-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 16288)
  2.   Help
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/sci/ - Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

Join us in IRC!

•This is not /b/ or /halp/. Tech support has its own board.
•If you are not contributing directly to a thread, sage your post.
•Keep the flaming at a minimum.
•Tripcodes⁄Namefags are not only tolerated here, they are encouraged.
•We are here to discuss sci-tech, not pseudoscience. Do not post off-topic.

•♥ Integris


  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 363 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

We are in the process of fixing long-standing bugs with the thread reader. This will probably cause more bugs for a short period of time. Buckle up.

There's a new /777/ up, it's /Moldy Memes/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Artificial sweeteners Anonymous 16/02/21(Sun)10:07 No. 16288 ID: f705da
16288

File 14560456503.png - (28.70KB , 787x653 , s.png )

Supposing a given artificial sweetener -- say, saccharine or aspartame -- was a carcinogen, what kind of cancer would it produce and by what mechanism?
If this question is too hypothetical to answer, by what mechanism would ingesting a non-toxic chemical cause cancer?


>>
Anonymous 16/02/23(Tue)01:38 No. 16289 ID: 0500c2

Cancer is caused by some kind of mechanism damaging the DNA of cells on contact, producing a random mutation.

Since we're talking ingestion, it would have to be some kind of gastrointestinal cancer, of which there are several varieties. We can eliminate mouth or throat cancer if we assume the chemical is inert in its base state and only becomes carcinogenic once altered by the process of digestion. That pretty much leaves colon cancer. It could happen if this altered chemical irritated or otherwise physically damaged the lining of the colon. Continued ingestion of this chemical would cause chronic irritation of the colon, in much the same way smoking does for the lungs. That could lead to cancer.


Note: You can create em-dashes by holding the alt key, pressing 0151 on the numpad,and then releasing the alt key, as demonstrated here: — . This is a superior alternative to using two en-dashes.


>>
Anonymous 16/02/23(Tue)22:01 No. 16290 ID: d8da56

>>16289
Okay, sure, but do we get from irritated tissue to mutated genetic material? I can understand how something like electromagnetic radiation, which can pass through matter and damage the molecular structure of DNA, could cause it, but how would a chemical do it? Is DNA directly exposed to chemicals being metabolized by or otherwise passing through cells such that it can react with them?


>>
Anonymous 16/03/07(Mon)16:19 No. 16296 ID: cad79b

//are there even papers about knowledge of effects and constituents?

Earlier I asked for a suggestion for a question on the survey that would be important and policy reelvant in the immediate furutre. However, my interests have drifted as I'm getting more familiar with the general topic and the survye. I have found that many of the questions that do interest me onthe survey have been covered already in the literature,a nd the datanalsysies already done of the data from the sruvey(albeit in differnet years). My criterion for ideal project in impact, tractability and neglectness. I feel yes high impact and somewhat tractable (it has been hard to figure out a systematic review, since one relevant for the data often doesn't have papers enough to do, since if it ididn then it wouldn't be neglected enough to study interest me, which is the third criterion.

remember to check that I don't have to renaalse the data from toher papers if it doesn't already indicative something about knowledge --> politilca uspport..... maybe I shoulda.just pick like 3+ papers to search on


>>
Anonymous 18/11/19(Mon)08:45 No. 16722 ID: d40656

>>16288
Neither sweetener could even hypothetically act as carcinogen due to the mechanisms of how DNA is mutated.

The closest way would be if the metabolic path to break down either sweetener involved the production of a reactive oxygen species (like peroxide) but even then, metabolic degregation of fats normally results on this so our bodies have protiens to deal with this.

On a slightly related note, azo compounds, which we use to color some foods like starbucks drinks are carcinogenic due to the fact they're aromatic.


>>
Anonymous 18/11/21(Wed)16:41 No. 16723 ID: be6f8f

>>16722
>On a slightly related note, azo compounds, which we use to color some foods like starbucks drinks are carcinogenic due to the fact they're aromatic.
Great, so that's relevant to the second half of my question. How would ingesting such a compound cause cancer?


>>
Anonymous 18/11/23(Fri)09:26 No. 16724 ID: d40656

>>16723
Via intercalation, they're planer (flat) molocules and so they have the ability to fit themselves between DNA base pairs, which can lead to mutations (during replication) that, say affect the gene that encodes for the p53 protien, which can then lead to cancer.

The molecule you have pictured isn't flat by the way, the entire (penta? Should've paid more attention in ochem) ring sticks out of the page (or into depending on how you rotate it)


>>
Anonymous 18/11/23(Fri)09:26 No. 16725 ID: d40656

>>16723
Via intercalation, they're planer (flat) molocules and so they have the ability to fit themselves between DNA base pairs, which can lead to mutations (during replication) that, say affect the gene that encodes for the p53 protien, which can then lead to cancer.

The molecule you have pictured isn't flat by the way, the entire (penta? Should've paid more attention in ochem) ring sticks out of the page (or into depending on how you rotate it)


>>
Anonymous 18/11/23(Fri)09:28 No. 16726 ID: d40656

>>16723
Via intercalation, they're planer (flat) molocules and so they have the ability to fit themselves between DNA base pairs, which can lead to mutations (during replication) that, say affect the gene that encodes for the p53 protien, which can then lead to cancer. Agaent orange, or burnt BBQ are other fun examples for this.

The molecule you have pictured isn't flat by the way, the entire group attached to the benzene ring sticks out of the page (or into depending on how you rotate it)


>>
Anonymous 18/11/23(Fri)14:40 No. 16727 ID: be6f8f

>>16726
How does the molecule get there, though? I would have assumed DNA is separated from the rest of the rest of the cell by a barrier of some kind. Is the molecule tiny enough to pass through it?


>>
Anonymous 18/11/23(Fri)23:27 No. 16728 ID: d40656

>>16727
To enter the cell itself it depends, some are small enough to diffuse through the membrane, others may fit themselves between lipids (like chlostrol) then enter via endocytosis.

As for entering the nucleus, this is pretty much the limit of what I know (so take everything with a grain of salt), but general nuclear import requires a nuclear import signal to which a protein called importin will bind to and the resulting complex can freely pass through the nuclear pore complex. So as long as a nuclear import signal was attached your carcinogen can freely enter.


>>
Anonymous 18/11/24(Sat)22:19 No. 16729 ID: a132e4

>>16727
pores in a vertebrate's cell nucleus are approximately 120 nm


>>
Anonymous 18/11/26(Mon)17:09 No. 16731 ID: be6f8f

>>16728
>>16729
I see. Thanks.


>>
Anonymous 18/12/27(Thu)17:44 No. 16735 ID: 30e9be

>>16288
LOL!
Food can not cause cancer, this is a fantasy for morons!
Cancer is caused only by bacteria and viruses.


>>
Anonymous 18/12/28(Fri)17:15 No. 16736 ID: be6f8f

>>16735
>Food can not cause cancer
Well, artificial sweeteners are not food. They have no nutritional value.
On the other hand, heavy alcohol consumption can cause cirrhosis of the liver, which increases the risk of liver cancer.

>Cancer is caused only by bacteria and viruses.
What about things like ionizing radiation, or exposure to contaminants such as tobacco smoke, asbestos, etc.?
What about hereditary cancers?


>>
Anonymous 19/01/27(Sun)19:04 No. 16743 ID: c00a95

>>16736
Ionizing radiation does not cause cancer, but radiolysis, it is the accelerated decomposition of tissues, and not their degeneration in a structural form. Radiation can cause mutations in embryos, but it is not cancer.
Carcinogens and toxins are capable of causing cellular automaton breakdown, but for this, the body’s immunity must already be undermined by the introduction of viruses and bacteria, or by exposure to parasites.


>>
Anonymous 19/01/28(Mon)20:05 No. 16744 ID: be6f8f

>>16743
Radiolysis is the breakage of chemical bonds caused by exposure to high-energy particles. For example, such a breakage could happen inside an ADN molecule, causing its later copy to have an error. In other words, a mutation. Such a mutation can be cancerous.
Quoting Wikipedia:
>Exposure to ionizing radiation is known to increase the future incidence of cancer, particularly leukemia. The mechanism by which this occurs is well understood, but quantitative models predicting the level of risk remain controversial. The most widely accepted model posits that the incidence of cancers due to ionizing radiation increases linearly with effective radiation dose at a rate of 5.5% per sievert.[3] If the linear model is correct, then natural background radiation is the most hazardous source of radiation to general public health, followed by medical imaging as a close second.

When someone says "X causes cancer" or "X is a carcinogen", they're not saying "if you do X once you'll get cancer the following week". What they're saying is "X can increase the rate of mutations in your DNA, and a higher rate of mutations is a higher risk of cancer over time".

>Carcinogens and toxins are capable of causing cellular automaton breakdown, but for this, the body’s immunity must already be undermined by the introduction of viruses and bacteria, or by exposure to parasites.
That's not true. The immune system is capable of killing some mutated cells, but not necessarily every possible mutation. A typical infection can last what, a few weeks at most? Cancer lasts for months or years. If not having cancer was just a matter of having your immune system up to snuff, practically no one would ever get cancer.

Also, what a silly argument. If I see you wearing a helmet and then take it off, and while your head is uncovered I smack with a club, would you say that the cause of your headache is that you took your helmet off, and not that I hit you with a club?



[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]



Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason