TL;DR Toxicologist nerd spiel
--------------------------------------
You claim that medical science is inefficient when finding the carcinogenicity of agent X. You compare it to how they have no better method then “than mathematicians do whether a number is prime.” Being over literal, you can check is a number is prime or not by seeing if it is divisible by only itself and 1.What you probably meant was how in mathematics there is no known useful formula that yields all of the prime numbers and no composites. While there are an infinite number of primes you can model the distribution of primes but I digress.
To claim that current methods are insufficient and no better than “guess and check” to me demonstrates you lack understanding on how toxicology research is preformed. You cite a few agents such as “
saccharine,
caffeine,
electromagnetic fields, and plastic” as evidence for the inconclusiveness of cancer research. Caffine, EMFs, and saccharine were the ‘hot-topic’ cancer agents in the 70’s but have since been disproven as carcinogens (see links). As for plastic, you need to be more specific. di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate itself is a carcinogen and has been banned in the EU due to concerns of it leeching out of plastics into foods. It is not found in all plastics. Certain chemicals used to make certain types of plastic are also carcinogenic, however because they are used as a reagent for synthesis rather than end product there is less concern here (however it still is present and cannot be ignored, but you are talking about decades if not centuries of exposure). Bisphenol A is currently being looked into as a cancer causing agent.
Statisitcs look for
correlations that repeat them self. Data drawn is often from tens of thousands of clinical cases. It is also sorted by age, race, sex, weight, genetics, job, income, diet, and other factors. This is done so data cannot be refuted for being too vague. After all how do you know that the suspect carcinogen is actually harmless and it’s just black males in low income area that happen to have bad genetics when it comes to DNA polymerase and happen to be throwing the statistics? If you find a correlation between exposure to a suspect agent regardless of the aforementioned factors, then you have strong evidence saying there is a link.
To say that
animal trials consists of “gorging lab animals with huge quantities of these substances in a refined form” shows little understanding of how this type of research is done. Model organisms, which is not restricted to just mice but extends to frogs, rats, zebra fish, bacteria, tissue cultures, hamsters, apes, chimps, and others are used when looking for further support. Areas of interest here include gene expression, rate of development, dose response, death rate, genetics protein expression, DNA repair, and I am sure others. You form multiple groups, each of which will receive a set dosage. You also form groups based on exposure time. Studies like this can take anywhere from months to years.
To say that these methods are “guess and checks” makes it seem like we have no understanding of how cancer origenates. In fact you say “we don't have the understanding of the connection between the physical properties of substances and the organic origins of cancer” which shows no knowledge or even attempt at understanding. A simple
google search of “what causes cancer” results in 2 million hits on the subject. Even
Wikipedia shows this is basic stuff. Do not assume your lack of knowledge is shared by everyone.
Now I will concede that you are right that you cannot with 100% certainty predict whether an agent is carcinogenic by looking at its physical properties and structure and no one tried to base their results off this alone. However, you can make very educated guess as to how it will interact with cellular functions in a carcinogenic manner. Our knowledge of molecular biology has grown exponentially over the past few decades. For example the previously mentioned Bisphenol A is structurally close to estrogen and can competitively bind to estrogen receptors as well as turn these receptors on at inappropriate times. Furthermore, an electronegatively charged molecule will most likely disrupt cellular molecules as well and possible interfere with onocogenes or tumor suppressing genes. High exposure compounds are under increasingly tighter regulation before being released to the market. What you want here is to refer to compounds which are not innately carcinogenic but are altered in the body making them carcinogenic. This is a recently discovered phenomenon and research is ongoing. The fact that the number of solved enzymes rises every year gives promise for software to emulate enzyme/chemical interaction.
Suspect agent is not just something chosen at random, but has been shown through statistical data to have a strong correlation between exposure and an increase in cancer rates. You claim that the medical statistics are nearly meaningless. Why? What makes them meaningless?
You say that “many externalities and fanatics and/or monied interests on one side or the other of the debate makes it impossible for the laymen of the to accept a plausible consensus.” This is only true if you get your data from faux news. A simple search on pubmed (
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed), a publically accessible site containing peer reviewed published findings, using key words such as “cancer” + “corn sryup” or “cigarettes” provides you articles on whatever hot topic issue is in the news. Even Wikipedia is an excellent source for finding current results in simplified terms are scientific papers is too much for a person.
Citing a bunch of things straight off Google isn't really a nerd spiel, in the sense that by a nerd we mean an obsessively technical individual.
Regurgitating the elementary concepts of things I alluded to and clearly understand (such as prime numbers and demographic metrics) is just rambling pedantry. It doesn't address the topic to boil down to the elementary level concepts that everyone reading the thread is obviously sufficiently well-educated to fully understand.
Listing every animal used in lab research and the elements of physiology tested doesn't invalidate our point that animal research in environments that don't reflect the realities of human experience doesn't have the potential to be conclusive.
Stop replying to the thread like you're throwing together an essay assignment for a class where you have to cite a certain number of specious sources and list enough vocab words to get full credit. There's no TA grading your post. It doesn't impress anyone or make your position seem more credible.
Jubber's point stands: the wide grey area that exists for many "suspected carcinogens" is exaggerated by research methods.
