Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- From: TC <tunderbar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:44:41 -0700
1) We evolved for millions of years in the direct light of the sun. We
need it to live. It is essential for life. Why is it that, in the 21st
century, doctors now see the sun as a source of illness and skin
cancer? One would think that millions of years of evolution would have
made this concept impossible. Kinda like blaming fish deaths on
drowning.
2) Maine and the State of Washington (the foggy states) has more skin
cancer per capita than California and Florida (the big Sun States).
3) If sun exposure causes the damage that leads to skin cancer, why
are skin cancers not predominantly on the face, the neck and/or the
hands and forearms where one tends to get a lot of sun exposure
whether you want it or not? Skin cancers are predominantly on the
upper torso, on the back and on the chest, beneath where a typical
short sleeve shirt would cover, where one would have to explicitly
uncover oneself to get excessive sun exposure.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- From: Ron Peterson
- Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- From: Nick Chan
- Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- From: betaine_hcl
- Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- From: Tim
- Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- Prev by Date: Re: World Bank Approves Additional Funds for Health Development
- Next by Date: Re: HIV infection theory confronted
- Previous by thread: What is Fibre and Why is it Important ?
- Next by thread: Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading