I have a cripplingly powerful fear of things like cancer and some strong thanatophobia, so I try REALLY hard these days not to look into too many of the “Shock as this everyday thing causes cancer!” news articles because I don’t fancy making my anxiety any worse or becoming terrified of everything. I almost in fact got too scared to watch this in case it made things worse! But I’m really glad I did, thank you so much for showing us the most sensible approach to learning about cancer risks
Same not really thanatophobia but just the fear of dying before I feel its my time. I look up daily if something im eating can cause heart disease and I get sources saying both its a nightmare.
It’s a combination of those chemicals with California levels of humidity and sunlight and closure (which are set by California government regulations). Florida doesn’t have the same environmental conditions so it’s not carcinogenic there
I agree that Cancers are misleading, they look pretty but are cold and mean once you really get to know them. As a Sagittarius I usually go for Leos though, more my type.
I was in deep shock too, when imported a pre workout supplement from a online shop from CA and saw this creepy warning for the first time. Thank you for such detailed and positive video.
I finally found latex free resistance bands and had this creepy warning. I'm like what? Am I going to get cancer, will my cats get cancer? Then I wondered how many things I use that cause cancer in California
Tamoxifen saved my mother's life twice. She had cancer 8 times and lived to be 86 beating all of them. She died of old age watching TV in her favorite chair.
Generally I enjoy the Scishow episodes but this one was particularly informative and interesting, it made the different reports make sense. Thanks to all the team for it.
CA resident here. This was really helpful explaining why every coffee shop warns that it sells carcinogens - not that it ever stopped me from going in, but I was curious about what they meant : )
Thank you and all the SciShow crew for doing these videos, doing the research you do, and for providing your sources for each video. Thank you so much. You have been a consistently excellent resource when it has come to communicating scientific knowledge to others and/or dispelling a commonly held misconception.
ever since the "fluoride causes your teeth to rot" misconception I learned to go find proper sources to explain what exactly is going on. found out even more (thank to you guys) that its only in larger doses causes your teeth to turn brown not the small amount in toothpaste, which actually protects your teeth.
Zeratul297 yeah man, my cousin and I have been in a years long disagreement about that. He's all freaked out about fluoridated water. It's literally given out at schools to children, as a public health service, for good reasons.
+Zeratul297--How about: "Under what conditions will fluoride cause teeth to rot?" Also, it's not rot. It makes the tooth enamel _Chalky_ [as in, like chalk] _but not in you, or your brother._ *It's an effect that occurs only in early-stage developing teeth.* The fluoride affects a protein so that when it degrades, it no longer gets carried away as it's supposed to, and begins to build up in the final tooth structure. If you imagine a building as a tooth, with the building's brick walls being like normal enamel lining the outside of the tooth. The fluoride causes the accumulation of a protien that's not supposed to be there once the enamel is in place. It's like taking spots on the wall out, and replacing the bricks & concrete gluing the wall together with a randomly placed football (Not Supposed to Be There), which weakens the wall's integrity, making it more likely to crumble in spots, or collapse entirely. So basically, *If you are old enough to be talking about teeth, then you are too old for this to happen to your teeth.*
That's actually how they found out about fluoride. Somewhere out in the midwest(I think ( where everybody had brown teeth and dentists couldn't make a dollar because basically no one got cavities. An extreme oddity of the time to say the least.
How is it that no one came up with a Letter/Number label? A9 would be a certain not so threatening risk while B2 would be a less certain but definitely higher risk? And they slap that around everything we consume? Meh must be more complex than this maybe...
Jonathan Adami you don't care now you won't care then. Matter of fact you try to take the good foods i eat we might have to fight to the death. Honestly
There is an objective assessment, called the cancer slope factor. It rates carcinogens by how much it increases the probability someone may develop cancer due to exposure. It's not that simple in reality, because one intrinsic aspect of this is the effective exposure. An example: aflatoxins. These substances are proven carcinogens and present in peanut butter from mycotic contamination (fungus growing on peanuts). In small amounts. So now you have to determine the expected average effective exposure. So you assess all the batches of Jiffy's and determine the concentration of aflatoxins. Then you assess how much peanut butter someone consumes (could be more than a couple of orders of magnitude, or 100 times more), and finally multiply by the slope factor to determine the expected increase in cancer frequency . *for reassurance, every 40 tablespoons of peanut butter increase your risk of cancer by 1 in a million. That's the same as about 1.5 cigarettes. Or eating about 100 steaks (due to charring). www.dartmouth.edu/~cushman/courses/engs37/RiskAssessment.pdf
It wasn’t “Chim chim che-ree” (yes, that’s the actual name of the song), it was “Step in time” the one the chimney sweeps were dancing to. And now you have a bit of useless Mary Poppins trivia.
Same, I used to watch it all the time when I was little, and when the song came on my mom and I would dance around the living room together ❤️ one of my favourite memories
To be fair, the California warnings aren't always nonsense. A while ago I became concerned because a lot of the Japanese products with seaweed in them had the cancer warning, and tried to look into it. What I found is that seaweed is more or less safe depending on where in the ocean it was harvested- if it's in an area a lot of ships pass through or with industrial waste, it can absorb a large amount of dangerous chemicals. Most of the products with the warning label were harvested in Chinese seas (although unfortunately few seaweed packages tell you where the seaweed was harvested). Meanwhile other packages did not have the warning. All went through California, sometimes even the same city, so clearly the deciding factor was where the seaweed itself was from. Long story short, that's one California cancer warning I do heed now. Rather than ignoring all of them because they can sometimes be over-the-top, it's best to look into it yourself to assess the risk.
When I worked at the Internet Archive scanning books we used these heavy bean bags to weigh down the scanning bed if the book we were scanning wasn't very heavy. They had that California warning on them, so we called them the "cancer bags". As far as I know, we all got out of there alive anyway...
