3 ms·
No, it isn’t. That’s why things are tested for carcinogenicity rather than DNA damage before being called carcinogens.
by jf- 8y ago
No, 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.