the 116 things that cause CANCER - according to World Health Organization

[dks]

In case anybody missed that.

Twenty-two experts at the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer, from 10 countries, took the decision after reviewing more than 800 studies that investigated the links between red meat and processed meat and various different types of cancer.
Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic, based on sufficient evidence in humans that consumption causes specifically colorectal or bowel cancer, they concluded.
The classification of red meat as 'probably carcinogenic to humans' was observed mainly in relation to colorectal cancer, but links were also seen for pancreatic and prostate cancer.
The WHO panel of experts found links between processed meat and red meat and bowel cancer
The WHO panel of experts found links between processed meat and red meat and bowel cancer
The experts concluded that each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%.
'For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,' said Dr Kurt Straif, head of the IARC Monographs Programme.
'In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance.'
Dr Christopher Wild, director of IARC added: 'These findings further support current public health recommendations to limit intake of meat.




1. Tobacco smoking
2. Sunlamps and sunbeds
3. Aluminium production
4. Arsenic in drinking water
5. Auramine production
6. Boot and shoe manufacture and repair
7. Chimney sweeping
8. Coal gasification
9. Coal tar distillation
10. Coke (fuel) production
11. Furniture and cabinet making
12. Haematite mining (underground) with exposure to radon
13. Secondhand smoke
14. Iron and steel founding
15. Isopropanol manufacture (strong-acid process)
16. Magenta dye manufacturing
17. Occupational exposure as a painter
18. Paving and roofing with coal-tar pitch
19. Rubber industry
20. Occupational exposure of strong inorganic acid mists containing sulphuric acid
21. Naturally occurring mixtures of aflatoxins (produced by funghi)
22. Alcoholic beverages
23. Areca nut - often chewed with betel leaf
24. Betel quid without tobacco
25. Betel quid with tobacco
26. Coal tar pitches
27. Coal tars
28. Indoor emissions from household combustion of coal
29. Diesel exhaust
30. Mineral oils, untreated and mildly treated
31. Phenacetin, a pain and fever reducing drug
32. Plants containing aristolochic acid (used in Chinese herbal medicine)
33. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) - widely used in electrical equipment in the past, banned in many countries in the 1970s
34. Chinese-style salted fish
35. Shale oils
36. Soots
37. Smokeless tobacco products
38. Wood dust
39. Processed meat
40. Acetaldehyde
41. 4-Aminobiphenyl
42. Aristolochic acids and plants containing them
43. Asbestos
44. Arsenic and arsenic compounds
45. Azathioprine
46. Benzene
47. Benzidine
48. Benzo[a]pyrene
49. Beryllium and beryllium compounds
50. Chlornapazine (N,N-Bis(2-chloroethyl)-2-naphthylamine)
51. Bis(chloromethyl)ether
52. Chloromethyl methyl ether
53. 1,3-Butadiene
54. 1,4-Butanediol dimethanesulfonate (Busulphan, Myleran)
55. Cadmium and cadmium compounds
56. Chlorambucil
57. Methyl-CCNU (1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea; Semustine)
58. Chromium(VI) compounds
 59. Ciclosporin
60. Contraceptives, hormonal, combined forms (those containing both oestrogen and a progestogen)
61. Contraceptives, oral, sequential forms of hormonal contraception (a period of oestrogen-only followed by a period of both oestrogen and a progestogen)

