Slashdot Mirror


Lack of Sunlight Could Lead To Early Death

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Members of this community may want to venture out of the basement more often, because Dr. Harald Dobnig and his team have found that vitamin D deficiency leads to increased mortality. These results still hold when they take into account such factors as exercise and heart disease. Low vitamin D status has 'other significant negative effects in terms of incidence of cancer, stroke, sudden cardiac death and death of heart failure,' Dr. Dobnig said. The evidence of ill effects from low vitamin D 'is just becoming overwhelming at this point.' Vitamin D3 is usually produced by exposure to the UV-B in sunlight, but in high latitudes, especially in the fall and winter, insufficient UV-B gets through the atmosphere to produce enough vitamin D3, even with hours of exposure. The researchers are recommending that people at risk for deficiency take 800 IU of vitamin D3 daily. Just don't go overboard — as a fat-soluble vitamin, D3 is more capable of causing adverse effects at unnaturally high dosages. The human body tops out at producing about 10,000 IU per day." According to the Wikipedia entry linked above, the D2 (ergocalciferol) version -- available as a vegan product -- works approximately as well to supply humans with their needed vitamin D.

304 comments

  1. Worse in northern hemisphere by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Funny

    .. since pollution decreases sunlight penetration, whereas down south we have cleaner air and a lovely big ozone hole.

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    1. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Funny

      There are also fewer roads in the Southern Hemisphere, so less accidents with lorries at night. Particularly over the Pacific Ocean.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    2. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by Slacksoft · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...so we either go out into the big blue room to avoid dying sooner, but risk getting cancer that could kill us too. I for one would rather bath in the cool non-skin roasting rays of my flat panel monitor and just increase my intake of once a day vitamins!

    3. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by sm62704 · · Score: 0

      No need to increase your vitamin intake, and no need to go outside. A good multivitamin will give you all the vitamins you need, and without exposing yourself to sunlight.

      This is a non-story.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      This was less of a problem for coders "back in the day", since many of us brought our dogs to work. This made for a coding population that were outside early in the morning, one or more times during the day, and in the evening, rain or shine. Fresh air, exposure to sunlight, and exercise. Also gave you a chance to actually think about the problem you were working on away from the keyboard.

      Ironically, now the only people who go outside on a regular basis, rain or shine, snow, sleet, hail, pestilence, whatever ... are those who need their "nicotine fix". They're certainly not going outside for their health, and smoking reduces your body's ability to make and use vitamin D, so they're fuxored anyway ...

      Too bad George Carlin isn't around to say how fucked up THAT is ...

    5. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by packeteer · · Score: 0

      The RDA requirements are the bare minimum to not get deficiency disorders most of the time. You might not agree with megadosing of vitamins but as Ray Kurzweil says in one of his books if you are compromising an already compromised plan you wont do yourself any good.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    6. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      A good multivitamin will usually give you mire than the RDA of most vitamins, and you'll get most of the rest from food.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    7. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by puck01 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most multivitamins do not provide sufficient vitamin D. Heck many calcium and vitamin D supplements do not provide enough, ie. oscal D only provides 500mg calcium and 200 IU vitamin D.

      As a physician, I suggest anyone that is not regularly outside take Calcium 600mg with vitamin D 400 IU twice daily. Taking 800 IU of vitamin D daily is the minimum needed to maintain a healthy level without sun exposure. Up to 2000 IU a day is thought to be safe. vitamin D3 is actually superior to D2, although anything is better than not enough. In the winter, I take Caltrate D twice a day (actually I take the generic version from Kroger which is much cheaper but has vitamin D3).

      There are some dietary sources of vitamin D but most Americans fall far short of consuming enough to make up for no sun exposure so these recommendations should always be adjusted according to diet and amount of sun exposure.

    8. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by extra88 · · Score: 1

      I heard a long Quirks & Quarks story about Vitamin D a few weeks ago. The US and Canadian RDAs for Vitamin D, 400 IU, are based on amounts meant to aid bone health, not for these other benefits. The amount in the typical multivitamin will be 400 IU, not the 800 IU recommended here. Unless you wash down your multivitamin with fortified milk every day, you're probably not going to ingest the amount Vitamin D they think you should. Balance that with your sunlight exposure in your region. I'm in New England so as long as I don't keep myself cooped up, I'll get enough Vitamin D from sunlight alone maybe half the year.

    9. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by steelfood · · Score: 1

      How much is "regularly"? 1 hour? 2 hours? 30 minutes going to and from work?

      That is to say, how much sun exposure to how large an area and for how long would produce enough Vitamin D for a day? And does it have to be direct sunlight, or could you stand in the shade behind? What about behind glass windows, in the shade or in direct sunlight?

      If you really only have to be in the sun for 20 minutes a day, then maybe it'd be worth it to go outside for a walk during lunch, instead of bothering with supplements. And for people who work the odd shifts, it might be worth it to do that walking before or after work.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    11. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by puck01 · · Score: 1

      A caucasion will have sufficient sun exposre if they are in direct sunlight on average for 15 minutes three times per week with their lower legs, arms and face exposed. That should give you an idea, it doesn't really take all that much and is easily done in the summer by most people. African Americans or any other person with dark skin will require a longer exposure as the melatonin in their skin defects UV light.

      In the winter it can be difficult to achieve enough exposure. I want to say, vitamin D stores are good up to 2-3 months (I could be wrong on that but I should be close), so people that have cold temps and minimal daytime >2-3 months tend to get low by the end of the season.

    12. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one would rather bath in the cool non-skin roasting rays of my flat panel monitor Bathe.
    13. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by Arterion · · Score: 1

      Another question: What if I always wear sunscreen when I am outdoors? Will that block the UV light that causes vitamin D? It sounds like a balancing act. I think I'm just going to pick up some supplements. Thanks for the info, doc. :)

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    14. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is far from a non story. There is a growing body of good research that indicates vitamin D to be one of the most important contributors to health. As a light sensitive chemical, it shows up early in our evolutionary history, and as such, has been incorporated into all kinds of biochemical pathways.

      As the summary says, the body can produce 10,000 IUs a day, far more than a multivitamin will provide.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    15. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by puck01 · · Score: 1

      Its just like beer, smoking or anything else, it is a balancing act based on personal preference in the end considering the realities of the situation. When ever I talk to a patient, its my role to make sure they understand the realities and options, anyway....

      Personally, I want to look and feel young as long as possible so I'll error on the side of protecting myself from the sun since it plays a big role in skin aging and I make sure I get enough vitamin D. Always avoid sun burns. If I'm going to out in the sun for more than 10-15 minutes, I wear a hat and sunscreen.

    16. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that excessive sunlight exposure has also been linked to the breakdown of folic acid, which is essential for cell division.

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    17. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by rossifer · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...so we either go out into the big blue room to avoid dying sooner, but risk getting cancer that could kill us too.

      Actually, there are two important forms of skin cancer: basal cell carcinoma and malignant melanoma. The differences between these two forms of cancer are so significant as to be "critical knowledge for humans", and yet they tend to be lumped together under "skin cancer".

      Basal cell carcinomas are pretty low grade, tend to be very easy to treat, and are not associated with very many mortalities. They are unlikely to metastasize (spread) and don't grow very quickly. Basal cell carcinomas are associated with repeated mild sun exposure, so getting out in the sun and tanning increases your risk of basal cell carcinoma. This is also the most common form of skin cancer by a long stretch.

      Malignant melanomas tend to be higher grade cancers, are much more likely to metastasize, and are responsible for most of the mortalities from skin cancer. Malignant melanomas are associated with extreme sun exposure, so staying out in the sun too long and getting a severe sunburn increases your risk of malignant melanoma.

      So once you discriminate between kinds of skin cancer, there's a strong case to be made that tanning is a low risk activity, while burning is a high risk activity. Further, as this study showed, levels of vitamin D are inversely associated with malignant melanoma, and vitamin D is naturally produced through repeated mild sun exposure without sunscreen (sunscreen blocks the UVB needed to endogenously synthesize vitamin D3).

      So, being in the sun without sunscreen long enough to get a tan but not to burn is not only low risk, but actually reduces your overall risk of dying from cancer.

      I for one would rather bath in the cool non-skin roasting rays of my flat panel monitor and just increase my intake of once a day vitamins!

      There are other benefits to regular exposure to direct sunlight. It can help with mild depression, sleep disorders, eye problems, and a whole host of other benefits. Tough to get all of that in a one-a-day vitamin (joking, vitamin D that's not suspected in oil is only marginally bioavailable, so if you're not taking a vitamin tablet and you're not going outside, you're not actually getting any vitamin D).

      Besides, is getting outside for 15-20 minutes a day really that tough? Go for a walk for chrissakes.

    18. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by rossifer · · Score: 1

      Unless vitamin D is delivered in oil, it's pretty much not bioavailable. Very few multis, even the good ones, have a gelcap in the daily mix.

      Vitamin D from food is an even bleaker picture. It's basically not found in unprocessed, whole foods and the amount found in supplemented food is still so small as to be worthless. This is the fault of the US RDA for Vitamin D, which appears to be too low by a factor of 5 or more.

      If you want Vitamin D, take a gelcap or get outside for 15-20 minutes a day with lots of skin exposed. In the northern US, 15-20 minutes will not be sufficient.

    19. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by rossifer · · Score: 1

      Sunscreen blocks most the UVB needed by your body to endogenously synthesize vitamin D3. Also, repeated sun exposure without burning is not associated with malignant melanomas, only basal cell carcinomas.

      Basal cell carcinomas: nearly harmless. Malignant melanomas: spectacularly dangerous.

    20. Re:Worse in northern hemisphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so you're a doctor?

      I've got this rash...

  2. UVB CPF anyone? by RockModeNick · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is EASY, people. It's not like they don't sell UVB 2% up to 10% daylight CPF screw in light bulbs at any decent pet store that carries reptiles.

    1. Re:UVB CPF anyone? by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not like they don't sell UVB 2% up to 10% daylight CPF screw in light bulbs at any decent pet store that carries reptiles. You cold blooded insensitive clod!
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    2. Re:UVB CPF anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much UVB that my 15" CRT radiate per hour?.

    3. Re:UVB CPF anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You cold blooded insensitive clod! That would be clod-blooded, I guess.
    4. Re:UVB CPF anyone? by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Funny

      You insensitive cold!

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    5. Re:UVB CPF anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      would that actually work? genuinely wondering.

    6. Re:UVB CPF anyone? by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      I'm cold insensitive, you insensitive clod!

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    7. Re:UVB CPF anyone? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      I use fluorescent, compact fluorescent lighting, and LED lighting exclusively, and they're All based on converting (some) of the UV light into white light. oh yeah, i bought like 4 'reading' CF bulbs one winter to see if constant exposure could reduce the effects of SAD (and verified the amount of light was enough by growing tomatoes indoors as a sideline to the project)

      So, do modern lighting arrays provide enough UV exposure, without putting massive arrays of CF bulbs?

      i know lots of people still use conventional bulbs, but i switched in the 90s and i don't feel a need to go back, nor did i have a vitamin d deficiency when i was tested for all my blood work

    8. Re:UVB CPF anyone? by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      Almost all modern lighting not specifically designed to do so puts out no measurable UVB, because it allegedly causes skin cancer. At least, if you sit in a tanning bed an hour a day baking in it. Black lights are nearly all UVA, and some visible spectrum light.

    9. Re:UVB CPF anyone? by sakasune · · Score: 1

      I'd be careful about using a UVB light on yourself, especially if that is meant for a reptile.
      I have psoriasis and one of the treatments I used was UVB phototherapy and started off on small doses and exposure time, but as we increased the dosage it was very easy to get burned (and I got burned a few times). Also, it's not a long term solution because of the increased risk of skin cancer too.

      Maybe the parent was joking, but I figured I'd throw in my .02

      --
      "You're arguing for a universe with fewer waffles in it," I said. "I'm prepared to call that cowardice."
    10. Re:UVB CPF anyone? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      would that actually work? genuinely wondering.

      It works for reptiles. There are many animals that don't produce Vitamin D on their own. I have to use UV bulbs on my turtles during the winter or they suffer from Vitamin D deficiency.

