Slashdot Mirror
Sunscreen Not So Good for You?
j-beda writes "Don't like sunscreen? Maybe that tan is good for you. It looks like people are rethinking the common wisdom of avoiding sun exposure... "research suggests that vitamin D might help prevent 30 deaths for each one caused by skin cancer". Maybe if Kurt Vonnegut ever does address MIT grads, he will say something else..."
Who the fuck is Kurt Vonnegut?
I'm a vampire, you insensitive clod !
Crivens! I kicked meself in me own heid!
No sun -> little vitamin D production = bad.
Some sun -> vitamin D production = good.
Ridiculous amounts of sun -> high risk for cancer = bad.
I didn't read the article, but most things are OK on modetate doses. Cholesterol, for example, is necessary for the body to function.
Too much of any one thing is seldom a good idea.
.: Max Romantschuk
Ah, so not only tanning makes you look cool, it saves you from dying? Yet another great reason to give in to peer-pressure! o:)
It wasn't Kurt Vonnegut who made the "Wear Sunscreen" speech although it has often been attributed to him. It was actually a female columnist with a Chicago (I think) paper.
is, everything in moderation.
Too much sun = bad, too little sun = bad, some sun = just about right.
That wasn't hard now was it?
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
It has been known for quite some long time that you get Vitamin D from sun bathing. It's also known that it is important. If you want to keep the cake and eat it you can buy vitamins and eat them instead of sun batching though. Why risk cancer when you can solve the problem without it?
It seems like you just need to use a modicum of common sense. Too much of anything is bad for you. The less "natural" and more refined a product is the less likely it is to be good for you. It is healthy to get outside and do some exercise every now and then.
All this research seems to contradict itself every few years anyway. I suspect a lot of scientists misuse/misunderstand their own data, either to match their own preconceptions, or to make a headline grabbing story like this one.
I'd say great minds think alike, but I'm not a great mind...
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
In Australia, we have much higher UV levels than you do in the northern hemisphere. Skin cancer is a real concern. I have several friends that have had cancerous growth removed while they were in their twenties. Certainly vitamin D deficiencies can be a problem, however this can easily fixed with very low exposure levels. If you ever visit Australia use sunscrean or become a lobster in 15 minutes.
Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (shade, clothes) offerings?
Actually, if you're thinking of getting some vitamin D by lying without sunscreen on the beach near the sea, you'de probably be much better of eating seafood ! Many fishes contain vitamin D, sardines, mackerels, salmon... + you don't get skin cancer.
\u262D = \u5350
I live in Queensland, Australia. Thousands of people a years die from skin cancer, in fact we have the highest rate of skin cancer in the world. Only stupid people go out in the sun exposed here. Most people in their 50s or older who spenmt their childhood in the sun before the skin cancer campains of the 70s have had skin cancers cut out.
But put it on after you've been out in the sun for a few minutes, rather than before going out into the sun. Your body needs very little time exposed to UV-B light to produce sufficient amounts of Vitamin D. Far less time than it takes to get a tan (or in my case, a burn. I couldn't tan, even if I wanted to).
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
From personal experience I can also add that the sun in the Northern Hemisphere never seemed as hot or burning as the sun in Australia. I could walk around in the summer sun in Boston and barely get even a touch of colour. In Australia I would be burnt in less than an hour - probably quicker. Sun screen is very important in Australia as is a hat and a shirt.
And finally, this article demonstrates the quest of reporters to beat up each marginal scientific discovery into something that it isn't just to get a good headline. With medical news this invariably creates all sorts of problems. The study found that Vitamin D can be beneficial for treating cancers but said absolutely nothing about the delivery mechanism. Getting your Vitamin D directly from the sun also means you get wonderful melanomas via UVA and UVB radiation. Sure, Vitamin D on its own is fine but the side effects of getting it directly from the sun are pretty severe.
The article seems fundamentally flawed. Extract 1: "If it bears out, it will challenge one of medicine's most fundamental beliefs: that people need to coat themselves with sunscreen whenever they're in the sun." I seriously doubt that statement is widely substantiated by research. Any high school student should know that Vitamin D is good and is produced by your own body when exposed to sunlight. Suncream is used to protect the skin to exposure from too much of the "damaging" rays. Extract 2:" The vitamin is D(...).Sunscreen blocks its production..." Total sunblock which filters out all rays, would block Vitamin D production. But you'd need to apply that thickly to all exposed skin; something that in practise is very rare. Most people apply a thin layer to the most exposed skin and don't do this regularly. So they have enough Vitamin D production. One only needs 10 minutes exposure to sunlight per day to ensure suffiicient vitamin D production. So the whole article "boils" down to "hey, Vitamin D production through sunlight is necessary, unless you want to live on vitamin supplements". Big deal.
Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
...leading scientist say that while drinking four to five glasses of water a day is quite healthy, walking around with the garden hose duct-taped to your mouth may cause serious harm.
There's also the psychological factor. Depression is common, and often fatal (not necessarily through suicide, but through self-neglect). Skin cancer is less common, and usually treatable. And sunbathing is good for depression, so might well save more lives than it costs on that basis, too.
If science has taught us anything it's that:
1) Everything in moderation.
2) Research causes cancer in lab-rats.
Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
Ok im a little behind this year so correct me:
Cell Phones: not dangerous
Salmon: ok
Sudan-1: bad
Power lines: definately bad
Condoms: dont have holes
Beef: depends on country
Sunscreen: bad?
Lead piping: ok now?
GM food: border-line
Torture: 'acceptable in some situations'
Violent video games: leads to violent people
Flares: out
Mullets: out
Ironic Mullets: in but slipping
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
that dark (box/coffin) after going roastingly into the sun"?
Maybe skin cancer brought on by too much personal enjoyment of the sun is nature's way of limiting who gets tans and survives...
Maybe the rub-on-tan business won't (R.O.T.) after all...wait, that must be the spay on tan...
Seems like a lot of people want to collect up their tan credits before facing that eventual coffin. Actually, seems like a lot of people want to burn out and burn up those bodies, but think there is a lease-break option available.
For the last 4 years, We have taken to exporting our waste radiation down under. It was either that or store it in West Texas, and that was not going to happen. You are simply getting hard radiation.
Most milk is vitamin D fortified, and you can easily get the vitamin D your body needs by drinking a couple of glasses of milk every day, in between liters of Mountain Dew. And it's good for you in other ways anyway.
And not only does the extra vitamin D help prevent cancer, but just not putting a chemical-laden substance on your body also helps prevent cancer. While I'm sure there are some safe, quality sun screens you can get at the health food store, most of what people are pouring all over them and their kids contain harsh chemicals:
http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/15/sunscreen.htm
The main chemical used in sun lotions to filter out ultraviolet light may be TOXIC, particularly when exposed to sunshine.
Octyl methoxycinnamate (OMC), which is present in 90 per cent of sunscreen brands, was found to kill mouse cells even at low doses in a study by Norwegian scientists.
It is not certain that the effects on mice are repeated in human beings, although the findings reported in New Scientist magazine suggest that human cells could be damaged if a sunscreen containing OMC penetrates the outer layer of dead skin and comes into contact with living tissue.
Terje Christensen, a biophysicist from the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, near Oslo, said her research showed that sunscreens should be treated with caution, and used only when it was impractical to stay indoors or to shield the skin from the sun with clothes.
The chemical is used as a filter for the more harmful UVB light. In Dr Christensen's study, mouse tissue grown in culture was treated with a solution of OMC at five parts per million - a much lower concentration than in sunscreens. Half the cells treated with OMC died, compared with fewer than 10 per cent in a control experiment.
When researchers shone a lamp for two hours to simulate midday sunshine, more cells died. Dr Christensen suggested that the reaction between OMC and sunlight created an effect that was twice as toxic as the chemical alone.
The Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association, which represents sunscreen manufacturers in Britain, said that OMC "has been thoroughly tested for safety" and was approved by regulatory authorities in Europe and the US.
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
We ALL need sunshine to stay healthy. It is one of the essential ingredients for staying healthy. It is not the perniciously evil item that traditional medicine suggests that it is.
That does not mean that we should all go out and get sunburned. That should be avoided as it is likely to lead to an increase in skin cancer. However, prudent exposure to the sun, integrating the listening to your body concept, will not.