I wish we had a Symbol with a number, like the expiration for make-up. For example, smoking can cause cancer at anytime, chimney smoke may cause it in a year but heavily processed meat might take avg 30 years.
This is one of my favorite types of episodes. There are many times something is said to me that rings false because I know science is repeatedly misinterpreted in certain ways. I'm always glad to have more than "that doesn't sound right" when someone makes a strange claim.
this was informative and helpful to those who don't understand carcinogens. thank you, you saved my ass to explain something to someone that is so complicated for a medical student to do so.
My dad falls victim to misinterpreting scientific discoveries involving health and safety (he’s uneducated). A scientist makes a discovery. A reporter misinterprets the data. And then the population is misinformed.
Really niche channel and good explaining video. I just bought some JBL cable earbuds with the p65 warning. Since they are an electronic product and they're in prolonged contact to the ears, skin and head, should I be worried? Thanks in advanced!
@@graciem6562 Hi, I contacted JBL directly and long story short, they told me the law talks more about the chemicals as a mandatory statement but not about the safety of the product, also they told me the earbuds are safe to use. But if you want to feel more secure, contact the brand of your laptop and ask them more info about your product. Here I'll leave part of the response that JBL gave me since I find it's useful about people wondering more about this prop 65 law. JBL response: "What is Proposition 65? Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) is a California law that requires businesses to provide a warning before exposing individuals in California to any of 900-plus chemicals that California lists as a carcinogen or a reproductive toxicant (“Prop 65 List”). The list is available at: oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list. The law includes specific warning language that can be used by businesses to comply. The specific warning language is called a “safe harbor.”
Why is Harman including this warning? The chemicals in products that require the Prop 65 warning can vary based on product type. Many of the chemicals on the Prop 65 List are common additives found in products such as jewelry, lamps, ceramic tableware, food, lead crystal glasses, electric cords, automobiles, beauty products, and furniture.
Does this law apply everywhere? No, Prop 65 warnings are only required under California law.
Are Harman products that display the Proposition 65 warning safe? Harman is committed to making products that comply with all applicable laws and that are safe to use. California’s Prop 65 is not a product safety law, but a chemical right-to-know law. We believe our products are safe when used as intended.
I purchased this product outside of California, why does it include a Prop 65 warning? Harman sells products throughout the U.S. We do not know where each item will ship. We have no alternative except to place the Prop 65 warning on all of our products regardless of where they are sold."
I don't know if I've seen a prop 65 warning before but today I got something and wasn't sure if I should return it. Then I was wondering if either things sold in California are more "dangerous" than Australia or I've been using these so called cancer products my whole life and due to different laws I never knew about it
The carcinogens in some meats in not from the meat, its how its prepared, such as smoked or cured meat. There is little to no evidence that meat on its own has carcinogens.
maso0n www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19279082/ it was europe not australia, my bad, and to be fair it was from data collected in the 1990s so it may not be relevant today
This was a good video because it finally gives context to studies. I've been saying for years that these cancer studies lack context. Thank you. Now I can eat my bacon without being judged like that
made me smile when he said “i’m lookin at you, california” haha yeah there’s cancer warnings on plastic bottle caps, chip bags etc in ever gas station here
California - more lawyers than sense. I live in SoCal after growing up in Tenn/bama/GA. This place has some of the best weather in the country and some of the worst people on the planet.... Outside of South OC it's not as bad IMO. This State tries to do a lot, and makes some beneficial advancements the rest of the country should be quicker to adopt, but at the same time it does a lot of really really stupid stuff too.
Greetings from Iowa. Most people here hardly acknowledge that California is even a state, we think of it more of the land of take 1 step forward shoot yourself in the foot take a step back then warn everyone that shooting yourself in the foot is bad then turns around and shoots itself in the foot again while us corn people watch in fascination and horror from the things that happen.
That’s the problem with trying to be progressive. Compared to standing still where you are (which may not be the best place to be), there are infinite directions you could move in. Most of them are worse.
Wouter Cloetens The problem with being conservative is the inability to acknowledge how bad things are already and taking action to find a solution. This is especially the case when credible evidence shows that the long established status quo is a major problem. There's no doubt caution and prudence are wise, but it's a fine line to tread between caution and obsolescence. Resistance to change is the prime indicator of obsolescence. The same California culture that drives Silicon valley, amongst all the other remarkable things coming out of CA, is found in California politics. As a whole California's economy is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the country. That's why I'm here, and why half or more of the people you talk to here are transplants from other places outside the state. I can say first hand $40k in Tennessee/Alabama/Georgia will get you the same size house/lifestyle as $100k will in California. The same job that pays $40k in the southeast pays six figures here. Yeah it costs a whole lot more to live here, but bigger budget equals bigger credit which means more opportunities. That's the result of a place and culture that stay ahead of the curve and drive change. Resistance to that culture has left many others in a state of obsolescence. I'd love to live elsewhere, but I'm not willing to downgrade my life to do so.
Upcycle Electronics While I can agree with some of what you’re saying... Science denial, and policy decisions based on bad research, is a bipartisan problem. California is not doing well, economically, due to destructive taxation laws. Businesses and people are relocating out of the state. The state also has a massive budget deficit and debt due to mismanagement. Not the best example...