62. Cyclophosphamide
63. Diethylstilboestrol
64. Dyes metabolized to benzidine
65. Epstein-Barr virus
66. Oestrogens, nonsteroidal
67. Oestrogens, steroidal
68. Oestrogen therapy, postmenopausal
69. Ethanol in alcoholic beverages
70. Erionite
71. Ethylene oxide
72. Etoposide alone and in combination with cisplatin and bleomycin
73. Formaldehyde
74. Gallium arsenide
75. Helicobacter pylori (infection with)
76. Hepatitis B virus (chronic infection with)
77. Hepatitis C virus (chronic infection with)
78. Herbal remedies containing plant species of the genus Aristolochia
79. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (infection with)
80. Human papillomavirus type 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59 and 66
81. Human T-cell lymphotropic virus type-I
82. Melphalan
83. Methoxsalen (8-Methoxypsoralen) plus ultraviolet A-radiation
84. 4,4'-methylene-bis(2-chloroaniline) (MOCA)
85. MOPP and other combined chemotherapy including alkylating agents
86. Mustard gas (sulphur mustard)
87. 2-Naphthylamine
88. Neutron radiation
89. Nickel compounds
90. 4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK)
91. N-Nitrosonornicotine (NNN)
92. Opisthorchis viverrini (infection with)
93. Outdoor air pollution
94. Particulate matter in outdoor air pollution
95. Phosphorus-32, as phosphate
96. Plutonium-239 and its decay products (may contain plutonium-240 and other isotopes), as aerosols
97. Radioiodines, short-lived isotopes, including iodine-131, from atomic reactor accidents and nuclear weapons detonation (exposure during childhood)
98. Radionuclides, α-particle-emitting, internally deposited
99. Radionuclides, β-particle-emitting, internally deposited
100. Radium-224 and its decay products
101. Radium-226 and its decay products
102. Radium-228 and its decay products
103. Radon-222 and its decay products
104. Schistosoma haematobium (infection with)
105. Silica, crystalline (inhaled in the form of quartz or cristobalite from occupational sources)
106. Solar radiation
107. Talc containing asbestiform fibres
108. Tamoxifen
109. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin
110. Thiotepa (1,1',1'-phosphinothioylidynetrisaziridine)
111. Thorium-232 and its decay products, administered intravenously as a colloidal dispersion of thorium-232 dioxide
112. Treosulfan
113. Ortho-toluidine
114. Vinyl chloride
115. Ultraviolet radiation
116. X-radiation and gamma radiation

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/

From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3293707/Revealed-116-things-cause-CANCER-according-world-health-experts.html

[firiki]

Thanks for posting this.

Opisthorchis         

[kirk13]

Hmmm,I'm tempted to wrap myself up in cotton wool but that might be carcinogenic 

At least SAKs arn't on the list....yet

[Corwyn]

This is just bullsmurf. Everything is giving cancer, from food to air to everything we touch and wear.
Just use our organic, vegan, overpriced bullsmurf and you'll be fine.

Hundreds of years ago, people were dropping off cancer like flies and they had no cell phones or processed meat or car fumes.

My mom was a cancer-prepper... wouldn't use phones, made us move from the power lines, never smoked, never ate processed foods, would do monthly check-ups... and she died of cancer at 40.
My dad couldn't care less, used to smoke 6-7 packs of cigarettes a day, drink like a sponge, eat whatever was available, pork whatever was available and worked at a friggin ammunitions warehouse. He died at 65, fully healthy otherwise, due to an untreated stomach flu.

Stuff just friggin happens, being paranoid doesn't help... My wife worked as volunteer at the kids' terminal cancer clinic... and trust me none of those kids had cellphones, sniffed chalk or injected gluten... damn... most of their parent's could even afford to buy them meat, red, processed or otherwise....

[dks]

The factor of genetics is not taken into account. So if you have a tendency for cancers in your family any of these factors could encourage such growth.

In less well off areas asbestos in buildings, air, water is a major contributor.

[hiraethus]

117.  The Daily Mail

[Grathr]

Its dangerous to be alive.
Noone has survived it yet

[firiki]

117.  The Daily Mail

Its dangerous to be alive.
Noone has survived it yet

 

Seriously though, I wonder how many SPAM manufacturers actually prefer eating SPAM rather than a juicy steak.

How many factory owners polluting water, air, land prefer to live within their factory's premises.

In some parts of the world reading the wrong kind of newspaper can be hazardous to one's health.