Adding sun screens is NOT a good way to limit your sun exposure. Staying out of the sun early on in the season and limiting your exposure until your system adjusts by increasing melanin pigmentation in your skin is.
Additionally, consuming many whole vegetables will increase antioxidant levels in the body which will also provide protection against any sun induced radiation damage.
So the bottom line is to avoid the sun screens. They are not necessary and will actually increase your risk of disease.
Related Articles:
Absorbing Titanium from Sunscreens
Sunscreens Don't Prevent Melanoma
Ron Paul
For those of us that don't understand fuzzy logic, what's "too much", "too little" and "some" in Lux?
Georg
"The head of Holick's department, Dr. Barbara Gilchrest, called his book an embarrassment and stripped him of his dermatology professorship, although he kept his other posts. " also see:Hanff
Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
"Many people aren't getting enough vitamin D. It's hard to do from food and fortified milk alone, and supplements are problematic."
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
It clogs my pores.
"Lead my skeptic sight."
That all depends on your genetic origins, for someone like me, of northern european decent, with blonde hair, blue eyes and freckles, more than 30 minutes of sun during the hottest hours of the day is "too much". For someone of african decent, there probably isn't an upper limit (although without ozone that might not be true). For someone of southern italian decent, more than a few hours is too much.
Too little would be calculated by your necessity for Vitamin D.. I'd imagine less than an hour of exposure weekly might put you in that category, but I'm no nutritionalist.
BTW, I'm not a programmer either, what's Lux?
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
To get it right, the poster had to read his own link, which he had to take the time to find.
Sometimes I think about not reading Slashdot any more. It really has gotten terribly lazy
Here is a perfect example:
s k=view&id=27&Itemid=2
http://www.eel.nu/index.php?option=com_content&ta
I hardly think that natural selection would have picked a human that can't tolerate any sun. It is only in the last few hundred years that we have realistically had the ability to either stay out of the sun or totally protect ourselves.
Having said that we are a some what freakish animal. The lack of substantial bodily hair / fur and our tendency to walk around in the sun marks us out as somewhat unique. Most other animals that have little or no hair / fur live away from the sun. Perhaps UV resistance is rare and badly developed in the animal world. As most animals with a good thick coat wouldn't have much call for it and so it wouldn't develop.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Don't fish have mercury? :P Besides, I hear synthetic vitamin D is better.http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=d n2858
But the light, oh god it burns! It burns!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The lux (symbol: lx) is the SI derived unit of illuminance or illumination. It is equal to one lumen per square metre.
Natural selection is very very poor at selecting for attributes that only become important after peak reproductive years. Sure there is the "wisdom of the elders" effect and a few people the reproduce (mostly males) in the later years but given that the vast majority of people die from skin cancer after they would have reproduced and given the historical lifecycle/reproductive cycle of humans it is not really all that surprising of an outcome.
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
I live in the UK, you insensitive clod.
"In many [western] countries, peoples' diet changed substantially in the second half of the twentieth century, generally with increases in consumption of meat, dairy products, vegetable oils, fruit juice, and alcoholic beverages, and decreases in consumption of starchy staple foods such as bread, potatoes, rice, and maize flour. Other aspects of lifestyle also changed, notably, large reductions in physical activity and large increases in the prevalence of obesity."[18]
"It was noted in the 1970s that people in many western countries had diets high in animal products, fat, and sugar, and high rates of cancers of the colorectum, breast, prostate, endometrium, and lung; by contrast, individuals in developing countries usually had diets that were based on one or two starchy staple foods, with low intakes of animal products, fat, and sugar, and low rates of these cancers."[18]
"These observations suggest that the diets [or lifestyle] of different populations might partly determine their rates of cancer, and the basis for this hypothesis was strengthened by results of studies showing that people who migrate from one country to another generally acquire the cancer rates of the new host country, suggesting that environmental [or lifestyle factors] rather than genetic factors are the key determinants of the international variation in cancer rates."[18]
See also:
Scientists estimate that most cancers are associated with factors related to how we live, called lifestyle factors. Evidence reviewed by the American Cancer Society suggests that about one-third of the 550,000 cancer deaths that occur in the United States each year is due to dietary factors (for example, excess calories, high fat, and low fibre). Another third is due to cigarette smoking. Other lifestyle factors which increase the risk for cancer include drinking heavily, lack of regular physical exercise, promiscuous sexual behavior,
Ron Paul
Too much = getting burnt = different for each person.
Too little = not enough vitamin D = different for each person.
Some = the right amount of vitamin D = different for each person.
How do you expect to get set numbers in Lux?
No France
Cool, you learn something new every day...
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Too much of anything is bad for you. Too much water will kill you (it upsets your body's fluid balance)
It's official. Most of you are morons.
On how much you drink I am sure.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
it was ripped by someone to make a version called "drink beer" - the words are fairly predictable.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
More than anything else, medical science seems to change "common wisdom" on a day to day basis. I think I'll start chugging carcinogens and playing with x-ray machines like it's 1890. When I live to be 200 years old I hope nobody is surprised.
"You're gonna to your doctor in about 10 years...
'Your cholesterol is out of control, what have you been doing?'
'I dont know, I've been eating right, running, doing everything right...'
'Yeah, but have you been using sunblock?'
'Well, yeah'
'Whats the matter with you!? You should know better'"
"Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
Who on Slashdot even goes out in the sun?
As much as the geek inside of my wants to say I avoid sunlight at all costs, it's actually quite the opposite.
I've struggled with acne/pimples a little more then your average Joe Blow, after spending a lot of money on chemicals and useless washing routines I found the cheapest and easiest solution.
Sunlight, I spend a few (moderate amounts) of time at the beach - and within 1 month of just a few hours per week at the beach, my acne was almost gone.
Even in winter I now try to spend a few hours per month atleast in my salt water pool, it works wonders. I also drag the laptop outside every few days and just spend a few hours in the moderate sunlight so my skin gets some extra special attention.
Undoubtedly evolution has done a good job on us, but we keep moving about. I'd bet that the people in the study suffering most from vitamin D deficiency were dark-skinned people living in high latitudes, and - at longer odds - that the Australians who piped up about skin cancer were all of European, not aboriginal extraction.
freedom, n. Allowing people you don't like to do things you disapprove of.
What about countries like Australia where the UV rays are always harsh???
Is anyone else tired of all this dietary/health "science" telling you what you should and should not be eating, and what you should or should not be doing? [...] All this research seems to contradict itself every few years anyway.
... you guessed it! A glut of beef in the market, and our Dietary Overlords, I mean, uh, "nutritionists" declaring that Atkins is back in again!
Every few years? Try every few weeks . . . which brings us to:
Cattle mutilations are up. Which means
Low carb will be replaced again by low fat once the beef glut (and mad cow disease scare) is over, which in turn will be replaced by the magical mystery popcorn diet after record bumper harvests this fall.
The Ice Cream Diet as the sole US RDA compliant diet is on the backburner until the dairy industry coughs up the required bribe, I mean, "campaign contribution."
Oh, and get your hands off that bacon and eggs! Neither are on this week's approved list(tm), infidel.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
We're going to marry, you know?
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
30 deaths worldwide -- and they have narrowed it down to 'getting more sun'.
Imagine if the brilliant scientists could do something about that pesky 'aids' that kills millions every year in Africa.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
I remember in the early 80's my girlfriend and other women used baby oil of all things when they laid out.
I guess some study will prove this to be healthy to? The oil lubes the pores? LOL
The problem is us folk who live at high latitudes. We have little sunlight in the winter, and it's weak (we're further from the sun), and yet in the summer we have oodles of sunlight, and it's strong (closer to the sun). Also in places like Ireland (as far north as Hudson bay in Canada), where I am, we have very changeable weather. In the summer, one can easily rack up a lot of sun exposure despite having a day where mostly it's overcast and rainy (there might be sunny spells that amount to a couple hours in total) if you're outdoors for the day (not uncommon in the summer!)
:D - although dawn at 4:30am with inadequate curtains is painful. Again - pity the folks further north!
Generally we're very pale-skinned too.
