the difference between science and politics The NYT is also running a piece on a Congressionally-mandated study that, like earlier studies, found no evidence linking certain substances to breast cancer:

Dr. Winn points to the study, which examined blood and urine from more than 3,000 Long Island women for evidence of exposure to DDT, PCB's, chlordanes or chemicals from cigarette smoke. The scientists also looked at carpet dust, tap water and yard soil for evidence that the chemicals were in the women's environment. But those who got breast cancer were no more likely to have been exposed to the chemicals than those who didn't. The data, she said, "were very, very conclusive." The chemicals that were examined were thought to be plausible culprits — largely because they could cause cancer in mice. Still, Dr. Winn said, "In the study, it is clear that they are not associated with breast cancer."

But, as the article points out, "the drive to blame something other than chance is a strong one," and so the leader of "1 in 9: The Long Island Breast Cancer Action Coalition" is unhappy with having no one to blame:

"I refuse to accept the fact that they didn't find anything," she said. "They didn't find anything conclusive because in the scientific world it has to be exact." But, she added, "they couldn't say 100 percent that there wasn't a link." And so, Ms. Barish said, the story is not over. "We need to do a lot more studies," she said.

The article doesn't mention at what point Barish would be satisfied with the studies, though it's not unreasonable to guess that it will be when the studies produce the answer she wants hear and when they finger the culprit she already blames.