 

[gregozedobe]

Without a figure on the chance of getting cancer depending on your exposure the above list is just plain scare-mongering 

[Etherealicer]

118. Poorly formated lists



Seriously, a lot of them are redundant

2. Sunlamps and sunbeds
106. Solar radiation
115. Ultraviolet radiation

It also disturbs me that they did neither group nor sort the list.
Basically, there are 3 cases (they in turn can be split again)
Radiation (UV / Radioactive...)
Chemical
Biological (Virii...)
It would be so easy to group it by this criteriae, but no, lets just make a list, randomize it 3 times.

[firiki]

Without a figure on the chance of getting cancer depending on your exposure the above list is just plain scare-mongering 

I'd say that chances are dependent on a number of factors. Stating that certain things can cause cancer if given the chance is a huge step. Remember how the tobacco industry would try to hide the noxious effects? I'm not an expert but for me the list is incomplete rather than fearscare-mongering

[firiki]

118. Poorly formated lists

(Image removed from quote.)

Seriously, a lot of them are redundant

2. Sunlamps and sunbeds
106. Solar radiation
115. Ultraviolet radiation

Sunlamps aren't the same as solar radiation and ultraviolet rays can be found in machinery too.

[magentus]

117.  The Daily Mail

Ha! Most of my residents read this and I regularly have one or two of them come visit me with the latest scare they've read 'in the paper' - at least they have the sense to not call it a Newspaper.

[Etherealicer]

118. Poorly formated lists

(Image removed from quote.)

Seriously, a lot of them are redundant

2. Sunlamps and sunbeds
106. Solar radiation
115. Ultraviolet radiation

Sunlamps aren't the same as solar radiation and ultraviolet rays can be found in machinery too.

Sunbeds use UVA/UVB (netdoctor)
The sun radiates massive UV, that is what causes cancer.

Basically all three say: UV causes cancer it would have been better to group them:

XY. UV-radiation (e.g. from sunbeds, sun etc.)

[firiki]

118. Poorly formated lists

(Image removed from quote.)

Seriously, a lot of them are redundant

2. Sunlamps and sunbeds
106. Solar radiation
115. Ultraviolet radiation

Sunlamps aren't the same as solar radiation and ultraviolet rays can be found in machinery too.

Sunbeds use UVA/UVB (netdoctor)
The sun radiates massive UV, that is what causes cancer.

Basically all three say: UV causes cancer it would have been better to group them:

XY. UV-radiation (e.g. from sunbeds, sun etc.)

Agreed. 

[Etherealicer]

118. Poorly formated lists

(Image removed from quote.)

Seriously, a lot of them are redundant

2. Sunlamps and sunbeds
106. Solar radiation
115. Ultraviolet radiation

Sunlamps aren't the same as solar radiation and ultraviolet rays can be found in machinery too.

Sunbeds use UVA/UVB (netdoctor)
The sun radiates massive UV, that is what causes cancer.

Basically all three say: UV causes cancer it would have been better to group them:

XY. UV-radiation (e.g. from sunbeds, sun etc.)

116. X-radiation and gamma radiation

More of exactly the same: electromagnetic radiation!

So they could even have made it like this
100. electromagnetic radiation
       a) UV-radiation
       b) X-ray
       c) gamma-radiation

[dks]

The problem is that if they live long enough most people will get some sort of cancer.
Most usually just die from other issues, like accidents, heart conditions etc. so the actual cancer is not the cause of death. (for example a cancer may be left, intentionally, untreated in a 90 year old woman, if it will potentially kill her in 40 years)

Still a large number of people, I recall over 25%, will die from cancer.

What the WHO list shows is that these factors will noticeably increase that 25% chance. Most will increase it by very little, but still by a significant enough amount so that after removing all other contributing factors, like genetics (and the other 115 factors) the increase caused by them is statistically significant.

These studies are done on populations, rather than on individuals.

Whereas if someone receives a large amount of a carcinogen it may be possible to sugest that it is very likely for him to die from cancer, in most case people will receive small amounts, making it impossible to say who will die from what, so a percentage increase in probability is given.

With sunbeds, there was a big problem a few years ago, so i assume that they felt that they needed to be mentioned exclusively.