      If it works on reptiles I think it'd work on people.
      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    11. Re:UVB CPF anyone? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      okay, i should have wiki'd 8 hours in an office is equivalent to 1 minute of sun exposure, the question is if that low a UV exposure can create any vitamin D or not.

      did they say you need as much uv as the sun to make vitamin d? where is the cut off, how low of an exposure can create enough vitamin d.

      i am not a scientist, if the body is in need for D it might possibly be able to make vitamin D faster than if it doesn't need it... there are a lot of factors.

    12. Re:UVB CPF anyone? by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      You need the equivalent of 15-25 minutes of exposure to good quality sunlight, I believe, so I'm not sure how low an exposure would do. I'm thinking that people with lots of reptile lights in their house might get enough just from being around them an hour or two a day, but I'm not sure.

  3. Sunlight by retech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It would be nice to know the proper balance between too much and not enough. Given the fact that too much will cause cancer and an equally alarming rate.

    1. Re:Sunlight by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually all the studies that address "too much" involved sever sunburns in teen years.

      There is no peer reviewed study that suggests normal exposure to sun imposes a high mortality.

      Yet the press, over-reacting as usual, have scared people out of the sun and created a sunscreen industry overnight by failing to actually read the studies that were done.

      Cancer rates caused by sun exposure only show significant rise in direct relation to bad burns. Avoid the bad burns and you are fine.

      60 thousand years of human existence can't be discounted overnight.

      Go out and play. Get a tan. Drink some coffee. Have some beer with those salty chips. Lets see, did I forget any of the other discredited cancer scares?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Sunlight by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cancer is only one potential risk. The sun worshipers I've known still are wrinkled way beyond their years.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    3. Re:Sunlight by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      All those sound good to me, but the UVB bulbs still sound nice for the winter. I wonder if the UV spectrum light has any other side benefits other than vitamin D.

    4. Re:Sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      60 thousand years of human existence can't be discounted overnight.

      60 thousand years of short lifespans and high mortality rates.

    5. Re:Sunlight by icebike · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder if the UV spectrum light has any other side benefits other than vitamin D. You mean like Goggle Eyes?
      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:Sunlight by antiphoton · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem with saying "60 thousand years of human existence can't be discounted overnight" is that life expectancy has greatly increased in recent centuries. Maybe skin cancer didn't matter back when you died in your 30's or 40's. Also, you can get your vitamin D from supplements. Not to mention the exposure of even 5 minutes in the sun per day matches the minimum vitamin D requirements to remain healthy. There is no need to go sunbake for hours on end, or not slip-slop-slap.

    7. Re:Sunlight by IAR80 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Skin cancer rates have also to do with melanin production in the skin or better said the lack of. For example if you lived in uk all your life and so did all your ancestors for the past 100 generations you have probably not have evolved (damn it I used this word again) a very efficient melanin production mechanism compered to one of south European, Semitic or African ancestry. If you are in that situation and go 2 weeks a year to southern Spain and get totally sunburned every year, yes you have an increased risk of skin cancer compared to a local farmer who works in the sun every day.

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
    8. Re:Sunlight by tanveer1979 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There was a study which said that Cancer will be disease of the future. Not because we are doing something to encourage cancer, but because other causes are being defeated. In olden times people used to die of typhoid, cholera etc., at a younger age. Cancer rarely got a foothold. Now with people living to 70s or 80s easily diseases like cancer are becoming more noticeable.

      --
      My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
      FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    9. Re:Sunlight by Rhabarber · · Score: 2, Informative

      This story is a dupe which is more than one year old. From the discussions in many mainstream media back then I remember some dermatologist advising full body sunlight exposure for 10 minutes every day (not more though).

      The original publication is here. Honestly I wonder why we did not see any follow up untill now.

      In case you like to read: #18565885, 18424428 and 17540555
      (no open access, I'm afraid).

    10. Re:Sunlight by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Funny

      sever sunburns I didn't realise it was possible to get such severe sunburn that your limbs fell off. Ouch.
    11. Re:Sunlight by umghhh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am not sure about 60thousand years - I studied once history of my family and got back to the end of 18th century. The records in this particular part of Europe end or should I say start then.

      What I saw is that my grand grand born in XVIII century got married second time and had a kid in late 80ties of his life. He was a simple farm worker. The life span of others were similar. It changed when the area they lived got industrialized - life span of working men went down to 40 around end of XIX and beginning of XX century. It recovers significantly afterwards sign of reaction to bad working conditions (sick worker = not efficient worker). I suppose this varied a lot from place to place and time to time so talking about short lifespan and high mortality rates is not entirely correct.

    12. Re:Sunlight by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I think infant/child mortality might have been high. And there was a high risk of women dying in child birth.

      But once you made it past that, my guess is you'd live fairly long, maybe not as long as now, but the biblical 70 years (3 score and ten) wouldn't have been far off. The biblical upper limit of 120 years seems to hold even till today.

      --
    13. Re:Sunlight by MrMr · · Score: 1

      who mentioned limbs? Double ouch.

    14. Re:Sunlight by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think for every generation the mortality rate turns out to be about 100%...

    15. Re:Sunlight by Dekortage · · Score: 1

      Go out and play. Get a tan. Drink some coffee. Have some beer with those salty chips. Lets see, did I forget any of the other discredited cancer scares?

      Yeah, charbroiled meat. I can't tell you how many times people tell me that eating charbroiled burgers, sausages, whatever, is going to give me cancer... particularly ironic when some of them smoke cigarettes.

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    16. Re:Sunlight by tgd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't fall for the error in statistics that cause human lifespans to seem short before modern times -- average lifespans were short because of massive infant mortality, not because people who survived to be adults didn't live to old ages.

      There's no evidence to suggest people died earlier 5,000 or 50,000 years ago -- and there's strong counter evidence for that during historical periods of the last 3-5k years.

    17. Re:Sunlight by NIckGorton · · Score: 1

      It would be nice to know the proper balance between too much and not enough. Given the fact that too much will cause cancer and an equally alarming rate. Even if the rate of skin cancer was much higher though, it would still favor greater sun exposure since the cancer that sun exposure makes you vulnerable to is visually detectable while the cancer that sun exposure protects you from is often only detectable by more invasive means. For some reason people seem much more amenable to getting a good visual skin inspection than a camera on a stick up the butt.

      That said, as an extremely pale physician (who can burn in bright flourescent light) with a family history of colon cancer and skin cancer... my choice is the safest route: I've been taking 800iu of Vitamin D daily for the past few years and happily wear my SPF 10^6.
    18. Re:Sunlight by isorox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cancer is only one potential risk. The sun worshipers I've known still are wrinkled way beyond their years.

      There's a difference between sun worshippers and people who go out in the sun, just as there's a difference between binge drinking and a glass of wine on a saturday night.

      All things in moderation.

    19. Re:Sunlight by isorox · · Score: 1

      sever sunburns I didn't realise it was possible to get such severe sunburn that your limbs fell off. Ouch. That's ok, I read it as server sunburns, which I've been known to get on some particularly long nights.
    20. Re:Sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientifically examining the efficacy of the presence or absence of a single nutrient is not possible. Stay inside. Go outside. Its all good.

    21. Re:Sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      hell, half the people who died before 1920 all have "died of a sudden" on their certificates. We just didn't know what the hell they died from, heart attack, fart attack, cancer, whatever. With new diagnostic tools and a penchant for autopsy, we're figuring out a lot more these days.

    22. Re:Sunlight by MightyDrunken · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Assuming your skin tone is not too light for your latitude then it seems likely that evolution over the last 10,000 years (last glacial period) or more has prepared your body against sun burn and cancer. So why can I look on a summer's beach and see so many sun burnt people? Ignoring the case where people have moved to somewhere much sunnier like Australia it's because of our lifestyle.

      Before a few hundred years ago almost everyone was outside all the time. This gave your skin a chance to slowly tan at the end of winter and into spring ready for the summer. My little sister who's fair like me starts to get a tan in March even though she lives in Wales (cloudy and wet weather). She spends most of her free time surfing, while I'm in front of my computer with no tan at all.
      The mistake we make now is spending hours outside on the sunniest days in mid summer without being outside all day in the cooler months. The worst thing you could do is go to sunnier climes and spend a week in the sun like so many western holiday makers. Sunburn = skin damage.

    23. Re:Sunlight by Gewalt · · Score: 1

      Cancer is only one potential risk. The sun worshipers I've known still are wrinkled way beyond their years.

      I like to call those fun lines. Its the tradeoff you make when having fun.
      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    24. Re:Sunlight by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 1

      Roman Senators were known to live into their 60's-70's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Caecilius_Metellus_Pius

      It all comes back to diet and exercise. Excessive alcohol and everyone thinking tobacco was healthy certainly didn't help anything.

    25. Re:Sunlight by Floritard · · Score: 1

      Whooooooosh!

    26. Re:Sunlight by gb506 · · Score: 1

      "Excessive alcohol and everyone thinking tobacco was healthy certainly didn't help anything."

      What, What!?

    27. Re:Sunlight by the_rtb · · Score: 1

      The solution to the age old problem of generations dying: Stuff people in a Schrödinger's box. Goodbye 100% mortality rate.

    28. Re:Sunlight by maxume · · Score: 1

      Low melanin production is a mutation beneficial to people living in northern climates because...wait for it...it helps them produce more vitamin D during the winter months.

      There is good evidence for their being multiple original populations in Africa, of varying skin tones, so who knows where Caucasians came from. It isn't something that wobbles around in 100 generations, or something that has mattered much for the last 1000 years.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    29. Re:Sunlight by maxume · · Score: 1

      I believe the proper term is "SPF Aluminum".

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    30. Re:Sunlight by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow...every doctor (including dermatologists) I've ever been to would seriously disagree. The "press" has nothing to do with that. The best you'll get from a "healthy tan" is skin that looks like an old football by the time you're 45...the worst you get is dead.

      As someone whose father (who spent WWII in the tropics) and has been battling various carcinomas his entire adult life, and whose grandfather (who worked outdoors a lot) died from melanoma, and whose best friends father (an avid golfer) is in the process of dying from one...I have to ask you where on earth you got this from?

    31. Re:Sunlight by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Whoooooooosh!!

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    32. Re:Sunlight by rising_hope · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps ironically, most of the people I know living here in Phoenix have much healthier, younger looking skin than people living in Michigan, where I'm originally from. My hypothesis (just a hypothesis -- I'm not a scientist, have done no case study, and am just throwing an explanation out there with no scientific evidence to back it) is that daily, frequent, regulated light exposure makes skin healthier. In Michigan, we tend to hibernate from October to April, so when the sun finally DOES come out, most of us get severe burns. Since moving here, I've been able to keep a perpetual tan just walking to and from my car everyday, and only ever burn if I'm in the sun significantly longer than my usual routine -- and the burns never last as long, and rarely are severe enough to cause peeling, as was frequently the case in Michigan. (I'm very fair skinned.) Another observation: in Michigan, particularly in the winter, my hands would dry out, crack, and occasionally bleed. Lip balm was equally essential to deal with drying. Naturally, you'd think moving to a significantly drier climate would do the same thing, but equally ironic, my skin has gone from normal to oily. The human body has an AMAZING ability to adapt. As one user points out, it's all in moderation. Most researchers point out that 15 minutes of intense, mid-day light exposure is enough to produce sufficient vitamin D. I'd say, if you live in a significantly sunny climate, just going about your daily routine is probably sufficient. If you don't, particularly in the winter months, it's important to spend as much time as humanly possibly outdoors to get sufficient sun rays, particularly in cloudy environments. But, when the sun DOES start to shine, make sure your exposure is minimal, and you slowly work up your body's ability to handle the sun, so you don't burn to a crisp, like most of us do.

    33. Re:Sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking retarded? Please learn how to use numbers in a sentence.

    34. Re:Sunlight by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Yet the press, over-reacting as usual, have scared people out of the sun and created a sunscreen industry overnight by failing to actually read the studies that were done. I couldn't agree more. It's gotten so bad that most women's cosmetics contain sunscreen. My mother for years thought she had osteoporosis. She went to a halfway decent doctor and found out it was just vitamin D deficiency. Her doctor wrote her a prescription for weekly sessions to a tanning salon, and she has been better ever since.

