Jump to content

Talk:IARC group 1 Carcinogens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ethanol?

[edit]

Does anybody know how ethanol got added to this Wikipedia page? It's definitely not a carcinogen. 77.98.239.106 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this and apparently an IARC work group in 2009 concluded that alcoholic beverages are to be considered part of the Group 1 Carcinogens, as ethanol is enzymatically converted in the body to acetaldehyde, which they claim is also a group 1 carcinogen. However, the latest data on acetaldehyde I from the IARC was able to find was from 1999, which concluded acetaldehyde to be a possible human carcinogen, i.e. Group 2B.
As the 2009 press release is more recent, I will edit the entry to contain the press release as a reference.
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2009/pdfs/pr196_E.pdf
12:22, 1 August 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.174.15.213 (talk)
Here is the IARC monograph on "Ethanol in alcoholic beverages", which is classified as Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans): http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol100E/mono100E-11.pdf tronvillain (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, Acetaldehyde is still listed as Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans), while "Acetaldehyde associated with consumption of alcoholic beverages" is now Group 1. tronvillain (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ethanol is definitely a carcinogen. I thought this is common knowledge but apparently people don't believe what they don't want to. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the note that Ethanol is "not" carcinogenic should be removed. Ethanol's metabolite acetaldehyde is carcinogenic certainly, but ethanol is carcinogenic in raw form to from my understanding as it attacks the delicate mucosa lining the alimentary canal. I'm not sure if it's genotoxic in an of itself BUT consumption is associated with a number of GI cancers. I regularly have to cite this to people who (still) cite flawed studies suggesting glyphosate causes all manner of cancers, in particular, NHL. 81.97.100.208 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if ethanol itself is not a carcinogen, I'm not sure why that comment would be necessary anyway because many of the other chemicals on the list are only considered carcinogenic because they are metabolized to carcinogenic substances after exposure. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thorotrast?

[edit]

Out of interest, why is Thorotrast not on this list? --Piet Delport 08:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is, as the generic thorium-232 entry. Made it a link and mentioned Thorotrast at that page; I don't think this list should detail specific applications. Femto 11:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. I was wondering because Carcinogen prominently mentions Thorotrast as "thought by some to be the most potent human carcinogen known", but it doesn't make it explicitly obvious (to idiots like me :) that thorium-232 is the "active ingredient", so to speak. --Piet Delport 14:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtures

[edit]

Hi, would you clarify what is meant in the first section by "agents (mixtures)" as both sections exist independently beneath? Would it also be possible to add a little detail on the mixtures, especially alchohol and tobacco? Thanks. LookingGlass 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult, for many reasons. The connections between different carcinogens are often not known in great detail (indeed, many carcinogenic risks are not well understood). The list we reproduce (in a format which is slightly edited for wiki-purposes), was provided by the IARC; one of the reasons that we uploaded it was to try to make sure we discuss the different dangers in each individual article. If you think that there is a risk that should be addressed in an article, please mention it on the individual talk page or leave me a message on my talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LookingGlass , I addressed your very valid question by adding a wikilink to the term, ie chemical mixture which should help, ehem, 17 years later if you are still interested!--Wuerzele (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move the article/category to an alternative name

[edit]

It is my opinion that the current names of the articles and categories

are misleading, since all agents (materials, compounds, environments) could and should be classified by IARC. The classification does not make them "carcinogens". The IARC itself mentions[1]:

In the following lists, the agents are classified as to their carcinogenic hazard to humans in accordance with the Preamble to the IARC Monographs.

According to this text, we should have articles named:

List of agents classified from IARC to Group xxx as to their carcinogenic hazard to humans. Instead, I propose the simpler title:

List of IARC Group xx agents.

Similarly for categories, my proposal is:

Category:IARC Group 4 agents

Any alternative proposals are welcome. The present proposal is duplicated is all articles and categories, but if you have any comment, please use the page:

Talk:International Agency for Research on Cancer#Proposal to move several articles/categories to alternative names

Do not leave a comment in any other page. --FocalPoint (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--FocalPoint (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove ethanol and alcoholic beverages

[edit]

It is clearly not the case... --Conte di Cavour (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly the case as there are enough researches to prove that, and it is listed by IARC on it's website.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bisphenol A

[edit]

Looking at the current (February 22, 2016) list of IARC Classifications[1], Bisphenol A does not appear. Tetrabromobisphenol A is listed as Group 2A {in prep.), and Bisphenol A diglycidyl ether (Araldite) is listed as Group 3 (1999). It does appear to be on their list of priorities for 2015-2019 as a "high priority."[2] --tronvillain (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "List of Classifications, Volumes 1-115". IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans. IARC. February 22, 2016. Retrieved June 14, 2016.
  2. ^ "Report of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for IARC Monographs during 2015–2019" (PDF). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans. IARC. April 9, 2014. Retrieved June 14, 2016.|

