I wanted to make a comment. Several people have mentioned the fact that results have to be reproducible and be peer-reviewed. I would like to point out the BioInitiative Report, which has been referred to several times. I was one of the people who contributed to it. The BioInitiative Report was written by working scientists, people who've actually been involved in the activities they wrote about, unlike some of the committees that are making the judgments. You have people who are basically experts writing about this and active scientists who are writing about this.
The other thing about the BioInitiative Report is that while it wasn't peer-reviewed in the classic way, it was peer-reviewed among the people who contributed. There was reading of it among those who contributed to it, but the same people who contributed to the BioInitiative Report updated their report and submitted it to a journal called Pathophysiology, and thus a peer-reviewed BioInitiative Report came out in August of 2009. So in effect, the BioInitiative Report has been peer-reviewed and it passes with scientific credentials as well—that is, official scientific credentials.
As a coda to this, I'd like to point out that the Parliament of the European Union actually voted--I think in September 2009--to review their own standards based on the BioInitiative Report. So if you get the occasional report going around from a few committees of mainly politician-scientists, as opposed to active scientists.... The European Union, in its collective wisdom, decided there was enough evidence in there...and by the way, the BioInitiative Report had over 2,000 references in it, so you can't say that it was just a cursory review. It was a very thorough review, and it's open to discussion.
The point is that it was put out so that people could see it and in general the public did see it. The reviews have been that people are now much more aware of the issues than they had been previously.