I find that I never uncover more than my head, arms and legs (T-shirt + shorts at the least) or I would burn to a crisp. My face and arms are usually uncovered at times all through the year - so all I have to do is be careful for the first week or so of summer weather (they are paler after the winter). I always need sunscreen for legs though, and if it's a scorcher and I'm out for more than an hour - I need it for the rest of me too (and even so - I seek shade). Us northerners aren't adapted for lots of sun - not even the sun we get in the best summer days.
Black and other dark-skinned people this far north can have Vitamin-D deficiency problems, particularly during the winter - when even pale-skinned people need to actively seek at least 30 mins sun/daylight to be in peak form.
Some of the winter is very depressive here - a heavy rain day near mid-winter means "twilight" from 10am - 3pm and night the rest of the day. I don't like to think what it's like in Scandinavia/North Russia/North Canada.
Having daylight till nearly 11pm in mid-summer is very nice though
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Anybody who was previously under the impression that they should coat themselves in sunscreen before leaving the house is probably stupid enough that the gene pool is better off without them anyway.
Nobody sensible has ever made a general claim that sunlight is bad for you - In fact many illnesses and conditions are linked directly or indirectly to a lack of sunlight, including even the widespread depression in areas close to the poles.
The reason for the consistent campaigning that we need to be careful in the sun is that too much UV is quite bad for you, both in terms of cancer and general skin condition, and the main reason people get too much UV is because they're having too much fun or are simply too busy to notice... Then it's public health systems that end up paying for these idiots' cancer treatments.
Sun is like alcohol, meat, carbohydrates, and just about anything else worth mentioning in medical circles; a little is good, a lot is bad.
Can't you get enough from buying milk with the "Vitamin D" label on it?
Of people with skin cancer, those with lots of sun exposer had better outcomes than those with less sun exposure. Does not compute with the simple view of Tan=skin cancer.
Also, I think someday we will realize that sunscreen is a bad for you...
With that said, I still can't hit the beach withous sunscreen.
Rumor on campus was that he was drunk.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
A few years ago, various friends and family members bought their first computers. Pretty soon, I was getting a steady steam of hoax e-mails from them.
Over and over again I tried to explain to them that this stuff wasn't true. Bill Gates is NOT testing an e-mail tracking program and Microsoft will NOT send you any money if you forward this e-mail to all your friends. Congress is NOT about to impose a tax on e-mail.
I pointed them to the various websites that specialize in debunking urban legends and internet hoaxes. But it didn't work. They just took me off their mailing lists and kept on going. For some reason, people desperately want to believe stupid crap.
Yes, I did consider the fact that most cancers occur after humans stop reproducing (we seem to have very few reproductive years, as a portion of our total life span, compared with other animals as well) however the advice on sun exposure was that none is the only option meaning that there must be quite a risk even for young people. Hence natural selection could take place fairly quickly. I suppose it must have happend at some point and now our biological systems are good enough that only old people die of cancer. (oooh - heartless mode off)
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Or, you could just stay out of the sun, and drink milk and other vitamin D rich foods to get your vitamin D. I just got a sunburn over the weekend. The sun is not good for you. I heard the same report, basically the amount of sun you need to get your vitamin D is about 15 minutes, a couple times a day. Basically. I guess you shouldn't be spending all your time indoors. And that you shouldn't wear sunscreen if you are only going out for 1/2 an hour. But keeping in the habit of putting on sunscreen is hard, so it's probably easier just to put it on every day.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
"of medicine's most fundamental beliefs: that people need to coat themselves with sunscreen whenever they're in the sun"
Fundamental???
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
The first (dark skinned + high latitude) was mentioned. They also mentioned light skinned individuals living in far northern regions. Both of which make a lot of sense.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
I work in a cancer registry (in IT, not research), and I can tell you that no-one's entirely certain about the pros and cons of sun use yet. The general advice is this:
When young, your skin is especially vulnerable to damage from the sun, damage that can lead to melanoma (not plain old non-melanoma skin cancer, but the full, fatal whack) in later life.
Once you reach your twenties you skin is a bit more resilient to this damage. Meanwhile you begin to fall into the age-group where you may be affected by cancers that might be prevented or deterred by vitamin D. So a little sunlight is a good thing.
Note, that's a little sunlight. Spending all day out in the sun crisping yourself is not going to end well. As with everything in life, moderation is the key. Further, if you live in a an area where the sun is particularly strong (Australia, South South America, etc.), you should still be careful.
makes you fat you turd
milk != normal
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I suggest you go and learn about conditional probability.
I think you should make the effort (and I suspect Darwin would agree).It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
How the heck can this be offtopic, when the guy (who is completely unknown to me too, btw...) is mentioned in the blurb? Is the blurb offtopic too?
Of people with skin cancer, those with lots of sun exposer had better outcomes than those with less sun exposure
When I was a kid sunscreen wasn't the norm for kids, and I played outside, in the blaring sun, for probably 12 hours a day with no burns and likely no tan. Later in life, after I learned the wonders of the home computer, I found that an eventual excursion into the late spring sun after a long period of Atari ST "empire" playing led to a terrible burn, and most every of my teen years had a highlight tan when I got my first sun exposure.
The point is that I lost my "immunity" because my exposure was much more sporatic. I'm certainly not speaking from a medical point of view, but it does seem odd that man lived outside throughout our evolution, yet we supposedly haven't adapted to the sun? It sounds more likely that our changed behaviour, namely hiding ourselves from the sun, led to a sort of hyper-sensitivity to the sun (probably as our skin adapts and tries to eak every bit of benefit out of minimal sun, and then it's massively shocked when we go to the park for a couple of hours).
Sun: the new "eggs."
*Crunch* *Crunch* *Crunch*.
Definitely not. This Blade 2500 does NOT taste anything like 'eggs'...
Hmmm...could use some ketchup though...
*crunch* *crunch* *crunch*
My blog
Like this one.
The problem with common sense is that it just means agreeing with everybody around you. If you disagree with most people, you look around and say "nobody has any common sense." If you are getting older, you add "...any more."
Gives the name of the sunscreen orator.
Unfortunately the article does not disclose the researcher's close dealings with the tanning salon industry. Is the science real? Yes. Does it encourage tanning and irresponsible sun exposure? Yes. Solution: it's better to simply drink vitamin D-fortified milk & OJ.
Let's learn something from Australia, where 1 in 7 people get skin cancer in their lifetimes.
/.ers would do well to look further into the hard science and get past the industry-backed FUD.
Rather than, or in addition to, SPF lotion, wear clothing. This brand is lightweight, well-vented and has titanium dioxide built right into the microfiber. My mom (who is sun sensitive from medication) uses them.
After reading this article,,i'm thinking it's probably easier to enter earth's atmosphere and not burn up in a space shuttle than going outside to put my thrash on the corner.
I'm African American with moderately dark skin, and I've never sunburned.
I work in the film industry, and I worked on a set last summer on the island of St. Lucia. We were working 16-17 hour days, much of it with full on sun. Our crew was dropping like flies the first couple of days.
It got to the point where we actually hired a few locals, and quickly trained them for a lot of grunt work. A lot of our techs and electrical guys (who we couldn't do without) were covered with wide brim hats, long sleeves and sunscreen.
I think you bring up an interesting point about genetics, in as much that modern medicine, in my experience, is more effective when tailored to genetic differences. I would imagine that my primary care provider would be interested in medical conditions that disproportionately affect African Americans, i.e. heart disease and diabetes. Usually however, my doctor(s) never bring up what I'd need to do to stay healthy longer. It tends to be more generic information which doesn't seem to allow for statistical overrepresentation.
un burrito me trampeó.
Is there anything unnatural about having an outdoor work, and thus, a strong tan?
I guess mans natural habitat is now indoor working in front of a computer...
I only drank a small amount, but it made me sick, and I got a tan.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
If his book was as ridiculously inflammatory and exaggerated as some of his quoted comments then it should be embarrassing to any scientist.
Just because someone is unpopular doesn't mean that they aren't stupid.
Quote from Holick:
"The problem has been that the American Academy of Dermatology has been unchallenged for 20 years," he says. "They have brainwashed the public at every level."
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Since that also contains a lot of vitamin D.
UV radiation stimulates vitamin D production yes, but for a reason, to repair cancer damage.