X radiation is produced by equipment (stopping electrons etc.) whereas Gamma radiation is produced by the decay of atomic nuclei, so even though they are the same at the same energies, the method of production is different.

[firiki]

118. Poorly formated lists

(Image removed from quote.)

Seriously, a lot of them are redundant

2. Sunlamps and sunbeds
106. Solar radiation
115. Ultraviolet radiation

Sunlamps aren't the same as solar radiation and ultraviolet rays can be found in machinery too.

Sunbeds use UVA/UVB (netdoctor)
The sun radiates massive UV, that is what causes cancer.

Basically all three say: UV causes cancer it would have been better to group them:

XY. UV-radiation (e.g. from sunbeds, sun etc.)

116. X-radiation and gamma radiation

More of exactly the same: electromagnetic radiation!

So they could even have made it like this
100. electromagnetic radiation
       a) UV-radiation
       b) X-ray
       c) gamma-radiation

I like the way you think. Agreed once more.

I think it was meant as a break-down of things listed for people who are not in the know. Fear-mongering by the glorious Daily Flail might be at play too

On a side note I read that in Italy authorities are telling people not to give up on cooked meats 

[comis]

Its dangerous to be alive.
Noone has survived it yet

I think even among these number of things, there must a scale and how strong is the causality.

[Etherealicer]

X radiation is produced by equipment (stopping electrons etc.) whereas Gamma radiation is produced by the decay of atomic nuclei, so even though they are the same at the same energies, the method of production is different.

X-ray
There is no consensus for a definition distinguishing between X-rays and gamma rays. One common practice is to distinguish between the two types of radiation based on their source: X-rays are emitted by electrons, while gamma rays are emitted by the atomic nucleus.

The problem is that if they live long enough most people will get some sort of cancer.
Most usually just die from other issues, like accidents, heart conditions etc. so the actual cancer is not the cause of death. (for example a cancer may be left, intentionally, untreated in a 90 year old woman, if it will potentially kill her in 40 years)

Still a large number of people, I recall over 25%, will die from cancer.

What the WHO list shows is that these factors will noticeably increase that 25% chance. Most will increase it by very little, but still by a significant enough amount so that after removing all other contributing factors, like genetics (and the other 115 factors) the increase caused by them is statistically significant.

These studies are done on populations, rather than on individuals.

Whereas if someone receives a large amount of a carcinogen it may be possible to sugest that it is very likely for him to die from cancer, in most case people will receive small amounts, making it impossible to say who will die from what, so a percentage increase in probability is given.

With sunbeds, there was a big problem a few years ago, so i assume that they felt that they needed to be mentioned exclusively.

I have been in medical writing and I can tell you... Those data-sets are highly patchy.
Doctors have a duty to report this things and then they are combined to a data-set. For example there is never a casual smoker because they do not bother to report it unless the patient is a heavy smoker. Not once have I seen a report where there was any mentioning of how much exposure to the sun had. Or whether he was tattooed (about 5 years ago, we had a nationwide control of tattooing studios and many used colors with heavy-metals!).

You get a report like this:
- patient, 50 years old has cancer
- treats his chronical migrain with aspirin (no other medication)

It ends up as this: Aspirin might have caused cancer
Simply because nowhere is written that the patient smokes a pack a day, likes to sun-tan and works as plutonium-smuggler.

[Etherealicer]

Its dangerous to be alive.
Noone has survived it yet

I think even among these number of things, there must a scale and how strong is the causality.

Sure dangerous...
But consider this

8 billions are alive
but only 100 billions have died and it took them FIFTY-THOUSAND years, so I there is hope

[Corwyn]

Read this on a doctor friend's Facebook page:

[dks]

There is a consensus on distinguishing between x rays and Gamma rays, based on how they are produced. Wikipedia is wrong on that. If there was no consensus then most of the available literature would not make sense. Just because you get a few people disagreeing, just for the sake of it, does not mean that there is no established scientific system for that classification. They are just trying to be PC, make everybody happy.
In general x rays are produced by stopping fastly moving electrons on a heavy metal target, like tungsten, causing it to emit x-rays, through a process that is too boring to discuss. The x-rays are produced from the outer shell electrons gaining and losing energy.

