Here’s a newsflash for you folks. Almost anything that exists on the Earth can be harmful to you. What would happen to me if, for instance, I decided to consume 350 lemons right now? Or, how about a news story I read recently on the damage to human health and well being caused by … chairs? I understand why people hear the term, “carcinogenic” and get really, really freaked out. After all, who wants to get cancer? Furthermore, who wants to get cancer from factors that are beyond their control.
But merely demonstrating that something has the ability to encourage the growth of cancerous cells in your body is a far cry from demonstrating that exposure to said chemical/material actually kills and injures people. Certainly, for many of the things that are correctly thought to be carcinogenic, like dioxin, humans are exposed to it on a daily basis. However, take a look at what the scientific literature has found on the actual health impacts of dioxin on humans. Look at the epidemiology on the people who were thought to be at risk for extreme exposures in the wake a newsworthy exposure to this toxic chemical (e.g. Love Canal and Seveso). Even for this “ghastliest” of chemicals, you are going to find scant evidence that dioxin actually has hurt people. For almost all of us, our exposures are at significantly lower levels than that which would cause harm, or the exposures we get are not sustained long enough to cause problems. For fun, go check out what the EPA has to say about dioxin. You’ll see a heck of a lot of “possiblys”, “maybes” and “potentiallys” and not much if at all of “has caused,” etc.
Does this mean we should ignore dioxin? Not at all. But it certainly does mean that dioxin ought to be thought of in the same way that you think of me eating lemons, or pounding cups of coffee (which has myriad carcinogenic chemicals in it). Just like the CAGW alarmists argue that they need a new, scarier name for Global Warming, maybe folks need to work on a new name for chemicals like dioxin that sound less scary?
Whenever you hear someone argue that something is carcinogenic, I urge you to do the following.
How many of you think it is a good idea to eliminate and regulate antibiotics and vaccines so that they can stop causing cancer? No? Why not? And what’s different about antibiotics than some of the activities that we enjoy and benefit from that may have the unintended side effect of releasing something that may cause cancer in the future? It’s not like we are releasing them on purpose.
Have a nice day. If you get a cold, be sure not to treat it, for if it doesn’t kill you, you may get cancer.
I took your advice and went to the EPA’s website on Dioxins, located here: http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/dioxins.htm. You are correct that the web site does use a lot of words like: “potentially”, “anticipated” and “likely.” However, I found the following sections the most interesting:
1. “Most of us receive almost all of our dioxin exposure from the food we eat: specifically from the animal fats associated with eating beef, pork, poultry, fish, milk, dairy products.”
2. “Important exceptions to this pattern of general population exposure are individuals who, over an extended period of time, eat primarily locally grown meat, fish or dairy products that have significantly greater dioxin levels than those found in the commercial food supply. Individuals in this situation receive greater exposure and are at greater risk than the general population. ”
Based on these two sections of the EPA’s website, it appears that most of us get our Dioxin exposure through food. In addition, those that eat locally produced food may face significantly higher Dioxin exposure levels, if they live in an area with high dioxin levels. I wonder why I do not ever recall hearing about this risk of eating locally produced food from “eat local” supporters.
A big part of the concern about carcinogens is the technological advancement in substance analysis. Testing techniques like atomic absorption analysis can reveal the presence of quantities in a sample as small as parts per billion. Government guidelines are then issued to avoid ingestion of things that contain quantities so small that they can be found in a sample taken of anything, anywhere. I would compare reluctance to eat a fish whose flesh contains 25 parts per billion of mercury to forgoing a trip to India because there are 25 serial killers loose in the country.
One of the things that has occurred over the last 30 years is that our detection equipment has improved so much. We can now detect chemicals at insanely low parts-per-billion concentrations. As we become able to pick apart a sample molecule by molecule, we likely will find a molecule of about anything in most any sample.
This gives rise to the “______[awful sounding compound] was found in ________[common consumer item]” press release. These are fabulous for generating news stories, fear, and funding for advocacy groups, but not very helpful in assessing real risks.
basically, many of the combustion products of cellular membranes and organic molecules are carcinogenic. roasting coffee, grilling meats, frying something, has the same exact carcinogens that are present in cigarettes…Cigarettes! i love telling this people who are so overly concerned about second-hand smoke
So everything carries some risk of giving you cancer, but aren’t people weighing the costs and benefits of not having those things because they increase the risk more than others and/or provide less benefit than others? Perhaps people are misjudging the expected costs and benefits, but one would presume that things like being born, roasting coffee, has more benefits than expected costs (via more exposure to carcinogenic materials), whereas cigarettes have relatively few benefits (for many people) compared to their expected costs.
And how do we deal with some diseases that reduce the risk of other diseases..for example sickle cell carriers have reduced susceptibility to malaria.