• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Cocktail of harmless chemicals = cancer

cocktail cancer cocktaileffect

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 159

Posted 25 June 2015 - 05:08 AM


This is worrying in a sense. But also positive in another way because it suggests that what we do on this site (combining a lot substances that often, sadly, have weak evidence) might be a good idea in any case!

 

The sum is greater than the parts!

 

 

A global taskforce of 174 scientists from leading research centres across 28 countries studied the link between mixtures of commonly encountered chemicals and the development of cancer. The study selected 85 chemicals not considered carcinogenic to humans and found 50 supported key cancer-related mechanisms at exposures found in the environment today.

Longstanding concerns about the combined and additive effects of everyday chemicals prompted the organisation Getting To Know Cancer led by Lowe Leroy from Halifax Nova Scotia, to put the team together -- pitching what is known about mixtures against the full spectrum of cancer biology for the first time.

Cancer Biologist Dr Hemad Yasaei from Brunel University London contributed his knowledge regarding genes and molecular changes during cancer development. He said: "This research backs up the idea that chemicals not considered harmful by themselves are combining and accumulating in our bodies to trigger cancer and might lie behind the global cancer epidemic we are witnessing. We urgently need to focus more resources to research the effect of low dose exposure to mixtures of chemicals in the food we eat, air we breathe and water we drink."

Professor Andrew Ward from the Department of Biology and Biochemistry at the University of Bath, who contributed in the area of cancer epigenetics and the environment, said: "A review on this scale, looking at environmental chemicals from the perspective of all the major hallmarks of cancer, is unprecedented."

Professor Francis Martin from Lancaster University who contributed to an examination of how such typical environmental exposures influence dysfunctional metabolism in cancer endorsed this view.

He said: "Despite a rising incidence of many cancers, far too little research has been invested into examining the pivotal role of environmental causative agents. This worldwide team of researchers refocuses our attention on this under-researched area."

In light of the compelling evidence the taskforce is calling for an increased emphasis on and support for research into low dose exposures to mixtures of environmental chemicals. Current research estimates chemicals could be responsible for as many as one in five cancers. With the human population routinely exposed to thousands of chemicals, the effects need to be better understood to reduce the incidence of cancer globally.

The research will be published in a special series of Oxford University Publishing's Carcinogenesis journal on Tuesday 23 June (http://carcin.oxford...tent/36/Suppl_1). William Goodson III, a senior scientist at the California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco and lead author of the synthesis said: "We are definitely concerned that we are now starting to see evidence of a wide range of low dose effects that are directly related to carcinogenesis, exerted by chemicals that are unavoidable in the environment."

 


Edited by Cosmicalstorm, 25 June 2015 - 05:08 AM.


#2 corb

  • Guest
  • 507 posts
  • 213
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 25 June 2015 - 01:32 PM

 

exerted by chemicals that are unavoidable in the environment."

If they are unavoidable what's the point of this study?
Might as well use those scientist for something beyond a mental exercise.
So much of medical science seems to be a mental exerciser I'm really not surprised how slow progress happens in the field.



To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#3 Vardarac

  • Guest
  • 178 posts
  • 36
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 03 July 2015 - 01:32 AM

They may be unavoidable for now, but knowing what mixtures act as causative agents can help keep us from making a bad problem worse.



#4 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 383
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 03 July 2015 - 02:43 AM

A chart with age and effectiveness of drugs/usefulness. On top of interactions due to cross chemical reactions and perhaps a multi purpose graph could be useful if we work together to gather all the loose information together.

#5 Kalliste

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 159

Posted 03 July 2015 - 06:24 AM

 

 

exerted by chemicals that are unavoidable in the environment."

If they are unavoidable what's the point of this study?
Might as well use those scientist for something beyond a mental exercise.
So much of medical science seems to be a mental exerciser I'm really not surprised how slow progress happens in the field.

 

 

Why the negative attitude? If this "Lets safety test everything separately" problem goes unnoticed there will be even more ingredients in the cocktail come a few years. Plus as I said, it's nice to be aware of the fact that the sum is greater than the parts, that probably works with supplements and food too.



#6 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 30 July 2015 - 09:52 PM

Cocktail of harmless chemicals = cancer

 

 

It's a good idea.  If that's really the first time someone has thought of it, that would indeed be scary :)   (I can't imagine it is)  

 

Of course, the scientific way to address this question is not to pontificate about molecular mechanisms in review articles, but rather to throw the molecules into a mutagenesis assay, or onto a group of animals, and see what happens.  

 

So here's the challenge for those interested in this topic -- try to find a research paper from the 1970s that actually asked this question experimentally -- and what happened?  Is that result out there somewhere? 

 

 



Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#7 Kalliste

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 159

Posted 31 July 2015 - 05:27 PM

IMO very few papers seriously try to test cocktails of stuff. I have heard it stated by several that the FDA rules make it hard to work with cocktails, that you can't make any claims about cocktails of stuff.



