<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The All-Night Carcinogen Hunt</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mediaenvironment.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/the-all-night-carcinogen-hunt/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mediaenvironment.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/the-all-night-carcinogen-hunt/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:10:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: acbowman</title>
		<link>http://mediaenvironment.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/the-all-night-carcinogen-hunt/#comment-961</link>
		<dc:creator>acbowman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:40:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediaenvironment.wordpress.com/?p=438#comment-961</guid>
		<description>I agree, you can find all sorts of data to support what agenda you are pushing.  At the end of the day I think it comes down to what you believe, or what resonates the most with you.

Science data can be used for multiple truths.  For example, to Beth Bader, anything that has been found &quot;linked&quot; to cancer is off the menu.  To others, like myself, I see that and want to know how much causes cancer?  Does it cause cancer in people, or just rats? 

I am sure I could find other sources, scientific even, that make a more conclusive claim that BHA or BHT are carcinogens. But I would have to check their data. If the results are driven by fear of cancer, then I think you have to question it.

That being said, it doesn&#039;t mean we shouldn&#039;t look for alternatives just because we don&#039;t know.  As consumers we should be talking to government and corporations about our concerns.  I don&#039;t know if it is cause to cut out the tasty chicken nuggets though.  

Moderation in all things.

-Adam</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, you can find all sorts of data to support what agenda you are pushing.  At the end of the day I think it comes down to what you believe, or what resonates the most with you.</p>
<p>Science data can be used for multiple truths.  For example, to Beth Bader, anything that has been found &#8220;linked&#8221; to cancer is off the menu.  To others, like myself, I see that and want to know how much causes cancer?  Does it cause cancer in people, or just rats? </p>
<p>I am sure I could find other sources, scientific even, that make a more conclusive claim that BHA or BHT are carcinogens. But I would have to check their data. If the results are driven by fear of cancer, then I think you have to question it.</p>
<p>That being said, it doesn&#8217;t mean we shouldn&#8217;t look for alternatives just because we don&#8217;t know.  As consumers we should be talking to government and corporations about our concerns.  I don&#8217;t know if it is cause to cut out the tasty chicken nuggets though.  </p>
<p>Moderation in all things.</p>
<p>-Adam</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: j500</title>
		<link>http://mediaenvironment.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/the-all-night-carcinogen-hunt/#comment-849</link>
		<dc:creator>j500</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:59:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediaenvironment.wordpress.com/?p=438#comment-849</guid>
		<description>Adam, You have done what some journalists just don&#039;t have the time to do - dig deep.  This was an incredibly thoughtful post.  Thank you. The one thing to consider is that truths are multiple.  Depending on who you are and what your agenda is, even science is flexible.  We see that most starkly in conversations around climate change.  If we dug deeper could we find more research that repudiates your findings?
Simran</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adam, You have done what some journalists just don&#8217;t have the time to do &#8211; dig deep.  This was an incredibly thoughtful post.  Thank you. The one thing to consider is that truths are multiple.  Depending on who you are and what your agenda is, even science is flexible.  We see that most starkly in conversations around climate change.  If we dug deeper could we find more research that repudiates your findings?<br />
Simran</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
