Everything causes cancer

[snopes]

Comment: A couple of potential topics:

Burned toast is carcinogenic. True or false?
Burned meats are carcinogenic. True or false?

[llewtrah]

Originally Posted by snopes

Comment: A couple of potential topics:

Burned toast is carcinogenic. True or false?
Burned meats are carcinogenic. True or false?

Being alive causes cancer. Growing older is carcinogenic.

[Nappy Solo]

Originally Posted by snopes

Comment: A couple of potential topics:

Burned toast is carcinogenic. True or false?
Burned meats are carcinogenic. True or false?

My toaster just set off my smoke detector. I've wanted to replace that smoke detector becuase it is too sensitive. While shopping for a new one, I've seen that many older detectors contain small amounts of radioactive particles that must not be disturbed, or, you guessed it, cause cancer. Does it ever end?

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/smoke_dispose.htm

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Burned/Charred Meats:

Possibly true, (evidence is from animal studies), but for those genetically vulnerable to it:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060401/food.asp

This particular study I believe would not apply to bread, as it wouldn't have the all the ingredients necessary to make the harmful amides.

[quiltsbypam]

I thought this was going to be about a Joe Jackson song.

[Alchemy]

Originally Posted by Nappy Solo

My toaster just set off my smoke detector. I've wanted to replace that smoke detector becuase it is too sensitive. While shopping for a new one, I've seen that many older detectors contain small amounts of radioactive particles that must not be disturbed, or, you guessed it, cause cancer. Does it ever end?

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/smoke_dispose.htm

All home smoke detectors I've ever seen are ionization. Alternative detectors are either very expensive or not fast/accurate enough to use in a home, or all three.

Are the photoelectric ones sold that much? I always was told the ionization detecters were safer for homes; the photoelectric ones require fires with a lot of smoke.

[Nappy Solo]

Originally Posted by Alchemy

All home smoke detectors I've ever seen are ionization. Alternative detectors are either very expensive or not fast/accurate enough to use in a home, or all three.

Are the photoelectric ones sold that much? I always was told the ionization detecters were safer for homes; the photoelectric ones require fires with a lot of smoke.

I just bought a photoelectric one for $20. I'll try that one in the hallway next to the kitchen - which always goes off. That leaves me with an ionization type in the basement and in the upstairs hallway. All three are linked. Two out of the three cause cancer, if you break them apart and inhale the dust from the Americanonium (what ever is in them). Or was that Amazonian? I also saw some detectors that use both methods.

[snopes]

Comment: I heard that using baby powder can cause cancer.

It has been reported that Talcum powder is linked to cancer.

Talcum powder is made from sand. It has been known to implicate cancer
when it is used on little girls as it is more likely to enter into the
body through the vagina and travel to the uterus, bladder and ovaries.
Uterine and Ovarian Cancer are a result of this, and Urinary Tract
Infections are also common. It is recommended not to use talc on little
girls vagina area.


Talcum powder is usually made up of various combinations of zinc stearate,
magnesium silicates, as well as other silicates which are finely ground.
The size of particles is so small that they are both easily carried in the
air like dust and can reach even the smallest areas of the lung.
There have been numerous reports of babies having life-threatening
episodes from inhaling the powder. And in fact, there have been many
deaths reported from aspiration of the powder. A good number of these
cases occurred during a diaper change when adult supervision is usually
very high. But as every parent knows (including myself), infants and
toddlers can be awfully quick sometimes, so reaching for and spilling the
powder bottle is not such a hard thing to do for the little ones.
The feeling from many dermatologists is that there isn't much advantage of
powders as compared to ointments when it comes to preventing and treating
diaper rash.

So, clearly talc can cause pneumonia, inflammation (or swelling) of the
airways of babies, and even death. But what about cancer? When the link to
asbestos and cancer came to light, it was noticed that a lot of the
exposure to asbestos was accompanied by other inhalable fibers and dust
including talc. However, a specific link to talc exposure and lung cancer
has not been established. On the other hand, there has been some
interesting research into a possible link of talc to ovarian cancer.