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
The calculation, according some blokey on bbc radio4 a few weeks ago is about 30 mins per day for your average brit, 15 morning and 15 afternoon. A few days ago I heard 15 mins at noon recommended as the proportion of high UV and low UV is better for making Vitamin D and lower for making cancer cells then.
HTH,
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Sunscreen good.
...
No sunscreen bad.
Rest of advice based on years of Jedi teaching experience, yes.
This advice I dispense now.
Enjoy the power and beauty of the Force.
Understand the Force you will not until you have used it.
Fabulous is how you look.
Fat as Jabba the Hutt you are not.
Worry not about the Dark Side.
Worrying is as effective as trying to stick C-3PO together with bubblegum.
Do one thing, everyday, that would scare even Darth Maul.
Yes
Floss
waste time not at Mos Eisley.
In the end hung over you will be, yes
Kind to your lightsaber be
For when it's gone, miss it you will
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it
but your own swamp on Dagobah.
Beauty magazines read you not
make you feel ugly and green they will
Yes
Just one minute you wait
What is wrong with being ugly and green? I ask
Get to know your father.
You never know if Darth Vader he will be
Live on ice planet Hoth once.
Leave, before hard it makes you.
Live in Naboo once
But leave before soft it makes you.
Travel at lightspeed.
but make sure hyperdrive works.
Accept certain inalienable truths.
Luke and Leia, related they are!
Wookies shed all over the furniture they will!
And sound a lot like Grover on Sesame street, I do
Respect Mace Windu
Very good in Pulp Fiction he was
Yes
With your hair mess not
Or by the time you're 800
One thousand it will look
Be careful of advice and. . . Boba Fett
but trust you me on the sunscreen
Yes
He is here,
I have felt him
We're nerds! We don't go out into the sun! Its hard to see our laptop screens from the damned glare!
Unnatural, isn't it?
Personally, I don't do anything unnatural to my food. No other animal cooks their food, so I don't cook anything I eat, or eat anything that I didn't pull from the ground or kill with my bare hands.
Also, I eat it without utensils, since no other animal does that, and I don't prepare anything I eat - I just pull whatever I want from the carcass right there. My backyard is starting to stink a lot, since I don't bury anything I kill since animals don't.
It's healthier because animals do it that way.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
1) Milk ISN'T good for you, period, [sic]
Actually, it all depends on who you mean by "you," and what your underlying assumptions are about resources, technology, etc. If you are lactose intolerant, then by all means stay away from milk. That doesn't mean you can't have cheese and yogurt, though. It is a well-accepted theory that the lactose tolerance mutation of northern European populations is one of the factors that enabled their success (and by success, I mean they didn't all die out). It is also true that Mongolian tribesmen may not have the resources to eat fresh kale to get their calcium, or to buy soy "milk" from their local organic grocery store. However, goats, sheep, and cows can digest grasses and produce milk with--guess what--calcium! But in fact, it's the casein in milk that supplies the protein, and many vegetarian cultures have relied on dairy products for a large part of their protein consumption.
2) humans weren't supposed to drink another animals milk [sic]
You should be careful when using words like "supposed" because you imply you have some sort of insight into the Way the Universe Should Be. Bullshit. You can't say humans weren't supposed to drink milk anymore than you can say humans weren't meant to jump rope. No other animal does that, either. No other animal writes poetry, or commits suicide, or contemplates philosophy. Just because humans differ from other animals does NOT imply any should or ought, so shut your mouth unless you have some Divine Insight. I would like to point out that other animals may not drink milk after infancy, but they do eat organ meat, entrails, eyeballs, and all sorts of other nutrient-rich animal parts that we tend to discard, these days--including partially digested food in the animal's intestinal tract. Maybe you'd prefer eating tripe to drinking milk?
3) This is ignoring the pitfalls falls of todays production techniques whereby they pump growth hormones into the cows so they produce milk far longer than they are normally capable of. [sic]
This is your single valid point, and it is only valid for milk from a regular dairy. Those same organic grocery stores that sell soy milk also sell milk from cows without all those hormones and (though you didn't mention it) antibiotics. But you're tangling the issues, here. That is an argument for better treatment of dairy cattle, not an argument against milk itself. I have a problem eating hot dogs, these days, but that doesn't make all meat repulsive to me.
Maybe someday it will be proven that milk is the poison you make it out to be. But now, the evidence is far from conclusive, and you obviously don't know your milk history. As it stands, milk was probably responsible for my ancestors' survival, and your burden of proof is pretty high. Oh, and a better grasp of English grammar and spelling might help you be more persuasive, in the future. It would be comical that you have a sentence "Milk ISN'T good for you period," ending in a comma, except that I'm pretty sure you didn't intend that.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
Should I, a pasty white geek from genetics and basement computing, whose primary sun exposure areas are arms and head, and maybe tops of feet if sandals are employed, get 10 minutes a day on my square centimeters of exposed skin? No problem! I get that on the drive to work -- unless my windows are UV blocking ... rats.
.007 of a day? (end shudder .. well maybe not yet ...uhuhuhuh)
Or should I don a bikini (shudders at his own thought) for
Is it more beneficial to have more surface area exposed for a few minutes so that more of the dermal layer engages in D manufacture? Is there a healthful benefit for the whole dermis to do that? Sorry about wrong terminology -- high school bio was 20 years ago.
Or should I tape a UV pen to my left armpit and have a localized D factory?
Yes, yes, "Moderation in all things," is my motto too, but to leave surface area out the discussion just seems a little odd. It may be the hugest variable given a set exposure time. Or is the angle of the sun (lat/long or time of day) more important?
Maybe this weekend whilst I'm mowing the BACKyard (neighbors less likely to be blinded, though airplanes may still be confused) I'll doff my shirt for 10 minutes and see if I feel less cancerous next week. Note to self: put shirt on BEFORE weedwhacking -- ouch!
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
If you can find a ripped MP3 of his 2000 comedy album, this story will make more sense:
0 04U4ST/ref=m_art_li_3/102-6655619-6516961?v=glance &s=music
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00
Track 3 -- The Ozone, Sunblock, The Flu and NYQUIL.
Enjoy!
IronChefMorimoto
And not just any fish, cold water fish. No? There's something wrong with your diet/lifestyle. How about someone with dark skin living in a northern clime. Vitamin D deficiency right there.
Sometimes the people who've spread out over the world have moved to areas where they simply can't get the stuff their body needs in sufficient quantities through local produce.
It's only the last couple of decades scientists have even begun to understand how food affects our wellbeing and only the last decade that the information has really started to filter through to the general populace.
Deleted
The Slashdot blurb is misleading. The article advises moderation. I don't recall anybody in recent years saying Sun exposure in moderate amount was bad. What else is news ?
Remember that while normally very rare, melanoma is the 4th most frequently diagnosed type of cancer in Australia, and rising.
Even if people there stopped going outside right now the incidence would probably continue to rise for many years, because of the delayed exposure.
It is highly curable but not good for you.
A documentary on Russia I saw years ago showed school-kids getting UV lamp treatment during winter as a matter of course (wearing blindfolds).
"Bottom line: Don't take one-line advice from faceless Slashbots then turn around and change your whole diet. Do your own homework." /. to justify and rationalize already ingrained behaviors. Bottom line: Don't Preach! Its Condescending!
Nobody will change their diet, and in fact, people are unlikely to change their diet even when continually urged to do so by reliable experts! At worst, someone might use
Two different maladies are commonly referred to as skin cancer: melanoma and carcinoma.
Melanoma is deadly. Carcinoma is not something you want, but is generally not life-threatening.
There's a very strong positive correlation between sunlight exposure and Carcinoma. Not so melanoma.
A recent large study showed an inverse correlation between sunlight exposure and melanoma. Previous studies showed weak positive, or grouped all skin cancers together.
I don't think that anybody argues that skin-peeling burns are bad for you, but many experts are moderating previous advocacy of total sun-avoidance.
Please remember the latitude you are at makes a difference too, and of course the time of year. I hear people say 15 minutes, 30 minutes, or the time from car to office, back to car, car to store, etc. If you are fair skinned and live in Miami, you can get a mild burn running errands during the hottest part of the day in July. It would be much worse to get unshaded direct sun for 30 minutes, that would be painful.