      It makes me wonder why women have higher instances of osteoporosis. Vitamin D maybe? Most doctors don't test for it.
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    35. Re:Sunlight by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      It goes beyond that. I recall seeing a few studies that aimed to show the exact effect of getting too much sun on skin cancer rates, by studying life guards in Australia, and comparing them to office workers. And it turns out they found the opposite correlation. Office workers had a high incidence of skin cancer, and it was completely unheard of amongst people who spend all of their time in bathing suits soaking up the sun. Probably because they are bronzed and don't burn, and the pasty white guy goes to the beach one day and gets a bad burn. And quite possibly tying in with this study, that the lack of vitamin D from sunlight is bad for you.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    36. Re:Sunlight by vertinox · · Score: 2

      There's no evidence to suggest people died earlier 5,000 or 50,000 years ago -- and there's strong counter evidence for that during historical periods of the last 3-5k years.

      I'm not sure where you got that information, but in the middle ages it was recorded by the people of the day (especially the tax keepers and clergy) about mortality. It was indeed higher during 1200s to the 1600s mostly due to disease, famine, and violence.

      Yes, you could live to be 80+ years of age, but when you are living in your own filth, covered in fleas and lice, and living with rats then you are going to have a greater chance of dieing young from a communicable disease. There is no if's, ands, or buts about it.

      Of course the black death did skew the numbers in 1345 when 1/3 of Europe died almost over night, but god help you if you had a common cold or some simple infection that requires anti-botics today.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    37. Re:Sunlight by MrMr · · Score: 1

      Yep, two whooooshes is about right.

    38. Re:Sunlight by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also, you can get your vitamin D from supplements. The type of Vitamin D from supplements is typically D2 which is 1/3 as potent as D3, produced naturally from exposure to sunlight. Source I've heard this from doctors, too.

      Just go outside for 10 minutes every day. It's not that bad.
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    39. Re:Sunlight by Amisinthe · · Score: 1

      Actually, lifespans were quite normal. If you lived to be 10 you could expect to live to be 60. The problem was, many did NOT live to be 10, and when you're taking an average, (60+0)/2 = 30, so just looking at average lifespans you see very low numbers.

      But certainly, exposure to sun was not what was killing people back then anyway. It was usually disease, starvation, and war.

    40. Re:Sunlight by Amisinthe · · Score: 1

      Also, cancer doesn't need outside influences, your body will do it all on its own. If we were all immortal (no programmed life span) we would eventually all die of cancer.

    41. Re:Sunlight by rubah · · Score: 1

      Lets see, did I forget any of the other discredited cancer scares? cellphones?
    42. Re:Sunlight by NIckGorton · · Score: 1

      Actually, lifespans were quite normal. If you lived to be 10 you could expect to live to be 60. The problem was, many did NOT live to be 10, and when you're taking an average, (60+0)/2 = 30, so just looking at average lifespans you see very low numbers. Actually you are quite wrong. The statistic you are searching for is the average life expectancy at age twenty. (Ten doesn't get you out of the ballpark for childhood diseases, so twenty is used.) The average life expectancy at age twenty for males in medieval Europe was 45. For women it was 40. http://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/92079/sample/9780521592079ws.pdf

      So, no. While those numbers are quite different from the overall life expectancy at birth (30-35 years) they are not even close to sixty, much less current life expectancies in developed countries of well into the 70's.
    43. Re:Sunlight by imstanny · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's a difference between sun worshippers and people who go out in the sun, just as there's a difference between binge drinking and a glass of wine on a saturday night. All things in moderation. Including moderation.
    44. Re:Sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like 99% taking into account cryonics, and zombies.

    45. Re:Sunlight by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There's fairly good evidence that the skin cancer risk of reasonable sun exposure is more than compensated by the anti-cancer properties of the vitamin D produced. That is not to say never use sunscreen and bake until your skin falls off.

      Five minutes exposure might be sufficient to avoid getting rickets if you're stretched out flat, naked and on the equator at high noon at the equinox. In most countries the sun intensity is less, you're often not naked and many times of the year the sun intensity is insufficient most or all of the day to produce any vitamin D. Plus it seems to be beneficial to have more than the minimum level to avoid being obviously sick.

    46. Re:Sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      especially moderation

    47. Re:Sunlight by puck01 · · Score: 1

      In a caucasian, 15 minutes of sunlight 3 times per week of the arms, legs and face is thought to be enough to synthesis a good level of vitamin D. Most people will easily get this much in the summer. It is the older population (such as in nursing homes) and those who have long winters will run low. In addition, african americans tend to run low. Those at risk should make up for it with diet or supplementation. Adequate vit D is not part of most peoples diet and supplementing the minimum dose is safe. Thus, I suggest to my patients a calcium with vitamin D tablet twice daily with 600mg calcium and 400 IU vitamin D.

    48. Re:Sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just didn't know what the hell they died from, heart attack, fart attack,

      Let's hope they didn't die of a fart attack!

    49. Re:Sunlight by puck01 · · Score: 1

      I'm a physician. I know a few dermatologists. None would suggest there is such a thing as a healthy tan. I'm not sure how you define 'normal exposure'. Also, cancer is not the only end point. Most would agree appearing young later in life is also an important endpoint. There is plent to suggest that sun exposure causes direct damage to the skin and this effect is additive over the years. That can readily be observed under a microscope in any given person.

      A caucasian receives adequate vitamin D synthesis after 15 minutes of sun exposure to arms lower legs and face three times per week. This is far less, I think, than what most would consider 'normal'. Also, supplementing with vitamin D is both safe and effective

      If you want to keep a dermatologist well funded and busy later on in life, go ahead and believe that regular sun exposure is healthy, but that is all it is, a belief.

    50. Re:Sunlight by jamrock · · Score: 0, Redundant

      All things in moderation.
      Even moderation.
    51. Re:Sunlight by icebike · · Score: 1

      And neither your father or grandfather ever ONCE got a sunburn?

      Read the literature on this subject. Even competent dermatologists have been publishing articles saying their own profession has gone overboard on the sunscreen issue.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    52. Re:Sunlight by puck01 · · Score: 1

      Most knowledgeable doctors do test for vitamin D deficiency in the right setting. Unfortunately, this is not the only factor. For older women, the bigger issue is estrogen deficiency which, as you may know, is not readily correctable without causing other problems. All post menopausal women should have adequate vitamin D intake...they do not necessarily need to be tested.

      A prescription to a tanning salon is not a good idea on several fronts. One its more expensive than the easiest solution, just take the correct calcium with vitamin D supplement twice a day. Its also a waste of time and gas to go to a tanning salon unnecessarily. A large 100+ tab bottle of supplements costs like $6. Second, UV ray exposure causes damage to the skin.

      Sounds like she needs to find a decent doctor...not just half-way decent.

    53. Re:Sunlight by icebike · · Score: 1

      Hey, back off. My spell checker said sever was fine. ;-)

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    54. Re:Sunlight by putzin · · Score: 1

      OK, two pieces to this. One, isn't all life mortal by design (you choose the designer, it's irrelevant here)? How can one increase the chance of mortality? I mean, you either are gonna die or you aren't. You can't be more or less *likely* to die unless you are referring to a time period, which seems to be assumed in all of the posts and the FA.

      If you aren't gonna die, where did you come from? What makes you different?

      --
      Bah
    55. Re:Sunlight by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      No, i'm not talking about people who like being outdoors and having fun. I'm talking about people who lie around all summer obsessed with getting tan. Vanity lines might be a better name for them.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    56. Re:Sunlight by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I was just going to mention Phoenix (and the southwest in general).

      I would guess that I get someone up north's daily sun intake buy just going about my daily business, without ever actively seeking it out (you'd have to be insane...) I started getting a rather decent tan within days of the temp hitting 100, and it generally sticks around until midwinter, with no effort on my behalf. And I'm probably as big a troglodyte as the typical geek here.

      Perhaps ironically, most of the people I know living here in Phoenix have much healthier, younger looking skin than people living in Michigan, where I'm originally from.

      This depends. a lot of the more blue collar folk I know have skin like leather after a decade of working here. As do most of the fashion conscious women here (which the bleached blonde hair, and extreme tan), which is really funny when you get around ASU.

      But then again my father has been living here for 30 years, and has about 5 pre-cancerous growths removed a year, and has have a couple burgeoning melanomas getting started of late.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    57. Re:Sunlight by Omestes · · Score: 1

      It isn't something that wobbles around in 100 generations, or something that has mattered much for the last 1000 years.

      Actually it DOES matter. Why do you think we started fortifying milk with vitamin D? The mostly black inner cities were plagued with rickets from insufficient natural vitamin D, thanks to their increased amount of melanin as compared to northern Europeans, which lead to a lesser ability to use calcium, resulting in rickets.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    58. Re:Sunlight by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Most knowledgeable doctors do test for vitamin D deficiency in the right setting. a) She had gone to several doctors before who tested for estrogen and not Vitamin D. (apparently it's not standard procedure.) One even put her on estrogen supplements anyway, with devastating consequences.

      just take the correct calcium with vitamin D supplement twice a day. b)Your body's Vitamin D is more effective. She used a special tanning bed that limited skin damage and maximized Vitamin D production. This was in conjunction with supplements that were closely monitored by her doctor.
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    59. Re:Sunlight by maxume · · Score: 1

      Fair point. I meant 'mattered much' in the sense that other factors have been much more important in determining the genetic profiles of various populations (migration and sex for the most part).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    60. Re:Sunlight by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      It would be nice to know the proper balance between too much and not enough. Given the fact that too much will cause cancer and an equally alarming rate. I did some research on this a while back. If I recall correctly, 10-20 minutes of direct exposure in the middle of the day is adequate. It depends on the fairness of your skin and your location on earth. Early morning and evening sunlight isn't effective, as is sunlight in locations North of the Arctic Circle and South of the Antarctic Circle.
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    61. Re:Sunlight by puck01 · · Score: 1

      Fortunately good doctors don't use usatoday as a reference. Fortunately I read peer-reviewed journals that are more recent than 2005 and can tell you there is somewhat of a religious type war going on with this topic with dermatologist on one side and endocrinologists on the other. I would suggesting reading the whole article you referenced. You will see even in it, there are two sides presented with someone else arguing the opposite.

      I can tell you that most practitioners do not believe what you are suggesting and I would agree with them. Appropriate supplementation is generally all that is needed. See my other posts in the discussion for details on what is appropriate. Prescribing UV light for this is generally not thought of as good practice and it makes you wonder what the motivations are for the person prescribing it, that is, do they own the treatment center?

    62. Re:Sunlight by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      You're missing a few points:

      1) Infant mortality. In the 1700s, you could expect about 50% of newborns to die before their first birthday.
      2) Childhood diseases. You could expect 50% of children to die before their 10th birthday.
      3) Accidents. You could expect 25% of teenagers to die or be crippled before their 20th birthday, because of a lack of experience and common sense.

      Once you reached your 20s (about one newborn in six), you had a good chance of living into your 70s -- that is, if you're a man. A woman had an additional 50% chance of dying in childbirth.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    63. Re:Sunlight by puck01 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and just because she has vitamin D deficiency does not mean she does not have osteoporosis. Vitamin D deficiency is a potential cause of osteoporosis. It is very common to have both at the same time.

      Correcting the deficiency can help prevent progression of osteoporosis and even strengthen the bones in some cases. Anyone with osteoporosis should, at a minimum, be on calcium and vitamin supplements anyway, which, again is not why it is always tested for. They should probably be on a bisphosphate as well unless their is a reason they can't take one.

    64. Re:Sunlight by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      They should probably be on a bisphosphate as well unless their is a reason they can't take one. Bisphosphonates? I'll give you a reason, Ostronecrosis of the jaw!
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    65. Re:Sunlight by Arterion · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was going to say, "But you're discounting vamprism!"

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    66. Re:Sunlight by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Something to keep in mind. If there is a family history of skin cancer, by all means, stay out of the sun! My family has no history of skin cancer, but we do have a history of osteoporosis. We consider moderate exposure to the sun, 10-15 minutes daily, beneficial.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    67. Re:Sunlight by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      I believe the concept of the "healthy tan" is that it is healthier to acquire a tan through limited exposure in preparation for longer exposure to the sun (for example, before going on vacation to a latitude and climate with more direct sunlight) than to avoid it prior and then burn. So it isn't "getting a tan is healthy" as much as "if you're going to be in the sun for extended periods either way, developing a tan first is healthy."

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    68. Re:Sunlight by puck01 · · Score: 1

      Skin cancer is only one bad outcome of sun exposure. UV light directly causes skin damage which causes advance aging of the skin. This is readily demonstarted on any one person by looking at skin under a microscope. Ignoring this is somewhat myopic when, again, appropriate supplementation is adequate.

    69. Re:Sunlight by rossifer · · Score: 1

      Given the fact that too much will cause cancer and an equally alarming rate.

      In case you're curious, that not a fact at all.

      Repeated mild sun exposure is associated with basal cell carcinoma. Uncommon, not aggressive, rarely metastasize, very rarely fatal.

      Repeated severe sun exposure is associated with malignant melanoma. Rare, highly aggressive, commonly metastasize, accounts for most skin cancer mortalities.

      And since getting out in the sun (without burning) helps to prevent and fight malignant melanoma? Yeah, regular mild sun exposure decreases your overall risk of dying from cancer. So put your man-pants on and get back in the sun.

    70. Re:Sunlight by rossifer · · Score: 1

      Historically, the hazard rate is higher (the cost of injuries was more severe), but once that's controlled for, the average lifespan of most indigenous populations on their own diet was longer than modern Americans and with better quality of life in later years.

    71. Re:Sunlight by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The body has mechanisms to prevent cancer and mechanisms to destroy a cancer that has started. It is only when these mechanisms fail that cancer leads to death. There's no reason to believe that we won't eventually find ways to help our bodies to prevent or destroy all cancers.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    72. Re:Sunlight by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      I once read somewhere (I think it was in a book but it could've been on the web) that it would take about 1000 years for a black population to turn white or vice versa given the correct environmental conditions.

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    73. Re:Sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      60 thousand years of human existence can't be discounted overnight.

      You've obviously never met a christian.

    74. Re:Sunlight by Heather+D · · Score: 1

      Good advice, that. Read outside for an hour every other day, set out a garden, get a notebook and wifi and work outside for a bit, it only takes about half an hour or so of exposure every other day.

    75. Re:Sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work graveyard you insensitive clod!

    76. Re:Sunlight by sexconker · · Score: 1

      If you're talking about the 1700s, a man doesn't get any guarantees when they hit 20.

      Their risk of death from war or job-related injuries skyrockets at that point.

    77. Re:Sunlight by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Damn SUN and their shitty servers amirite?

    78. Re:Sunlight by sexconker · · Score: 1

      That's aluminium.

    79. Re:Sunlight by maxume · · Score: 1

      Only in an obscure former world empire.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  4. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    We'll all going to die!

    1. Re:Oh no! by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Funny

      We'll all going to die! Scream a bit louder, then someone walking past the basement might hear you and let you out.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    2. Re:Oh no! by d4nowar · · Score: 0

      But what if mom hears?

    3. Re:Oh no! by ChenLiWay · · Score: 1

      We'll all going to die!

      I can believable!
  5. I'm not a beach bum by able1234au · · Score: 1

    This is just for my health

  6. In other news: by Frekko · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Lack of vitamin C will give you scurvy!
    Seriously, you only have to go to northern sweden/norway to see this in action. You'll find a combination of zombies and nutcases!

    I suspect similar results in canda and russia :D

    1. Re:In other news: by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Seriously, you only have to go to northern sweden/norway to see this in action. You'll find a combination of zombies and nutcases!

      OK wise guy... now explain California!

    2. Re:In other news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now explain California! Overdose?

    3. Re:In other news: by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      No, actually I think it is a combination of blue balls and vodka.

      --
      She made the willows dance
    4. Re:In other news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "OK wise guy... now explain California!"

      Easy. It's even more dangerous to mix basement-dwelling troglodytes with sunshine-loving surface dwellers. They may not interact much, but when they do all sorts of horrible side-effects can occur (read George Wells' "The Time Machine" for examples).

  7. In other news.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lack of causes . But be careful cause excess of causes

  8. And the sun causes skin cancer. by fyoder · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have this uneasy feeling that sooner or later, we're all going to die.

    --
    Loose lips lose spit.
    1. Re:And the sun causes skin cancer. by MrMr · · Score: 1

      But if we grease up real good, we may look like baby corpses in the end.

  9. Re:first post by umghhh · · Score: 2, Funny

    and outside one may get onto these creatures, they call them women, strangely they all wear clothes and behave differently than in documentaries that we like to watch between coding sessions.

  10. News for nerds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all you basement people if you're like me and have a lack of D3 then take some meds. I my case its not because I don't go out (I do.. but not much) but due to some rare disease.

    1. Re:News for nerds! by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      For all you basement people if you're like me and have a lack of D3 then take some meds. I my case its not because I don't go out (I do.. but not much) but due to some rare disease. Albinism?
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  11. A technological solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Time to add another UV tube to my growing collection of case mods.

  12. Clearly wrong by ianpm · · Score: 5, Funny

    If this were true, then Vampires would die young. But they're immortal. Thus this theory holds no water.

    I should like, totally do science for a living.

    1. Re:Clearly wrong by TuringTest · · Score: 5, Funny

      This may shock you:

      vampires are dead!

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    2. Re:Clearly wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally did science last week. She's hot.

    3. Re:Clearly wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Undead, thank you very much.

    4. Re:Clearly wrong by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Not dead enough ;)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    5. Re:Clearly wrong by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      only mostly dead.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    6. Re:Clearly wrong by tensop · · Score: 1

      from lack of sunlight?

    7. Re:Clearly wrong by wilec · · Score: 1

      "

      This may shock you:

      vampires are dead!"

      Really, I think I have often heard them called the undead, or was that the zombies, or maybe it was the Republican party post Bush?

      wabi-sabi
      matthew

  13. Vitamin D and auto-immune diseases by Kingston · · Score: 3, Informative

    Low levels of vitamin D have been implicated in the susceptibility and severity of attack in patients who have auto-immune diseases. Multiple Sclerosis and Rheumatoid Arthritis are two of the diseases that seem to show a link. Coversely, patients suffering from Sarcoidosis ( another auto-immune disease ) where the body produces too much vitamin D, may benefit from staying out of the sun and cutting vitamin D out of their diet.

    1. Re:Vitamin D and auto-immune diseases by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can understand why MS patients lack vitamin D, but it may be BECAUSE they have MS tht they have less vitamin D.

      As George Carlin would have said:

      I can understand why people with MS don't get enough sun. I had a friend who had MS. Taking him anywhere was tough. It wasn't like I could just hook a chain to his wheelchar and just TOW the motherfucker to a party ...

      Going to the Dairy Queen was out of the question. You couldn't give him a milkshake. With his tremors, he'd just churn that shit into butter. Bet he would have been great milking a cow - just duct-tape his hands to those cow-tits and let 'er rip.

      He got alzheimers in his late 30's. His family knew about it, but rather than tell him early on, so he could make the best of what time he had left, the cocksuckers made it into a big secret. They got pissed off at me because I told him, "Dude, you got the fucking alzheimers!" I don't know why they had to be such cunts and not tell him ... it's not like he'd remember anyway.

    2. Re:Vitamin D and auto-immune diseases by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's unlikely. MS has a significantly higher incidence at higher latitudes, where the sun is weaker. There are studies, some published, I think, and some ongoing right now at my university showing that vitamin D has a protective and possibly a therapeutic effect on MS.

  14. This just in... by Pinchiukas · · Score: 5, Funny

    you should live a healthy life if you don't want to die early.

    1. Re:This just in... by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Funny

      But if living an unhealthy life makes you die young, and only the good die young, isn't it good to live an unhealthy life?

    2. Re:This just in... by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      No, an unhealthy life does not guarantee you dying young and since not all the good die young, it just follows that it CAN be good to live an unhealthy life.

      --
      She made the willows dance
    3. Re:This just in... by aztektum · · Score: 1

      After reading about George Carlin, the first thing that popped into my head while reading about this is "WARNING: By living you increase your chances of fucking dying."

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    4. Re:This just in... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      The problem is that a healthy life in a northern countries includes consuming animal fat to compensate for lack of sunlight. So if you don't drink milk or eat bacon; you are screwed.

      I blame rising cases of D-vitamin deficiency on vegans.

  15. Milk as subsitute? by BountyX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    does vitamin d in milk contain the same sub-elements as that found in UV? If not, would milk be a viable alternative to UV exposure at all?

    --
    Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    1. Re:Milk as subsitute? by iamapizza · · Score: 5, Funny

      Only if you're Gisele Bundchen and pour it all over yourself.

      --
      Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
    2. Re:Milk as subsitute? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Only if the cow doesn't live in a basement as well.
      But more seriously, lots of milk brands add vitamin D to their product.

    3. Re:Milk as subsitute? by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      I don't think I've ever seen milk with vitamin D. Not that I've looked for it or anything. Why would they add it? Or maybe Australia is sunny enough that nobody worries about it?

    4. Re:Milk as subsitute? by will_die · · Score: 1

      Here is an article that talks about Vit D malnutrian in Australia.
        They and New Zealand do not fortify milk, butter, etc.

    5. Re:Milk as subsitute? by mdekato · · Score: 1

      Vitamin A & D, found in milk, comes in a bottle and is added after milk has been separated, pastuerized and homogenized. Funny I never thought my high school job at the dairy would provide material for discussion.

    6. Re:Milk as subsitute? by JazzHarper · · Score: 2, Informative

      Milk doesn't provide enough to make a significant contribution. In the US, almost all milk sold commercially has been fortified with 400 IU of D3 per quart.

      Your skin will make up to 10,000 IU per day, *if* you get 10-15 minutes of direct sunlight. Your body's ability to do that diminishes with age.

      In April, my doctor had me take a 25-hydroxy D3 test (which Blue Cross refused to pay for, BTW), and found that my level was 19.5 ng/mL. Recent studies show that 32 ng/mL is a minimum threshold for good health (Hollis, J Nutr. 2005 Feb; 135(2); 317-22). He prescribed a series of 50,000 IU capsules, one every 4 days.

      I might point out that I'm a cyclist--I get plenty of sun in the summer--but I am over 50.

      Also, good luck trying to find 50,000 IU D3 capsules in any store.

      Anyway, here are some interesting articles:
      http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

      For the conspiracy-minded among you, there has been a proposal on the table to increase the MDI, but the pharmaceutical companies don't want the recommendation adopted until they have developed some patentable analogues.

    7. Re:Milk as subsitute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link please

    8. Re:Milk as subsitute? by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately we got milk on the camera before we were able to upload the video.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    9. Re:Milk as subsitute? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Usually only very low fat ones add it. Removing the fat eliminates the fat-soluble vitamins as well I guess.

  16. Rainy Ireland and vitamin D by ma11achy · · Score: 1


    I could make money from this....

    1) Show article to constantly rained upon and miserably wet Irish population
    2) Go catch some fish (Vit D) and sell it
    3) Profit!!!!

    4) Get rained on

    --
    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
  17. Bullshit by Kokuyo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There's plenty enough light coming through even in winter. It's just that you usually don't really get exposed to much of it while sitting in a frickin' cubicle during the decidedly short days in winter.

    I do not trust studies that tell me I have to take stuff to be healthy. Going out an hour a day is enough to produce enough vitamin D. We need so little of it to properly function. The true problem lies in the fact that we just are either too lazy to get out or have built our society around a schedule that doesn't allow for it.

    This dude, in my opinion, is in the pockets of the pharmaceutic industry, trying to sell us more stupid medicine we don't really need.

    1. Re:Bullshit by zoney_ie · · Score: 2, Informative

      We sometimes have entire months here in Ireland with little direct sunshine (I think last year some places had an entire 80 day block with rain each day, and that was in the lousy summer we had last year).

      In any case, it's not a matter of the amount of light in winter. It is to do with UVB rays, and these don't reach us in the winter due to the sun being low in the horizon and refraction from the rays passing through more atmosphere. Not only that, but even past the height of winter, these rays only reach us when the sun is higher in the sky (the middle of the day).

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    2. Re:Bullshit by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Going out for an hour a day in the summer yes, but in the winter, UVB is rarefied at higher latitudes. UVB availability has little to do with how much visible light there is. There can be tons of UVB and very little visible (cloudy day in the middle of summer) and tons of visible, but practically no UVB (clear blue day in December).

