Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps you want to check who or what the IARC actually is: https://www.iarc.fr/featured-n...

Yes, it is proven. There are dozens of studies that clearly proof it.

Here is one: https://www.iarc.fr/featured-n...

This is the evaluation by IARC that opened up for the lawsuits:

IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2015:

The herbicide glyphosate and the insecticides malathion and diazinon were classified as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).
[...]
For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals.

That IARC evaluation was subsequently criticized, and other high-profile papers and agencies were unable to reach the same conclusions:

A regulatory perspective on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate, Journal of Toxicology and Health, 2015:

It appears that IARC has overreached in its conclusion by failing to consider the vast body of literature supporting the notion that glyphosate is not a carcinogen. Besides, IARC has failed to place potential hazard into a context of actual risk. When the conditions of glyphosate use in Egypt is rationally analyzed, it appears that exposure of the public to glyphosate is order of magnitudes far below the zero-risk dose.

The BfR has finalised its draft report for the re-evaluation of glyphosate - BfR, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, 2015:

In conclusion of this re-evaluation process of the active substance glyphosate by BfR the available data do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of glyphosate exposure and risk of lymphohematopoietic cancers, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 2016:

Bias and confounding may account for observed associations. Meta-analysis is constrained by few studies and a crude exposure metric, while the overall body of literature is methodologically limited and findings are not strong or consistent. Thus, a causal relationship has not been established between glyphosate exposure and risk of any type of LHC.

EPA Releases Draft Risk Assessments for Glyphosate, Environmental Protection Agency, 2017:

The draft human health risk assessment concludes that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The Agency’s assessment found no other meaningful risks to human health when the product is used according to the pesticide label. The Agency’s scientific findings are consistent with the conclusions of science reviews by a number of other countries as well as the 2017 National Institute of Health Agricultural Health Survey.

Glyphosate toxicity and carcinogenicity: a review of the scientific basis of the European Union assessment and its differences with IARC, Archives of Toxicology, 2017:

Since glyphosate was introduced in 1974, all regulatory assessments have established that glyphosate has low hazard potential to mammals, however, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in March 2015 that it is p

Post the scientific study that proves it or GTFO.

https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

Nope. If that were true, you'd see the percentage of skin cancer cases attributable to UV exposure roughly the same in countries with high life expectancies, yet, Japan with one of the highest life expectancy rate at 84 years has virtually nil cases of melanoma attributable to UV compared to North America, Europe, Australia. Hell, it and other Asian countries have even less incidents than the rest of the world. Even the Russian Federation has less that North America, or Northern Europe. Plus, the rates of melanoma are increasing in the countries like the US faster that what could be attributable to longer life expectancy. Other things are going on.

http://gco.iarc.fr/causes/uv/tools-map?mode=1&sex=0&population=1&continent=0&cancer=0&key=paf&age_group=3

Oh, an before someone brings up skin pigmentation:
https://www.skincancer.org/prevention/skin-cancer-and-skin-of-color

“Anyone can get skin cancer, regardless of race,” she says. While incidence of melanoma is higher in the Caucasian population, a July 2016 study in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology showed it is more deadly in people of color. African American patients were most likely to be diagnosed with melanoma in its later stages than any other group in the study, and they also had the worst prognosis and the lowest overall survival rate.

FTFA: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-ce... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Let's start with the simple one! NYT is not a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. It also has a bit of a history of being a lousy place to get your science news.

The IARC thing is two pages and doesn't include a single reference, citation, or smidgen of data. I'd not be able to use it as a citation for anything other than for it being considered a probable carcinogen by the IARC--it's remarkably free of statistics, and citations which is actually rather concerning, especially given how cancer actually works & why we have had the admission that most cancers are caused by...well...failing to die.

If you're trying to support a claim of 'causes cancer,' there's no substitute for quality peer-reviewed research when it comes to supporting the claims, especially since there's been some rather long-term problems with the quality of the research and how it gets interpreted.

The IARC paper places Roundup in group 2A, which it defines as:

Group 2A means that the agent is probably carcinogenic to humans. This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (called chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out. This category is also used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and strong data on how the agent causes cancer.

The translation for those not familiar with cancer research: "We need money for more research." You don't really get funding if you are wanting to show that something probably doesn't cause cancer...which is not something I'm comfortable with, so I pretty quickly figured out I want nothing to do with this field of research if I could help it.

FTFA: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-ce...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Science is not static and California did not bypass it. Science is a constant process of discovery and the results are seldom binary.