Wouter Cloetens I agree on the bipartisan issues, but California isn't doing too bad right now as far as I can tell. There is quite a bit of development going on. Locally the housing market froze for awhile after '08, but there's more development now than there was in '07, and once again buying a house here is a gamble on how much you'd like to offer over the asking price. Nothing is hitting the listings and staying there unless there is something seriously wrong with the property. I don't trust anything I hear from any corporate media outlet any more, but speaking first hand, it looks petty good around here right now. From what I've heard second hand, it's much harder to buy anything anywhere near San Francisco. Other than living on Manhattan in NY NY I don't know of any other place in the US with that kind of economic demand. You can call me simple minded, but I look at that as a real indicator of the economy instead of whatever political propaganda, yellow news narrative, corporate media is selling. -Jake
The labels on products and foods that might cause cancer aren't always very clear about what they mean. The first step to understanding what these labels really mean is to establish what cancer actually is. Each person might have different genetic predispositions to various types of the disease. But with careful studies, scientists have been able to identify dozens of things that are a good idea to avoid. In the early 20th century, Japanese scientists tried putting various substances on rabbits and seeing whether they could form tumors, and many did. Even 100 years later, Europe had much lower rates of scrotal cancer than the UK, which did not adopt those bath recommendations. Biologists now consider cancer a genetic disease, meaning that something has to happen to a cell's DNA to allow for uncontrolled growth. Carcinogen evaluation is the process of looking at all the available information and making a conclusion about whether or not it can cause cancer. The most famous and influential group that does this is the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC. They've evaluated 1004 potential carcinogens and put them in one of five categories. The cancer drug tamoxifen is listed in IARC's group 1 because it increases the risk of uterine cancer, but if you already have breast cancer, it can be lifesaving. The hormone estrogen also makes the cut, but that doesn't mean that everyone should try to rid their bodies of estrogen because your body makes it. Some agencies get it wrong and have to issue changes, such as saccharin, an artificial sweetener, which was initially classified as a possible human carcinogen. Some compounds won't get flagged as dangerous when they're being tested for, and some will be flagged as harmful when they aren't. The California law allows people to sue to get warning labels on products that contain a chemical "known to the state of California to cause cancer." Coffee contains acrylamide, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies as a "probable carcinogenic" to humans, but there's no clear evidence that it affects cancer risk in humans. The label is based on the results of animal studies and doesn't apply to coffee as a whole, which is one of the best studied beverages on the planet.
Ever since my mom got cancer, she's been extra paranoid about these labels and im not allowed to get anything with the label on it. This is an issue for me because i need tools for mechatronics engineering, but a lot of those tools have cancer warnings so i have to search for ones without the label and that are good quality. But the thing is, i probably will encounter more dangerous substances than the tools themselves . . .
In Victorian times and earlier, chimney sweeps would get an orphan from the workhouse, the smaller the boy the better, then force him up the chimney to sweep it by bodily movement. Some of the flues were just 9” by 9” .Of course if he got stuck, lighting a fire in the hearth would get him moving again. Cancers eventually formed where the soot was constantly rubbed into the skin. The Act stopping this practice was passed in 1885.
Oh my goodness, the next thing you'll be telling my is that Tai Lopez videos are misleading....when it's all about "knowledge"....now send me your money suckers, so I can put more bookcases in my garage next to my leased Lamborghini.....
Yuhs thank you! My daily input that I apply for physiology:...(" being just my major study and conceptual conduit for the tangible and applicable.. so as a whole, general medical sciences and its application.")..is risk management to the inevitable general management of "stress" and overall awareness to ones chemical actions/reactions.. either those influenced by you and or you influenced by them, those allowed to affect etc.. Just the ideal of CBT, but not bias in the complete unrealistic expectations they have for such an approach without a more "walk the line of duality.. " type thing.. if those reading can get it im glad.. to avoid typing peoples eyes out with circumlocution in the hopes of more communicable understanding I will leave it at a simple takeaway and be done. I can sum it up to just all around HEALTHY DIET:being those chemical influences acknowledged and scheduled/managed, monitored etc.. by oneself and or the individuals support system. "you cannot and will not see all factors nor a rational image really for abit.. you need more eyes than two." Thank you to all who can stand my odd and illiterate approach at sentence structure, have a wonderful day!
I stopped buying canned oysters because they say they contain a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer. I was wondering, if it's so dangerous, why is it even legal to sell? If something is a poison, it should not be legal to sell as a food. The other question I had was, WHICH chemical, and how much of it? Some more information on that would have helped me decide whether it's worth taking the risk or not. Your video was helpful, but I still think I'm not going to eat those oysters... until the labels list what the supposedly toxic chemical actually is, I'm just going to take their word for it and avoid it. It's not like I can taste or smell whether the label is accurate, I can only guess.
sugar alternatives can only be considered somewhat safe if they r not absorbed at all and even then they may disrupt insulin signaling and the microbiome regardless of what any study says...
Wait, i waited til the end of this episode for info on the California Cancer Warning label & you only covered coffee & tobacco. But nothing about when to heed this label? What about super glues & certain plastics/synthetically formed things? Those OK?
I personally really appreciate having the strength of evidence be a part of the labeling system. I find it incredibly important in my ability to tell what is actually dangerous. But I wish that the labels showed both the quality of evidence, and the probability of developing cancer. Both of those are good tools, but together they really do the job. But if its only going to be one or the other I'd personally prefer it to be the way it is now with strength of evidence shown.
I have a video request. In the last few decades, giraffe populations have been cut almost in half, and no one knows about it. Everyone knows elephants need help. But there are only 1/5 as many giraffes as there are elephants. Could you do a video about that? More people should know, since giraffes are so loved.
I quit smoking for years ago and I was a 30-year plus 3 pack a day smoker for much of my life. I say I quit too late to help but I also know as a medical person that not everybody who smokes gets cancer and people who have never smoked get cancer.
I dont know what I interpreted from this video but what I understand is that you dont get cancer by these cancer causing chemicals until you really get cancer by them somehow and sometimes a way of treating that cancer is with more cancer.
1:06 I've always wondered about this. Are the obviously wrong-looking shapes illustrated cancerous cells take something that actually happens, or it it basically like coloring a sick man's face green in a cartoon?
William Shreckengost (this reply is way late) as far as I can find, they do look a bit different than healthy cells. I didn't read any more after that confirmation, but maybe (because they changed/reproduced abnormally/blahblahblah) and that is observable in how tumors differ from normal tissue that surrounded it? Like how you get a firmer bump than the other muscle/fat tissue you have in say...breast cancer. Sorry. You got subjected to a random rambling comment reply. Have a good day/night!
