• Home
  • About
  • BIO
  • Conferences
  • Contact
  • Follow Gerard on FB & Twitter
  • Speaking

Coming Home

Dr. Gerard M. Nadal: Science in Service of the Pro-Life Movement

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Obedience and Unity
Our Sons and Daughters »

Oral Contraceptives: WHO Group I Carcinogen

January 18, 2010 by Gerard M. Nadal

Bethany, a good friend of this blog, has shared this link to the World Health Organization’s list of Group I carcinogens.

{UPDATE 2/15/12: It seems that WHO has taken down the page. However, they have made several expanded pages with a wealth of data. Click here for the links.

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.

Many Thanks Bethany.

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Birth Control, Breast Cancer | Tagged Biohazard, Breast Cancer, Estrogen, Oral Contraceptives, WHO | 9 Comments

9 Responses

  1. on January 18, 2010 at 10:06 AM Asitiss

    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.


  2. on January 18, 2010 at 10:16 AM Gerard M. Nadal

    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”.


  3. on January 18, 2010 at 10:25 AM Asitiss

    “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.


  4. on January 18, 2010 at 10:27 AM Asitiss

    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.


  5. on January 18, 2010 at 4:17 PM Siarlys Jenkins

    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?


  6. on January 18, 2010 at 9:30 PM Mary Catherine

    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.


  7. on January 21, 2010 at 4:02 PM Siarlys Jenkins

    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.


  8. on January 22, 2010 at 2:28 PM Mary Catherine

    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!


  9. on January 22, 2010 at 2:29 PM Mary Catherine

    thought you might like this Dr. G:

    http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(09)00346-1/abstract



Comments are closed.

  • Archives

    • May 2022 (1)
    • July 2021 (1)
    • January 2021 (7)
    • November 2020 (1)
    • May 2020 (2)
    • September 2019 (1)
    • May 2019 (2)
    • April 2019 (1)
    • February 2019 (1)
    • April 2018 (2)
    • January 2017 (1)
    • December 2016 (1)
    • November 2016 (1)
    • October 2016 (10)
    • July 2016 (2)
    • June 2016 (1)
    • May 2016 (1)
    • April 2016 (1)
    • March 2016 (1)
    • February 2016 (3)
    • December 2015 (1)
    • November 2015 (2)
    • October 2015 (1)
    • September 2015 (1)
    • August 2015 (3)
    • April 2015 (1)
    • February 2015 (1)
    • December 2014 (3)
    • November 2014 (1)
    • October 2014 (4)
    • September 2014 (15)
    • August 2014 (6)
    • June 2014 (5)
    • May 2014 (1)
    • April 2014 (2)
    • March 2014 (2)
    • February 2014 (1)
    • January 2014 (3)
    • December 2013 (17)
    • November 2013 (9)
    • October 2013 (12)
    • September 2013 (4)
    • July 2013 (2)
    • June 2013 (5)
    • May 2013 (2)
    • April 2013 (3)
    • March 2013 (6)
    • February 2013 (2)
    • January 2013 (1)
    • December 2012 (18)
    • November 2012 (6)
    • October 2012 (13)
    • September 2012 (1)
    • July 2012 (10)
    • June 2012 (13)
    • May 2012 (8)
    • April 2012 (1)
    • March 2012 (11)
    • February 2012 (21)
    • January 2012 (5)
    • December 2011 (18)
    • November 2011 (3)
    • October 2011 (23)
    • September 2011 (24)
    • August 2011 (22)
    • July 2011 (22)
    • June 2011 (29)
    • May 2011 (8)
    • April 2011 (11)
    • March 2011 (18)
    • February 2011 (42)
    • January 2011 (26)
    • December 2010 (30)
    • November 2010 (34)
    • October 2010 (33)
    • September 2010 (16)
    • August 2010 (15)
    • July 2010 (7)
    • June 2010 (21)
    • May 2010 (33)
    • April 2010 (14)
    • March 2010 (41)
    • February 2010 (36)
    • January 2010 (59)
    • December 2009 (59)
  • Categories

    • Abortion (258)
    • Advent (26)
    • Biomedical Ethics (82)
    • Birth Control (51)
    • Bishops (87)
    • Black History Month (10)
    • Breast Cancer (65)
    • Christmas (26)
    • Cloning (4)
    • Condoms (16)
    • COVID-19 (1)
    • Darwin (2)
    • Development (6)
    • Dignity (119)
    • Divine Mercy Novenas (10)
    • DNA (3)
    • Embryo Adoption (2)
    • Embryonic Stem Cell Research (6)
    • Eugenics (29)
    • Euthanasia (8)
    • Family (44)
    • Fathers of the Church (11)
    • Fortnight for Freedom (1)
    • Golden Coconut Award (3)
    • Health Care (14)
    • HIV/AIDS (5)
    • Infant Mortality (2)
    • IVF (4)
    • Joseph (6)
    • Lent (17)
    • Margaret Sanger (19)
    • Marriage (6)
    • Maternal Mortality (2)
    • Motherhood (12)
    • Neonates (1)
    • Personhood (20)
    • Physician Assisted Suicide (4)
    • Planned Parenthood (64)
    • Priests (50)
    • Pro-Life Academy (23)
    • Quotes (10)
    • Radio Interviews (3)
    • Right to Life (34)
    • Roots (1)
    • Sex Education (25)
    • Sexually Transmitted Disease (12)
    • Stem Cell Therapy (7)
    • Transgender (1)
    • Uncategorized (207)
  • Pages

    • About
    • BIO
    • Conferences
    • Contact
    • Follow Gerard on FB & Twitter
    • Speaking

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Coming Home
    • Join 857 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Coming Home
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    loading Cancel
    Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
    Email check failed, please try again
    Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
    %d bloggers like this: