Slashdot Mirror

Nope. If that were true, you'd see the percentage of skin cancer cases attributable to UV exposure roughly the same in countries with high life expectancies, yet, Japan with one of the highest life expectancy rate at 84 years has virtually nil cases of melanoma attributable to UV compared to North America, Europe, Australia. Hell, it and other Asian countries have even less incidents than the rest of the world. Even the Russian Federation has less that North America, or Northern Europe. Plus, the rates of melanoma are increasing in the countries like the US faster that what could be attributable to longer life expectancy. Other things are going on.

http://gco.iarc.fr/causes/uv/tools-map?mode=1&sex=0&population=1&continent=0&cancer=0&key=paf&age_group=3

Oh, an before someone brings up skin pigmentation:
https://www.skincancer.org/prevention/skin-cancer-and-skin-of-color

“Anyone can get skin cancer, regardless of race,” she says. While incidence of melanoma is higher in the Caucasian population, a July 2016 study in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology showed it is more deadly in people of color. African American patients were most likely to be diagnosed with melanoma in its later stages than any other group in the study, and they also had the worst prognosis and the lowest overall survival rate.

This map disagrees: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy... ...as does this website: http://www.skincancer.org/prev...

No, but it ignores a 20 year study that shows sunscreen gives no statistical reduction in skin cancer rates.

If this "study" actually existed, you could have provided a link to it. Yet you didn't.

Here is an actual real study, published in JAMA, that shows the opposite: Sunscreen is effective in preventing melanoma and other skin cancers.

Citations needed.

Very well, citations you shall have.

http://www.skincancer.org/heal...

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin... ("A tan does not indicate good health. A tan is a response to injury, because skin cells signal that they have been hurt by UV rays by producing more pigment.")

http://www.mayoclinic.org/dise... ("Tanning...also puts you at risk. A tan is your skin's injury response to excessive UV radiation.")

if you ever bothered to crawl out from under your shell, you'd need some sunblock, big time

Actually, you may be correct. Maybe this is news after all; the news being that US Luddites have, after almost half a century, have decided that perhaps wearing sunscreen is a good idea.

http://www.skincancer.org/medi...

The idea of showing you ads for stuff you are likely to want but are unaware of is a pipe dream. It will require serious artificial intelligence to do that because the problem it is trying to solve is to model you -- your experiences, your biases, your opinions etc. So the best they can do in that vein is to show you crap you already know about and hope the repetition wears you down.

But what they can get really good at is figuring out how to press your buttons regardless of product. Think of beer commercials with bikini babes. Now they can figure out if you have a "type" and show you beer commercials with girls who are exactly your "type." Or consider diaper advertising. Instead of showing random kids in a generic house with generic furnishing they can show a baby that looks a lot like your baby with the same brand of blanket, on the same sofa, playing with the same toys, etc, etc. It won't be about showing you a unique product, it will be about manipulating you to favor whatever product the ad agency has been hired to sell that day.

Then there are products that cater to addictions -- cigarettes, alcohol, rich foods, gambling, even things like tanning and anorexia. If they can figure out alcoholism runs in your family then they can decide you are a good mark for alcohol advertising. Or if they know you smoke and they figure out you haven't purchased any cigarettes for a while they might send you a coupon for a free pack because if you break the habit that's money lost. Just got dumped by your boyfriend? Here's a coupon for ben & jerry's and the guy in the ad looks amazing like your ex and the girl looks like his new girlfriend. Targeted marketing is becoming all about pushing your buttons rather than informing you because that doesn't take AI, just big motherfucking databases.

The effectiveness of vitamin D as a cancer treatment is highly debatable, and anyone claiming otherwise (for or against) is mistaken or selling something. Not all UV radiation has the same effect on your skin. Tanning beds are tuned to make you tan; they are not particularly effective for vitamin D production.

You should avoid tanning. I am sure no one who has had skin cancer would recommend the experience. You're presenting a false dichotomy. Even if vitamin D were effective as a cancer remedy, it does not follow that tanning is a good way to get vitamin D. How much sun or dietary components you need to fulfill your body's needs for vitamin D is also difficult to estimate, and depend significantly on latitude, but there is little evidence to suggest that the amount of sun exposure required would produce or maintain changes of skin tone.

For what it's worth, I'm from Alaska and pretty used to taking vitamin D supplements throughout the winter. That and heavy drinking. I prefer living in the tropics and maintaining a natural tan. My mother was taken in by the vitamin D crowd when my father developed cancer, not to the point of rejecting traditional medicine, however. It is easy to find biased sources of information promoting many natural remedies; it is harder to find good studies. Like they say, "You know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine." If you're inclined to dispute any of the above please cite reputable studies. If, for any given remedy, one can't demonstrate a significant effect with a large group of people and a well-controlled study, it's a pretty useless remedy.

Melanoma isn't linear to the total amount of exposure http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/sunburn/facts-about-sunburn-and-skin-cancer. "One blistering sunburn in childhood or adolescence more than doubles a person's chances of developing melanoma later in life."

Some newer studies also point towards basal cell carcinoma being a result of brief, intense exposure rather than slow exposure accumulated over many years.

So it isn't true that "only total dose matters" for melanoma, possibly not for basal cell carcinoma ... when we're still learning so much about cancer how can you assess public health risks on what we know today?

"Brain tumors cause cell phones."

Well, abnormal, asymmetric, multicolored, and/or raised growths are certainly warning signs of melanoma ... :-)

Great, SPF now not only protects from the sun, but from spam as well. I bet we could get XML involved somehow, too.