Jade Carla Adlawon No need to apologize. Thanks for taking the time to help me along with that question! I did eventually get around to having a solid look around on this, and it looks like cultures of HeLa (cervical cancer cells that also wound up biologically immortal) do take on a very similar shape to the image at 1:06. Some even look really wrong, in that they can fail to fully divide and wind up with extra organelles and even multiple nuclei within the same cell.
I am a pharmacist and was practicing when cyclamates were tagged dangerous. Turns out that the problem was that you can cook with it. That upset the sugar industry. The research modality was a joke, but that meant nothing to the powers that existed who promptly labeled it dangerous.
Thanks a lot, great video, clear and quasi-complete. It may be completed on the modern techniques with "toxicology testing in the 21st century" which is inspiring for more precise (and more generic) evaluation (and less dead rats)
So basically, we need a resource that identifies items/substances based on multiple merits all at once. Each item or substance needs its own page with definitive numbers, ratings, portions, descriptors, and reactions for several categories. Carcinogenic, photoreactive, neurotoxic, pH... Any and all properties on a single comprehensive page with a definitive 'safe for most', 'with caution', 'under supervision', or 'unsafe' rating in clear, large font at the top of the page. A single measurement is never enough for the complexities of this universe.
My father used saccharine -and got bladder cancer. There is no one else in the family who has had that problem, just dad, who was diabetic in the time before aspartame . : /
i work at an art store and a lot of our products have the label "known to cause cancer in the state of california". why is that? does cali have stricter regulations on gets put on the category ratings or something?
I just went into remission after an extended Chemotherapy regimen. My Dr. told me that he was going to poison me and hope that the drugs killed the cancer before it killed me. Yay for remission.
One of my favorite Reddit quotes of all time comes from a thread on this topic: “I used to work for a furniture company and had to answer questions about whether or not a chair would give you cancer. Yes but only if you eat the chair. Don’t eat the chair.” - u/umademehatethiscity
So getting burned by that nylon producing chemical doesn't lead to cell damage and increased cell replacement? Wouldn't this be similar to alcohol, but to a lesser degree.
Petition to have a rocket ship launched to put a huge "may cause cancer" label on the sun
I second that
Pretty sure the sun would be in category 1 if it was being ranked.
"Known to the state of California to cause cancer"
Lmfao!!!
@@lordgarion514 I thought UV radiation already is classified as group 1.
I have a cripplingly powerful fear of things like cancer and some strong thanatophobia, so I try REALLY hard these days not to look into too many of the “Shock as this everyday thing causes cancer!” news articles because I don’t fancy making my anxiety any worse or becoming terrified of everything. I almost in fact got too scared to watch this in case it made things worse! But I’m really glad I did, thank you so much for showing us the most sensible approach to learning about cancer risks
I suffer from paranoia now my paranoia got worst
Same not really thanatophobia but just the fear of dying before I feel its my time. I look up daily if something im eating can cause heart disease and I get sources saying both its a nightmare.
@@dylanschmeichel2008 bad way to live try not to worry about death it comes for us all eventually just live the best life you can
@@dylanschmeichel2008 of course try to eat healthy and stuff but dont worry too much i used to have health anxiety as a kid
This clears up a lot. I was very confused as to why my cars steering wheel might cause cancer in California 😂
Cuz California residents bare stupid enough to believe it lol 😃😆
If it causes cancer in California, it causes cancer everywhere else.
I thought it was directed towards Florida, think we’re okay 👍
It’s a combination of those chemicals with California levels of humidity and sunlight and closure (which are set by California government regulations). Florida doesn’t have the same environmental conditions so it’s not carcinogenic there
I know this is old but gold! Even my fan says it causes cancer on the label 😳
"I'm looking at you, California."
*Cries in Prop 65*
I agree that Cancers are misleading, they look pretty but are cold and mean once you really get to know them. As a Sagittarius I usually go for Leos though, more my type.
Zeke Krahlin YAY!!! Hahahahaha you win.
*ahem*- I'm a cancer, born in July
Sebastian Elytron what about a Virgo?
Me too
Sebastian Elytron you win.... for now.
I was in deep shock too, when imported a pre workout supplement from a online shop from CA and saw this creepy warning for the first time. Thank you for such detailed and positive video.
I finally found latex free resistance bands and had this creepy warning. I'm like what? Am I going to get cancer, will my cats get cancer? Then I wondered how many things I use that cause cancer in California
@@catherine2268 lol.
Me worst I ate some chips with this label I'm just prayingg
@@letyourlightshine2727 I bought I mouthpiece for playing instruments and says that warning
@@LunarrBtw I also bought some hemp seed oil and other oils have this warning too what the hell :/
Tamoxifen saved my mother's life twice. She had cancer 8 times and lived to be 86 beating all of them. She died of old age watching TV in her favorite chair.
I just saw a video where in the comment section you talked about the fear of losing your mother, i hope you are ok
Generally I enjoy the Scishow episodes but this one was particularly informative and interesting, it made the different reports make sense. Thanks to all the team for it.
CA resident here. This was really helpful explaining why every coffee shop warns that it sells carcinogens - not that it ever stopped me from going in, but I was curious about what they meant : )
Omg thank you for the subtitles, I have an auditory processing disorder and I was able to read along as you talked . 👍☺️
i was going to watch this video but California advised me this video also causes cancer =/
l l Suspicious...
Everything causes cancer apparently
Thank you and all the SciShow crew for doing these videos, doing the research you do, and for providing your sources for each video. Thank you so much. You have been a consistently excellent resource when it has come to communicating scientific knowledge to others and/or dispelling a commonly held misconception.
ever since the "fluoride causes your teeth to rot" misconception I learned to go find proper sources to explain what exactly is going on. found out even more (thank to you guys) that its only in larger doses causes your teeth to turn brown not the small amount in toothpaste, which actually protects your teeth.