Hmm, wonder what Tom Cruise would say about all this...
Here is some links which claims that
m l m l
skin cancer if coursed by chemicals in sunscreen lotion.
http://educate-yourself.org/mw/message23may05.sht
http://educate-yourself.org/mw/message21jun05.sht
I am not a doctor! This is not medical advice, simply my experiences.
I am Type II diabetic. Radically different disease than Type I (insulin dependant), but that's another matter.
I've had some trouble over the past couple of years controlling my blood sugar levels. A few weeks ago, I went on a 1 week camping vacation to the gulf coast, and my blood sugar control was *excellent*. Once I returned home (and back to work), I regressed back to my previous moderately high sugar levels.
I tried a week of moderate activity the first week back, to try and reclaim the control I had during vacation. No luck.
The following weekend, a friend of mine and I took our kids to a local state park for some paddle boating and canoeing. When I returned home that evening, my blood sugar had returned to the good levels (~100).
The following week (last week), I spend 45m x 1hr in the sun at noon, with sunscreen only on the high sun parts. My blood sugar was in control the whole week.
Once I found that the sun *seems* to be a factor in my blood sugar control, I was able to explain other stretches of proper control in my diabetic life.
So, I plan to continue this experiment until my next visit to my endocrinologist (about a month). I haven't burned yet. Google vitamin D and diabetes - this is not the first article to extol the value of getting some sun.
I'm sure there's no big drug company doing research into the benefits of getting some sun for diabetics. Maybe some real estate companies in Florida should fund some research.
Seems "too much sun" also does brain damage ;-)
Georg
ABC news ran a piece about a sunscreen nat yeat approved by the FDA.
Yes. We do need vitamin D and the sun is an excellent source. But if you walk to your car in the daytime two to three times (say to work, lunch, and from work) you have received more than enough vitamin D.
In general, you should avoid extended exposure to the sun. As for sun screens, many believe they can be unhealthy because they create a false sense of security. It is called "Risk Compensation" or "Risk Homeostasis". People are MORE likely to stay in the sun longer than they should because they believe the block will protect them. What ends up happening is that people do not appropriately re-apply the lotions on regular intervals or after going in the water. It ends up more people are burned every year.
Some tasks cannot be parallelized. Nine women can not make a baby in one month.
So suddenly "scientists" are claiming abstinence is the only safe method?
The problem is not sun screen being bad for you.
I know I'm going to be labelled a heretic, but the problem, the way I see it is Television and computer monitors are not very good sources of vitamin D.
(BTW this is an old news story the article linked here was from May, and I know that CBC had this months ago)
Sunscreen manufacturers have spent millions in advertising sunscreen and falsely warning of the dangers of sunshine. Many children now have rickets because parents are afraid to let them out in the sun: they make the kids weare sunscreen and they consequently suffer Vitamin D deficiency. The entire industry's public relations campaign is based on selling sunscreen. It's time to short the sunscreen manufacturers' stock.
Children with rickets (bowlegged kids with a large forehead) were once a rarity, but now I see them every day. It's really sad to see how we've foolishly avoided the sun when it's good for us.
"The article I read.." gets modded informative? Vitamin D supplements are pretty inexpensive, and easily supplied in "ridiculous quantities." http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp Why is anyone assuming there's an epidemic of people avoiding sunlight anyways? Plenty of sunlight comes in here in through the basement window of my Mom's house!
...you have to drink a six pack of beer, eat 3 eggs, and a pound of bacon while sitting in the sun. You know they're going to tell us that some day, so you might as well start doing it now.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Being deficient in it can cause health problems, especially combined with other illnesses. In the US, for example if you live in the northern half of the country, unless you spend most of your time outside, you're most likely deficient. The problem is they've only fairly recently discovered that they've been using the wrong metabolite to test Vitamin D levels... if you want to get your level of Vitamin D tested via a blood test make sure they test for levels of 25OHD3 (Vitamin D, 25 Hydroxy) otherwise they'll be testing the wrong levels. So for many years they've basically been underestimating the scope of Vitamin D deficiency drastically and are now learning that getting the right amount is crucial to certain health issues and have been making some crazy links such as showing that enough of it can help regenerate parts of the brain degenerated by MS. Sunscreen/Cancer has little to do with it other than using such comparisons to make it "newsworthy" for commercial news. How much sun you need and how likely you are to need to supplement it basically depends on how close you live to the equator.
Can one rule out that the reduction in death due to other causes (especially communicable diseases) leaves you with nothing left to die from except cancer and heart attacks?
The candela, lumen and lux are still all units which don't really earn their places in the SI, as they're based on the physiological response to light. I'm much happier measuring the intensity of light in terms of watts per square metre.
Nobody will be allowed to go in the sun without Amazon suing you.
That song was by Baz Lurman (Director of Moulin Rouge and Romeo+Juliet) and read by a voice actor.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Thats 3.80 days a year!
I'm from England - we dont have that amount of actual sun!
Serious question.
/looking forward to being in Brisbane an a little over a week.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
FUD tactics pointing to Australia are almost as dishonest. With respect to skin cancer and use of sunscreen, Australia is an abnormal case in two important ways:
- the depletion of the ozone layer over Australia has resulted in UV rays that are stronger than anything we've been exposed to over thousands of years of evolution. Hypothetically, if the ozone layer had retreated in such a way all across the globe 10,000 years ago, we would all probably look much much different (hairier and/or darker)
- Australia is inhabited in large part by very fair skinned people of British Isles decent, most of which are adapted to a far cooler climate
So, if you are of (part) Mediterranean descent like me, and living in Toronto, Canada, latitude 42, the risk of other cancers as a result of chronic Vitamin D deficiency is probably higher than skin cancer
If you are a fair skinned person in Australia, the reverse is probably true.
So I think it comes down to common sense, as with most things.
I was going to tell him that.
While you're enlightening us with your astronomical knowledge, perhaps you can explain how the two hemispheres of the same planet can be at different distances from the sun at the same time, in order that Australia can have its summer when Europe is in the middle of winter?
But you didn't need to be an ass about it...
Also, they are at (very slightly) different distances from the sun, although it is not the cause for the seasons, it is happening...
I computed the diference in distances once, when I was having this argument with someone, I don't remember the exact figure, but it is less than a 100th of a percent of the distance to the sun...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Lactose intolerant milk? kiss my dick. If you're lactose intolerant you can't drink milk. So what's in the fucking carton? Get it out of there, get it away from my milk. It is talking to my milk and making it feel bad about itself.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414224/maindetails
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He may be ignorant about human culture, he may be ignorant about human biology. But that doesn't make him racists.
Lets tear down your arguments quickly here:
1) Culture is not equal to race. In the bayou, there's a whole different culture.... but same "race" as your or me.
2) Ignorance of a culture simply means he doesn't know about its customs. That doesn't make him racist. Ignorance != Racism. This is almost by definition.
3) Criticism of a culture is not racist. I can criticize American culture. That doesn't make me racists. Criticism != Racism.
Finally, to throw around the term "racist" at every opportunity makes a mockery of the suffering of africans who were brought to North America and forced into slavery based solely on their skin color. It makes shallow the suffering of the jews at the hands of Hitler. It ridicules the atrocities committed to Ukranians at the hands of Stalin.
Please don't throw racist around like that. Your *ignorance* is appalling. Please keep it to yourself.
Now to go drill out those damnable blue LEDs in my computer case.
Or you'll have plenty of Vitamin D that your body will be unable to use, and lots of skin cancer and wrinkling to fight off. Want a dark tan? Uhh, not so good for you.
Of course, what they're finding out is that without a multivitamin, you're missing out on some key vitamins/minerals and your body will produce it's own cancerous cells. (Everything causes cancer these days, even your own body!)
Lets assume that the hysterical advice of the MD/cancer people is correct (read the official advice of the acs: don't go out in the sun between 10 and 2 for more then 15 minutes - completely rediculous)
Suncsreen covers a large surface area
It is in some sort of cream which might have permeation properties - that is, it helps chemicals across the skin, which is normally impermeable
the chemicals themselves, which are photoactive, have probably, the protests o fthe industry and the bush industry complaisant epa nonwithstanding, not recieved proper vetting
the chemicals are phtoactive
the chemicals may be contaminated with trace amounts of highly active and toxic chemicals.
