Social Issues – Page 2 – blog@davemckay.ca

Today’s IARC Roundup

Glyphosate is almost certainly NOT carcinogenic. I say “almost” because I would change my mind if a preponderance of peer-reviewed good-quality studies with adequate evidence were published that demonstrated a risk.

Nothing of the kind has happened. None the less, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) lists glyphosate as a Group 2A carcinogen. It is worth checking what that means in humans. “An agent may be classified in this group when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.” There is “inadequate evidence,” indeed little or none, to suggest that glyphosate could be a carcinogen.

That said, I can no more prove that glyphosate is NOT a carcinogen than I can prove that this table is NOT giving me cancer. But the onus for scientific claims lies with the claimant. And so far, there are no good studies showing conclusively that glyphosate could increase your risk of getting cancer. That could change. But given the number of good studies that have not shown any link, if there is one, if it were shown to increase risk at all, the effect would have to be very small to be so difficult to detect.

Glyphosate is a very important and useful agricultural chemical with an excellent safety record and, again, no credible evidence that anyone can show that it causes cancer. So, glyphosate’s evident safety illustrates a problem with IARC.

Group 2A is called “Probable Carcinogens.” And some of the items so classed “probably” do, at least somewhat, increase the risk of cancer. But since the Group explicitly does not require that there be adequate evidence, there is a good chance that at least some of these hazards are “probably” imaginary. For others, it is likely that the increased risk is so small as to be statistically pointless to discuss. No one should much care if they are exposed to an increased risk from 1:10,000 to 1.12:10,000, even though that is a 12% increase. Everyone does stuff every day that is more dangerous than that.

And this ought to be pretty easy to understand. Because in Group 2A you will also find, working nights, cutting hair, fireplaces, hot tea, steak, the smell of fries cooking, urethane, and bizarrely malaria.

“One estimate, which has been published in a 2002 Nature article, claims that malaria may have killed 50-60 billion people throughout history, or about half of all humans that have ever lived.” Malaria killed 619,000 people in 2021. And IARC thinks it is worth considering if it “probably” could cause cancer, without adequate evidence that it does.

Group 2B carcinogens are said by IARC to be “possibly” carcinogenic. So less certain than “probably.” Or to put it another way, like everything else in the world, allowing that new evidence could arise, it is NOT “impossible” that some Group 2B agents are somewhat carcinogenic. That is more than “possibly” not a useful claim. And while this group contains a long list of scary chemicals, it also contains Ginkgo extract, aloe vera, magenta, pickles, carpentry, talc, and sewing.

For due diligence here, it is worth noting that Groups 2A and 2B include agents for which IARC believes there is, “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Which is why so many flash-in-the-pan claims need to have, “…in mice,” appended to them. Or, as we shall see shortly, “…in rats.”

Group 3 carcinogens according to IARC are agents that, “can not be classified in regard to their carcinogenicity to humans.” Where the “evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans and [also] inadequate or limited in experimental animals.” So, this is explicitly a grouping of agents for which there is literally no reason why they should be on any list of “carcinogens.” More than half the agents on IARC’s carcinogen list are in Group 3.

IARC used to have another category. Group 4: “‘Probably not carcinogenic to humans’ There is strong evidence that it does not cause cancer in humans.” Problematically this, if comprehensive, would be a list of every last thing in the universe not included in Groups 1–3. But probably also most of what is in Group 3. They put one agent in Group 4, but since have removed that group altogether.

Alcohol is now alphabetically at the top of the Group 1 list among agents including ionizing radiation and asbestos. Which ought to elicit some surprise and clearly illustrates how misleading IARC Groups are for assessing risk. I will happily drink a shot of rye any day, rather than a shot of plutonium. Plutonium is in Group 1 with rye.

And while IARC’s list may be useful for informing research, it is almost useless for public health. Groups 2A–3 in practice appear to be a naughty-list of things IARC would like you to think of as carcinogens, but with “inadequate” or indeed no evidence that they are.

In 2023 IARC put aspartame in Group 2B. “Possibly” causes cancer in humans, except that, again, there is, by definition, “inadequate evidence” for that claim.

Which brings me to saccharine. That sweetener was used extensively for something like a century with no problem in humans. Then it was discovered that because of the nature of their urinary tract, which they do not have in common with humans, massive doses of saccharine could sometimes cause bladder cancer “…in rats.” Subsequently however it was shown that this was not true for humans. Much as I can survive eating chocolate, but your dog might not.

“IARC originally classified saccharin in Group 2B (“possibly carcinogenic to humans”) based on the rat studies, but downgraded it to Group 3 (“not classifiable as to the carcinogenicity to humans”) upon review of the subsequent research.” But let’s be clear. Saccharine is NOT A CARCINOGEN.

But because it is inevitable that the public and governments will interpret IARC group classifications as safety advice, saccharine was assumed to be a carcinogen anyway, and banned in many places. Most of those restrictions were lifted more than 20 years ago, when the claim was debunked. But saccharine is not used as a sweetener today, despite its vindication, because no one would buy a product with it on the ingredients.