Zeratul297 yeah man, my cousin and I have been in a years long disagreement about that. He's all freaked out about fluoridated water. It's literally given out at schools to children, as a public health service, for good reasons.
Brendan O'Toole yeah, tell him to find proper sources or even better research papers.
+Zeratul297--How about: "Under what conditions will fluoride cause teeth to rot?"
Also, it's not rot. It makes the tooth enamel _Chalky_ [as in, like chalk] _but not in you, or your brother._ *It's an effect that occurs only in early-stage developing teeth.* The fluoride affects a protein so that when it degrades, it no longer gets carried away as it's supposed to, and begins to build up in the final tooth structure. If you imagine a building as a tooth, with the building's brick walls being like normal enamel lining the outside of the tooth. The fluoride causes the accumulation of a protien that's not supposed to be there once the enamel is in place. It's like taking spots on the wall out, and replacing the bricks & concrete gluing the wall together with a randomly placed football (Not Supposed to Be There), which weakens the wall's integrity, making it more likely to crumble in spots, or collapse entirely.
So basically, *If you are old enough to be talking about teeth, then you are too old for this to happen to your teeth.*
may I have the source of this claim please?
That's actually how they found out about fluoride.
Somewhere out in the midwest(I think ( where everybody had brown teeth and dentists couldn't make a dollar because basically no one got cavities. An extreme oddity of the time to say the least.
How is it that no one came up with a Letter/Number label? A9 would be a certain not so threatening risk while B2 would be a less certain but definitely higher risk? And they slap that around everything we consume? Meh must be more complex than this maybe...
Sorta... but the complexity is mostly political/legal and not scientific.
Jonathan Adami you don't care now you won't care then. Matter of fact you try to take the good foods i eat we might have to fight to the death. Honestly
You are bang on. I have to do safety assessments like that every day at work. It's simple and makes sense.
There is an objective assessment, called the cancer slope factor. It rates carcinogens by how much it increases the probability someone may develop cancer due to exposure.
It's not that simple in reality, because one intrinsic aspect of this is the effective exposure. An example: aflatoxins. These substances are proven carcinogens and present in peanut butter from mycotic contamination (fungus growing on peanuts). In small amounts.
So now you have to determine the expected average effective exposure. So you assess all the batches of Jiffy's and determine the concentration of aflatoxins. Then you assess how much peanut butter someone consumes (could be more than a couple of orders of magnitude, or 100 times more), and finally multiply by the slope factor to determine the expected increase in cancer frequency .
*for reassurance, every 40 tablespoons of peanut butter increase your risk of cancer by 1 in a million. That's the same as about 1.5 cigarettes. Or eating about 100 steaks (due to charring).
www.dartmouth.edu/~cushman/courses/engs37/RiskAssessment.pdf
I will never look at the Chim Chiminy dance number the same way again.
Cancer, ON YOUR BALLS!
Chim chiminy, chim chiminy, chim chim charoooooo!! The soot on my balls made my hair come un-gluuuuued...
It wasn’t “Chim chim che-ree” (yes, that’s the actual name of the song), it was “Step in time” the one the chimney sweeps were dancing to. And now you have a bit of useless Mary Poppins trivia.
2:00 The most likely explanation is that early-stage scrotal cancer causes men to become chimney sweeps.
Dum dum dunnnnnnnnnn....
SaintQ 😂
Maybe they should just try not rubbing their scrotums on a chimney.
Holy crap this video is incredible; not only is it in-depth but its also well researched. Favorite video in a while, great stuff
This comment is known in the state of California to cause cancer.
Loving the Mary Poppins reference 😍 those don't happen often enough
michelleHigg1
Same, I used to watch it all the time when I was little, and when the song came on my mom and I would dance around the living room together ❤️ one of my favourite memories
This is awesome. The skeptic’s guide covered this same topic about a month ago
To be fair, the California warnings aren't always nonsense. A while ago I became concerned because a lot of the Japanese products with seaweed in them had the cancer warning, and tried to look into it. What I found is that seaweed is more or less safe depending on where in the ocean it was harvested- if it's in an area a lot of ships pass through or with industrial waste, it can absorb a large amount of dangerous chemicals. Most of the products with the warning label were harvested in Chinese seas (although unfortunately few seaweed packages tell you where the seaweed was harvested). Meanwhile other packages did not have the warning. All went through California, sometimes even the same city, so clearly the deciding factor was where the seaweed itself was from.
Long story short, that's one California cancer warning I do heed now. Rather than ignoring all of them because they can sometimes be over-the-top, it's best to look into it yourself to assess the risk.
When I worked at the Internet Archive scanning books we used these heavy bean bags to weigh down the scanning bed if the book we were scanning wasn't very heavy. They had that California warning on them, so we called them the "cancer bags". As far as I know, we all got out of there alive anyway...
I wish we had a Symbol with a number, like the expiration for make-up. For example, smoking can cause cancer at anytime, chimney smoke may cause it in a year but heavily processed meat might take avg 30 years.
This is one of my favorite types of episodes. There are many times something is said to me that rings false because I know science is repeatedly misinterpreted in certain ways. I'm always glad to have more than "that doesn't sound right" when someone makes a strange claim.
this was informative and helpful to those who don't understand carcinogens.
thank you, you saved my ass to explain something to someone that is so complicated for a medical student to do so.
Thank you for being non biased!
My dad falls victim to misinterpreting scientific discoveries involving health and safety (he’s uneducated). A scientist makes a discovery. A reporter misinterprets the data. And then the population is misinformed.
Muscle Hank Pun
Justin Y. Hey again
You’re too fast :( I was just going to comment that
fight me m8_ E no more r/deepfriedmemes
Who is better: Hank or Micheal from Vsauce?
Justin Y. Stop following me
Really niche channel and good explaining video. I just bought some JBL cable earbuds with the p65 warning. Since they are an electronic product and they're in prolonged contact to the ears, skin and head, should I be worried? Thanks in advanced!
