底下是網頁截圖
個人積分：440分
文章編號：36537743
個人積分：440分
文章編號：36537847
個人積分：5分
文章編號：36537900
個人積分：2分
文章編號：36540152
個人積分：0分
文章編號：36540434
但是若是竟敢發"油電車掃盲的"maken大來自暴
那就讓他打臉吧
請maken大大回應一下WHO的下面文字(敢問maken大認不認識Limited evidence of carcinogenicity這幾個英文字?)
至於WHO引用的學術論文統計母體就先暫時略過
以免maken大下不了台
Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents for which there is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in humans and in experimental animals. In some instances, agents for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, consistently and strongly supported by a broad range of mechanistic and other relevant data, may be classified in this group.
Evidence for studies in humans - Definition
As shown previously, the evidence relevant to carcinogenicity is evaluated using standard terms. For studies in humans, evidence is defined into one of the following categories:
Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity: The Working Group considers that a causal relationship has been established between exposure to the agent and human cancer. That is, a positive relationship has been observed between the exposure and cancer in studies in which chance, bias and confounding could be ruled out with reasonable confidence. A statement that there is sufficient evidence is followed by a separate sentence that identifies the target organ(s) or tissue(s) where an increased risk of cancer was observed in humans. Identification of a specific target organ or tissue does not preclude the possibility that the agent may cause cancer at other sites.
Limited evidence of carcinogenicity: A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.
Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity: The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available.
Evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity: There are several adequate studies covering the full range of levels of exposure that humans are known to encounter, which are mutually consistent in not showing a positive association between exposure to the agent and any studied cancer at any observed level of exposure. The results from these studies alone or combined should have narrow confidence intervals with an upper limit close to the null value (e.g. a relative risk of 1.0). Bias and confounding should be ruled out with reasonable confidence, and the studies should have an adequate length of follow‐up. A conclusion of evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity is inevitably limited to the cancer sites, conditions and levels of exposure, and length of observation covered by the available studies. In addition, the possibility of a very small risk at the levels of exposure studied can never be excluded.
In some instances, the above categories may be used to classify the degree of evidence related to carcinogenicity in specific organs or tissues.
個人積分：54分
文章編號：36540841
個人積分：80分
文章編號：36541012
個人積分：0分
文章編號：36543218
csshih wrote:
說實在,小弟潛水很久了,實在對這種無聊的議題沒興趣(反正台灣記者發新聞的篩選程度如何民眾最知)
但是若是竟敢發"油電車掃盲的"maken大來自暴
那就讓他打臉吧
請maken大大回應一下WHO的下面文字(敢問maken大認不認識Limited evidence of carcinogenicity這幾個英文字?)
The Working Group found that diesel exhaust is a cause of lung cancer (sufficient evidence) and also noted a positive association (limited evidence) with an increased risk of bladder cancer (Group 1).
Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans
This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity.
有人連阿拉伯數字都看不懂了。 先把數字學好，再來顧英文會比較循序漸進。
另外:
柴油車=/=有柴油廢氣
柴油廢氣=一級致癌物，僅此而已。
只要能夠符合汽車排放標準，是沒有這個問題的。
個人積分：14分
文章編號：36544208
個人積分：18分
文章編號：36544276
IARC新聞稿
IARC表示有足夠得證據顯示柴油排放氣體產生的致癌性, 雖然此結論引用的主要醫學資料來自於高曝險工人(礦工), 但依據其他致癌物的經驗顯示, 致癌物對於高舖險群體的風險亦相當適用於一般群體!
"Dr Kurt Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Program, indicated that “The main studies that led to this conclusion were in highly exposed workers. However, we have learned from other carcinogens, such as radon, that initial studies showing a risk in heavily exposed occupational groups were followed by positive findings for the general population. Therefore actions to reduce exposures should encompass workers and the general population.”
IARC也強調了雖然引擎氣體排放標準及控制技術近年來持續進步並且少了排放氣體有害的微粒及化學物質, 但對於目前標準下的排放的有害物質數量及其因排放標準提高所減少的排放數量對於人體健康的影響間的關係仍不是非常明確, 必須持續進行研究!
"However, while the amount of particulates and chemicals are reduced with these changes, it is not yet clear how the quantitative and qualitative changes may translate into altered health effects; research into this question is needed. In addition, existing fuels and vehicles without these modifications will take many years to be replaced, particularly in less developed countries, where regulatory measures are currently also less stringent. It is notable that many parts of the developing world lack regulatory standards, and data on the occurrence and impact of diesel exhaust are limited"
對了, IARC這個單位位於法國里昂
結論:
1. 經學術證明及討論後, WHO同意將柴油引擎排放氣體納入一級致癌物(Group 1)
2. 1989年以來, 汽油引擎仍維持以來在2級致癌物(Group 2B)
3. 雖然排放氣體(包含汽油及柴油)標準及技術在提升, 但對於該改變後對於人體健康的影響仍不明確
Group 1: 該物質有"明確證據"顯示會致癌
Group 2B; 該物質僅有有限的證據顯示會造成癌症, 歸類為有"機會"致癌物