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Bullshit by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

      This dude, in my opinion, is in the pockets of the pharmaceutic industry, trying to sell us more stupid medicine we don't really need. Pfizer has patented sunlight? Oh noes!
      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    4. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's plenty enough light coming through even in winter. It's just that you usually don't really get exposed to much of it while sitting in a frickin' cubicle during the decidedly short days in winter.

      I do not trust studies that tell me I have to take stuff to be healthy. Going out an hour a day is enough to produce enough vitamin D. We need so little of it to properly function. The true problem lies in the fact that we just are either too lazy to get out or have built our society around a schedule that doesn't allow for it.

      This dude, in my opinion, is in the pockets of the pharmaceutic industry, trying to sell us more stupid medicine we don't really need.

      Then you have clearly never ever been near the arctic circle. Most of scandinavia has for example little to no sunlight at all during winter months. Even if you live in areas south of arctic circle, the sun will still be so low in the sky that you dont even feel it. The lower the sun is the weaker it is.
    5. Re:Bullshit by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Going out an hour a day is enough to produce enough vitamin D.

      But we don't wants to, Master. It burnss us. Don't make uss go away from preciouss...

      *huggles his monitor*

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    6. Re:Bullshit by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Going out an hour a day is enough to produce enough vitamin D.

      How many computer nerds go outside for an hour a day wearing clothes that expose a significant amount of their body to the sunlight?

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    7. Re:Bullshit by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It depends where you live. At my latitude if you went out naked all day and sunbathed (you'd die, but ignoring that) you'd still get hardly any vitamin D at all.

      However, vitamin D is a fat soluble vitamin. Normally you'd get lots in the summer and store it up for winter. That requires that you gain weight in the summer and LOSE it during the winter though.

      So for many people in industrialized countries, which tend to be at high latitude, a vitamin D supplement in the winter time is a good idea. Or you could just eat more fish.

    8. Re:Bullshit by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      We sometimes have entire months here in Ireland with little direct sunshine
      Years, more like.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  18. Matrix blunder by elguillelmo · · Score: 1

    This is gonna be an inconvenience when mankind decides to clog the skies to prevent environmentally friendly intelligent machines from getting their energy from the sun!

    --
    Dawkins Revisited: A person is shit's way of making more shit -- Steve Barnett, anthropologist.
  19. Confounding by fadunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article acknowledges its own shortcomings: Vitamin D levels could possibly be used as a measurement of sunlight exposure in people not taking supplements and not conscientiously eating the proper foods. So when someone's chronically ill or massively overweight and doesn't go outside to exercise, their vitamin D levels will be decreased. Those people already have an increased 8 year mortality regardless of how much vitamin D they consume or have in their diet. It's like the studies "linking" coffee to lung cancer years ago: once it was realized that lots of people smoke when they drink coffee, those studies looked ridiculous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding_variable

  20. Makes sense by Amiralul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, that would explain the lower population number in Norway, for instance, where Wikipedia says that they are only 4.7 millions inhabitants in such a beautiful country.

    If your vitamin D level gets down during winter and you catch a rainy summer, you're doomed!

  21. decisions decisions by uxbn_kuribo · · Score: 3, Funny

    deathmatch and early death, or exercising and long life... the choice is clear *starts up HL2*

    --
    No portion of this post may be rebroadcast without the express, written consent of Major League Baseball.
  22. I knew having red hair would benefit me one day! by nowhere.elysium · · Score: 1

    Haha! You guys may well be screwed, but us ginger-haired folks are sorted: we've evolved in such a manner that we produce our own vitamin D...

    --
    http://xkcd.com/313/
  23. Skin cancer vs. lung cancer by Jeff+Jungblut · · Score: 3, Funny

    I always stand in the sun when I smoke. Do I break even?

    1. Re:Skin cancer vs. lung cancer by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I always stand in the sun when I smoke. Do I break even?

      Maybe if you open wide enough to let the sun shine down your lungs?
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:Skin cancer vs. lung cancer by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      I always stand in the sun when I smoke. Do I break even?

      Are you wearing sun screen while doing so?
      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  24. Super nerd solution gets the girls! by rhynobabel · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or is there a suspiciously low volume of comments so far for this particular topic.....methinks we /. readers should get out more and risk the blinding light. Recently I installed a bank of sun lamps emitting the D3 production wavelength over a beach lounger in a sandpit located pretty much right next to my scourge of an office chair, that are programed to flip on when I visit a beach in Second Life. I switch chairs (I know, I know....but I have to actually move my body for this step), strip to my Copacabana banana-hanger, lather-up any translucent body parts, grab my wireless lotion-proof keyboard and I'm livin' longer baby! A bunch of old monitors (hooded....it really is pretty bright) arrayed around me keeps the babes in view....but they still never seem to talk to me and I can't figure out why... And my boss is pissed about all the sand, "blah blah you track it everywhere around the CO blah-blah blah it's getting into the switches and Litespan multiplexers blah blah". Ok I must take your leave and head over to the virtual beach now, since the really freaky-hot avatars are roaming about at this hour...

  25. In related news... by Octopus · · Score: 1

    Neckbeards have been linked to throat cancer.

    Time to shave, you lazy bastards.

    By the way, you smell like old hot dog water.

  26. Increased mortality by sctprog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Last I checked the mortality rate was 100%

  27. Well... by Gr33n3gg · · Score: 1

    ...I guess mom was right.

  28. Careful with too much Vit D by Critical_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Disclaimer: IAAJD (I am a junior doctor) but this is NOT medical advice. Please consult your physician for your specific situation.

    Vitamin D supplements come in two forms: ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol. Studies suggest that cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) increases serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH-D) more efficiently than does ergocalciferol (vitamin D2). Milk in the United States has been fortified with vitamin D3 (the natural form made through sunlight) since the 1940. This was mandated and reduced the incidence rate of juvenile rickets by 85% in the United States.

    Calcitriol is the most active metabolite of vitamin D. It can frequently cause hypercalcemia and/or hypercalciuria, necessitating close monitoring and adjustment of calcium intake and calcitriol dose. Therefore, it isn't recommended that calcitriol be given for vitamin D supplementation in osteoporosis. However, calcitriol or other vitamin D analogs are an important component of therapy for secondary hyperparathyroidism in chronic kidney disease.

    Now to the meat and potatoes of this post. The intake at which the dose of vitamin D becomes toxic is not clear. In 1997, the National Academy of Sciences defined the Safe Upper Limit for vitamin D as 2000 IU/day. Newer data however indicate that higher doses are safe at least over a several-month period. Doses as high as 10,000 IU per day for up to five months were not associated with toxicity. It is important to inquire about additional dietary supplements (some of which contain vitamin D) that patients may be taking before prescribing extra vitamin D. Excessive vitamin D, especially combined with calcium supplementation may cause hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, and kidney stones.

    So be careful and only take the amounts listed on your supplement bottles and inquire with your doctor before starting anything. We have a mentality here in the United States that more is better. When it comes to the human body moderation is key.

    As a side note, I also don't really understand the significance of Vitamin D's fat solubility making it any more or less dangerous in higher dosages.

    1. Re:Careful with too much Vit D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: IAAJD (I am a junior doctor) but this is NOT medical advice.

      When was the last time anyone was sued for giving crappy advice on Slashdot? As if someone is going to point the finger and say "but G0ggle3y35 on slashdot said I should eat plutonium pellets" and blame them for their cancer. And besides you gave good advice so stand up and be proud of it, mate!

      IANAJD (a bit beyond that now), but IANAOBSOS (I am not afraid of being sued on slashdot).

    2. Re:Careful with too much Vit D by NovaHorizon · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm glad SOMEONE pointed out that we added Vitamin D3 to milk back in the 40's to deal with the issue of not getting enough sunlight. It means I don't have to worry about my non existent mod rating keeping people from seeing me say it.

      So.. now on the pushed side of it.. why not.. say... to compete with even further lack of sunlight.. oh I don't know...

      DRINK MORE MILK

      Hey.. that solution for a few problems has been out for a while even.

      Also.. I wonder if the scientists for this study failed the week in high school history when talking about the industrial revolution? Why else repeat a study on low Vitamin D being an issue 60+ years later?

    3. Re:Careful with too much Vit D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm the OP.

      There are several reasons to repeat the study. The issue in the 1940's was rickets but today we're seeing an increasing number of diseases such as "cancer, stroke, sudden cardiac death and death of heart failure" with Vitamin D playing a factor. We would be arrogant as doctors to assume we know everything so this deserves further investigation. Furthermore, the ill effects of years of media scare stories of the sun's "harmful rays" has lead people to put on sunscreen when they reluctantly go out.

      The article mentions that nearly half the elderly population in the United States has low Vitamin D. This isn't surprising because they rarely go out due to the ravages of aging. Children, though, as also being seen with increasingly low levels of Vitamin D--probably having a lot to do with parents insisting children not play outside due to safety issues and also caking them over with sunscreen. Until these issues are publicized and new protocols issued on the standard of care, these studies will be necessary. Going outside isn't the only solution but its far better than just drinking more milk. We must start focusing very heavily on easily modifiable variables so we can prevent diseases in tomorrow's aging population.

    4. Re:Careful with too much Vit D by Alsee · · Score: 1

      As a side note, I also don't really understand the significance of Vitamin D's fat solubility making it any more or less dangerous in higher dosages.

      I have a guess why that might be true. Anything dissolved in fat is pretty much inactive so long as it remains stored there. When you lose weight your body breaks down and consumes your fat reserves - any fat-soluble stuff stored there generally gets dumped out into the bloodstream. If you continue vitamin D intake while fat breakdown dumps stored vitamin D into your blood stream, that might spike the level of active circulating vitamin D to dangerous levels. That would be true for pretty much anything that builds up in fat tissues.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:Careful with too much Vit D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of litigation in the medical industry is insane. I don't blame him.

    6. Re:Careful with too much Vit D by chriseyre2000 · · Score: 1

      How about Bundling Vit D tablets with sunscreen?

    7. Re:Careful with too much Vit D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I also don't really understand the significance of Vitamin D's fat solubility making it any more or less dangerous in higher dosages.

      Water soluble compounds (e.g. Vitamin C) are flushed from the body regularly through the urine. Fat soluble compounds don't have such an easy exit. They accumulate. Fat is storage after all.
    8. Re:Careful with too much Vit D by yabos · · Score: 1

      Many people don't like to drink milk because they are lactose intolerant or maybe they don't want to drink the over stressed cow's milk that comes from cows injected with hormones to increase production. BVGH does make it into the milk and even though the FDA says it doesn't do anything to humans, I don't think I really want to be ingesting some other animal's hormones than you very much.

    9. Re:Careful with too much Vit D by yabos · · Score: 1

      Or adding vitamin D to the sun screen, assuming that it can be absorbed through the skin.

    10. Re:Careful with too much Vit D by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Different issue, perhaps? I don't believe they were studying rickets.

      Vitamin D is proving to be involved in rather more diseases than we previously thought.

    11. Re:Careful with too much Vit D by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      Medical litigation is based on finding the juiciest target. Unless you put in your sig "my medical practice nets $2mil per annum" then I doubt anyone is gonna go ambulance-chasing on here.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    12. Re:Careful with too much Vit D by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

      Milk in the United States has been fortified with vitamin D3 (the natural form made through sunlight) since the 1940. This was mandated and reduced the incidence rate of juvenile rickets by 85% in the United States.

      Ah yes, I do miss those times in the late 30s, when me and Bill used to go down to the old school yard at lunch time with a pipe and just sit back and listen to the rickets.

      I often heard them at night as well, never could quite work out where the bastards were though.

    13. Re:Careful with too much Vit D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, milk is fortified with vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) - not the kind made by sunlight but the kind extracted from fungi. In fact, most fortified foods are fortified with D2. Hence the debate as to whether D2 is as potent as D3.

      It is also important to note that while milk is required to be fortified, other dairy products (like ice cream, yogurt, and cheese) are not.

      Finally, vitamin D can be dangerous because it is absorbed by passive diffusion in the gut (i.e. transport is not "controlled"). However, the body is pretty good at controlling the amount of provitamin D (what we consume in food or make via sunlight) converted into vitamin D (via hydroxylation at carbon 1). Vitamin D toxicity is a concern though for people who have faulty feedback regulation (uncontrolled PTH levels or calcium sensing mechanisms, etc.).

