wheecasls,nylon ball bearing rollers

“This is really the strongest possible process,” Kurt Straif, the head of IARC’s classification program, told Reuters when asked about the way his agency evaluates possible causes of cancer. The agency is currently embroiled in an acrimonious dispute with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) over glyphosate, an ingredient of widely-used pesticides.”The public sometimes misunderstands what IARC means by its classifications.

“But there is a disjunction between the pure science and the policy and public health messaging. The Huffington Post declared: “Meat is the new tobacco.”Such interpretations are misleading, in IARC’s view. It takes no account of typical levels of human exposure or consumption. Over four decades, a WHO research agency has assessed 989 substances and activities, ranging from arsenic to hairdressing, and found only one was “probably not” likely to cause cancer in humans. Its assessments of whether something is a cause of cancer catch the eyes and ears of policymakers and the public. And the science is absolutely fine,” he told Reuters. The WHO’s official spokesperson, Gregory Hartl, issued a statement saying WHO’s Geneva headquarters had been flooded with queries and requests for clarification..Geoffrey Kabat, a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the United States, who has publicly criticised IARC, says the classifications do the public “a disservice. The agency says it assesses “hazard” — the strength of evidence about whether a substance or activity can cause cancer in any way.”Semi-detached agencyFrom the beginning, IARC has been a compromise.” EFSA says it isn’t. So it is not measuring “risk” or the likelihood of a person getting cancer from something. Others are more surprising: Also ranked as “Group 1 Carcinogens” are wood dust and Chinese salted fish. Therefore it ranks both substances in its top category of being carcinogenic. He said of the way IARC works: “It’s not good for science, it’s not good for regulatory agencies.IARC gives no view on the relative levels of risk of getting cancer from, say, plutonium or alcohol; what it does say is that there is clear evidence that both are capable of causing cancer. Yet experts from academia, industry and public health say IARC confuses the public and policymakers.Even the WHO, which oversees IARC, was caught off guard by the agency’s announcement that red and processed meat should be classified respectively as probable and known carcinogens. It was an ingredient in nylon used in stretchy yoga pants and toothbrush bristles. Straif told Reuters that the blame for any confusion lies with industry, activist groups and the media. That’s where problems arise.All the other 988 substances, however, pose some level of risk or need further research, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is an arm of the WHO. In the face of its critics, IARC steadfastly defends its methods and aims.

Asked about the relationship between IARC and the WHO, Hartl told Reuters: “WHO works closely and continually with IARC to improve the way the two bodies collaborate and communicate on the knowledge of potential and real hazards and risks to the public. Nevertheless, Boffetta, now at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in the United States, said IARC’s approach sometimes lacks “scientific rigor” because its judgments can involve experts reviewing their own research or that of colleagues. Some things in IARC’s top category of carcinogens are pretty obvious nasties, such as plutonium, mustard gas and smoking tobacco. And for people Well, they are just being confused. Born out of a French initiative, it was originally envisaged as an independent agency with a huge budget. These reports are known as “monographs.The findings have caused consternation, not least for non-scientists puzzled by what IARC’s rankings mean. Some critics say the way IARC considers and communicates whether substances are carcinogenic is flawed and needs reform.”At stake are judgments that can affect the lives of millions of people and the economic activities of states and multinational companies.jpg Thanks to scientists working under the auspices of the World Health Organisation, you can be fairly sure your toothbrush won’t give you cancer. It ended up as a semi-autonomous part of the WHO with modest funds.But its methods are poorly understood and do not serve the public well, according to Bob Tarone, a statistician formerly at America’s National Cancer Institute and now Biostatistics Director at the International Epidemiology Institute.“

There are stakeholders on various sides that want to make it look ridiculous,” he said. NPLUS1.The risks of public misapprehension were evident in some of the media reaction to IARC’s announcement on red and processed meats. IARC’s director, Chris Wild, has also defended the agency against criticism in scientific journals.Despite its limited financial heft, IARC was a pioneer and established itself as a world-leading authority.As a global authority on cancer — a disease that kills more than 8 million people a year worldwide, with more than 14 million new cases appearing annually — IARC has enormous influence and commands much respect, even among its critics. IARC’s ruling did not mean people should stop eating meat, he said. IARC’s rulings influence many things, from whether Material Handling Equipment Parts chemicals are licensed for use in industry to whether consumers choose or spurn certain products or lifestyles.” Britain’s Daily Mail said “health chiefs” had “put processed meat on same level as cigarettes. In a letter to one of the journals, he said the scientists involved in its classification decisions “are motivated by a desire to improve public health by identifying the causes of human cancer and thereby contributing to disease prevention.Some institutions have also clashed with IARC.”“What the public wants to know is: What are the agents in our surroundings that are likely to have palpable effects on our health Not theoretical exposures which might, under some far-fetched conditions, possibly have an effect,” said Kabat, who is also author of the book Hyping Health Risks.”Paolo Boffetta worked at IARC for 19 years, rising to become head of the genetics and epidemiology team, and describes himself as “still a strong supporter” of the agency. The glyphosate row has thrown up concerns about potential conflicts of interest at IARC: It involves an adviser to the agency who is closely linked to the Environmental Defence Fund, a US campaign group opposed to pesticides.To produce its assessments, IARC assembles groups of experts who review the existing scientific evidence and then place a substance or activity in one of five categories: carcinogenic to humans; probably carcinogenic; possibly carcinogenic; not classifiable as carcinogenic; and probably not carcinogenic.IARC has said that working as a painter causes cancer, using a mobile phone possibly does, and working shifts as a pilot or a nurse, for example — is “probably carcinogenic.9 billion in 2014.” Richard Sullivan, a professor of cancer policy and global health at King’s College London, says any confusion is due to a widespread misunderstanding of IARC’s role. IARC says glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.33rd Day Of Lockdown Total Cases 26,283 1,835 Recovered 5,939 443 Deaths 825 44 Maharashtra76281076323 Gujarat3071282133 Delhi262586954 Rajasthan208351334 Madhya Pradesh194528199 Tamil Nadu182196023 Uttar Pradesh179326127 Andhra Pradesh101617131 Telangana99030725 West Bengal57110318 Karnataka50015818 Jammu and Kashmir4941126 Kerala4583384 Punjab3087217 Haryana2871913 Bihar251452 Odisha100341 Jharkhand6783 Uttarakhand48260 Himachal Pradesh40232 Chhatisgarh37320 Assam36191 Chandigarh28150 Meghalaya1201 Puducherry840 Goa770 Manipur220 Tripura220 Mizoram100 Arunachal Pradesh110 World, Others How the WHO’s cancer agency confuses people REUTERS | KATE KELLAND Published: Apr 22, 2016, 6:40 am IST Updated: Apr 22, 2016, 6:40 am IST Thanks to scientists working under the auspices of the World Health Organisation, you can be fairly sure your toothbrush won’t give you cancer. IARC, based in Lyon, had revenue of about 30 million euros (34 million) in 2014, whereas the British charity Cancer Research UK had income of about 875 million and the US government’s National Cancer Institute had a budget of 4.“IARC is purely there to do the science.” Last October, it ranked processed meats in its top category of known carcinogens, alongside plutonium