User talk:570iya/sandbox

Interesting choice of topic! I think you have a good rough draft here, but I too was a little confused about just how these assessments were made. Do you have a link or a citation that demonstrates that these compounds destroy human DNA? You have great citations for the animal models, but you do make a statement in the section previous to that, which I think needs a citation of some sort to support your claim. I too would be interested to know what the recommended cooking temperature/process is to avoid the consumption of these compounds. Obviously there are recommendations for internal cooking temperature of meat (I think it is greater than 160 degrees Fahrenheit depending on what you're cooking?) to destroy microbial organisms. But as the previous commenter noted, many of us preheat our ovens to 350 or 375 when cooking. Looking forward to reading the final version! 570hjm (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)570hjm

Hi- this is a complicated topic and I think you have a good start. I'm a little confused when reading what the end focus of the essay is going to be, but I think I have it as the backgound to the formation of the carcinogenic compounds, what the risk points are, how to mitigate them and then how to move forward with safe meat consumption. I just have a couple questions- How did they measure the PAH's in the flames? How stable are the compounds for analytical assay and how is that achieved? Most people cook meats at above 300 degrees for about any source, so what is the recommended cooking process to avoid deposition of the compounds? Can you go into a little more depth on how the compounds are formed? I struggled with deciding if they are naturally present and just need the heat to create them or if the flames themselves actually create them- i.e. is there something in the fuel source (coals vs propane or natural gas?) that would generate the compounds and are there safer fuel sources to use during cooking? Are there any recommendations for portions or intakes in the literature and why are the noted tumors in the rat studies not really addressed in the questionaires that were developed (with the exception of colorectal cancer patients)? How widely are the questionaires used?

570kkl (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)570kkl

Make sure to site sources. When making statements like “scientists established…” and “sufficient scientific evidence” it seems like there should be a source to accompany that. There are multiple times in the post that I would add citations. In general, I would also reread your post and update for grammatical errors. Make sure you define what HCAs and PAHs are. While the title of the section is likely the definition for those acronyms you do start using the acronyms without defining them. You also begin the section on Heterocyclic amines and Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with the word “they”. This would be a good place to repeat the words and define them. Starting with “they” is confusing as it is not clear what “they” relates to. I would add a citation to “red meat cooked at temperatures above 300oF tends to form a lot of HCAs”. This is a fact that needs to be supported by a source. The same is true about needing a source for this “red meat]] that is a subjected to lengthy cooking also forms a lot of HCAs”. It also appears there is a formatting issue after the words “red meat”. It seems that some information could be taken from the HSC and PAH section and would more appropriately fit into the “Riskiness of HCS and PAH….” Section. I would also think about possibly renaming this secion, “Riskiness” does not seem like an appropriate word here. I would maybe rename it “Risk Assessment with HCAs and PAHs in cooked meat”. Also, have you looked at other wiki pages to see if acronyms are used in titles? It may be best to spell out the full words in a title. As stated earlier you need to add citations to support the facts provided in the “Riskiness…” section. At the end of this section I would look to add a percentage or stastical evidence for how many people are expected to be diagnosed with cancer because of the interaction between human exposure and HCAs and PAH compounds. In the Evidence of cancer section, I have the same feedback as the others – make sure you are adding citations with facts so that you are not plagiarizing. In the evidence section, how many of the rodents developed tumors? Saying “they developed tumors” makes it sound like 100% of the rodents developed tumors, is that accurate? The study you are referencing should also be cited. It would be helpful to go into more depth around the details of the studies you are discussing and explain further why it may take a longer period of regular exposure for humans to see similar results. What does “being a major stressor in the world today” mean? I would maybe remove this statement as it doesn’t seem to add much to the solution and guidelines section. Will this be added to another page in Wikipedia or are you developing your own page? If this will be a stand alone page I have the following feedback as it seems more information is needed in certain areas. In the HCS and PAH section, I would add more detail around defining what both chemicals are. There is a very brief overview but it seems there could be much more development of what both chemicals are, how they are developed, and the implications and statistics tied to why they cause a higher risk of cancer. If this is not added to a page directly relating to red meat consumption, I would make it clear that your research is only focusing on red meat consumption and that other types of meat were not looked at in regards to this page, if that is accurate. In general, I would just reiterate the importance of having sources to support your information as it seems there is quite a bit of information missing citations. 570mna (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings- great topic and very informational thread update. I am in agreeance with some of our peers. If this thread is meant to be left by itself it would be nice to see additional information more specific to the exact chemical types that are triggered as a result of the chemical reaction. I am not the most knowledgeable on this topic, however, the URL's below may provide some worthwhile information to help fill in any general public questions or concerns that should be addressed. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/11/23/456654768/turning-down-the-heat-when-cooking-meat-may-reduce-cancer-risk Rebur (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello- a good topic to consider, since many people (or at least Americans) like to eat red meat, and love to grill. As others have noted, adding your citations is needed, and also some links. In particular, I was wondering what all the guidelines for cooking red meat are, so listing them with the citation, or at least providing a link to the source (or both) is needed. I concur with our colleagues about the need to tighten up the grammar so that it is not ambiguous in parts, adding additional detail on the pathways of the chemicals leading to cancer, and the statistics involved (with appropriate citations). 570rlg (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello - I think your topic has a lot of promise to be interesting to viewers. I agree with the common theme of previous feedback, if you can cite your sources when you make strong scientific claims, your credibility will increase greatly. This is especially true in your section providing evidence of cancer from risk exposure; people will more readily believe evidence if it is properly supported. I think the overall flow of your article is terrific, not too long or too short and the order is very easy to follow. I also really like your solutions and guidelines subheading, and I think it would be beneficial for you to link the guidelines from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research so that your viewers can easily jump to that article to learn more after you have perked their interest through your article. 570cjd (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, in line with our fellow classmates, I have to say I think you chose a very interesting topic ! I think your subheadings work well and allow your article as a whole to flow. I would just watch some grammatical choices, for example when talking about "the cancer disease" you can just say "cancer". And echoing what others have said, be sure to make sure you have citations to back up what you are stating. Otherwise, I think you have a very solid article and I really look forward to seeing the end product! -570alp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 570alp (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC) I agree with alot of the previous commentary. This is a helpful and informative article. I feel that the second paragraph of the Evidence paragraph is very important and if you can find a way to bring the fact that not much in the way of hard data is present to the forefront that would be helpful. [(570smb)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B12D:49D5:C167:FDB1:DD49:7609 (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with a lot of the comments from our peers. I would strongly suggest adding more citations to your article. The article covers the topic well, but the lacking citations when you make specific claims deflates the credibility of the article. Once you address the lacking citation this will be a great article. 570bcs (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC) 570bcs