Re: Distance Running Is Tied to Skin Cancer Risk - Dougie Freese, what's up with that?


Enrico C wrote:
On 26 Nov 2006 10:51:50 -0800, TC wrote:

If sun exposure is the main problem, then ought we not to see
significantly more occurrences of skin cancers in the equatorial
latitudes throughout recorded history.

Darker skins?

Playing the race card are we? What about white south afrikaners, they
should have been riddled with skin cancers since they went there in the
17th century. And the Aussies who were shipped out to the penal colony
starting in the late 18th century. No significant history of skin
cancers until the last 50 years.

And here is a neat fact, skin cancers in australia have increased with
sunscreen use.

Different genetics?

Interesting concept there, but it will only prove my point. If, for
arguments sake, 10% of population are genetically more succeptible to
skin cancers or any other ailment. How does this 10% grow larger if the
remaining 90% aren't genetically pre-disposed to increased
succeptibility to the condition? Unless they 10% procreate at a
significantly higher rate than the 90% norm group, 50 years later they
will still only be about 10% of the population. It could be argued that
if they are at a genetic disadvantage, their population ought to
decrease from die-off from skin cancers.

Genetics implies that the percentage of the population with the
condition will at best remain steady, unless the condition is deadly,
then their percentage will eventually decrease. Not increase.

And again, why is this only a factor now and not in past centuries?



And conversely, ought we not to
see significantly less skin cancers among those living in northern
latitudes throughout recorded history?

Lighter skins?
Different genetics?

see above

TC

.

Relevant Pages