Arecoline

[edit]

Looking at the current (February 22, 2016) list of IARC Classifications[1], Arecoline does not appear. In Volume 85 of the IARC Monographs,[2] they do say "There is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of arecoline", but they don't give it a group as they do with Betel quid with tobacco, Betel quid without tobacco, and Areca nut itself. --tronvillain (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "List of Classifications, Volumes 1-115". IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans. IARC. February 22, 2016. Retrieved June 14, 2016.
  2. ^ "Betel-quick and Areca-nut Chewing and Some Areca-nut-derived Nitrosamines" (PDF). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans. IARC. 2004. Retrieved June 14, 2016.|

It seems that IARC is a group of fools

[edit]

To put "salted fish", "alcoholic beverages" into the same category as "Plutonium", "X-Ray" and the worst carcinogenic chemicals like aromatic amines is the most stupid thing I ever heard. This classification leads to a complete lack of credibility and reliability of the IARC groups. They would better return to school and learn about basics in organic chemistry and biology instead of publishing this bullshit. Dr. rer.nat. Volker Walter - Dipl. Chem. - Wiesbaden

You misunderstand the classification. It is based on how strong evidence of carcinogenicity is, rather than on the degree of carcinogenity. So something that is strongly carcinogenic and something that is weakly carcinogenic can have the same classification if there is equal evidence of carcinogenicity for each. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Ed said while I was typing this, IARC classifications are an evaluation of the strength of the evidence, not an evaluation of risk. Also, talk pages aren't a forum. WP:TALK#USE --tronvillain (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to "IARC group 1" pattern per discussion below. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– These pages have moved a few times, most recently to these long-winded titles that include a hyphen where a dash should be, and some overcapitalization in Agents and Carcinogenic and so on (maybe also Group?). Going back to the concise titles seems sensible, unless someone proposes something intermediate that doesn't try to tell the story in the title. Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming and Moving the Pages of the IARC List of Classifications

[edit]

On the IARC website, it is reported as follows:

List of Classifications: Agents classified by the IARC Monographs

Therefore, the WIKIPEDIA pages must be named as follows:

List of IARC Group "NL" Agents

Where the Classification code "NL" can only be 1, 2A, 2B, or 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatius Iggy (talk • contribs) 12:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a link to the site you refer to, and maybe say more about exactly what titles you'd prefer WP to use, and why? Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously provided the relevant website in the "External links" section: List of Classifications

Therefore, meaningful titles would be as follows:

or alternatively as follows:

Indeed, "List of" may be omitted, whereas "Agents" should never be omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatius Iggy (talk • contribs)

Is there some reason you're capitalizing "Agents" there? See WP:NCCAPS. And I still don't see why it's needed in these. I get that these groups are groups of agents, but how does that affect your impression of what titles are "meaningful"? In the page you link, the only context in which I see "agents" is in "Agents classified by the IARC Monographs". That doesn't really argue for "Group X agents" as the common name of these groups, nor of the agents in the groups. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the relevance of the term "agent"

OK, then also "Group" should instead be "group". However, as "IARC" is an organisation, "IARC group" does not make any sense at all. Indeed, does it refer to "a group of companies", "a group of study", "a group of monographies", "a group of anything else", or rather "a group of agents"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatius Iggy (talk • contribs) 00:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It rather obviously refers to a group of agents, but both words should be lower case. It is not the job of a WP article title to explain the subject (that's the article body's job) only to identify it in a precise enough way that it won't be confused with some other article. PS: We are not in a position to take capitalization advice from someone who thinks this site is properly referred to as "WIKIPEDIA".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

!Voting section

[edit]
  • Move to "IARC group 1", etc. as first choice, per WP:CONCISE, WP:LOWERCASE, WP:NCCAPS, and MOS:CAPS. Second choice: "IARC group 1 agent", etc., (per WP:SINGULAR) if this is thought really necessary, but I am dubious. Third choice: "List of IARC group 1 agents", etc., iff we really want to go there, but I'm very skeptical. There are no non-list articles on these substances as classes, and there is significant front matter (which could and probably should be developed further) above the list in each article, so there is no reason to call these "List of" anything. Regardless, "group" and "agent[s]" should not be capitalized, as they are not proper names.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SMcCandlish's alt proposal with lowercase group, e.g. "IARC group 1"; or "IARC group 1 agents" (plural, unlike SMcCandlish's take, since it's more about the group than the concept of an agent). As nom, I'm chiming in not to support my original proposal, but these alternatives. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IARC_group_1_Carcinogens&oldid=1202889616"