Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:44:41 -0700, TC <tunderbar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

Sunburn is a bigger concern than simply tanning. Tanning at least
gives the body tha ability to adapt and protect itself. The upper
torso is more likely to be burned as many have rarely ever seen
sunlight.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
    ... Skin cancers are predominantly on the ... uncover oneself to get excessive sun exposure. ... Sunburn is a bigger concern than simply tanning. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
    ... Have a reference on the melanoma site frequency? ... It was my understanding the back of the neck is on ... If sun exposure causes the damage that leads to skin cancer, ... Skin cancers are predominantly on the ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
    ... Skin cancers are predominantly on the ... uncover oneself to get excessive sun exposure. ... Every tan begins as a burn. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
    ... Skin cancers are predominantly on the ... uncover oneself to get excessive sun exposure. ... Sunburn is a bigger concern than simply tanning. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
Loading