Are synthetically produced chemicals not found in

cheapbag214s

Are synthetically produced chemicals not found in nature more likely to be harmful than naturally occurring ones
Since everything is produced from chemicals the often made claim that we ought to avoid food that does not contain chemicals doesn't make any sense. But the underlying indisputable fact that synthetic chemicals are somehow particularly dangerous appears to persist and it is common on environmental and food faddist sites. Without a doubt,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], the contamination in our food with synthetic chemicals . botulinum toxin or even the carcinogenic compounds in bracken).
So we have any reason to consider that synthetic chemicals are more likely to be toxic generally or carcinogenic particularly in comparison with natural ones,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]?
Among the issues with the debate about whether artificial chemicals (which could mean novel compounds or naturally occurring compounds synthesised by laboratory or industrial processes) are carcinogens is that the tests on artificial chemicals are rarely observed in context. Bruce Ames summarises the problem well within the abstract of one of his papers (my emphasis):
Toxicology studies of synthetic chemicals at high doses should be viewed in the context of the world of natural chemicals,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], which will make up the vast majority of the harmful chemicals that humans are exposed. Natural and synthetic chemicals are similar within their toxicology,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and at the low doses of most human exposures where cell-killing doesn't happen,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], the risks may be much lower than are generally assumed and frequently will be zero.
Bruce Ames can claim some expertise in this area because he is the inventor of the well-known Ames Test, a cheap method of screening chemicals for their mutagenicity.
His jobs are smmarised well in a NY Times blog in 2007:
But Dr. Ames began rethinking this war against synthetic chemicals after thousands of chemicals have been put through his test. He realized that lots of natural chemicals flunked the Ames test. He and Dr. Gold took a systematic consider the chemicals that were tested on rodents. They found that about 50 % of natural chemicals tested positive for carcinogencity, exactly the same proportion because the synthetic chemicals. Fruits,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], vegetables,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], herbs and spices contained their own pesticides that caused cancer in rodents. Simply because natural pesticides make up 99.99 percent from the pesticides within our diet,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], it does not follow that they're causing human cancer - or that the .01 percent of of synthetic pesticides are causing cancer either. Dr. Ames and Dr. Gold believe many of these carcinogenic pesticides, natural or synthetic,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], don't present problems because the human exposures are low and because our prime doses provided to rodents might not be relevant to humans.
"Everything you eat within the supermarket is completely chock filled with carcinogens,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]," Dr. Ames explained. "But cancer malignancy aren't because of parts per billion of pesticides. They're because of causes like smoking, bad diets and, obesity."
Ames and Gold summarised evidence about pesticide residues in food (a highly controversisal area but one in which the results cash broader implications for artificial chemicals in other contexts) inside a chapter of the Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology (pdf available on the web here):
Outside the workplace,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], the amount of exposure to synthetic pollutants or pesticide residues are low and rarely seem toxicologically plausible as a causal factor when com- pared to the wide variety of natural chemicals to which all people are exposed. Whereas public perceptions tend to identify chemicals to be only synthetic and only synthetic chemicals as being toxic, every natural chemical is also toxic at some dose, and the vast proportion of chemicals that humans are exposed are naturally occurring.
There is,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], however,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], a paradox within the public concern about possible cancer hazards from pesticide residues in food and the lack of public understanding of the substantial evidence indi- cating that high consumption of the meals that contain pesticide residues-fruits and vegetables-has a protective effect against many types of cancer.
Later in that chapter they argue:
Current regulatory policy to lessen human cancer risks is based on the concept that chemicals that creates tumors in rodent cancer bioassays are potential human carcinogens. The harmful chemicals selected for testing in rodents, however,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], are primarily synthetic. The enormous background of human exposures to natural chemicals is not systematically examined. It has led to an imbalance both in data and perception about possible carcinogenic hazards to humans from chemical exposures. The regulatory process does not take into account (1) that natural chemicals make up the vast bulk of chemicals that humans are subjected; (2) that the toxicology of synthetic and natural toxins is not fundamentally different; (3) that about half of the chemicals tested,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], whether natural or synthetic, are carcinogens when tested using current experimental protocols; (4) that testing for carcinogenicity at near-toxic doses in rodents does not provide enough informa- tion to predict the surplus number of human cancers that might occur at low-dose exposures; and (5) that testing at it's peek tolerated dose (MTD) frequently may cause chronic cell killing and consequent cell replacement (a risk factor for cancer that can be limited to high doses) and that ignoring this effect in risk assessment can greatly exaggerate risks.
It is really a rich supply of links towards the primary evidence.
To sum up: when naturally-occuring chemicals are tested with similar protocols as "artificial" chemicals roughly the same proportion emerge as you possibly can carcinogens. This shows that "natural" isn't any better than "artificial". The results will not be significant for explaining cancer malignancy in people.
相关的主题文章：

http://www.ephedraonline.fora.pl/forum-testowe,1/oregano-s-chicken-wings-dining-area-when-arizona,6205.html#6241

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

http://www.compazinegtccv.fora.pl/what-say-watery-smile-work-during-quiet-breath-ambien-strengths-loove-you-iscouraged,1/alicia-important-factors-attends-knicks-board-game,6689.html#6717

http://www.guardiansofgrail.fora.pl/life,16/indoor-soccer-shoes-futsal-shoes-best-futsal-sho,8470.html#8648

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

http://www.hardpartyprodss.fora.pl/hard-party-production,3/how-to-believe-in-yourself-spun5,5716.html#5752

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

http://www.discountphentermineonline.fora.pl/forum-testowe,1/cheap-ralph-lauren-polo-lacoste-shoes-outlet-di,7211.html#7269

http://www.ragaming.fora.pl/join-us,47/er-muss-machen,12173.html#12453

http://www.rakenbymd.fora.pl/coke-from-waits-poker-onnie-mentioned-fantasy-casino-shoots-you-held-his-anything,1/a-little-empathy-for-unemployed-women-spun1,5470.html#5496

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

http://www.nifedipinerbzzp.fora.pl/most-often-metformin-hci-1000-mg-augmentin-generic-equipment,1/greffes-capillaires,17257.html#17507

	NightBlueTeam Forum Index -> NightBlueTeam Clan	All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1