And that is what is wrong with using the IARC Group lists as a guide to what is a carcinogen. Clearly there may be hundreds of agents on that list that are not carcinogenic. And there will be hundreds more that may have a nearly undetectable risk. You should not worry much about an exposure that has a one in a thousand chance of causing a cancer every five hundred years. And IARC should, in view of how their reports are misinterpreted, develop a much more nuanced classification system, that reflects relative risk and does not make claims for which, by their own admission, they do not have adequate evidence. Because as things stand, some of the agents they claim “probably” or “possibly” cause cancer, or “probably” don’t, make an important intergovernmental agency forming part of the World Health Organization of the United Nations, look kinda ridiculous.

Where did all the money go?

I sometimes see claims like this, “renewables are the cheapest and most reliable form of power – they’re already driving down power bills…”—Premier Jacinta Allan, Victoria Australia Premier.

Please keep in mind, I chose Capital cost. Good luck finding two sources that agree on the cost of any given source of energy. Lazard can’t even agree with itself.

So, maths…

It is sometimes claimed that “renewables” (wind & solar) have an expected lifecycle of 25 years. And although solar is not really a meaningful source of energy, we get that 25 year average by assuming that under ideal conditions, without being destroyed by a weather event, and with ever diminishing efficiency, a solar panel could operate for up to 40 years. And by averaging that in with the expected 20-year lifecycle of onshore wind and the 10-year lifecycle of offshore wind we can fudge a 25.

It seems likely that a new, modern nuclear power plant may be in service for up to a century before it needs to be rebuilt. But lets be conservative and say 80 years.

So, to get the same energy capacity over the same time frame we have to multiply the costs for onshore and offshore wind by 4 and 8 respectively. For onshore wind that gives us a $/MWh range of $108–300 and for offshore wind that is $536–1168 $/MWh.

But that assumes that these 2022 numbers from National Renewable Energy Laboratory are even current.

From last November. “Lazard says the “average UNSUBSIDIZED levelized cost of energy” for wind is $50 USD. It is harder to find, but for offshore wind they give a range of $66–100 USD. But the UK has just proved that the minimum subsidy alone is $94.51 USD. And in light of the UK government’s rich subsidies, please note Lazard’s use of the word, “UNSUBSIDIZED!””

If we take that November ’23 expected subsidy figure, offshore wind capacity costs at least 756 $/MWh.

But that is literally not the half of it. These figures are always given for “capacity” not actual generation. Nuclear electricity generation has a capacity factor 2–3 times that of wind. For onshore wind that can be as much as 5 times. Meaning you have to multiply the $/MWh capacity figures for wind by at least 2–3 again to get the same actual generation of usable energy.

And it starts to become ridiculous. Over the lifespan of a nuclear power plant we start getting to ranges of cost for “equivalent” onshore wind per MWh of $216–900 (or $1500 with 18% CF). And for offshore wind that balloons to $1072–3504. Even if you think I am being unfair and half the onshore figures, or quarter the offshore figures, these are not competitive costs.

But that is just Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE). Renewables incur a cost of storage as well (LCOS) which can nearly double the base capacity cost. And that is not taking into account that we do not actually have a real way of storing grid-scale electricity for hours, let alone the entirety of a 27-day dunkelflaute.

Wind and solar are by no means and in no sense the cheapest or most reliable source of energy. It is not even close. And I despair of people who can go on pretending otherwise in the face of the contrary information.

Senile

The UK right now is where Canada was in 2015. After almost a decade and a half of spectacularly corrupt and incompetent “Conservative” government the UK has gotten so fed up that, in the next general election, their “Tories” are going to get wrecked. They have already been getting wrecked in by-elections. And anyone centuries from now, in full possession of the facts might wonder how that would not be the end for the Cons.

In 2015 in Canada the first ever CPC government under Stephen Harper fell after nearly a decade of simultaneously unbelievable and yet completely predictable political, social and economic sabotage. It was surely a relief to Brian Mulroney that Prime Minster Harper and his government had become the worst in modern Canadian history. And that should have been the end of that awful party which had only formed in 2003.

But here we are, less than a decade later and the CPC under its new wholly unscrupulous leader ConPiePol is stirring every dirty pot full of people’s worst selves trying to unseat the Liberal government and get their Right-wing Extremist doom-train back on track. And, people being what they are, it could work. We could see another decade of sabotage and chaos, designed to destabilize government, democracy, the rule of law, long before there has ever been enough time to clean up the mess from last time.

And who knows, after the Labour Party in the UK form the next government in the UK, swallowing the poisoned pill that the defeated ConGov have left in the government’s cup, and after a decade of struggle in already perilous times trying to remediate all the harm the Con parade of clowns and idiots have done since 2010, Brits may again be foolish enough to elect another “Conservative” government. And the whole cycle of national suicide can start over.