#8 corb

  • Guest
  • 507 posts
  • 213
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 31 July 2015 - 05:44 PM

Worry about single substances before cocktails.

 

http://www.sciencedi...02364381400228X

 

 

Different kinds of additives are widely applied in food industry. The rationale for their use is preservation, coloring or sweetening of diverse foods. Though it has been proven that some additives possess cytotoxic effect they are still used in practice. As a justification of their use is being their low concentration of application. We have used the method of Comet assay to detect minimal concentrations at which a group of selected food additives could damage DNA. Five substances, commonly added in foods and one in pharmaceutical drugs showed DNA damaging effectively at concentrations lower than that used in practice. Additionally, we have compared the sensitivity of higher eukaryotic cells with yeast to genotoxic effect of these compounds. The higher sensitivity of yeast cells revealed by the comet assay was undoubtedly demonstrated.

 

This made a good uproar in local news in my country btw.



#9 Kalliste

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 159

Posted 01 August 2015 - 09:38 AM

I worry plenty about both  ;)



#10 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 01 August 2015 - 07:03 PM

Worry about single substances before cocktails.

 

http://www.sciencedi...02364381400228X

 

 

Different kinds of additives are widely applied in food industry. The rationale for their use is preservation, coloring or sweetening of diverse foods. Though it has been proven that some additives possess cytotoxic effect they are still used in practice. As a justification of their use is being their low concentration of application. We have used the method of Comet assay to detect minimal concentrations at which a group of selected food additives could damage DNA. Five substances, commonly added in foods and one in pharmaceutical drugs showed DNA damaging effectively at concentrations lower than that used in practice. Additionally, we have compared the sensitivity of higher eukaryotic cells with yeast to genotoxic effect of these compounds. The higher sensitivity of yeast cells revealed by the comet assay was undoubtedly demonstrated.

 

This made a good uproar in local news in my country btw.

 

This sounds a little bit like the old Ames mutagenesis assay that even Bruce Ames now disavows.  When they treated cells with concentrations lower than used in practice, did they mean lower than real human exposure, or lower than the concentration in the product?  How did the exposure time of the cells compare to human exposure times?  Finally, and most importantly, does the sort of DNA damage that they saw have any bearing on cancer rates?  Our DNA gets damaged all the time-- That's why we have so many DNA repair systems, along with systems to kill the cell if it's too far gone.

 

I have nothing against testing compounds, particularly those that people have a lot of exposure to.  However, I would want the tests to be meaningful, and not just generate fear. 
 



#11 corb

  • Guest
  • 507 posts
  • 213
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 01 August 2015 - 08:58 PM

 

Worry about single substances before cocktails.

 

http://www.sciencedi...02364381400228X

 

 

Different kinds of additives are widely applied in food industry. The rationale for their use is preservation, coloring or sweetening of diverse foods. Though it has been proven that some additives possess cytotoxic effect they are still used in practice. As a justification of their use is being their low concentration of application. We have used the method of Comet assay to detect minimal concentrations at which a group of selected food additives could damage DNA. Five substances, commonly added in foods and one in pharmaceutical drugs showed DNA damaging effectively at concentrations lower than that used in practice. Additionally, we have compared the sensitivity of higher eukaryotic cells with yeast to genotoxic effect of these compounds. The higher sensitivity of yeast cells revealed by the comet assay was undoubtedly demonstrated.

 

This made a good uproar in local news in my country btw.

 

This sounds a little bit like the old Ames mutagenesis assay that even Bruce Ames now disavows.  When they treated cells with concentrations lower than used in practice, did they mean lower than real human exposure, or lower than the concentration in the product?  How did the exposure time of the cells compare to human exposure times?  Finally, and most importantly, does the sort of DNA damage that they saw have any bearing on cancer rates?  Our DNA gets damaged all the time-- That's why we have so many DNA repair systems, along with systems to kill the cell if it's too far gone.

 

I have nothing against testing compounds, particularly those that people have a lot of exposure to.  However, I would want the tests to be meaningful, and not just generate fear. 
 

 

 

All good questions and I wanted to know the answer to them myself after this made the news here, unfortunately the paper isn't free.

Whether it's fear mongering, I don't know but amongst the additives tested were mostly synthetic colorants - from what I heard in an interview - and I personally wouldn't be surprised if they're toxic at any concentration.

Now here's where things get suspicious :-D , according to the research the caffeine added in energy drinks damages the DNA a lot.

This is where my alarm bells rang because I know for a fact caffeine is even considered a cancer preventative, definitely not a risk.

So yeah, a bit of a suspicious study. Though there is the possibility that DNA damage and cancer are unrelated as recent trendy cancer researchers are saying.



To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#12 Kalliste

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 159

Posted 02 August 2015 - 03:06 PM

Isolated caffeine has gotten a pretty bad rap IMO. But when it arrives with it's good friend Coffee it suddenly has a positive effect that has held solid. Positive and negative synergy is weird.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: cocktail, cancer, cocktaileffect

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users