[BringTheNoise]

You think that's bad? The (you guessed it) Daily Mail is warning its readers to avoid bread as a cancer risk.

[Pseudo_Croat]

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise

You think that's bad? The (you guessed it) Daily Mail is warning its readers to avoid bread as a cancer risk.

After reading that article, I wonder what would there be left for a human being to eat besides fruits, vegetables, poultry, and fish? I don't think a human being can live very well on those foods alone. The lack of grains would certainly cause some problems.

- Pseudo_Croat

[Aimee Evilpixie]

Originally Posted by Pseudo_Croat

After reading that article, I wonder what would there be left for a human being to eat besides fruits, vegetables, poultry, and fish? I don't think a human being can live very well on those foods alone. The lack of grains would certainly cause some problems.

- Pseudo_Croat

No it wouldn't. There's nothing in grains that you can't get elsewhere. People can cut grains out of their diets and do just fine. Ask some native peoples in the Amazon sometime if they think their diet is lacking.

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Originally Posted by Aimee Evilpixie

No it wouldn't. There's nothing in grains that you can't get elsewhere. People can cut grains out of their diets and do just fine. Ask some native peoples in the Amazon sometime if they think their diet is lacking.

Potatos and Sugarcane are the only substitutes i can think of off the top of my head. There's probably others out there, but i'm not sure if its anything we would be used to.

[snapdragonfly]

Originally Posted by Aimee Evilpixie

No it wouldn't. There's nothing in grains that you can't get elsewhere. People can cut grains out of their diets and do just fine. Ask some native peoples in the Amazon sometime if they think their diet is lacking.

I believe that is true. You can get complex carbohydrates and fiber from root vegetables, leafy vegetables, and fruits, and all of the vitamins and minerals available from grains are also readily available from other sources.

But I love whole grains and I don't believe they cause cancer unless they are, say, soaked in something carcinogenic - which, you could argue would be the case if they weren't organic, but then if that's true then it's true of everything else that isn't organic also.

[Pseudo_Croat]

Originally Posted by Aimee Evilpixie

No it wouldn't. There's nothing in grains that you can't get elsewhere. People can cut grains out of their diets and do just fine. Ask some native peoples in the Amazon sometime if they think their diet is lacking.

Sure, but do they have cities or advanced agriculture? I doubt it.

What I've been wondering is are there any advanced, industrial civilizations that have thrived on little or no grains?

- Pseudo_Croat

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise

You think that's bad? The (you guessed it) Daily Mail is warning its readers to avoid bread as a cancer risk.

If it doesn't cause cancer according to the Daily Mail, it cures it.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by Pseudo_Croat

Sure, but do they have cities or advanced agriculture? I doubt it.

What I've been wondering is are there any advanced, industrial civilizations that have thrived on little or no grains?

- Pseudo_Croat

I didn't know that you caught civilization from cereals....

Seriously, though, what difference does it make if you are from an industrial society or not? Human dietary needs are the same no matter where they are. You don't get a hunter/gatherer exemption.

As to the whole grains/Amazon thing, yes, many people do live without grains. This does not mean that that is a healthy diet, since many people in famine stricken nations live their whole (usually short) lives eating just rice or just grain. Hunter/gatherer societies as a whole are not very healthy, in part because of diet. (Or rather, they are healthy as long as you discount the insanely high mortality rates.)

[Sister Ray]

You know, if you stop eating, you are 100% sure to not die of cancer.

Sister "scientific fact" Ray

[Aimee Evilpixie]

Originally Posted by Pseudo_Croat

Sure, but do they have cities or advanced agriculture? I doubt it.

What I've been wondering is are there any advanced, industrial civilizations that have thrived on little or no grains?

- Pseudo_Croat

That wasn't what you asked.

And why don't you try Google?

[annabohly]

Originally Posted by Sister Ray

You know, if you stop eating, you are 100% sure to not die of cancer.

Sister "scientific fact" Ray

Right, you'll die of starvation.

[snopes]

Comment: I've heard that eating pepperoni pizza and drinking a diet drink
(i.e Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi) creates a chemical in your stomach that
causes cancer. It could be stomach cancer or intestinal cancer.