who here is snorting formaldehyde ?
Also... I don't snort it, but I use Glutaraldehyde, a similar chemical on a daily basis in my fish tanks. It acts as a carbon source for aquatic plants.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, who here is snorting formaldehyde ?
Everyone who works in an office building whose windows are sealed shut.
Their plan won't work in California! (Score:1)
Breathing air is known to cause cancer in the state of California
Where are the facts? They're not in this article. (Score:1)
I'd like to see more information about the claim that "Americans inhale enough formaldehyde vapor in the course of daily life to put them at risk of developing leukemia". For example, exactly how much risk are we talking about? Unfortunately, the article seems to be mostly about political conflict, with very little actual science being discussed.
Re: (Score:2)
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/... [nih.gov]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
That's because this article is about how the EPA is blocking the release of the facts. (Or at least a report claiming to contain them)
I suggest a name change (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I am in the process of building a residential driveway over a small creek. For one house. My house. The water is seven inches deep. I just passed the two year mark of dealing with bullshit environmental bureaucracy. TWO YEARS. $50,000+ in consultants, engineers, fees, etc. So I can say first hand we have too damned many environmental regulations.
Are some of them good? Sure. But for every regulation that makes a positive impact, there are 1000 bullshit ones. If you hire a government worker to make
Re: (Score:2)
"Environmental Pollution Agency"
Indeed!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Formaldehyde occurs naturally in animal tissues as a result of amino acid digestion. That is why exposure at very low levels is not considered a concern. Exposure at higher levels are mainly a concern for the respiratory tract, e.g. nasopharyngeal cancer.
There's also evidence from both cohort and case control studies linking high chronic exposure to certain forms of leukemia. Although the exact mechanism isn't understood, the statistical evidence is quite strong -- strong enough to justify taking precauti
Same rhetoric, different party (Score:2)
After reading the article from Politico, I'm a bit concerned with not how the EPA is being implemented, but how easily it's leadership/direction is pointed. Only a few years ago with a different president, the EPA was going hard left in it's views. Now it seems to be going hard right. The EPA has a very long reach on every day Americans. Everyone will feel it in higher costs of good and services.
How can you take a long look at the environment/health issues changing so radically, what could be every 4 ye
Re:Same rhetoric, different party (Score:5, Insightful)
It's almost like you don't want to give government too much power because sooner or later someone you don't like will be running it.
Welcome to the Federalist Society.
Re: (Score:1)
Problem is, without the government business was flat out killing people, leaving toxic landfills, polluting water supplies, and committting other heinous acts.
Capitalism doesn't stop them because they make higher profits by doing these things. Then they walk away leaving the costs for other citiziens.
Government needs to be powerful enough to control the largest companies and the wealthiest citizens.
Unfortunately, they have a large financial interest in corrupting the government. You need someone incorrupt
NEWS for NERDS. (Score:1)
These constant political posts are driving me away. Please, there are many sites that already cover this crap. Stick to tech!
Re: (Score:2)
but that is manufacturing tech that causes health problems.
Exposure (Score:2)
... Formaldehyde is one of the most commonly used chemicals in the country. Americans are exposed to it through wood composites in cabinets and furniture
And don't ferget trailers Vern. Them things is toxic with a capital "T".
Maybe because it's bullsh*t (Score:2)
Seriously, in DAILY life? I call major B.S. on this.
The EPA Formaldehyde guidelines (Score:2)
Formaldehyde oxidizes to Formic Acid in atmosphere.
It has a half-life of about 1-2 hours unless hydroxyl ions are present, then it lasts around 12 hours.
"Formaldehyde is an essential metabolic intermediate in all cells. It is produced during the normal metabolism of serine, glycine, methionine, and choline and also by the demethylation of N-, S-, and O-methyl compounds. As such, it is a normal metabolite, and enters into the chain of biochemical events in humans and other animals to give rise to essential
Just Peachy ! (Score:1)
Look at that article... (Score:1)
Just adds to my cynicism over the anti-protection EPA policies.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny thing is all these conspiracy theories and bad press for Hillary helped get us Trump. And I"ll say one thing about Trump, he doesn't have any conspiracy theories to speak of. His administration is so openly corrupt what would be the point? He's like Dick Cheney times a million. When you tell people how corrupt he is they don't believe you because if anyone was that openly corrupt somebody, somewhere would do _something_. Right?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
From your link: //
Update
On 17 October 2017, The Hill reported obtaining evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was being investigated for corruption by multiple U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal was up for approval — information that apparently was not shared with U.S. officials involved in approving the transaction. The Hill also reported receiving documents and eyewitness testimony “indicating Russian nu
Obama did it (Score:1, Troll)
Would [Trump] kill Americans to serve is foreign master?
Obama killed Americans [wikipedia.org] without due process - what about it?
I mean - where was your outrage when your side was doing it?
Re: (Score:2)
Would [Trump] kill Americans to serve is foreign master?
Obama killed Americans [wikipedia.org] without due process - what about it?
I mean - where was your outrage when your side was doing it?
To be fair here; I can't speak for AC but lots of people on both sides of the political spectrum have expressed outrage at the Drone Strikes. It's kind of a grey area though. He was never going to be captured to be put on trial- and did killing him save thousands of other lives? I don't know- and I don't know everything that military intelligence knew about it.
WITHIN the US the police have the right to use lethal force if they legitimately believe the perpetrator is threat to life of another human and do