A better opinion piece with citations: https://www.healthline.com/nut...

Has anyone ever heard of Acrylamide before reading the original article?

I'm still going to enjoy coffee regardless of the warning label informing me of exposure.

Why stay ignorant?

When new science comes out, I'll adjust accordingly.*

People are still going to do whatever they want https://youtu.be/wGI3rL7smN8

We left a generation dead from "No Smoking DOES NOT cause cancer".

And who kept singing that chorus?

* DRINK UP the science:
Acrylamide is NOT known to occur as a natural product. pg 392 https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG...
but wait?! it does roast naturally .. roasting process had the most significant effect on acrylamide levels in natural coffee https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Cancer is just ...bad luck... these results suggest ... 0.81 correlation http://science.sciencemag.org/...
It's really safe to drink no warnings needed https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM

That's a fair point. Just remember, according to that classification system cellphones are in the same group as Carpentry and Joinery (p.7).

Granted, I cherry picked that from the list but the reason for a 2B designation is that they don't have the statistical power from their study to rule it out as a cause of gliomas, which means that the incidence is very low in exposed vs. unexposed populations. I think it's safe to say that as long as laypeople are okay with living in a house made of carpentry then they should be okay with using a cell phone.

On the other hand:

The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radio-frequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.

-- http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-ce...

If scientific bodies are still not on the same page, what can we expect of laypeople?

That's been pretty much disproved. The real culprits seem to be flour and sugar. Enjoy your vegetarian diet.

"Disproved"? If you don't believe in science, then perhaps the evidence isn't very strong. If you read newspapers and industry sponsored "scientific journalism", you might also think there are health benefits to eating meat. For everyone who does believe in science however, start your investigation here:

Diet Patterns and Mortality: Common Threads and Consistent Results Marjorie L. McCullough Epidemiology Research Program, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA J. Nutr. June 1, 2014. vol. 144 no. 6 795-796 http://jn.nutrition.org/conten...

Below are a handful more studies (with lifestyle, age, location, and income adjustments included) that all suggest that meat/dairy is the primary cause of the major diseases we are discussing. Even when you adjust to include "junk-food vegans", you see that they come out ahead. It's not just processed foods that are to blame, although an increased consumption of processed foods is linked to elevated heart disease in all populations.

M L McCullough. Diet patterns and mortality: common threads and consistent results. J Nutr. 2014 Jun;144(6):795-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24717365

M A Martinez-Gonzalez, A Sanchez-Tainta, D Corella, J Salas-Salvado, E Ros, F Aros, E Gomez-Gracia, M Fiol, R M Lamuela-Raventos, H Schroder, J Lapetra, L Serra-Majem, X Pinto, V Ruiz-Gutierrez, Ramon Estruch for the PREDIMED Group. A provegetarian food pattern and reduction in total mortality in the Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea (PREDIMED) study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 May 28;100(Supplement 1):320S-328S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871477

J Reedy, S M Krebs-Smith, P E Miller, A D Liese, L L Kahle, Y Park, A F Subar. Higher diet quality is associated with decreased risk of all-cause, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality among older adults. J Nutr. 2014 Jun;144(6):881-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572039

G E Fraser, D J Shavlik. Ten years of life: Is it a matter of choice? Arch Intern Med. 2001 Jul 9;161(13):1645-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11434797

Thousands of peer-reviewed papers based on the large-scale studies below support the treating of lifestyle diseases by reducing or eliminating animal product consumption, paired with an increased consumption of whole plant-based foods. These are clinically valid paths to eliminating the diseases, which are most often more effective than prescription drugs, which are geared toward relieving symptoms (e.g. statins) but not the underlying causes of disease.
Large scale, long-term studies:
PREDIMED Studies: http://www.predimed.es/publica...
The Adventist Health Studies: https://publichealth.llu.edu/a...
The China Studies: https://scholar.google.com/sch...
The Nurses Health Study: http://www.nurseshealthstudy.o...
The EPIC Study: http://epic.iarc.fr/

When humans stop eating meat and switch to whole-food plant based diets, the rates of all leading causes of death (obesity, cancer, heart disease, and pretty diseases of inflammation) drop. To anyone with a scientific mind, modern nutritional-science's data should pretty much indict animal based foods as the direct cause of obesity, along with the consumption of heavily processed foods. It's no wonder that the nations with the highest meat consumption have the highest rates of lifestyle diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

A

Peer-reviewed scientific research strongly supports a shift to a vegan diet if health is a concern, and this knowledge is nothing new. The list of references below took me 5 minutes to compile, and could be expanded to thousands of papers by simply following the wake of papers published following every new large-scale clinical study of the link between diet and health. All point to meat consumption and processed foods as the cause of the health crisis faced in developing countries, and an increased intake of whole fruits and vegetables as a path of treatment.

