Keep reading: "These substances are not genotoxic carcinogens. It is considered that the mechanism of carcinogenesis, involving the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, means that there is a threshold for carcinogenicity. Tolerable intake guidance based on non-cancer end-points is considered protective for carcinogenicity." Good to know that low levels of these contaminants are not considered harmful.
I presume that this is your conclusion and not that from a published report or web page? If not, could you please cite the source for this alleged epidemic warning, or modify the above claim to indicate its origin?
Do you know the definition of epidemic? Since you use it in exactly the same manner that I had, can I assume that you also approve of my use in reference to non-contagious maladies?
Let's see if there's an "epidemic" of bladder cancer in Michigan. The table shows that there is a rising incidence of bladder cancer cases in Wayne County, two counties that are stable and above the US average, and the remaining counties are deemed stable and similar to the US average. Ummm.... where is this epidemic of bladder cancer?
If you look at the 5 year incidence rate for all cancers in Michigan at:
Anyways, it appears we've now moved from discussing contaminated fish, to contaminated drinking water. They're connected, of course, except that water tends to dilute contaminants, while fish tend to concentrate the contaminants.
It also appears that you are either unwilling or unable to discuss your claim of a 30% unemployment rate, or correct your claim that the Michigan cancer rate is 16% above the national average. While you seem to do quite nicely at excavating interesting material and links, you seem to be having some difficulty defending your numbers, which are usually unsubstantiated and are therefore rather suspect. As in my previous message, which you chose to ignore and divert the topic, I suggest that you either justify, correct, or retract these numerical allegations.