On the Lighter Side- Cancer

Recently I have become aware of a site that lists "Known and Probably Human Carcinogens". I had to check it out and what I found was both amusing and disturbing. To make this more understandable, there are two ways that carcinogens are ranked. Those systems and their ranking systems are:

The International Agency for Research on Cancer:

• Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans
• Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans
• Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans
• Group 3: Unclassifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans
• Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans

The EPA:

• Group A: Carcinogenic to humans
• Group B: Likely to be carcinogenic to humans
• Group C: Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential
• Group D: Inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential
• Group E: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans

The quoted web page lists all substances classified under the International Agency for Research on Cancer's system. For your amusement, here are some of the highlights:

Group 1
Alcoholic beverages
Coke production (I'm assuming they mean the drug but my first thought was for the drink)
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives
Leather dust
Mineral oils
Nickel compounds
Salted fish (Chinese style)
Infection with flat worms
Wood dust
Environmental tobacco smoke
Estrogens
Neutrons
Solar radiation

Group 2a
Manufacture of art glass, glass containers, and press ware
Creosotes (i.e. the residue from burning wood and other substances)
Frying
Mate hot (i.e. a type of tea)
Shiftwork that involves circadian disruption (i.e. messes with your sleep schedule)
Glass wool fibers
Nickel
Progesterone (a natural pregnancy hormone)

Do these items cause or are likely to cause cancer? Maybe.

Should we walk around being afraid and avoiding all contact with these items? Not a chance.

AJ Up in Arms

A new study has just been published saying that there may be a link between autism rates and obesity in mothers which has AJ up in arms.

The study, which you can read more about here, says that there is a strong though not definitive correlation between mothers with metabolic conditions such as diabetes and obesity and children with developmental delays and autism spectrum disorders. Compare that to the 28 studies that have been completed between 2000 and the present day that have looked for any relationship between vaccines and autism. All of those have come up with nothing.

There was a study completed by Dr. Andrew Wakefield in 1998 that claimed there was a link between vaccines and autism. That study has since been discredited and the British Medical Journal, which originally published the findings, "concluded Dr. Andrew Wakefield misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study". That means there was 1 case for and 28 against any link between autism and vaccines and that 1 pro-correlation study has now been discredited.

I'm glad to see that the medical community is continuing the search for the cause of autism, but it's time we move on from the vaccine argument. If vaccines really are causing autism then the conspiracy is so large that we've got bigger issues than autism.