Someone please answer this!! Im wondering the same thing about this new laptop I bought..
@@graciem6562 Hi, I contacted JBL directly and long story short, they told me the law talks more about the chemicals as a mandatory statement but not about the safety of the product, also they told me the earbuds are safe to use. But if you want to feel more secure, contact the brand of your laptop and ask them more info about your product.
Here I'll leave part of the response that JBL gave me since I find it's useful about people wondering more about this prop 65 law.
JBL response:
"What is Proposition 65?
Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) is a California law that requires businesses to provide a warning before exposing individuals in California to any of 900-plus chemicals that California lists as a carcinogen or a reproductive toxicant (“Prop 65 List”). The list is available at: oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list.
The law includes specific warning language that can be used by businesses to comply. The specific warning language is called a “safe harbor.”
Why is Harman including this warning?
The chemicals in products that require the Prop 65 warning can vary based on product type. Many of the chemicals on the Prop 65 List are common additives found in products such as jewelry, lamps, ceramic tableware, food, lead crystal glasses, electric cords, automobiles, beauty products, and furniture.
Does this law apply everywhere?
No, Prop 65 warnings are only required under California law.
Are Harman products that display the Proposition 65 warning safe?
Harman is committed to making products that comply with all applicable laws and that are safe to use. California’s Prop 65 is not a product safety law, but a chemical right-to-know law. We believe our products are safe when used as intended.
I purchased this product outside of California, why does it include a Prop 65 warning?
Harman sells products throughout the U.S. We do not know where each item will ship. We have no alternative except to place the Prop 65 warning on all of our products regardless of where they are sold."
Can't stop thinking of a scientist rubbing bacon on a rabbit's ear. Now I have the song "Rub some bacon on it" stuck in my head, again.
I don't know if I've seen a prop 65 warning before but today I got something and wasn't sure if I should return it. Then I was wondering if either things sold in California are more "dangerous" than Australia or I've been using these so called cancer products my whole life and due to different laws I never knew about it
The carcinogens in some meats in not from the meat, its how its prepared, such as smoked or cured meat. There is little to no evidence that meat on its own has carcinogens.
Chris Bryer you are right. And the culprit is most likely nitrates and nitrites both very common meat addictives
and thay would explain why in australia vegans have a higher risk of coloerectal cancer
Which study did you read this in? Very curious
maso0n www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19279082/
it was europe not australia, my bad, and to be fair it was from data collected in the 1990s so it may not be relevant today
Another high quality video. Thanks Hank and team.
Awesome episode! So clarifying towards such an important issue
You guys are the best for doing a video on this. I'm getting my vr!!!!! 🙌🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽
Another amazing video!! Awesome topics recently.
found this label on dried seaweed package and i was worried cause this was my first time seeing such label and eating korean seaweed...
I work at Lowes. We have a fence post rammer that has a massive Prop 65 sticker on it..
Got it
stay away from elaborate dance numbers
Im sad cause i cant find a comment from muscle hank talking about his muscular cancer cells
What about the other zodiacal labels?
Proposition 65... next is Order 66...
should I worry?
Dew it
Yes.
You worry when it is 69.
Jason Blahaha...
This was a good video because it finally gives context to studies. I've been saying for years that these cancer studies lack context. Thank you. Now I can eat my bacon without being judged like that
made me smile when he said “i’m lookin at you, california” haha yeah there’s cancer warnings on plastic bottle caps, chip bags etc in ever gas station here
I never seen this before and I ate my chips now I'm so scareddddd
@@letyourlightshine2727 it’s literally nothing bro relax
@@KazzForTheOneTime yea everything I own has that creepy warning I'll just deal with it
All the foods on the Asian grocery stores have this label. It is nuts to go grocery shopping!
FINALLY an explanation to the California warning!!
California - more lawyers than sense. I live in SoCal after growing up in Tenn/bama/GA. This place has some of the best weather in the country and some of the worst people on the planet.... Outside of South OC it's not as bad IMO. This State tries to do a lot, and makes some beneficial advancements the rest of the country should be quicker to adopt, but at the same time it does a lot of really really stupid stuff too.
Greetings from Iowa. Most people here hardly acknowledge that California is even a state, we think of it more of the land of take 1 step forward shoot yourself in the foot take a step back then warn everyone that shooting yourself in the foot is bad then turns around and shoots itself in the foot again while us corn people watch in fascination and horror from the things that happen.
That’s the problem with trying to be progressive. Compared to standing still where you are (which may not be the best place to be), there are infinite directions you could move in. Most of them are worse.
Wouter Cloetens
The problem with being conservative is the inability to acknowledge how bad things are already and taking action to find a solution. This is especially the case when credible evidence shows that the long established status quo is a major problem. There's no doubt caution and prudence are wise, but it's a fine line to tread between caution and obsolescence. Resistance to change is the prime indicator of obsolescence. The same California culture that drives Silicon valley, amongst all the other remarkable things coming out of CA, is found in California politics. As a whole California's economy is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the country. That's why I'm here, and why half or more of the people you talk to here are transplants from other places outside the state. I can say first hand $40k in Tennessee/Alabama/Georgia will get you the same size house/lifestyle as $100k will in California. The same job that pays $40k in the southeast pays six figures here. Yeah it costs a whole lot more to live here, but bigger budget equals bigger credit which means more opportunities. That's the result of a place and culture that stay ahead of the curve and drive change. Resistance to that culture has left many others in a state of obsolescence. I'd love to live elsewhere, but I'm not willing to downgrade my life to do so.
Upcycle Electronics While I can agree with some of what you’re saying...
Science denial, and policy decisions based on bad research, is a bipartisan problem.
California is not doing well, economically, due to destructive taxation laws. Businesses and people are relocating out of the state. The state also has a massive budget deficit and debt due to mismanagement. Not the best example...