Basically , we are using the human population as guinea pigs in a giant experiment to see if sun block helps; moreover, it is a poorly planned experiment, so the data will probably be useless.
Moral: wear a hat and take an umbrella
The question about this study is whether or not it has any inherent bias. There have been many studies that have either been exaggerated or not entirely empirical. Here's a good example of a study done by the CDC which has been exaggerated almost to the point of those KFC ads (which claimed that chicken would help one lose weight): http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/20/news/fat.ph p
Naked at Noon is a book by Krispin Sullivan on the importance of vitamin D. She goes into some detail on how to supplement with Vitamin D-which is fairly tricky.
Fucking morons. Who wrote this research? The Food and Drug Administration?
Most aging appearance is caused by sun exposure. Stay out of the goddamn sun or look like Don Rumsfeld when you're thirty, morons.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
All normal people can withstand 15 minutes
Err no. That depends on other factors.
IIRC, in Brisbane (Australia) in Summer at noon, I believe the figure quoted by the skin cancer awareness people** is that unprotected skin will begin to burn in 5~6 minutes.
**Scroll down the page a bit to find the scary figures.
Australia has the highest rate of deaths from skin cancer in the word, and it is only about a 1,000 per year. Melanoma *is* the most treatable of all cancers.
Do you know how many are dying from other cancer deaths are/would be prevented by adequate Vitamin D from the Sun?
Read the article, Vitamin D is a anti-cancer agent for: lymphoma, prostate, lung and colon cancers.
Number of skin cancer deaths for Australia per year:
http://www.desula.com.au/SC_subweb/
Condoms which are topologically equivalent to a sphere are also problematic. Of course, if topology were all that mattered, then condoms would just be a flat sheet of latex. Fortunately for us, topologists do not rule the Earth.
Sun exposure is so blase... Try sungazing instead http://www.sungazing.com/
In other words, challenge the currently accepted hypothesis, and be prepared for extreme backlash from those who have spent their careers supporting it, no matter how well thought out or researched your work is. Charles Fort was right. The high priesthood of science is exactly that. Blaspheme at your own peril.
So lets see, does that mean that I can smoke all day so long as i'm in the sun?
Vitamin D counteracts vitamin N!
C'mon, you don't know what they put in that shit, It could be zebra cum for all you know!
Time to whip out the Crisco...
I heard about this study a while ago on NPR (no, I don't choose to listen to it). They said that the study showed that to get the necessary vitamin D, we need 15 minutes of sun every 2 weeks. Unless you're nocturnal or a vampire, I don't see how this would be a problem....
"When I see some chick whose main goal in life is to roast, the only impression it leaves on me is that of a pathetic, self-concious, insecure superficial prat."
I'll bet when chicks see you, they see a pimply faced overweight guy who is waaaaaay too into star wars and lives with his mom.
That explains your misogyny.
As a Spaniard who is keen on cuisine, I want to highlight that the amount of fat in the mediterranean diet is mostly due to olive oil, not fat of animal origin.
There was an issue of Scientific American a few years ago that concluded that the origin of the fat in the diet is a better predictor to the probability of having cardiovascular pathologies than the raw amount of fat in the diet.
The study says: "moderate sun exposure".
Sunscreen has become popular exactly because people tend not to be moderate and get way too much sun exposure, especially on the beach. Suggesting not to use suncreen at all is not only misleading, it's just plain stupid, all the more since people usually don't use sunscreen when they aren't going to the beach/mountain/skiing, so all you need to get moderate amounts of sun exposure is to get out at least a few minutes a day without putting sunscreen all over yourself. I don't know a lot of people who don't do that.
In conclusion, I think this study is pretty useless. Pretty much everyone knows that getting a bit of direct sunlight often enough *is* good for your health. You should still use sunscreen if you're going to get *a lot* of it. Skin cancer is not fun.
No I did not RTFA. I do know that many popular brands of sun screen do more harm than good. Acording to at least the articles: "Is sun good for you?" and "Get out and play." Also if you take a few moments to think about it historicly most of the 'sun screen' push came along from the o-zone scare. Humans did quite well for about a melenia with out it. I know I personally are alergic to at least banana boat. If I go out with it on for more than one day I get all kinds of nausea and dizzy, and bust out into hives. quite fun really. If I just wear a think silk shirt and me shades I do fine
The ability for humans to drink milk is, as you pointed out, a mutation.
Probably one that gave us huge advantages for survival during hard times. We're omnivorous (sp?), and can eat just about anything and derive food value from it. So, learning to milk a Yak probaby saved more than a few humans back in the day. Also, cheese and yogurt takes nearly forever to spoil relative to many other high protein foods, so that's yet another advantage of adapting to eat dairy.
Obviously from your childish foot-stomping temper-tantrum reply you are not an authority either.
Oh, and a better grasp of English grammar and spelling might help you be more persuasive, in the future.
We are posting on slashdot, not writing a thesis. Noone gives a shxt about grammar and spelling except for self-centered anal-retented morons like yourself.
My family and friends do the same thing. Are we related?
I really hate people. They are the absolute worst things of which I can think!
First off, when I was growing up I knew a young girl from St. Lucia, so thanks for bringing back some fun memories.
Secondly, I have some African American friends who get burned every summer. Although we live in the north eastern US so that may be a factor. They complain that since you can't see it's burned that's always the spot where somebody will bump into them or pat them or something like that.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
If only it were that simple. In actuality, it often works like this:
- Researcher needs grant money to get tenure, a raise, etc.
- Researcher finds out where the grant money is
- Researcher does study that will get him that grant money
Or this:- Researcher realizes that sensational results in a study will get him media attention, which will get him more grant money (and; hence; tenure, a raise, assistants, status, etc.)
- Researcher produces sensational results by cooking the numbers, failing to adjust for unrelated factors, making hidden assumptions, skewing his sample, or just plain exaggerating
Or this:-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
In regards to the sun I work with my shirt off and let the window open for about an hour a day. I have a 'jekyl/hyde' tan where half of my body is becoming bronze as the other is pasty. I should look into knocking out this wall here and putting in a window.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
If you don't consume dairy, you'll go insane.
Every vegan I've ever met has been some degree of crazy. The less dairy they were willing to eat the crazier they were. Drink milk, stay sane.
paintball
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Measuring the amount of power consumed by an electric light source is a highly inaccurate way to measure the light produced. Regular incandescent bulbs vary widely in efficiency, to say nothing of other types of electric light sources such as flourescent lighting. Would you estimate the "wattage" of the sun, and divide that by the area it illuminated on the surface of an object?
did that wery well.
see "The Sunscreen Marketing Board Presents" at http://www.deadtroll.com/index2.html
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
You assume that all people naturally can withstand 15 minutes. I burn after 5, and I live in Michigan.
While I don't burn after 5 minutes the only way I can get a good tan, and I love a good tan, is to first get burned at least a couple of tymes. After each burn I'll get darker then once I get dark enough I'll tan without burning. And I lived in Florida for more than 25 years.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This is ignoring the pitfalls falls of todays production techniques whereby they pump growth hormones into the cows so they produce milk far longer than they are normally capable of...
One of those pitfalls being that rBGH, recombinate Bovine Growth Hormone, may cause breast cancer.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Getting burned is bad for you.
Too much sunscreen is bad for you.
Seek the path between these two extremes.
Personally I have just worn sunscreen on my forearms, shoulders, cheeks and nose and wore a hat for my bald spot.
I let the sun shine on myself for a few minutes and then add sunscreen if I was going to spend a long time in the sun. Add more time and less sunscreen as I get more tanned.
If I start getting red or feeling a burning, add sunscreen to that part.
OK... how the heck does promiscuous sexual behavior increase the risk of cancer?? I can see it increasing the risk of other things (STD's...) but... cancer?!?
There are so many variables: packaging, pasteurization, additives (do your organic ones add vanilla flavor?), etc.
Though the milk I get is pasteurized, because I love to make cheese I wish I could find unpasteurized milk locally, it isn't homogenized nor does it have additives. On top of that, it comes in reusable glass bottles which have a deposit on them.
I especially love the organic foods packaged in plastic, unrecycled paperboard, along with unidentified inks, all displayed under harsh flourescent light, in a store with artificial flooring, carpets, etc.