  29. Crash course in Vitamin D by Sapphon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Vitamin D is produced by the skin in response to certain wavelengths of ultraviolet light, and as such is not a true vitamin (since vitamins are substances we can't naturally produce -- it's a hormone). Vitamin D is also found in certain fats (e.g. cod-liver oil).

    This basic form of Vitamin D gets processed by the liver into an second form (25-hydroxyvitamin D3), and then by the kidneys into the active form 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3, which tells your body how much calcium to draw out of your food. If you don't have enough calcium in your diet, but enough Vitamin D, the body can even draw the calcium out of your bones. Calcium is also required for the correct transmission of brain signals, so too little vitamin D can also lead to seizures.

    To veer back to the OP's question: whether the synthetic vitamin D additive to milk products (as opposed to the vitamin D we used to create in foods in the 1920's and 1930's using mecury lamp ultraviolet radiation) is Vitamin D or Vitamin D3 is pretty much irrelevant for our body, but I believe it is the latter, yes.

    Aside: Did you know we can cure cancer with Vitamin D? Sadly, the dosis required is lethal to humans... they're working on it.

    --
    Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
    1. Re:Crash course in Vitamin D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When this was discussed a year ago I was desperate enough to try it. I had severe constant back pain from a squashed vertebrae (that happened from lifting a garbage bag out of the container under the sink) that was worsened from playing very gentle soccer on a sandy beach. It astonished me that I hurt my back just from the soccer and I was pretty desperate for a solution. After reading the article, I knew that my vitamin D intake was low because (1) I am allergic to fish, (2) I don't drink milk, (3) I'm half way to a century, (4) I'm a basement-loving geek.

      I started taking fish oil (containing both vitamin A and D -- they work together) and immediately reduced my pain levels. Since then I have tried a combination of mostly synthetic D + fish oil (did not work as well, yet got the symptoms of over consumption) and eventually found the lowest level that took away all pain -- about 1,500 IU per day or about double what the article suggests.

      In addition to the risk factor we geeks share for being outside less than average, vitamin D absorption declines with age and the average slashgeek seems to be in their forties or fifties.

      Increasing my intake of vitamin D has saved my life, and especially the quality of my life. Frankly, I'm surprised the medical profession let this information out.

      And now back to the vampire and sunburn jokes...

    2. Re:Crash course in Vitamin D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know we can cure cancer with Vitamin D? Sadly, the dosis required is lethal to humans... they're working on it. If the dose is lethal, isn't that statement trivially true? If you're dead, you're not suffering from cancer anymore.
    3. Re:Crash course in Vitamin D by ProppaT · · Score: 1

      You can also cure AIDS with bleach. I still haven't seen anyone line up for the IV drip yet, though.

      --
      Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    4. Re:Crash course in Vitamin D by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Vitamin D is produced by the skin in response to certain wavelengths of ultraviolet light, and as such is not a true vitamin (since vitamins are substances we can't naturally produce -- it's a hormone).

      What's your take on vitamin K (which "we" produce through our intestinal flora)? Izzat not a "true" vitamin either? Just curious, since I figured it stood for vital amine, not for "can't be produced by us"... that would sortof make a lot of other things vitamins (salt, for starters).
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:Crash course in Vitamin D by pla · · Score: 1

      Aside: Did you know we can cure cancer with Vitamin D? Sadly, the dosis required is lethal to humans...

      You could say the same for a bullet...

    6. Re:Crash course in Vitamin D by Serge_Tomiko · · Score: 1

      It should be be noted that even doses 5x to 10x the recommended USRDA can be toxic.

      It is far safer to go to a tanning salon for 5 minutes than to go crazy with Vitamin D pills. Your body naturally will produce the sufficient amount of this hormone.

    7. Re:Crash course in Vitamin D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know we can cure cancer with Vitamin D?

      It's actually really easy to kill cancer cells. There are breakthroughs all the time about new ways to kill them. The hard part is killing them without killing the person they're inside, too.

    8. Re:Crash course in Vitamin D by sricetx · · Score: 1

      Fish oil also contains omega 3 fatty acids (DHA, EPA), which reduce inflammation. These compounds in the fish oil would have helped your back pain as well. Fish oil is truly great stuff for you health.

    9. Re:Crash course in Vitamin D by Sapphon · · Score: 1

      No idea about Vitamin K, but Vitamins did start out as Vital Amines = Vitamaines. When the science folk realised not all vitamins were amines, they dropped the "e".

      The Wik also has a bit on the difference between vitamins and essential minerals or acids (I figure you're more likely to read this than the papers I would generally reference).

      --
      Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
    10. Re:Crash course in Vitamin D by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      The Wik also has a bit on the difference between vitamins and essential minerals or acids (I figure you're more likely to read this than the papers I would generally reference). Yes, yes I am :)
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    11. Re:Crash course in Vitamin D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't write off the epa in the fish oil as being the major cause of the reduced back inflammation.

      i'm on an anti-inflammatory diet known as the zone diet. the epa in ultra refined fish oil is the single most important anti-inflammatory component of the diet.

      my friend ended 5.5 years of constant back pain in a single day on the zone diet (including fish oil). 3 days later she stopped taking her ulcer medication. this is less than a month after she spent $10k, out of pocket, on medical imaging to try and identify exactly what was causing her pain. don't thin this was anything less than major, debilitating back pain.

      the woman who referred me to the zone diet was able to stop taking 17 aspirins a day in an effort to control her rsi and surgery related pain. her diet now controlled her inflammation.

      i have ulnar nerve compression across my left elbow (the right arm was surgically repaired. due to falling apart after 19 years of muscle atrophy, i started the zone and began exercising 1 year ago - after 19 years of near total muscle atrophy. i lost 25 lbs (i'm 41, 5'-10", 161 lbs and leaner than I've ever been in my adult life) and added 70 lbs to my bench press - that's over 43% of my body weight. My compressed nerve is not much worse than a year ago, which is amazing to me since i was so scared of further damage i didn't exercise it for almost a decade after my right arm surgery.

      the zone diet teaches that excessive omega 6 fatty acids, in particular, arachidonic acid, drives cellular inflammation. long chain omega 3 epa works to divert some of the omega 6 fatty acids from the pro-inflammatory eicosanoid path over to the anti-inflammatory eicosanoid path.

      if true, and i believe it is through personal anecdotal evidence, then you should limit omega 6 fatty acids and increase long chain omega 3 fatty acids in order to reduce cellular inflammation and pain like back pain.

      1. vegetable oil is high in omega 6. throw it out and start cooking with extra virgin olive oil. get the kind that finishes peppery as that indicates the presence of an anti-inflammatory phytochemical.
      2. egg yolks have a ton of arachidonic acid. find an egg substitute and ditch the egg yolks.
      3. eat more chicken and less beef. if you eat beef, eat the lean cuts. animal fat is high in omega 6 fatty acids.
      4. supplement with long chain omega 3 fatty acids (epa and dha are both good).
      5. eat a diet that moderates your glycemic load and, therefore, your insulin response. this will control the production of the delta-5-desaturase enzyme that works with omega 6 to drive cellular inflammation.

      i'll look into vitamin d supplementation as it might be lacking in my diet as evidenced by my lack of tan. ;-)

    12. Re:Crash course in Vitamin D by Heather+D · · Score: 1

      Aside: Did you know we can cure cancer with Vitamin D? Sadly, the dosis required is lethal to humans... they're working on it.

      Hmm, we can do this with chlorine too, but it's problematic when used for medicinal purposes.

  30. To the death! by Wowsers · · Score: 1

    You will prise my warm AMD only from my cold dead fingers! How dare anyone suggest I get out more.

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:To the death! by dogganos · · Score: 1

      You're right my friend. Enough with this 'do-this-don't-do-that', 'live healthy' etc etc, blah, blah. As someone sarcastically remarked, 'if you want to live a hundred years, quit all the things that make you want to live a hundred years...'

  31. Whassat? by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sun...light?

    Now you're just making stuff up!

    I used to believe you, Slashdot. But now you're all 'sun' this, and 'outside' that, like all those other nutbags! Screw you guys! Go ahead, go outside, see if I care! Maybe you'll get eaten by one of those 'wild animal' things you people are always going on about. Like a..uh..what was it...beer? Bar? Oh, right... A bear! Maybe you'll get eaten by a bear! It'd serve you right!

    This post was brought to you by the latter hours of a horrible caffeine bender which failed to see anything accomplished. Enjoy!

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
    1. Re:Whassat? by Mastadex · · Score: 1

      A bear?? What do you think this is, National Geographic?

      You are likely to be eaten by a grue!!

      --
      A morning without coffee is like something without something else.
    2. Re:Whassat? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      Are you guys talking about the really big room with the blue ceiling?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    3. Re:Whassat? by syrinx · · Score: 1
      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    4. Re:Whassat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After I left the military I spent several years indoors (say from 2003 to about, well, now) and developed severe pollen allergies as a result (and possibly more, I have no real way of knowing how much damage I've done).

      My point is that 1) some people really do stay inside this much and 2) if you're really inside this much, you'll have other definite symptoms way before you start to notice anything like this.

      Of course I'm more guinea pig than doctor, so YMMV.

  32. Fat soluble vs. water soluble by PontifexPrimus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that the problem with lipophilic substances is that they can lead to poisoning easier because they tend to accumulate in the fatty tissues of the body and cannot be excreted easily; an excess of water soluble vitamins on the other hand would be flushed out the next time you urinate.
    Disclaimer: I'm not even a little bit of a doctor, so this might be completely wrong or misremembered... :)

    --
    -- Language is a virus from outer space.
    1. Re:Fat soluble vs. water soluble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      OP is correct. fat soluble vitamins such as A, E are stored in cells and can be very toxic. water soluble vitamins, although easily flushed from the body, can still cause several diseases. there is no significant difference in how easy or difficult a vitamin builds up concentration. it comes down to the bodies ability to metabolize substances.

      there are far tighter levels on water soluble vitamin overdose levels than fat soluble. it also logically follows that fatter people can take more into their cells than a skinnier person. this isn't a factor with water soluble vitamins. good on the OP for being astute to the error in the summary.

      wikipedia overdose link

    2. Re:Fat soluble vs. water soluble by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      If you take a stupid high dose that has toxic effects before the kidneys have any chance to flush it out then you're perfectly correct. The danger with fat soluble vitamins is that more reasonable doses will build up long term until they cause problems while excess water soluble vitamins are simply excreted.

      See the sibling post to this one by an actual doctor.

  33. I'm told this study means nothing by MLS100 · · Score: 4, Funny

    My MD said it's nothing to worry about because I'll usually make the saving throw for death from vitamin deficiency due to my high stamina as an ogre.

    Err, wait that was my DM...

    Still, he does play a Cleric.

  34. that's the beauty of the natural world by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    scientists try to scare us about global warming, but nature has a way to balance things out, we don't have to do anything to fight global warming:

    with hotter temperatures, vampires get more sun, thus dying off. with less vampires to prey on pirates, pirate numbers explode, thus lowering global temperatures. with global temperatures down, vampires get less sun, rebound in population, and begin keeping piurate populations in check again

    see the beauty and wonder of the natural world?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:that's the beauty of the natural world by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Won't someone PLEASE think about the ninjas?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:that's the beauty of the natural world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes my friend, you seem to have it all worked out.

      Except that you forgot one very important factor is this equation:

      Ninjas.

  35. Legal Ramifications by gurutc · · Score: 1

    If this is true, what do they do about inmate populations in jails and prisons? Incarcerated persons often get no direct sunlight exposure. It will be interesting to see if changes are made.

    --
    Moderation in All Things... Especially Moderation - gurutc
  36. Weston Price by jrushton · · Score: 1

    If you are not aware of the work of Weston Price into nutrition and the effects of following the dangerous path we currently walk as a society you should be! His book is available from the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation.

    As for Vitamin D, try eating shrimp (and other sea foods) and the organ meats of animals (liver, kidney, etc. which were all commonly eaten in the recent past). These are the best sources, and they are available all year round.

    The links between criminality and nutrition are absolutely fascinating. Things are not as they are meant to be. Things we call food are often no such thing.