Wouter Cloetens
I agree on the bipartisan issues, but California isn't doing too bad right now as far as I can tell. There is quite a bit of development going on. Locally the housing market froze for awhile after '08, but there's more development now than there was in '07, and once again buying a house here is a gamble on how much you'd like to offer over the asking price. Nothing is hitting the listings and staying there unless there is something seriously wrong with the property.
I don't trust anything I hear from any corporate media outlet any more, but speaking first hand, it looks petty good around here right now. From what I've heard second hand, it's much harder to buy anything anywhere near San Francisco.
Other than living on Manhattan in NY NY I don't know of any other place in the US with that kind of economic demand. You can call me simple minded, but I look at that as a real indicator of the economy instead of whatever political propaganda, yellow news narrative, corporate media is selling.
-Jake
Thanks for that. Those california carcinogen warnings scared the crap outta me.
Great video. Also great example of why a little knowledge is dangerous!
The labels on products and foods that might cause cancer aren't always very clear about what they mean. The first step to understanding what these labels really mean is to establish what cancer actually is. Each person might have different genetic predispositions to various types of the disease. But with careful studies, scientists have been able to identify dozens of things that are a good idea to avoid. In the early 20th century, Japanese scientists tried putting various substances on rabbits and seeing whether they could form tumors, and many did.
Even 100 years later, Europe had much lower rates of scrotal cancer than the UK, which did not adopt those bath recommendations. Biologists now consider cancer a genetic disease, meaning that something has to happen to a cell's DNA to allow for uncontrolled growth. Carcinogen evaluation is the process of looking at all the available information and making a conclusion about whether or not it can cause cancer. The most famous and influential group that does this is the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC. They've evaluated 1004 potential carcinogens and put them in one of five categories.
The cancer drug tamoxifen is listed in IARC's group 1 because it increases the risk of uterine cancer, but if you already have breast cancer, it can be lifesaving. The hormone estrogen also makes the cut, but that doesn't mean that everyone should try to rid their bodies of estrogen because your body makes it. Some agencies get it wrong and have to issue changes, such as saccharin, an artificial sweetener, which was initially classified as a possible human carcinogen. Some compounds won't get flagged as dangerous when they're being tested for, and some will be flagged as harmful when they aren't. The California law allows people to sue to get warning labels on products that contain a chemical "known to the state of California to cause cancer."
Coffee contains acrylamide, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies as a "probable carcinogenic" to humans, but there's no clear evidence that it affects cancer risk in humans. The label is based on the results of animal studies and doesn't apply to coffee as a whole, which is one of the best studied beverages on the planet.
Hey SciShow can you make a list show with the, say, top 7 or 10 carcinogens as far as how much they increase your risk?
@SciShow: Can we do a long video on "Known Professions and Circumstances that cause Cancer"? That would be crazy!
Ever since my mom got cancer, she's been extra paranoid about these labels and im not allowed to get anything with the label on it. This is an issue for me because i need tools for mechatronics engineering, but a lot of those tools have cancer warnings so i have to search for ones without the label and that are good quality. But the thing is, i probably will encounter more dangerous substances than the tools themselves . . .
Sounds like you need to move bud.
In Victorian times and earlier, chimney sweeps would get an orphan from the workhouse, the smaller the boy the better, then force him up the chimney to sweep it by bodily movement. Some of the flues were just 9” by 9” .Of course if he got stuck, lighting a fire in the hearth would get him moving again. Cancers eventually formed where the soot was constantly rubbed into the skin. The Act stopping this practice was passed in 1885.
Just call the video "Why Jake Paul Videos are Misleading"
it's the same thing
Mayonnaise Musician but you literally brought that guy to thought to the respectable youtuber that just want to learn. Nice.
Oh my goodness, the next thing you'll be telling my is that Tai Lopez videos are misleading....when it's all about "knowledge"....now send me your money suckers, so I can put more bookcases in my garage next to my leased Lamborghini.....
Yuhs thank you!
My daily input that I apply for physiology:...(" being just my major study and conceptual conduit for the tangible and applicable.. so as a whole, general medical sciences and its application.")..is risk management to the inevitable general management of "stress" and overall awareness to ones chemical actions/reactions.. either those influenced by you and or you influenced by them, those allowed to affect etc..
Just the ideal of CBT, but not bias in the complete unrealistic expectations they have for such an approach without a more "walk the line of duality.. " type thing.. if those reading can get it im glad.. to avoid typing peoples eyes out with circumlocution in the hopes of more
communicable understanding I will leave it at a simple takeaway and be done.
I can sum it up to just all around HEALTHY DIET:being those chemical influences acknowledged and scheduled/managed, monitored etc.. by oneself and or the individuals support system. "you cannot and will not see all factors nor a rational image really for abit.. you need more eyes than two."
Thank you to all who can stand my odd and illiterate approach
at sentence structure, have a wonderful day!
I stopped buying canned oysters because they say they contain a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer. I was wondering, if it's so dangerous, why is it even legal to sell? If something is a poison, it should not be legal to sell as a food. The other question I had was, WHICH chemical, and how much of it? Some more information on that would have helped me decide whether it's worth taking the risk or not.
Your video was helpful, but I still think I'm not going to eat those oysters... until the labels list what the supposedly toxic chemical actually is, I'm just going to take their word for it and avoid it. It's not like I can taste or smell whether the label is accurate, I can only guess.
IntarwebUser Google is your friend. I am sure you can look up what about oysters requires that label.
"This person contains a substance known to the state of california to cause pregnancy"
I want a shirt with that on it :D
I would totally wear that shirt.
sugar alternatives can only be considered somewhat safe if they r not absorbed at all
and even then they may disrupt insulin signaling and the microbiome
regardless of what any study says...
Honestly this sounds like a really bad system that just has to be reformed.
Weird watching pre-cancer Hank talk about cancer!
I was just thinking the same thing.
