|
NoTrollMotor | Thu May-23-02 06:16 AM |
Member since Feb 25th 2002
178 posts
|     |
|
#4092, "RE: lead in relation to cancer"
In response to In response to 7
|
Billy states the obvious that lead, while unhealthy, is not a known carcinogen! Why are the labels required under a law that requires notification regarding carcinogens?? It's another example of those described by CJ improperly using laws intended for another purpose to further thier agenda. Anybody heard of the Endangered Species Act and the Center for Biological Diversity?
Perhaps we should put the "Cancer" sticker on everything that epidemiologists determine raise the risk of morbidity or mortality to protect us all from ourselves.
NoTrollMotor
NoTrollMotor
|
|
|
 | lead in relation to cancer
[View all] , The Pan, Mon May-13-02 10:01 PM
| | |  RE: lead in relation to cancer,
CJ,
May 14th 2002, #1
 RE: lead in relation to cancer,
The pan,
May 14th 2002, #2
RE: lead in relation to cancer,
fishtrax,
May 15th 2002, #3
RE: lead in relation to cancer,
Billy Pilgrim,
May 17th 2002, #4
RE: lead in relation to cancer,
CJ,
May 18th 2002, #5
RE: lead in relation to cancer,
CJ,
May 18th 2002, #6
RE: lead in relation to cancer,
Billy Pilgrim,
May 19th 2002, #7
 RE: lead in relation to cancer,
CJ,
May 20th 2002, #8
RE: lead in relation to cancer,
NoTrollMotor,
May 23rd 2002 #9
RE: lead in relation to cancer,
CJ,
May 23rd 2002, #10
| |
|
|
© Copyright Robert Belloni 1997-2012. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without express written consent.
|
