5 ms·
Did you forget to include the quote where they claim it causes cancer, or did you not include it because it doesn't exist? You're trying to imply something you
by jf- 8y ago
Did you forget to include the quote where they claim it causes cancer, or did you not include it because it doesn't exist?
You're trying to imply something you have no evidence for.
- thaumasiotes 8y agoDNA damage is close enough to cancer for that to be a relevant response. For example, it's completely accepted that radiation causes cancer at the organism level. The mechanism by which it does so is that, at the raw physical level, radiation causes random DNA damage.
- jf- 8y agoNo, it isn’t. That’s why things are tested for carcinogenicity rather than DNA damage before being called carcinogens.
- thaumasiotes 8y agoThere are other ways of being carcinogenic, which testing for carcinogenicity will automatically check. But DNA damage will do the trick. There should be an obvious logical difference in your mind between "DNA damage causes cancer" and "all cancer is caused by DNA damage". If you want to know whether something is a carcinogen, checking whether it causes DNA damage is not enough for you to conclude "no". But it may be enough for you to conclude "yes".
- jf- 8y agoI think I’ll hold out for something firmer than your interpretation of a study conducted on five people.