Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSpartan
The idea that JWH may be carcinogenic stems from looking at its chemical structure, not from sensationalist propaganda. I'm much more comfortable using weed, something which has a long history of use and a body of evidence that strongly demonstrates that its smoking does not cause cancer and that there are no negative long term health effects, than a synthetic substance which actually has a very different chemical structure than THC and one which suggests it may metabolize into carcinogens, aside from otherpossible unknown dangers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by comment on synchronium.net
The molecule has an unsubstituted naphtalene ring attached. Taking in account the metabolic pathways suggested on the following paragraph, it is quite possible that it produces epoxides as metabolism intermediates. Epoxides are known to be carcinogenic.
it is POSSIBLE, but not definitive according to this
source. but yeah, just find some weed and use that. obviously way less health risk.
Quote:
Cancer Risk:
Workers occupationally exposed to vapors of naphthalene and coal tar developed laryngeal carcinomas or neoplasms of the pylorus and cecum. However, this study is inadequate because there were no controls, exposure levels were not determined, and subjects were exposed to complex mixtures containing other demonstrated carcinogens. (2,5,6,7)
Di-, tri-, and tetramethyl naphthalene contaminants of coal tar were found to be carcinogenic when applied to the skin of mice, but naphthalene alone was not. (2,5)
An increased number of alveolar/bronchiolar adenomas and carcinomas were reported in female mice exposed by inhalation. (1,6,7)
No carcinogenic responses were reported in rats exposed to naphthalene in their diet and by injection. (2,5,6)
EPA has classified naphthalene as a Group C, possible human carcinogen. (6,7)
Quote:
__II.A.1. Weight-of-Evidence Characterization
Using criteria of the 1986 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, naphthalene is classified in Group C, a possible human carcinogen. This is based on the inadequate data of carcinogenicity in humans exposed to naphthalene via the oral and inhalation routes, and the limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals via the inhalation route.
Using the 1996 Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, the human carcinogenic potential of naphthalene via the oral or inhalation routes "cannot be determined" at this time based on human and animal data; however, there is suggestive evidence (observations of benign respiratory tumors and one carcinoma in female mice only exposed to naphthalene by inhalation [NTP, 1992a]). Additional support includes increase in respiratory tumors associated with exposure to 1-methylnaphthalene.
At the present time the mechanism whereby naphthalene produces benign respiratory tract tumors are not fully understood, but are hypothesized to involve oxygenated reactive metabolites produced via the cytochrome P-450 monooxygenase system. However, based on the many negative results obtained in genotoxicty tests, a genotoxic mechanism appears unlikely.
For more detail on Characterization of Hazard and Dose Response, exit to the toxicological review, Section 6 (PDF).
For more detail on Susceptible Populations, exit to the toxicological review, Section 4.7 (PDF).
we can dig further, but i am pretty sure presence of epoxides has not been proven.