Also, "probable carcinogen" doesn't mean what most people think it means[1]: > Group 2A: "Probably carcinogenic to humans" There is strong evidence that it can

Also, "probable carcinogen" doesn't mean what most people think it means[1]: > Group 2A: "Probably carcinogenic to humans" There is strong evidence that it can cause cancer in humans, but at present it is not conclusive. > Group 2A: "The agent (mixture) is probably carcinogenic to humans . The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are probably carcinogenic to humans." > "This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some cases, an agent (mixture) may be classified in this category when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence that the carcinogenesis is mediated by a mechanism that also operates in humans. Exceptionally, an agent, mixture or exposure circumstance may be classified in this category solely on the basis of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans." Here's other stuff classified as 2A[2]: * acrylamide * indoor emissions from household combustion of wood * occupational exposure as a hairdresser or barber * consumption of red meat * drinking very hot beverages at above 65°C Note that even category 1 contains agents ranging from asbestos and plutonium to "alcoholic beverages" and "the consumption of processed meat". The categories merely indicate the confidence level that an agent is carcinogenic at all, not "how" carcinogenic it is. The phrase "probable carcinogen" doesn't indicate anything about how likely you are to get cancer from it, just that there is a certain level of confidence that the agent can cause cancer under certain conditions and in certain quantities. [1]: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/en/electromagnetic-fields/glossary/ghi/iarc-classification.htm http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_la... [2]: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsGroupOrder.pdf http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/Classifications...