M L McCullough. Diet patterns and mortality: common threads and consistent results. J Nutr. 2014 Jun;144(6):795-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24717365

M A Martinez-Gonzalez, A Sanchez-Tainta, D Corella, J Salas-Salvado, E Ros, F Aros, E Gomez-Gracia, M Fiol, R M Lamuela-Raventos, H Schroder, J Lapetra, L Serra-Majem, X Pinto, V Ruiz-Gutierrez, Ramon Estruch for the PREDIMED Group. A provegetarian food pattern and reduction in total mortality in the Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea (PREDIMED) study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 May 28;100(Supplement 1):320S-328S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871477

J Reedy, S M Krebs-Smith, P E Miller, A D Liese, L L Kahle, Y Park, A F Subar. Higher diet quality is associated with decreased risk of all-cause, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality among older adults. J Nutr. 2014 Jun;144(6):881-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572039

G E Fraser, D J Shavlik. Ten years of life: Is it a matter of choice? Arch Intern Med. 2001 Jul 9;161(13):1645-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11434797

Large scale, long-term studies:
PREDIMED Studies: http://www.predimed.es/publica...
The Adventist Health Studies: https://publichealth.llu.edu/a...
The China Studies: https://scholar.google.com/sch...
The Nurses Health Study: http://www.nurseshealthstudy.o...
The EPIC Study: http://epic.iarc.fr/

And, as you're probably implying here, they didn't.

Well, I was mostly having a go at Slashdot editors, but yes, that is what I was implying.

I don't know where they got 149F from, the report says 70C, which is 158F

What The Fine Report - or, rather, The Fine Press Release - says is both

Studies in places such as China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Turkey, and South America, where tea or maté is traditionally drunk very hot (at about 70 C), found that the risk of oesophageal cancer increased with the temperature at which the beverage was drunk.

and

“Very hot” refers to any beverages consumed at a temperature above 65 C. See the Q&A for more details.

What The Fine Q&A says is:

Experimental studies with animals suggest that carcinogenic effects probably occur with drinking temperatures of 65 C or above. In cancer epidemiological studies, people have been asked to describe the usual temperature of beverages they drink. In addition, surveys from regions with a high incidence of cancers of the oesophagus have found that the temperature of very hot drinks was more than 65 C. Therefore, the definition of very hot beverages as temperatures of 65 C or above comes from studies in animals and is also supported by real-world measurements of drinking temperatures of beverages. In contrast, the typical drinking temperature for tea and coffee in most parts of the world is below 65 C.

I don't know where they got 149F from, the report says 70C, which is 158F

What The Fine Report - or, rather, The Fine Press Release - says is both

Studies in places such as China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Turkey, and South America, where tea or maté is traditionally drunk very hot (at about 70 C), found that the risk of oesophageal cancer increased with the temperature at which the beverage was drunk.

and

“Very hot” refers to any beverages consumed at a temperature above 65 C. See the Q&A for more details.

What The Fine Q&A says is:

Experimental studies with animals suggest that carcinogenic effects probably occur with drinking temperatures of 65 C or above. In cancer epidemiological studies, people have been asked to describe the usual temperature of beverages they drink. In addition, surveys from regions with a high incidence of cancers of the oesophagus have found that the temperature of very hot drinks was more than 65 C. Therefore, the definition of very hot beverages as temperatures of 65 C or above comes from studies in animals and is also supported by real-world measurements of drinking temperatures of beverages. In contrast, the typical drinking temperature for tea and coffee in most parts of the world is below 65 C.

I do find it hard to believe that the WORLD Health Organisation gave their numbers primarily in Fahrenheit.

And, as you're probably implying here, they didn't.

The only place where, as a Yank, I might currently find Fahrenheit more familiar than Celsius are 1) "how hot/cold is it in here/out there?" and 2) "do I have a fever?", just because I'm used to the ranges; living outside Yankland I'd probably pick up the "yow it's {hot,cold} out there!" and "better take it easy and stay in bed today" values pretty quickly.

65C and 149F are both "OK, how hot is that in real-world terms?" values for me; 65C is no more "so what does that mean in real life?" than is 149F. I know the water was 100C/212F at one point (when the teakettle was whistling), but I don't know how hot it was when 1) I took the first "a bit hot, I'll let it cool down" sip, 2) when I actually started drinking it, and 3) right now (although it's probably well below 35C, and perhaps even below 30C, now).

