Informative, but not particular critical. Doesn't challenge the author on her position.

Although the book synopsis and interview that make up this story represent only one side of the debate about cancer, the author being interviewed, Devra Davis, responds carefully and thoughtfully to the questions posed. It is also worth noting that Dr. Davis has extensive experience in this research area and has an impressive list of credentials that support her claim of expertise.

In the late 50s or early 60s a neithbor/friend who was working on her PHd in nursing told me about this. She said the drug companies, factory owners, hospitals that had cancer wards, the thousands who worked in or for experimental labs, many drs., nursing homes, etc., were not looking forward to a cure for cancer: It would put a lot of powerful people out of business and seriously cut into politicians bank accounts. At the time, I found it hard to believe....

I think that what the article, and apparently the book, try to do is pull together a lot of material that has been floating around in separate articles, radio interviews, court cases, etc. This, of course, means that each separate piece can't really be evaluated here. Nor can one definitively say that the continued exposure to toxic elements in everyone's daily lives is conspiratorial. In general, there just isn't enough information available in widely circulated media for people to make 'informed decisions' about industries or products - or of what reviews are done of them before they reach 'market'. Is this because of 'don't tell' or because of 'don't ask'?