I am a member of two coops, Lakewinds and The Wedge , both of which I joined because they support local businesses and because they support organics. Both sale items in bulk, ie they have bins containing items that you use plastic bags to fill which reduces packaging. I used to not like plastic bags but found out at The Wedge that it actually takes less energy and petroleum to produce plastic bags than paper bags takes. Only if they're use plastic bags based on cellulose instead of petroleum, actually I'd like to find out if petroleum based or cellulose based plastics use more petroleum.
I mean, if they really cared, they'd do more than just take everyone's money.
As a member of a coop I get a 10% discount at Lakewinds once a month and 10% discount on every purchase at The Wedge because of a disability. Then every year I get a check from each coop depending on how much I spend there which is somewhere around 1%. While some items at the coops can be found at regular grocery stores cheaper other things are cheaper at the coops, and many items won't be found at other stores. The flooring is basically the same found as at other stores, mostly linoleum with rugs or tiles in selected places.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I bet this is by the same people who were telling girls that it's a good idea to practice fellatio... Clearly they are trying to turn all the girls of the world into something more enjoyable by morphing the things that guys have liked for ages into something healthy. I, for one, can't wait to see what "study" they come out with next.
I get my dairy from a local co-op, not simply because I want to avoid the horemones and things.. (this can be had from normal stores in MN) The local farm milk is pasturized slowly, and not homogonized. It simply tastes better, the skim milk is very good, and not just white colored water.
Where in MN do you live? I live a little south, and west, of downtown Minneapolis.
FalconShould there be a Law?
How does promiscuous sexual behaviour cause cancer?
--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]
"Have you ever looked at the ingredients in sunblock? I have never seen those ingredients anywhere. You have no idea what you are putting on your face....Oh oh oh the Sun's out...It could be Zebra Cum, you don't know...you may not like that joke, but you don't know" - Lewis Black, The White Album
Depends on where you live and grow up, too. As a Hawaii kid, I now see some of my grown-up friends getting skin cancer after all those many young burns.
Of course it's healthy to get some rays. Just use the right SPF and plan your time out there so you get a little tan rather than a burn.
That happened to you too?!
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Looking for "sugar" in the ingredients is a poor way to identify junk food in any case. Read all the ingredients. If there are more than four, it's probably junk.
I agree with the first sentence above but disagree with the third. For instance I like chili and when I make it I like to use red kidney beans, chile and/or other peppers, tomatoes, onions, garlic, and sometymes other ingredients. I've made pastas dishs as well various Chinese and other ethnic dishs with more than four ingredients. I love to cook.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Re-read the article. It was not very well written but it did disclose Dr. Holick's ties to the tanning industry and the fact that his title was stripped by his superior. This was better covered elsewhere (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vi taminD/drefs.html#ref58) but take it that people besides Dr. Holick have published research in peer-reviewed journals that show a positive correlation between sunlght-induced Vitamin-D and lowered incidence of cancer, where diet-fortified vitamin-d intake did not differ from controls, meaning milk and OJ would not provide anti-cancer benefit. Besides, a civl court in California found that OJ can be lethal.
Unfortunately, westerners in general don't seem to grasp the concept that knowledge isn't given or taught. It has to be something that the individual grasps on their own right.
While it maybe that a person has to grasp knowledge, that it's not just given, knowledge can be "taken away". As a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury , survivor I have personal experience in validating this. Amoung other things because of my injury my memory is bad, worse than it was prior to the accident that caused my injury.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Why do you say the "Wedge is a psudo co-op"? It is a member owned cooperative and us members, yes I'm a member, vote for the board of directors, have input in how it is run, and what it does.
FalconShould there be a Law?
--J. S. Haldane
To give one coutner tweak, not to refute your post's valid points, but to point out something of the scientifically valid but largely lost, "ought not" position.
There is a ["strongly suspected"] link between consumption of cow milk and late onset adult diabities (sp?). The mother-to-child antibody/antigen process now understood to be implicit in mamal milk seems to produce an immune response in humans that is nearly identical to the autoimmune response that has been linked with the distruction of the insulin producing cells in the pancreas.
So there is some basis to believe that consuming a lot of cow milk over the course of a lifetime may increase your risk of developing adult-onset diabiates.
So while I agree that milk consumption has made the survival of various clutures possible, and it is probably one of those double-edged things. If you _can_ avoid it, or at least moderate it, you probably _should_.
As for the rest, I am not so much concerned, as an adult, with the presence of hormones or antibiotics in my food as I am about what the antibiotics are doing "out in the field". In particular the continuous sheding into the soil of the antibiotics and partially resistent intestinal flora/fauna via cow dung provides the ideal low continuous dossage exposure necessary to produce an optimal yiled of resistent bacteria. Since they now know that bacteria can directly communicate that resistence to other unrelated bacteria. The dairy farm (and actually probably the pig and chicken farms as well) has become probable wellspring of harmless but highly resistent bacteria that may then be capable of turning very harmful, but not previously exposed, bacteria into super-pathogens.
The mis-management of antibotics world-wide in the twentith century is probably the greatest slient crime against humanity of that (this) era.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Easy. Everything causes cancer.
...but is it art?
Former president Clinton? Is that you? ;-)
I spent this past weekend outside, canoeing and bicycling, wearing #45 sunscreen and still came out of it with a respectable tan. Farmer style of course. :) But without the sunscreen I'd likely be much mor eof a steamed lobster red color than something so much less painful than that...
A friend missed a spot on th aback of his hand that is now a sortof neon pink color and is quite painful. Why would I want to prefer that to what I got??
HPV can cause cervical cancer. I think Hep increases the chance of liver cancer. What else have you guys heard of?
- Mike T.
I'm with you there -- I find tanned skin unattractive. But it seems most people like the look of a tan, so I've wondered if it has to do with my colorblindness. I have protanomalous vision (the response of my "red" cones is shifted towards green) so for example, green looks almost exactly like yellow to me, and red is quite dark. Do you, like me, have some form of color deficiency?
Some friends recently gave me some zinc oxide based sunscreen that has no chemical sunblock, made by a company called Birch Trees.
b ob2.htm
A likely additional problem with most sunscreens is that the active ingredients may be harmful. See:
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc98/6_6_98/
From the birchtrees.com website:
Why we use Zinc instead of Chemical Sunscreens
Zinc oxide is a natural mineral, used safely for generations to shield against the harmful effects of the sun. Zinc oxide forms a protective physical barrier over the skin and stops the harmful UV rays, providing the most complete protection. BirchTrees Daily Guard Sun Screen uses Z-Cote®, a transparent, microfine form of zinc oxide to protect in a clear, smooth, non-sticky and non-irritating form. Unlike chemical sunscreen ingredients, zinc oxide cannot be absorbed into the skin and is not metabolized by the body.
Chemical sunscreen ingredients are designed to absorb portions of the UVB (burning rays) or UVA (cause of aging and skin cancer) rays and are often used in combination to achieve adequate UVB and at best, limited UVA protection. Z-Cote® is the only single transparent sunscreen ingredient available today that uniformly protects against the full "broad spectrum." Additionally, unlike most chemical sunscreen ingredients, zinc oxide is known to be stable and it won't degrade in the sun. As well, it is the only sunscreen ingredient recognized by the FDA as a Category I Skin Protectant and is recommended for use on environmentally challenged skin.
BirchTrees Daily Guard Sun Screen uses 15% zinc oxide for an SPF 15 meaning it effectively blocks 93% of the sun's burning rays. Because zinc oxide uniformly protects against the UV spectrum from 290-380 nanometers(nm), we believe our Daily Guard Sun Screen is also effective against 93% of the sun's UVA rays. While other sunscreens claim "broad spectrum" protection, the amount of protection a consumer is receiving from the damaging UVA rays is virtually unknown. Even the sunscreens which include zinc include far smaller percentages and thus offer far less coverage against the UVA spectrum than BirchTrees Daily Guard Sun Screen does.
Here is a reseach project:
= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1506332 9
6 %2Fj.1523-1747.2003.12498.x?cookieSet=1
See if you can find a single study showing that the active ingredients of most sunscreens are safe when absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream.