There have been numerous studies on second hand smoke and it has been shown to be quite dangerous. Even a small amount is bad and has been shown that it can cause long-term health issues.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate with a rating of 2A (see http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/latest_classif.php). IARC defines a rating of 2A as "Probably carcinogenic to humans" (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/).

Glyphosate (Group 2A) is rated as less risky than tobacco, wood dust, or solar radiation (i.e. sunlight) in Group 1 (Carcinogenic to humans).

Glyphosate is more risky than coffee or gasoline in Group 2B (Possibly carcinogenic to humans).

Glyphosate is on par with the emissions from frying food at a local fast food restaurant (Frying, emissions from high-temperature) in Group 2A.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate with a rating of 2A (see http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/latest_classif.php). IARC defines a rating of 2A as "Probably carcinogenic to humans" (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/).

Glyphosate (Group 2A) is rated as less risky than tobacco, wood dust, or solar radiation (i.e. sunlight) in Group 1 (Carcinogenic to humans).

Glyphosate is more risky than coffee or gasoline in Group 2B (Possibly carcinogenic to humans).

Glyphosate is on par with the emissions from frying food at a local fast food restaurant (Frying, emissions from high-temperature) in Group 2A.

Radar is non ionizing. It could cook people, though, if it has enough power.

Actually, yes it can lead to cancer: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-ce...

When you get your Armature radio license they hand you a sheet with warnings and exposure levels. Non-ionizing isn't nearly as bad as Ionizing radiation where even very low levels are dangerous. You need much higher energy levels of non-ionizing before it becomes dangerous. The 1 watt you find in most wifi devices is far far bellow what would be considered dangerous. I have a 70 watt 2 meter radio and even that's safe.

A wall penetrating Doppler radar device though? I would be concerned if that were pointed at me for anything more than a split second. It was deffinately not designed to be pointed at sleeping children. You'd really need to know exactly how it works though. The danger with non-ionizing radiation is not strait forward. It's not like you can just say "1hr of exposure to 1000watts is where it becomes dangerous!" It changes depending on the Frequency, duration, power and distance from the antenna. So it's really hard to say. I would think the FCC might be interested in talking to this police station.

This site notes that there is no link, but points out the WHO lists it as a "Possible carcinogen". Lets take a look at what else the WHO lists as "Possible carcinogens":

Coffee, dry cleaning, exhaust/gas, pickled vegatables, nickle... to name a few
[source: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsGroupOrder.pdf%5D 2B is prossible, 2A is probable

The frequencies involved are too low to be ionizing. Dielectric heating could be a problem, but not at the power levels involved. That leaves what? The tumor gremlins who live in every Samsung handset?

You are correct about ionizing, but since cancer mechanism are not only based on molecular bonds breaking down, this is not definitive. That's one of the reasons the WHO has classified cell phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic" http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

http://com.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/stat/sp32/

This is an old book, but I think it's safe to say that even back then you didn't need 300+ pages to describe a straight line.

Oral tobacco causes cancer according to Wikipedia. They site the International Agency for Research on Cancer and in particular this monograph.

Oral tobacco causes cancer according to Wikipedia. They site the International Agency for Research on Cancer and in particular this monograph.

California claims to not be deciding it's carcinogenic? IARC:

IARC issued the Volume 86 in its series IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. In this monograph, IARC concluded that gallium arsenide is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Health and Safety Code section 25249.8(a) requires that certain substances identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) or the National Toxicology Program (NTP), as described in Labor Code section 6382(b)(1) and (d), be included on the Proposition 65 list as causing cancer. Accordingly, volume 86 is at this location

I don't understand California's conclusions that it should be added to the list, the IARC monogram they use as a basis for adding it to the list state that: 5.5 Evaluation There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of gallium arsenide. There is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of gallium arsenide.

California claims to not be deciding it's carcinogenic? IARC:

IARC issued the Volume 86 in its series IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. In this monograph, IARC concluded that gallium arsenide is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Health and Safety Code section 25249.8(a) requires that certain substances identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) or the National Toxicology Program (NTP), as described in Labor Code section 6382(b)(1) and (d), be included on the Proposition 65 list as causing cancer. Accordingly, volume 86 is at this location

I don't understand California's conclusions that it should be added to the list, the IARC monogram they use as a basis for adding it to the list state that: 5.5 Evaluation There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of gallium arsenide. There is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of gallium arsenide.