Causes for cancer ranked :
5.smoking
4.the sun
3.oxygen radicals
2.jake paul
1.fortnite
Julian the Ivysaur 0 radiation
-1 pure plutonium platters
-2 Feminism
-3 misogyny 😉
-4 chloroform
4.5 Certain TH-cam channels
Wait, i waited til the end of this episode for info on the California Cancer Warning label & you only covered coffee & tobacco. But nothing about when to heed this label? What about super glues & certain plastics/synthetically formed things? Those OK?
Where is Muscle Hank?
I personally really appreciate having the strength of evidence be a part of the labeling system. I find it incredibly important in my ability to tell what is actually dangerous. But I wish that the labels showed both the quality of evidence, and the probability of developing cancer. Both of those are good tools, but together they really do the job. But if its only going to be one or the other I'd personally prefer it to be the way it is now with strength of evidence shown.
I have a video request. In the last few decades, giraffe populations have been cut almost in half, and no one knows about it. Everyone knows elephants need help. But there are only 1/5 as many giraffes as there are elephants. Could you do a video about that? More people should know, since giraffes are so loved.
I quit smoking for years ago and I was a 30-year plus 3 pack a day smoker for much of my life. I say I quit too late to help but I also know as a medical person that not everybody who smokes gets cancer and people who have never smoked get cancer.
it completely depends on family history,i'm pretty sure some people are more vulnerable then others.
I just got some blue light filtering glasses at target today and it has the warning “could cause cancer or reproductive harm” like they’re glasses????
Love this video. Great stuff.
N pretty much id say the rule of thumb I follow is minimize open exposure to pyrolytic or combustion reactions with organic material!
I dont know what I interpreted from this video but what I understand is that you dont get cancer by these cancer causing chemicals until you really get cancer by them somehow and sometimes a way of treating that cancer is with more cancer.
Fantastic as always
Currently reading the IARC report.
Chimney sweeps getting scrot cancer? They never talked about that in Mary Poppins
1:06 I've always wondered about this. Are the obviously wrong-looking shapes illustrated cancerous cells take something that actually happens, or it it basically like coloring a sick man's face green in a cartoon?
William Shreckengost (this reply is way late) as far as I can find, they do look a bit different than healthy cells. I didn't read any more after that confirmation, but maybe (because they changed/reproduced abnormally/blahblahblah) and that is observable in how tumors differ from normal tissue that surrounded it? Like how you get a firmer bump than the other muscle/fat tissue you have in say...breast cancer.
Sorry. You got subjected to a random rambling comment reply. Have a good day/night!
Jade Carla Adlawon No need to apologize. Thanks for taking the time to help me along with that question!
I did eventually get around to having a solid look around on this, and it looks like cultures of HeLa (cervical cancer cells that also wound up biologically immortal) do take on a very similar shape to the image at 1:06. Some even look really wrong, in that they can fail to fully divide and wind up with extra organelles and even multiple nuclei within the same cell.
California: where everything causes cancer
Dalewoodian
Cancer: everything that causes California.
It's because commiefornia is a cancer.
@@OnlyKaerius are you inbred
We just living by chance everything causes cancer
Very helpful, thanks!
I am a pharmacist and was practicing when cyclamates were tagged dangerous. Turns out that the problem was that you can cook with it. That upset the sugar industry. The research modality was a joke, but that meant nothing to the powers that existed who promptly labeled it dangerous.
It was amusing to see one of those P65 signs hanging right outside of a Sacramento Walmart.
Thanks a lot, great video, clear and quasi-complete. It may be completed on the modern techniques with "toxicology testing in the 21st century" which is inspiring for more precise (and more generic) evaluation (and less dead rats)
So basically, we need a resource that identifies items/substances based on multiple merits all at once. Each item or substance needs its own page with definitive numbers, ratings, portions, descriptors, and reactions for several categories. Carcinogenic, photoreactive, neurotoxic, pH... Any and all properties on a single comprehensive page with a definitive 'safe for most', 'with caution', 'under supervision', or 'unsafe' rating in clear, large font at the top of the page. A single measurement is never enough for the complexities of this universe.
I got this when I bought my iPhone and was disturb
There should have a prop 65 label on the state of California.
My father used saccharine -and got bladder cancer. There is no one else in the family who has had that problem, just dad, who was diabetic in the time before aspartame . : /
i work at an art store and a lot of our products have the label "known to cause cancer in the state of california". why is that? does cali have stricter regulations on gets put on the category ratings or something?
That's the problem with false alarms. Everybody ignores them.
I bought a hardside suitcase and noticed that it had the same prop 65 warning. Should I continue to use the suitcase? This concerns me.
Here before muscle hank
Thank you. I saw that California warning on a jar of blackstrap molasses.
Rickets (lack of sun in children) is really fun....until it isn't. I've had it
I just went into remission after an extended Chemotherapy regimen. My Dr. told me that he was going to poison me and hope that the drugs killed the cancer before it killed me. Yay for remission.
Had a body scan done Friday and will find the results next week. Hoping for a continued remission standing. Thanx.
This video makes me kind of worried because it kinda tells that there’s still a lot of “if” and “maybe” stuff included into cancer
One of my favorite Reddit quotes of all time comes from a thread on this topic: “I used to work for a furniture company and had to answer questions about whether or not a chair would give you cancer. Yes but only if you eat the chair. Don’t eat the chair.” -
u/umademehatethiscity
Love this explanation
just bought a gaming laptop by asus says prop 65 warning , these are damn used at tournements etc ? now am worried to keep it ?
I wish I'd seen this before completing my third year in Chimney Sanitation Technologies. Bummer.
Informed and balanced video, thanks Sci Show. I will continue to keep bacon off of the menu.
Why has no one made a scale for this for known cancer inducing agents with labels like they have for fire causeing things.
So getting burned by that nylon producing chemical doesn't lead to cell damage and increased cell replacement? Wouldn't this be similar to alcohol, but to a lesser degree.
so if i have a prop 65 label on my joystick extenders from video games its safe to touch everyday and not worry?