>I can't help thinking that NPR's silence on this rather fundamental feature of cancer, i.e. the role of environmental carcinogens, is in some way related to th

>I can't help thinking that NPR's silence on this rather fundamental feature of cancer, i.e. the role of environmental carcinogens, is in some way related to the money they take from their advertisers in the fossil fuel / pharmaceutical sector. I think their "silence" is related to the small proportion of cases linked to environmental contaminants or carcinogens besides alcohol and tobacco. I work with my state's cancer prevention program, and cancer incidence and mortality rates are heavily and undeniably correlated to behaviors and social determinants: alcohol consumption, smoking rates, exercise, access to healthcare, poverty. The only environmental causes worth any money or time are radon gas and sun exposure. In a morbid way, we'd love a localized environmental cause. That'd be easy to fix compared to convincing people to exercise and get colonoscopies. It's just that "hot spots" are almost always statistical anomalies that occur about as often as expected. Usually in communities near industrial zones, because they're high poverty (so already prone to high incidence), low population (better chance of deviating far from the mean rate), and have been convinced that all unknown chemicals are highly carcinogenic. There are so many of these communities, it would be surprising to not see one or two a year with a very high number of similar cancer diagnoses. And, please believe me, I have never seen a dime from anyone besides the state government. I've never been told to avoid any topics when combing through data for any patterns. And I have never gotten the sense anyone I work with, especially the epidemiologists who interview communities when a cancer cluster is feared, are on the take. It is incredibly unlikely that major news media, cancer researchers, practicing oncologists, and all public health experts working on cancer are corrupt.