Gamma rays are produced, again from the loss of energy, in the nucleus as it tries to gain stability (naturally occurring radiation is of that type)

[firiki]

Read this on a doctor friend's Facebook page:

(Image removed from quote.)

"Science. It reduces the stupid."

On principle, I agree. This doesn't mean that's not an arrogant and presumptuous statement. Not all people have an equal chance at getting an education and ignorance isn't always by choice.

Also, bullets, gallows, gas chambers, what have ye, will also reduce the stupid. The question is what one calls stupid and how far is one willing to go. Another question is why does one call something stupid.

 

[Etherealicer]

There is a consensus on distinguishing between x rays and Gamma rays, based on how they are produced. Wikipedia is wrong on that. If there was no consensus then most of the available literature would not make sense. Just because you get a few people disagreeing, just for the sake of it, does not mean that there is no established scientific system for that classification. They are just trying to be PC, make everybody happy.
In general x rays are produced by stopping fastly moving electrons on a heavy metal target, like tungsten, causing it to emit x-rays, through a process that is too boring to discuss. The x-rays are produced from the outer shell electrons gaining and losing energy.

Gamma rays are produced, again from the loss of energy, in the nucleus as it tries to gain stability (naturally occurring radiation is of that type)

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying that you compare crisps (British English) to chips (American English)
It's both the same, just depending on where you come from, you call it differently.

Sure in case of X-rays and Gamma-rays its also the energy boundaries that are different, but in the overlapping region there is 0 difference. I'm pretty certain that different professions use different definition. For example medical professionals will make sure that x-rays are not gamma-rays because everybody knows that gamma-rays are radioactivity and we don't want radioactivity in the hospital, all to shift perception. Of course by now we also know that x-rays are harmful but that terminology is not new.

[dks]

At the same energies you can not distinguish them. you can only distinguish them if you know how they are produced.


There has been a big shift from gamma to x radiation in most applications, as it is considered safer - you can switch it off.

however, Gamma-radiation does not need a power supply or expensive equipment to be produced (It just goes on and on..) so it is still used in certain applications.

[firiki]

FIGHT. FIGHT. FIGHT. FIGHT. FIGHT. FIGHT.

 

 

[Corwyn]

On principle, I agree. This doesn't mean that's not an arrogant and presumptuous statement. Not all people have an equal chance at getting an education and ignorance isn't always by choice.

Also, bullets, gallows, gas chambers, what have ye, will also reduce the stupid. The question is what one calls stupid and how far is one willing to go. Another question is why does one call something stupid.

Well, the original text in Romania, didn't say "stupid" it was far less harsh... I found this one in English on the net.

And it doesn't make fun of uncultured people, it makes fun of people profiting on people's ignorance to scare them and get their money.

I don't want to get all political, but will just mention in passing the birdflu scare, Ebola scare (and the hundreds of thousands this killed), vaccine-autism scare (and the thousands of kids it's killing every day), the gluten craze (which is unfathomable), the mites scares, the Coca-Cola sugar/acid movies, the marijuana addiction chains, the zombie bathsalts craze, even the Volkwagen pollution scandal (like there was somebody who didn't know that)  and our very own lollipop-lead craze, chewing-gum cocaine craze, ninja-soviet-terrorist scares and the everpopular HIV-needle serial stabbings...
And of course above all the million cancer "finds" each week... we'll end up living in bubbles and eating vitamin bars all of our lives, having cybersex via Occulus to be nice and secure...

I am scared to see how easily people are freaked by everything and even worse how they spread it... I should make some screenshots of my Facebook wall posts and it would truly terrify you...

[N_N_R]

At least SAKs arn't on the list....yet

Doesn't N3. Aluminium production have to do with Alox SAKs?

[Gerhard Gerber]

Read this on a doctor friend's Facebook page:

(Image removed from quote.)

Excellent! 

Life is fatal.....fact

Too much or not enough of most things is bad.......

Cravings are there for a reason