  37. People took this to heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My local grocery was completely out of decent-sized capsules of the stuff in the last few days.

  38. Re:I knew having red hair would benefit me one day by Tolkien · · Score: 1

    [citation needed] please! I'm auburn too. :)

  39. Not me... by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

    I am posting this from my backyard. Laptop + Wi-Fi FTW.

    --
    Here be signatures
  40. Your terms are acceptable ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You will prise my warm AMD only from my cold dead fingers! How dare anyone suggest I get out more.

    Your terms are acceptable !
  41. Vitamin D deficiency leads to increased mortality? by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

    That's odd, I was always under the impression that the mortality rate was 100%.

  42. Can't spell Napster without "arrr" by tepples · · Score: 1

    If Pastafarianism's prediction about the correlation between pirates and climate is true, then why didn't global temperatures take a nose-dive in the fourth quarter of 1999 when the original Napster hit the Internet?

    1. Re:Can't spell Napster without "arrr" by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      Well, it was a prediction. Just because the event didn't happen doesn't mean their theory is incorrect. Nature has a way of regulating things that Pastafarinists cannot predict.

  43. Minor disagreement by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    "Children, though, as also being seen with increasingly low levels of Vitamin D--probably having a lot to do with parents insisting children not play outside due to safety issues"

    I would wager that videogames and TV are the primary reason. Kids just don't play outside as much anymore even in safe areas. It's a shame.

  44. Good news, everyone! by Jay+L · · Score: 1

    So programmers will be dying younger, because they don't get enough sunlight.

    And there will be fewer to begin with, because 20% fewer students are pursuing IT-related degrees.

    Yet demand is going up. Therefore: More money for those intrepid few of us who survive!

  45. Doesn't bother me, I'm white. by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm a perfectly adapted vitamin D producing machine.

    1. Re:Doesn't bother me, I'm white. by grnrckt94 · · Score: 1

      Where are my moderator points when I need them?

    2. Re:Doesn't bother me, I'm white. by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you're "white enough to afford all three consoles"*, would you ever get time enough to go outside and take advantage of your whiteness?

      *with respect to Yahtzee

    3. Re:Doesn't bother me, I'm white. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A white guy only needs like 5 mins in the sun, a black guy needs a few hours.

      May as well pick some cotton while he's out there...

      :S

  46. Re:first post by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm from Essex. They behave exactly like that.

    --
    Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
  47. Drink yo milk! by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    This is why milk is fortefied with vitamin D. 1 cup of milk has 45% of your RDI. 1 bowl of cereal / day is all you need.

    1. Re:Drink yo milk! by JazzHarper · · Score: 1

      The problem is: the RDI is set about 25x too low. They set it at the lowest possible level to prevent rickets in children (assuming children drink as much milk as they did in the 1960s). That's not nearly enough to prevent D3 deficiency in adults.

    2. Re:Drink yo milk! by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      There have been numerous articles about this problem, with all sorts of vitamins and minerals. The RDI is based on how much will prevent you from developing deficiency-based diseases. For example, the RDI for vitamin C is based on how much is needed to not get noticeable symptoms of scurvy. A study showed you needed several times that for optimal health, although of course should be careful of overdoes due to kidney damage, especially if you're getting it from citrus!

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  48. Lifespan by NIckGorton · · Score: 5, Informative

    average lifespans were short because of massive infant mortality, not because people who survived to be adults didn't live to old ages. No. Average lifespan was shorter in part because of higher infant mortality. Infectious disease was (and is still to a lesser extent) a threat to even healthy adults. While plague wiped out a third of the population of Europe in the worst epidemics in the middle ages, people still commonly die in the first world from infectious disease. Trauma and violence was (and is) a significant risk, but the difference is that now if you get an open fracture of your femur and you live in the developed world odds are you will be up and walking on it within a few months. And while childhood and infant mortality contributed to those lower averages, so did maternal mortality. (The biggest hurdle for men to make it to old age was childhood mortality. The biggest hurdle to women was surviving childbirths.)

    .

    The best way is to look at the median lifespan - the age to which 50% of people reached or to look at life expectancy at age 20. Life expectancy at 20 didn't reach the 60's till the last century. There were certainly some lucky people who survived to age 70 or 80, but that was the exception rather than the rule. However the biggest gains in life expectancy in the modern era weren't because of level 1 trauma centers and ICUs. The big improvements were due to things like public sanitation, improved nutrition, vaccinations, refrigeration, and simple prenatal and antenatal care.

    There's no evidence to suggest people died earlier 5,000 or 50,000 years ago -- and there's strong counter evidence for that during historical periods of the last 3-5k years. Um. No. The life expectancy at birth in the Bronze age, Upper Paleolithic, and Neolithic was all 33 years or less. If you assume a 30% infant mortality it still doesn't average out to approach modern life expectancy. And until the early 20th century, the average life expectancy at birth didn't cross 40. That's not even cutting edge research, that's textbook/encyclopedia data. However if you have some citations supporting your argument, please provide them.

    .

    Hobbes was right: life in the state of nature is "nasty, brutish and short".

    1. Re:Lifespan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget the other factors involved, all which resulted in what we call "premature aging" today (not at all premature, but it seems so in comparison):

      - starvation. Starvation was a fact of life, occurring, on average, one out of every three years. Starvation has severe consequences on child development, and the average child would experience four or five times before they hit adulthood (ages 14-15). In adults starvation will result in long-term damage to the human body, resulting in what appears to be accelerated aging. This is common today in many Third-World countries; we don't have to extrapolate the effect it had on the past because we can observe that effect in the world today, on living human beings.

      - Lack of medical care. Even if you survived serious injuries the odds were high the injuries would have permanent effects. These effects would result in higher levels of stress on the rest of the body, and we know that long-term physical stress will age a person more quickly.

      - No dentistry. That doesn't seem like a big deal today, but primitive humans had a tendency to lose their teeth much more often, and much earlier, than humans today. Losing teeth made consuming food more difficult (and losing enough teeth took certain foods right out of the equation), which in turn had a negative impact on human survival. In addition, it was far more common for a rotten tooth to result in blood poisoning, and if that happened it was almost certain to kill you.

      - increased severity of illness. The combination of the above three things made illness far more severe, especially with what we think of as minor irritations today (e.g., the flu). Starvation during childhood resulted in more sickly adults less able to stave off disease, even though disease was almost certainly rarer (no metropolitan areas).

      Humans did age faster - considerably faster. They do it in our world today, too, in countries wracked by widespread, frequent starvation. There were, are, and will always be exceptions, but as a whole the human race ages much more slowly today, at least after full adulthood is reached (children and teenagers have had the same developmental cycle for lifespan of the race, as well as many of its ancestors).

    2. Re:Lifespan by gnuman99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You forget one important thing for men - war. Men tended to get sent to wars, which at least evened out the mortality with women and childbirth.

      Similarly, since myopia is a hereditary trait, why do you think it wasn't passed down to all of us yet? People that couldn't see got their head bashed in.

      Hobbes was right: life in the state of nature is "nasty, brutish and short".

      How is that different from today?

    3. Re:Lifespan by NIckGorton · · Score: 1

      Men tended to get sent to wars, which at least evened out the mortality with women and childbirth. Actually it didn't quite. A woman's life expectancy at twenty was slightly less than a man's in the medieval period. (Though slightly more girls then as now survived to adulthood than boys.) Without modern sanitation, nutrition, prenatal and antenatal care, about 15% of women can expect to die from complications of childbirth.

      Plus, if nothing else, wars only happen sometimes. Sex is perpetual. (I'm excepting Bush's America from this obviously - where war is perpetual and sex is only sometimes.... in the missionary position... for procreation.... among heterosexual married couples.)
    4. Re:Lifespan by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Largely untrue. Certainly, in the middle ages when conditions were less than sanitary and the people were generally stuck in a perpetual state of ignorance, mortality rate was low.

      However, in the east where things were better, people lived to 60 and 70 quite often. The life expectancy for adults was probably between 60 and 80 (which it is today). Heck, there are records of people who lived well past 100 throughout the past two thousand years, though they are indeed exceptional.

      The only time and places this didn't apply to was where there was war and strife. Then life expectancy did drop to pretty low numbers. The only saving grace was that people back then had kids early and often. So by the time they were dead at 30, they'd have at least one teenage child and several more reaching that age. And back then, 13 was more or less the start of adulthood.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:Lifespan by sjames · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is that people confuse the life expectancy with lifespan. The lifespan (how old you can likely get before your health fails) hasn't changed all that much. The life expectancy (how old you are likely to get before dieing of any cause including injury, disease, and starvation) has grown considerably.

      A lot of Bronze age people died in excellent health.

    6. Re:Lifespan by sexconker · · Score: 1

      "The biggest hurdle for men to make it to old age was childhood mortality. The biggest hurdle to women was surviving childbirths."

      No, the biggest hurdle for men and women was childhood mortality.
      The next biggest hurdles were dangerous jobs and wars for men, and childbirth for women.

  49. Excess Vitamin C can be peed out, Vitamin D *not*. by DrYak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Disclaimer: I'm not even a little bit of a doctor. I am.

    Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that the problem with lipophilic substances is that they can lead to poisoning easier because they tend to accumulate in the fatty tissues of the body and cannot be excreted easily; Exactly. You are perfectly correct.

    The hydrophilic substances will happily circulate in the blood stream and excess will be flushed out by the kidneys. That's why, when you read closely the composition of most vitamin supplements, they advertise quantities as stupidly excessive as 3'000% the daily recommendation or Vitamin C (which is hydrophilic). Most of the excess will simply get peed out.

    Lipophilic substances, if not handled properly (binds to blood transporter - like albumin or substance specific transporter - and processed in liver - which will convert them into soluble substances) tend to accumulate wherever there's fat :
    skin, nerves, CNS, also in organs : inside the liver, inside the kidney (but get stuck in the basal membrane instead of getting flushed out), etc...

    The fact that Vitamin D seem to be tolerated at high concentration despite being rather hydrophobic is probably due to the fact that this is a naturally occurring substance and the body has ways to deal with it anyway.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  50. Perfect world domination plan by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Therefore: More money for those intrepid few of us who survive! Who'll then have enough choice and money to work from home. Using the house's WiFi to code with a laptop by the pool.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  51. I'm definitely a nerd... by TheJerg · · Score: 1

    It wouldn't be stamina. It would be your fortitude save. Your stamina is actually your constitution.

  52. Milk is not a rich source of vitamin D... by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

    or elemental calcium unless it is artificially fortified.

    However, in the US at least milk is a great source of antibiotics, bacteria (from puss) and all manner of hormones that the cows are regularly pumped with.

    Now, enjoy your cereal and coffee.

    By the way, vitamin D is not "found in UV light", it is produced by the human cells when exposed to UV light.

    --
    As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
  53. For some definition of cure... by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

    "the therapy was an absolute success, the patient however didn't make it" :D

    --
    As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
  54. don't shoot the messengers by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Actually all the studies that address "too much" involved sever sunburns in teen years.
    There is no peer reviewed study that suggests normal exposure to sun imposes a high mortality.

    Yet the press, over-reacting as usual, have scared people out of the sun and created a sunscreen industry overnight by failing to actually read the studies that were done.

    I don't normally defend Big Media, but in this case they were reading press releases from the dermatologists, whom I suspect had previously bought a number pof shares in that industry.

    The reporters were acting in good faith on the authority of doctors.

    Aside from that, I'm in total agreement.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  55. Way ahead of you! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I remember some dermatologist advising full body sunlight exposure for 10 minutes every day (not more though). Whoo yeah it's nudist sunbathing time! What, don't look at me like that, I need to get my minimum recommended full-body sunlight exposure. You'd join in if you wanted to be healthy, you could eat lunch at the same time and kill two birds with one stone. I'll be in the parking lot if you need me. *tosses clothes onto back of chair*
    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  56. Good news! by Cctoide · · Score: 1

    Good news, /. readers! It turns out we're going to die sooner that everyone else, so we can all get our brains transferred into computers and rule over the puny humans.

    --
    "Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
    1. Re:Good news! by Tomas_Bakke · · Score: 1

      Yey! I've been transferred into a computer. I will live forev. . GENERAL PROTECTION FAULT - PLEASE CONTACT MICROSOFT

  57. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  58. Compact Florescents by pyxl · · Score: 1

    Are your friend. Yay imperfect UV shielding!

