I assume that all carcinogens must be mutagens, but I've read that this is not the case. However, I can't find any good examples or an explanation of why it is not the case.
How can a non-mutagenic agent be carcinogenic?
How can something lead to uncontrolled division of abnormal cells without changing the genetic material of the organism?
The only explanation I've found is that normal replication of genetic material during normal cell division includes occasional errors, so any physical or chemical agent that simply speeds up cell division will increase the number of errors per time and can therefore be considered a potential carcinogen even though it is not directly mutagenic.
But that example doesn't satisfy me because such a compound would not increase the number of errors created per cell division, but is that the only way something non-mutagenic can be "carcinogenic"?
I've also read in This Question that Alcohol is an example of a non-mutagenic carcinogen because Alcohol does not damage DNA, but I think that's not accurate because I've also read that Ethanol is mutagenic via its first metabolite, acetaldehyde, or are they just using wordplay to say that Alcohol is not mutagenic because only its first metabolite is?