4 ms·

Could you inhale enough to irritate your lungs? Sure. But it's not going to cancer or something. I think we're assuming here that it's something like asbestos

• refurb 9y ago
  Asbestos is more than an irritant. The toxicity and resulting cancer is due to the small particle size and the iron atoms in the asbestos that catalyze the formation of reactive oxygen species that damage the cell and can cause mutations. I guess my point is that there is no mechanism by which ammonia could cause something like this. It's a simple molecule that pretty much causes irritation due to it's alkaline properties.
  • st26 9y ago
    Thanks, I hadn't heard they finally figured out why/how asbestos was causing cancer.
  • nonbel 9y ago
    If you believe cancer is due to the accumulation of mutations, and the ammonia/whatever is killing cells (thus increasing the turnover), then it will increase the chances of cancer simply because there are more divisions in the tissue. This follows pretty simply from the idea that cancer is caused by accumulating mutations (which you seem to believe), so why do you say "no mechanism"?
    • refurb 9y ago
      The reason is because ammonia has been around a long time, lots of studies of that its effect on biological systems have been done and it naturally occurs in human blood albeit at low concentrations. Your point about higher turnover of cells aligns with the idea of more cell division and thus higher chance of mutation. However, just because a chemical causes irritation doesn't mean it increases cell turnover. Also, turnover alone doesn't necessarily drive mutations and scientists don't really know why. Retinol A, rapidly increase skin cell turnover and is used to treat acne, but I've never heard of a mutation risk associated with it.
      • nonbel 9y ago
        > "Retinol A, rapidly increase skin cell turnover but I've never heard of a mutation risk associated with it." Interesting, do you have a source you like for this? This would indicate major problems with that model.