    --


    Given enough hydrogen, just about anything is possible.
  59. Re:lack of sunlight/food/water/oxygen causes death by HikingStick · · Score: 1

    Where do I get to mod this (+/-) 5 Tirade?

    --
    I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
  60. Sunscreen increases cancer risk by scorp1us · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At first I heard that "sunscreen increases cancer risk" from an unreliabel source (but it was on the internet, so it had to be true!) but I then did my own searches.

    Indeed it seems that there is a /slight/ correlation between sunscreen use. There is no solid explanation as of yet, but there are two basic theories:

    1. Sunscreen users increase sun exposure (in terms of hours) and the sun screen is not able to compensate.(I find this hard as most everyone is using SPF 30+, which would give you 3 days of sun exposure (at 8 hours a day) for every one hour of non-screened exposure.)
    2. Sunscreen prevents the natural tanning reaction in which melanin is produced. Without this melanin, absorption of UV is higher and the skin more sensitive. (This seems more reasonable to me.)

    So it seems sunscreen is at best called a "sunburn inhibitor" as that is all it really does. Current recommendations are to limit exposure, wear hats, and develop a tan without sunscreen and without burning.

    But there is one thing for sure: use sunglasses. UV light speeds cataract formation. Cataracts are a normal part of the aging process, so if you live long enough you'll get them. But you can slow the development with UV protective glasses.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  61. Rule One by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Pictures... Please.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  62. Excess Excess Excess by Thelasko · · Score: 1
    Modern medicine teaches us to avoid something, then a little while later, it teaches us to do it, just not in excess. Drink in moderation, go outside for a little while. Aristotle said this thousands of years ago:

    Some vices miss what is right because they are deficient, others because they are excessive, in feelings or in actions, while virtue finds and chooses the mean.
    The ancient Greeks found this so insightful, they carved a summary into the temple at Delhpi.

    Nothing in Excess
    Perhaps we should consider doing the same.
    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  63. Re:Vitamin D deficiency leads to increased mortali by Aladrin · · Score: 1

    I was just coming to post exactly the same thing.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  64. Basement Dwellers Beware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Seriously

  65. oblig. simpsons by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

    Dr. Hibbert: "So you can see you have every disease, and a few we've never really seen. They've reached a sort of symbiance and are balanced in such a way that it isn't affecting you. ha ha ha."
    Mr. Burns: "So what you're saying is i'm invincible?"
    Dr. Hibbert: "Oh dear God no, the slightest breeze could kill y..."
    Mr. Burns: "Invincible..."

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  66. Welp.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm fucked then. 5 minutes of sunlight a day will be the death of me.

    But too much sunlight causes cancer! Early death methnkzizbest.

  67. Vitamin D Council by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good website for Vitamin D info:

    http://vitamindcouncil.org/

  68. sunlight MEANS death where i live by unity100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    in summer, of course.

    in antalya, mediterranean coast, southwestern turkey, it gets 40 degrees celsius in shadow, and 99% humid in the summer.

    1. Re:sunlight MEANS death where i live by caluml · · Score: 1

      sunlight MEANS death where i live Sounds like you're from Transylvania to me.
    2. Re:sunlight MEANS death where i live by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      in antalya, mediterranean coast, southwestern turkey, it gets 40 degrees celsius in shadow, and 99% humid in the summer.
      Is that because you spend summer in the sea?
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  69. enough sunlight depends on several factors by Khashishi · · Score: 1
    There are all sorts of sources that just spout out: it's easy; just get 10 minutes of sunlight. These don't take into account that the amount of sunlight you need depends on where you live, the season, and what color skin you have. If you have dark skin, you need more sunlight and don't have to worry much about sunburn. (Indeed, skin pigmentation is an adaptation that balances between vitamin D production and sunburning.) Pale people need less. The closer you get to the poles, the harder it is to get enough vitamin D in winter, since UVB drops off dramatically (exponentially) with the distance of air that sunlight must pass through. (Read up on Raleigh scattering if you are so inclined.)

    I'm guessing that the 10 minute prescription is assuming that you are white and you live in middle United States during the summer. You might have to increase that by 10 times if under less favorable conditions.

    1. Re:enough sunlight depends on several factors by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

      UV bounces off of the snow cover. That's why people in the north, like here in Canada, it is possible to get a mild sunburn on your chin (from below) in winter time.

      The problem though is getting enough skin exposed at -30C without getting another type of burn!

    2. Re:enough sunlight depends on several factors by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      I guess it's time for me to unveil the tan-through parka.

  70. It was crappier by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, we have better statistics than that. Say, from the Egyptians, we have plenty of records left of when someone died. You know, plaques, inscriptions, etc. So you have a somewhat random sample, and the ages at which they died.

    So you can sorta plot a gauss curve, albeit one with a massive spike in the first 3 years, due to the infant mortality that you mention. But the more interesting part is what happens when you look past that spike, at the peak of the proper gauss curve. That's basically the age where, if you survived those infant years, you'd have a 50%-50% chance to be dead anyway.

    And for the Old Kingdom period (i.e., a bit over 4000 years ago) that peak was in the 30's for men and in the 20's for women. By the New Kingdom (a bit over 3000 years ago), it had progressed to 40's and respectively 30's.

    So, yes, they did live less. Seriously. Yes, there was massive infant mortality, but, no, you can't dismiss everything based on just that.

    Yes, like with anything statistical, there were exceptions in both directions. There were the occasional guys who lived very long lives, but they were the exceptions, not the rule. They also tended to be the rather rich guys.

    And I think one funny thing that may have helped confuse people about life expectancy back then, is the egyptian expression that someone lived to 110 years old. It's funny because it's just a metaphor. In their numerology, 110 was the perfect number, and they believed it to be also the absolute maximum someone can live, if they led a perfect life. So "he lived to 110", was basically just a way to say, "he lived a perfect life." Meaning typically that he was really well liked guy in the community. In practice most of those were dead in their 30's and 40's.

    Basically it's just as much a metaphor as when we say that someone was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, or jumped the shark, or put his foot in his mouth, or the like. We don't mean it literally, and it's silly to build biological explanation based on it.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:It was crappier by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Actually, we have better statistics than that. Say, from the Egyptians, we have plenty of records left of when someone died. You know, plaques, inscriptions, etc. So you have a somewhat random sample, and the ages at which they died. Only the "elite" would have been buried with such a marker. What you have is a sampling of the wealthiest Egyptians. Probably something like 95-99% of the other Egyptians were poor farmers and were buried without a marker, or with a marker not made of stone, and therefore one that didn't last to the present day. And, they were probably buried in a grave that itself wouldn't last until today.
      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  71. Important for Non-Whites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting enough vitamin D is especially more important for people with darker skin who live in the north, then it is for whites.

    I wish these articles would put more emphasis on this aspect.

  72. mortality rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...vitamin D deficiency leads to increased mortality. Greater than 100%!?
    1. Re:mortality rate by StarReaver · · Score: 0
      Yes. It leads to zombies, which must be then killed.

      For every 10 people born, 10 die, and 2 and a half have to be killed again.

  73. Re:I'm definitely a nerd...me too. by PheniciaBarimen · · Score: 1

    WoD, there is no fortitude save, and it would be your Stamina as Physical Resistance Trait. Though it makes me wonder why an Changeling would be reading /. and gaining Banality.

  74. It's a problem? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That is why you need to drink your milk, children.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    1. Re:It's a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why you need to drink your milk, children.

      Well, you should drink your milk, but milk is not high in vitamin D.

      In many countries (but not all), milk is fortified with vitamin D.

  75. That's why by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    I regularly visit an all-inclusive resort in Cuba, and drink mojitos to massage vitamin D into my system...

    1. Re:That's why by jax9999 · · Score: 1

      You're ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

  76. Yeah right by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Yeah, "milk," sure.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  77. All things in moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... even moderation!

    1. Re:All things in moderation by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      I'm an immoderate metamoderator, you insensitive clod!

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
  78. Fat vs. Water-Soluble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > As a side note, I also don't really understand the significance of Vitamin D's fat solubility making it any more or less dangerous in higher dosages.

    Water-soluble vitamins just get peed out at the end of the day, per my understanding, while fat-soluble vitamins stick around longer, so it's easier for them to build up in the body. They're both still potentially dangerous in high doses, though, which is why I said they're "more" prone to it.

    Maybe that wasn't the best way to explain it, but I only really included that factoid so that people don't go thinking that because they work the night shift, they really need to load up on vitamin D, because more isn't always better, just like you said.

    - I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

  79. a new calender plugin for thunderbird? by pjr.cc · · Score: 1

    So is this "sunlight" thing a new calendar plugin for thunderbird?

  80. The ancient greeks lived long by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    Socrates was executed in his 70s.

    1. Re:The ancient greeks lived long by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Many of the Greeks that we know by name, such as Socrates and Aristotle, we know because they lived long enough to earn fame. Aristotle's student, Alexander the Great, lived only about 33 years.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  81. MS != Disability by stereoroid · · Score: 1

    The way MS progresses in different people, it can mean that years pass before any significant disability occurs. In the most common form, Relapsing-Remitting (RR), the relapses are like getting real old real quick, with long periods of relative normality in-between. I thought that the portrayal of MS on "The West Wing" was pretty good: it only rarely got in Prez. Bartlett's way, though he had a dramatic relapse on that last trip to China.

    I've known I have MS for about 2-1/2 years now, though it was probably bubbling under for at least 5 years before that. Apart from one relapse so far, when I turned in to a grumpy old man for a week and had to work from home, the best word to describe it is "annoying". I've been fortunate with the timing, since I got in on a trial of an oral MS drug (no injections!), and that wheelchair is looking a long, long way off. 8)

    --
    (this is not a .sig)
    1. Re:MS != Disability by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Good luck for you, but this guy was *seriously* fucked up. Stuck in a wheelchair by his late-20s. Leg "muscles" stiff as a board a decade later, frozen from non-use. Legally blind, lots of tremors. Watching him trying to eat a sandwich, you'd think he was taking part in a food fight, shit flying all over the place.

      Legally blind, memory lapses, the whole 9 yards. Everything I wrote might sound like a George Carlin skit, but it was all also true. I housed him for a while when his family "got tired" of him. I found out the first day that of necessity included "fun" stuff like taking care of his catheter. Eventually, his family decided that they wanted him back ... they were really, really pissed off that I had told him about his diagnosis - that he was developing both Alzhemers' and Parkinsons, though how they could tell Parkinson's from his usual spastic movements was beyond me - probably from the "non-motor" symptoms. I believe the mood swings were just from frustration and anger, though they were never directed at me.

      Funny how they claimed to be such great born-again christians but they could try to justify lying to one of their own. Real cock-suckers.

  82. Increased mortality...!? by Cynic.AU · · Score: 1

    You mean... I could die TWICE? :O

  83. With excessive vitamin K... by A+New+Normalcy · · Score: 1

    ...that would be clot-blooded!

    --
    ...Lorenzo / I'm into kinky crustaceans. I just discovered internet praWn.
  84. Early Death? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what... you die before noon?

  85. no by unity100 · · Score: 1

    its real humidity measurement. evaporation is at high levels here.

  86. It's a long stretch to impute causation here. by NelsChristian · · Score: 1
    "Researchers can't rule out that sicker patients had lower vitamin D levels and, therefore, were already at an increased risk of dying to begin with."

    So, without a complete understanding of how Vitamin D,25 and it's metabolites like D,1,25 work, or how the behavior of either might be modified by disease, but merely a statistical correlation they jump to the post hoc propter hoc fallacy. They haven't any way from this result to show whether the low VitD was a preliminary symptom or a cause of the problem. Since high levels of VitD are known to be immunosuppressive, it is also a big leap to say it's either preventative or curative of anything.

    I note that they did not try to force down D,25 levels (likely the only ones they measured), nor watched the long term effects of high dose D,25 supplementation. Without these kinds of studies, they really are way out on a limb to make any causation comments.

    Here's study showing that disease (in this case TB) can down-regulate the amount of VitaminD in the body (making low VitD a symptom, not a cause). Davies PD, Brown RC, Woodhead JS: Serum concentrations of vitamin D metabolites in untreated tuberculosis. Thorax. 1985 Mar;40(3):187-90.