Refs:
Sunscreen ingredients are absorbed into the blood:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
Sunscreen ingredients cause DNA damage:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.104
A quick search on google for sunscreen dangers turned up this:
http://www.skinbiology.com/toxicsunscreens.html
Admittedly, it's a commercial site that would like you to buy their supposedly safe products, but they could be right in what they say.
--
Sunscreen chemicals may generate free radicals within your body
Most chemical sunscreens contain, as UVA and UVB blockers, from 2 to 5% of compounds such avobenzone, benzophenone, ethylhexyl p-methoxycinnimate, 2-ethylhexyl salicylate, homosalate, octyl methoxycinnamate, oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) as the active ingredients.Benzophenone (and similar compounds) is one of the most powerful free radical generators known. It is used in industrial processes as a free radical generator to initiate chemical reactions. Benzophenone is activated by ultraviolet light energy that breaks benzophenone's double bond to produce two free radical sites. The free radicals then react with other molecules and produce damage to the fats, proteins, and DNA of the cells - the types of damage that produce skin aging and the development of cancer.
Adding to the problem is that large amounts of applied sunscreens can enter the bloodstream though your skin. In the 1970s, Prof. Howard Maibach warned that up to 35 percent of sunscreen applied to the skin can pass through the skin and enter the bloodstream but this had little effect on sunscreen promotion or safety testing. (Maibach, H. "NDELA-Percutaneous Penetration." FDA Contract 223-75-2340, May 19, 1978) The longer sunscreen chemicals are left on the skin, the greater the absorption into the body. (Bronaugh, R.L., et al. "The effect of cosmetic vehicles on the penetration of N-nitrosodiethanolamine through excised human skin, J Invest Dermatol; 1981; 76(2): 94-96.) This may be a factor in the large increases in cancer (breast, uterine, colon, prostate) observed in regions, such as Northern Australia, where the use of sunscreen chemicals has been heavily promoted by medical groups and the local governments.
Many sunscreens also contain triethanolamine, a compound that can cause the formation of cancer causing nitrosamines in products by combining with nitrite used as preservative and often not disclosed on sunscreen labels.
In March 1998, Dr. John Knowland of the University of Oxford reported studies showing that certain sunscreens containing PABA and its derivatives can damage DNA, at least in the test tube experiments. When a chemical sunscreen, Padimate-O, was added to DNA and the mixture exposed to the ultraviolet rays of sunlight, it was found that the sunscreen broke down in sunlight, releasing highly active agents that could damage DNA. It did not block out the UV, but instead absorbed energy. "It became excited and set off a chemical reaction that resulted in the generation of the dangerous free radicals and broken DNA strands that can lead to cancer," he said and further commented that while it's too early to make blanket recommendations, "I would not use a product containing PABA, Padimate-O or other PABA derivatives." Dr. Martin Rieger reported that PABA may play a role in DNA-dimer formation, a type of DNA damage that can induce carcinogenic changes.
Avobenzone (Parsol 1789) May Not Be Safe Either
In 1997, Europe, Canada, and Australia changed sunscreens to use three specific active sunscreen ingredients - avobenzone (also known as Parsol 1789), titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide - as the basis of sunscreens. In the USA, the cosmetic companies have held off this policy as they try to sell off their stockpiles of cosmetics containing toxic sunscreens banned in other countries.
However, avobenzone is a powerful free radical generator and also should have been banned. Avobenzone is easily absorbed through the epidermis and is still a chemical that absorbs ultraviolet radiation energy. Since it cannot destroy this energy, it has to convert the light energy into chemical energy, which
Its folklore.
Please move along
Hadn't heard this before:
"Despite decades of sunscreen use in this country, growth of the incidence rate of melanoma seems out of control. Perhaps this is due to the inability of most sunscreens to effectively block UV-A rays. Or, maybe this is somehow related to the chemicals Americans have been covering themselves with over the past few decades to screen against the sun. BirchTrees decided to take a closer look at the chemicals commonly used as screening agents. While government generated reports do not claim these chemicals are carcinogenic, BirchTrees found alarming potential effects of many of these commonly used chemicals."
"For example, 2-Hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone, also referred to as Oxybenzone, is commonly synthesized for use in sunscreens as a UV stabilizer. According to the National Toxicology Program ("NTP") Toxicity Report Number 21 , this chemical produces "enlarged livers", "renal lesions", "markedly lower epididymal sperm density" and an "increase in the length of the estrous cycle" for the mice and rats tested. This occurred at many levels and it occurred whether the chemical was applied topically or taken orally."
http://birchtrees.com/nochemsun.html
Power is energy/time. It's not a concept specific to electricity. Every light source produces a certain power of light per time, regardless of the type. (Photons/time * energy/photon = energy/time = power)
The ratio between the power consumed and the light power produced indeed vary; the ratio is the efficiency of the lightbulb. (The leftovers go into heat.)
Would you estimate the "wattage" of the sun, and divide that by the area it illuminated on the surface of an object?
No, there are more direct ways to measure luminance. But I might go the other way - you could use this relationship to determine the power output of the sun. (If you're measuring it in watts, though, you'll want to use scientific notation. It's a really big number.)
1) There is no such thing as race. Researchers studying the human genome have shown that conclusively. Racist in current usage means coming down on a culture or culture(s) based on hatred, ignorance and prejudice, which is what the GP was doing.
2) Ignorance and prejudice about a culture pretty much encompasses the term racism as it is used in modern language. The GP was doing just that.
3) Criticism is not racism. However, criticism based on prejudice is. Which is what the GP was doing
Finally, in counter to your illustrations, the Africans brought to the US where of many cultures. The Jews suffering at the hands of Hitler are hardly a single race, unless one wants to redefine race as a religion or culture. Likewise the Ukranians suffering at the hands of Stalin are a nation and culture, but not a race. Invoking Godwin's Law makes your argument all that much more weaker.
Anyway, chill out. The larger part of 1 billion people in and near India find milk and milk products to be central to their cultures for economic, nutritional and religious reasons. Argue with them. I'm not saying you have to eat milk products, though I do agree that the large agribusinesses are quite harmful and inhumane and that the more efficient, small scale farming should be restored.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Err... Bonch, everything's a mutation. Fingers, thumbs, eyesight. Milk being fatty makes it an excellent food if you're living some time before the 20th century.
For an excellent review of Clinical Chemistry, that also explains how Vitamin D can be derived from ergocalciferol (D2) and cholecalciferol (D3), both of which are a product of UV irradiation of a plant sterol and 7-dehydrocholesterol, respectively.
9 91/63/i12/f_ac00012a011.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/ancham/1
D. J. Anderson, F. Van Lente, F. S. Apple, S. C. Kazmierczak, J. A. Lott, M. K. Gupta, N. McBride, W. E. Katzin, R. E. Scott, J. Toffaletti, C. J. Menendez-Botet, M. K. Schwartz, W. J. Castellani, D. S. Hage, R. C. Allen, J. C. Griffiths, B. R. Hepler, J. C. Touchstone, K. J. Skogerboe, J. Wang, A. C. Kuesel, T. Kroft, I. C. P. Smith, R. G. Haas, and D. Chou, Anal. Chem. 1991, 63, 165R-270R.
Note that this link is for members of the American Chemical Society with access privileges, or companies and educational institutions with access.
This journal article is chock full of really interesting and useful information, it is worth the 106 page 21MB download; it contains everything you wanted to ever know about which metals are essential to your health, which chemical reactions they participate in, metabolites, vitamins, medical disorders and diseases and the chemical compounds and enzymes associated with them, and analytical techniques for identifying the species, etc...
Science News printed this vitamin D story last year. I thought the bit about the needs and lack of vitamin D in the elderly in the US were particularly interesting.
. asp
. asp
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041009/bob8
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041016/bob9
The common and often asymptomatic STD, Human Papiloma Virus, (HPV) is the principal cause of cervical cancer.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Actually, you are wrong. What they put in milk is not vitamin D, but its precursor. Your body still needs sunlight to process that precursor into vitamin D (which is why the very name of vitamin D is a bit of a misnomer, actually).
Why don't they put the real thing in milk, then? Because vitamin D is pretty darn expensive, while its precursor is cheap enough, and it's not like people can tell the difference anyway.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.