Yeah. Sure. "The people is dumb".

Let's see...

> The 4,000 deaths of cleanup workers at Chernobyl is completely unexcusable.

This estimation was touted by the IAEA, which runs in order to disseminate nuclear powerplants, and by the OMS (censored by the IAEA for all nuclear-related matters).

Moreover the IAEA announced "4,000 deaths, grand total, definitive and scientific (United Nations) estimation" in September 2005 (it wasn't definitive, nor sci, nor UN) before discreetling backing up in April 2006 ("9000, stated only for a subset of the Soviet population and for solid cancers"). Here is an overview and an article.

> 800 deaths are objectively fewer than the 105,000 reported in Wikipedia.

On WP (en and fr) there are too many pro-nuke agit-propers, eager to relay disinformation and censor facts.

> 4,000 deaths are objectively fewer than "the six-figure death counts that opponents of nuclear power once cited".

The most famous report published by the opponents (titled TORCH) was published AFTER IAEA's report.

The IAEA estimation ("4000 ...") is mainly based upon scientific material from E. Cardis (who served as the scientific secretary for the study which leaded to the report), and they properly credited her. Know what? As soon as the ''4000 deaths'' thesis was published she declared that 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths is "the right order of magnitude". See New Scientists and Nature. Her most recent study leads to "By 2065, models predict that about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400 72,000) cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000 59,000) cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident and that about 16,000 deaths (95% UI 6,700 - 38,000) from these cancers may occur).". Abstract: no less than 6,700, approx 16,000, maybe up to 38,000 ... remember that the main "opponents" report (TORCH) authors estimated that 30,000 to 60,000 may die. Therefore the 'total mortality' estimation published by the very expert committed by the IAEA are more on the same ballpark of published by scientific "opponents" than IAEA's.

The IAEA's "4,000 total" is ridiculous. Quoting it, as you did, is at best naive.

> don't see people debating the accuracy of the numbers they use
> Grow up

Yeah. Sure. Good advice, chief. Thanx! Here is my hint: avoid propagating lies. The ongoing propaganda campaign "eat nuke! good for health! yummy!" is already well funded, they don't need any help.

The link you post to shows one refutation of a 1993 review article, and doesn't mention any of the other more recent reviews and research articles that say the same thing.

So, if you want to base your beliefs on science, then please reference more than one source!

• R, including several add-on packages (such as tseries, RODBC, coda, mcmcpack, gtkdevice, rgtk, rquantlib, qtl, dbi, rmysql), out-of-the box support for the powerful ESS modes for XEmacs as well as the Ggobi visualisation program;
• A complete teTeX, TeX, and LaTeX setup for scientific publishing, along with TeXmacs and LyX for wysiwyg editing;
• Perl and Python with loads of add-ons, plus ruby, tcl, Lua, and Scientific and Numeric Python;
• The Emacs and Vim editors, as well as Gnumeric, kate, Koffice, jed, joe, nedit and zile;
• Octave, with add-on packages octave-forge, octave-sp, octave-epstk, and matwrap;
• Computer-algebra systems Maxima, Pari/GP, GAP, GiNaC and YaCaS;
• the QuantLib quantitative finance library including its Python interface;
• GSL, the Gnu Scientific Library (GSL) including example binaries;
• The GNU compiler suite comprising gcc, g77, g++ compilers;
• the OpenDX, Plotmtv, and Mayavi data visualisation systems;
• it includes apcalc,aribas,autoclass,

An epidemiological study on mobile phone use and cancer is underway in nine countries, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Here is a press release (from September 1998). Results are not expected until 2004.

Cancer research is much misunderstood by the general public. The general aim is to understand how cancer occurs and then to stop it before it starts. This not only saves lives, but removes an enormous burden of morbidity from the population. New high-tech treatments for cancer are, of course, welcome but are only one part of a general cancer control strategy. Unfortunately, they receive undue publicity from the mainstream media.

For example, consider the role of Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted virus which is mentioned in the article. HPV has now been established as a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of cervical cancer. In other words, eliminate the virus and you eliminate cervical cancer, preventing about 500,000 cancers worldwide every year. HPV vaccines are currently under development and will bring enormous benefit to future generations.

In the mean time, some other approaches are necessary in order to prevent cervical cancer, particularly in developing countries which won't have access to new expensive treatments. The Gates Foundation recently provided funding for a trial of low cost screening programs. This research will have a much higher impact on public health than the speculative ideas mentioned in the article.