Bethany, a good friend of this blog, has shared this link to the World Health Organization’s list of Group I carcinogens. The following oral contraceptives are listed along with some other Group I Carcinogens for reference.
From the document:
Estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy (combined) (Vol. 72, Vol. 91, Vol. 100A; in preparation)
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Vol. 72, Vol. 91, Vol. 100A; in preparation)
(NB: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)
Estrogens, nonsteroidal (Suppl. 7, Vol. 100A; in preparation)
(NB: This evaluation applies to the group of compounds as a whole and not necessarily to all individual compounds within the group)
Estrogens, steroidal (Suppl. 7, Vol. 100A; in preparation)
(NB: This evaluation applies to the group of compounds as a whole and not necessarily to all individual compounds within the group)
Estrogen therapy, postmenopausal (Vol. 72, Vol. 100A; in preparation)
[Oral contraceptives, combined estrogen-progestogen: see Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined)]
Oral contraceptives, sequential (Suppl. 7, Vol. 100A; in preparation)
Asbestos [1332-21-4] (Vol. 14, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Benzene [71-43-2] (Vol. 29, Suppl. 7; 1987)
Formaldehyde [50-00-0] (Vol. 88; 2006)
Gallium arsenide [1303-00-0] (Vol. 86; 2006)
Plutonium-239 and its decay products (may contain plutonium-240 and other isotopes), as aerosols (Vol. 78; 2001)
Radioiodines, short-lived isotopes, including iodine-131, from atomic reactor accidents and nuclear weapons detonation (exposure during childhood) (Vol. 78; 2001)
Radionuclides, a-particle-emitting, internally deposited (Vol. 78; 2001)
(NB: Specific radionuclides for which there is sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity to humans are also listed individually as Group 1 agents)
Radionuclides, b-particle-emitting, internally deposited (Vol. 78; 2001)
(NB: Specific radionuclides for which there is sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity to humans are also listed individually as Group 1 agents)
Radium-224 and its decay products (Vol. 78; 2001)
Radium-226 and its decay products (Vol. 78; 2001)
Radium-228 and its decay products (Vol. 78; 2001)
Radon-222 [10043-92-2] and its decay products (Vol. 43, Vol. 78; 2001)
X- and Gamma (g)-Radiation (Vol. 75; 2000)
Tobacco smoking and tobacco smoke (Vol. 83; 2004)
Most assuredly some are stronger than others. The danger in the less potent carcinogens lies in the propensity for a long-term exposure with its cumulative mutagenic effects.
Also on the list was Chinese salted fish. Not sure what’s in there, but will find out, as it was a staple in grad school.
Check out the rest of the document.
Many Thanks Bethany.
Is chinese salted fish high in mercury, as some fish are?
Gerard, a comment of mine is not showing up here regarding what Group 1 means.
Asitis,
I saw it a few moments ago. I was modifying the post to remove a few snippets, though I don’t see how that might have affected the comboxes. Your point about strength was well made, as my comments lower down in the post addressed these.
While high-dose, short-term exposure gets the most press with compounds like plutonium, the low-dose, long-term exposures to less potent carcinogens end up killing orders of magnitude more people. Tobacco is a good example.
Regarding the estrogens, I remember girls in college back in the late 70′s being told they were perfectly safe. Then came the cancers and other diseases. Now the same merchants tell us that the lower-dose OC’s are “safer”.
“Your point about strength was well made, as my comments lower down in the post addressed these”.
Using “strongest” at the start of your post is not an appropriate way to describe Group 1. I think, if anything you should change it to “(known carcinogen)”.
Let me know if you want me to resubmit my comment. I have it still.
Hey! I just noticed you did removed “strongest”. Nice!
.
I think it might be good to explian what Group 1 means. That it includes all known carcinogens. The next Group includes probable or possible carcinogens.
But it’s your blog…..
Thanks Gerard.
I infer that if a contraceptive were developed which was NOT a carcinogen, or if other carcinogens not on this list are available on the market today, nobody has any objections?
SJ
Catholics (at least those who actually believe in and practice their faith) would still be against contraceptives.
For example, there is a method of regulating births which is completely safe and natural and that is Natural Family Planning.
But like anything, NFP can be misused – it can be used contraceptively.
Catholics consider that a couple may only use NFP to legitimately space their children for the health of the mother and baby and to delay conception for a SERIOUS reason.
What is somewhat open-ended is serious and the couple must with a properly formed conscience decide the matter.
I may have missed explaining this adequately but I’m sure Dr. G can expound further.
Precisely my point Mary Catherine. Adherents of the Roman Church would denounce contraception even if it were not carcinogenic. So what is the point of the information that certain contraceptives may be carcinogenic? Is the point to scare people into avoiding contraception because they might get cancer, rather than to teach the moral superiority of refusing contraception as against the law of God?
I’m not sure what the point of NFP is, if it is NOT to be used contraceptively. Last discussion I heard it mentioned, Erin Manning said that it is OK for Catholics to use NFP to space out or even limit the total number of children in the family.
the POINT of NFP, SJ is to help both the mother and baby (babies)
it is helpful to not have a baby every year
for some women like myself, breast feeding worked to space my children
for other women, it doesn’t
thus NFP can give a woman a natural healthy way to space her children and help her body recuperate during the post-partum, nursing period
it also has excellent benefits for the couple and their relationship
the man learns to think about his wife and children and not about his needs all the time
the woman learns about her body as does her husband and also must consider her husband during this time
don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it – it works!
and we do need to know about the harm OC’s do, whether we support their use or not
it is once again, a case of science (reason) supported by faith!
thought you might like this Dr. G:
http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(09)00346-1/abstract