And it is a cycle. Canada and the UK are just at different stages in it. In the UK the Cons have fucked up just enough to lose power for now. In Canada apparently we have forgotten what a mess the Cons had made by 2015. And like a codependent in an abusive relationship enough Canadians are willing to BELIEVE that their abuser really LOVES them that they go running back.

I was listening to a palliative care nurse talk about the end-of-life decline of people with dementia today. The stair-steps down and down from plateau to crash, to new plateau to new crash. And I cannot help but see the parallel to the decline of great nations afflicted with senile Conservatism.

Stop it!

Right now, in the UK, a ConGov that has been in power for 14 years is coming to the end of its rope. They have fucked the UK perhaps worse than any government before them. And Labour will probably form the next government and inherit all the problems that Conservatives caused. Labour gets saddled with swallowing that poisoned pill.

And this is cyclical. Labour will be in power for a few years of struggling to recover from what Cons have done and people will become dissatisfied with a lack of progress climbing out of a hole that government never dug. And Cons will start promising that it was all really Liberals’ fault and only Cons can clean up the mess. The mess they made the last time they were in power.

But right now the UK is in that phase of this cycle where they are likely in the next election to replace deranged saboteurs with a government that at least might wish to fix the mess, but realistically will never be in power long enough to really recover from almost a decade and a half of Cons fucking everything up.

Canada is at a different point in this cycle. We had Mulroney, but we never recovered from that damage. Later we had the HarperCPC, literally the worst, most corrupt and destructive government of my lifetime. And they held onto power by the skin of their teeth, shitting the bed and poisoning the well as long as they could before we got so fed up that we came to the point where the UK is now and replaced the monstrous fuckers with something less bad.

And despite Justin Trudeau’s Liberals good intentions, it is impossible to fix all the damage ten years of Conservatives can do in twice that much time. So Canadians have become dissatisfied with a lack of progress. And right on time, PiePolCons are promising that only they can fix the mess. The mess they mostly made. They can fix it with racism and with injustice and with massive tax breaks that only benefit the rich. And if they con enough voters they will slither back into power and make the situation ten times worse again.

And this is a cycle. A violent cycle of abuse of power. We, like the people of the UK are in a serial abusive relationship with a deviant political party that lies to get back in our bed, then shits that bed quite thoroughly.

We have to put an end to this cycle.

A lesson in bullshit about why things cost so much…

If you go into a Chapters, you may be astonished by the prices on books. And, particularly if you are listening to someone from the corporate management side of a publisher, you may hear that it is not profitable to publish books.

Thirty years ago the two biggest costs of publishing were paper and film. The film was used to make printing plates, also a large expense, from production artwork. A decade earlier that production artwork was also expensive as it had to be done on boards with wax to stick stuff down and knives to cut out type that was typeset separately in galleys.

By the time I entered the industry the manual page assembly cost had all but gone. I saw two people doing that work, briefly in two different studios. But my arrival meant that all the cost of typesetting and manual page assembly had disappeared, to be replaced with Quark XPress. By the time I was working in the 1990s, the cost of producing a book had already dropped quite a bit over the previous decade.

Another big cost of printing complicated books was proofing. But around the turn of the century, PDF proofing eliminated that cost. Then printable paper plates replaced costly metal plates, and therefore film. The cost of producing books had at that point decreased dramatically.

When I was still doing book composition work, I was being payed between $7 and $24 per page depending on the complexity. That work dried up when publishers started to offshore their production to India at $2 per page. Book publishing got cheaper again.

I was at a writer’s seminar, years ago now, where I learned that publishers typically no longer pay for any editing, and if an author wants that, they have to pay for it themselves. So the cost of producing a book is less, again. By the way, everyone needs an editor.

And we come to e-books and audio books. Since paper was typically the biggest cost of producing a book, here is an enormous savings. The publisher can stop at the stage where a South-Asian sweatshop produces an electronic document, or the author themselves often, records the audiobook. And again, the COST of producing a book is significantly decreased.

But here we are. A suit from a publisher can say in an interview or and article that book publishing is too expensive and they cannot make a profit on it. And people will uncritically accept that lie and justification for high prices because they are unaware of what that price increase really is.

And what it is is profiteering. Since 1990, the very successful publishers I took my school portfolio to show, have become publicly traded and amalgamated and they have been turned from makers of books into makers of dividends for rich people. They are an extractive mechanism for making the rich richer. And the high cost of books, like the high cost of almost everything else, is their exploitative profiteering.

TWh	1992	2022
Other renewables	404.78	2,413.81
Biofuels	108.80	1,199.21
Solar	1.38	3,448.24	2.06%
Wind	13.99	5,487.60	3.27%
Hydropower	6,530.39	11,299.82
Nuclear	5,993.46	6,702.34
Gas	20,063.48	39,413.04
Coal	25,558.42	44,854.04
Oil	38,147.17	52,969.59
Total	96,821.88	167,787.68

Fossil fuels TWh	83,769.07	137,236.67	64%	<—Fossil Fuel INCREASE
Fossil fuels %	87%	82%

…will face the exact same attacks.