tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11210638.post2030292604536876646..comments2007-08-07T17:48:56.464-04:00Tom Noyeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05304960210838414244noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11210638.post-44997816775194100322007-08-07T17:48:00.000-04:002007-08-07T17:48:00.000-04:00Thanks for the inside information.<BR/><BR/>That John Carney (or any elected official) would work hard to respond to a story such as this is hardly news.<BR/><BR/>Again, what I find curious is that Carney, who had the report before anyone else, didn't get out front on this before the story became public. He had a head start and still ended up playing catch-up.TommyWonkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05304960210838414244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11210638.post-38088153724427106652007-08-07T17:36:00.000-04:002007-08-07T17:36:00.000-04:00Word from very reliable sources is that John Carney called DNREC Secretary Hughes very early Monday morning upset about the quote and NJ Article. <BR/><BR/>Hughes put the DNREC staff in rapid response mode (public funded campaign) mode to get him answers. During the Monday morning Department Staff meeting with Hughes and his appointed Division Directors, Hughes called John Carney and put him on speaker phone. Carney got the responses you read in the news journal today. <BR/><BR/>Your tax dollars at work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11210638.post-873352680808403092007-08-07T08:17:00.000-04:002007-08-07T08:17:00.000-04:00Thanks for the useful and well-informed background.<BR/><BR/>What I find curious is how Carney could be so flat-footed on the subject, considering that he had the report on his desk before anyone else. He had the opportunity to get out in front on this and instead came out sounding (once again) like a cautious bureaucrat.<BR/><BR/>The News Journal today reports that Carney has reversed himself and now thinks more study would be useful:<BR/><BR/>"He [Carney] said it would be especially valuable to get information about two other factors that could be responsible for the cancer cases: tobacco use and people moving into the area."<BR/><BR/>This sounds like just the kind of analysis to isolate other possible causes that you suggested.TommyWonkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05304960210838414244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11210638.post-89670294150136966442007-08-06T23:04:00.000-04:002007-08-06T23:04:00.000-04:00It is inexcusable that the data doesn't exist. The last round of this concern happened under Tom Carper. The Cancer work group recommended a set of detailed monitoring protocols that were proposed by DNREC Secretary Tulou. However, this was shot down by Pete Ross of the budget office with support from DHSS. It never saw the light of day due to political maneuvering. John Carney was a political insider at this time as well. He should know what studies are needed. I guess he will have to use those same DNREC State employees to help put a spin on this for his campaign.<BR/><BR/>Now, it will take years for DNREC to collect the needed data. <BR/><BR/>In the meantime, anyone with any knowledge of the issue would at least try to look a the age distribution and demographics of those getting cancer, whether or not a disproportionate number of them some, are old, eat to much scrapple and fried foods, etc. to at least begin to remove some of the other potential causes and variables. It doesn't take a genius or cost a lot of money to due this, but then again John Carney is not the sharpest tool in the shed, so will need to be told what to do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com