2. 职称英语
  3. The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream,

The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream,

游客2024-12-24  2
问题    The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare:chemicals threaten our bodies. The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report, warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching consequences for our health.
   I’ve read an advance copy of the report, and it’s an extraordinary document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer, including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals. Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The President’s Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic. In particular, the report warns about exposures to chemicals during pregnancy, when risk of damage seems to be the greatest. Noting that 300 contaminants have been detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn babies, the study warns that:"to a disturbing extent, babies are born ’pre-polluted’."
   It’s striking that this report emerges not from the fringe but from the mission control of mainstream scientific and medical thinking, the President’s Cancer Panel. Established in 1971, this is a group of three distinguished experts who review America’s cancer program and report directly to the President. One of the seats is now vacant, but the panel members who joined in this report are Dr. LaSalle Leffall Jr. , an oncologist and professor of surgery at Haward University, and Dr. Margaret Kripke, an immunologist at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Both were originally appointed to the panel by former President George W. Bush. "We wanted to let people know that we’re concerned, and that they should be concerned, " Professor Leffall told me.
   The report blames weak laws, lax enforcement and fragmented authority, as well as the existing regulatory presumption that chemicals are safe unless strong evidence emerges to the contrary. "Only a few hundred of the more than 80, 000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety, " the report says. It adds:"Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. "
   Industry may howl. The food industry has already been fighting legislation in the Senate backed by Dianne Feinstein of California that would ban bisphenol-A, commonly found in plastics and better known as BPA.from food and beverage containers. Studies of BPA have raised alarm bells for decades, and the evidence is still complex and open to debate. That’s life: In the real world, regulatory decisions usually must be made with ambiguous and conflicting data. The Panel’s point is that we should be prudent in such situations, rather than recklessly approving chemicals of uncertain effect.
   The President’s Cancer Panel report will give a boost to Senator Feinstein’s efforts. It may also help the prospects of the Safe Chemicals Act, backed by Senator Frank Lautenberg and several colleagues, to improve the safety of chemicals on the market. Some 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and they include Democrats and Republicans alike. Protecting ourselves and our children from toxins should be an effort that both parties can get behind—-if enough members of Congress are willing to put the public interest ahead of corporate interests.
   One reason for concern is that some cancers are becoming more common, particularly in children. We don’t know why that is, but the proliferation of chemicals in water, foods, air and household products is widely suspected as a factor. I’m hoping the President’s Cancer Panel report will shine a stronger spotlight on environmental causes of health problems—not only cancer, but perhaps also diabetes, obesity and autism. [br] As to the chemicals used in food, the Cancer Panel believes that
选项 A、there are a lot of ambiguous and contradictory data.
B、the food industry is trying to fight against Democrats.
C、the government should be cautious about approving them.
D、Senators are more willing to ban the use of safe chemicals.
答案 C
解析 细节题。根据试题顺序及题干中的chemicals定位至第五段。末句指出“The Panel’s point isthat we should be prudent in such situations，rather than recklessly approving chemicals of uncertaineffect．”，[C]是对该句的同义转述，故为答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3882071.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)