Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- From: NoOption5L@xxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:30:01 -0700
On Jul 11, 8:48 am, TC <tunder...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:08 am, TC <tunder...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 9, 6:55 pm, Tim <T...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What is the difference between sunburn and suntan? Not much. One is a
slower "damage", one is a little faster "damage". Do either cause skin
cancer? Doubt it.
Let's see... go with your 'doubts' OR the advice of dermatologists/
doctors...? Hmmmm... I think it's probably wiser to go the latter,
with people who actually STUDY the effects, and say it's best to limit
your exposure to early morning/very late afternoon sun (less than 30
minutes will get you all the vitamin D you need) and keep the skin
covered or try to stay out of it as much as possible the rest of the
day.
I don't want skin/face that looks like a prune.
Let's see.... go with what makes sense in the real world or go with
what doesn't make sense in the real world.... hmmmmm?
Makes sense is what I wrote above.
Dermatologists don't *study* sun, sun exposure and skin cancer. They
study conditions and treatments. They treat patients and conditions
according to what they've been taught in med school.
Sure. There aren't any on the research side.
And virtually all
the universities where medical doctors are taught the subject is
heavily funded by either the food industry or the pharmaceutical
industry or both.
Everything is a conspiracy with you. No one is going to talk you out
of your heavy meat and fat consumption, limited exercise, and basking
in the sun.
Again here is what makes sense.
1) We evolved as an organism with the sun, why would moderate exposure
over a lifetime become dangerous to us.
"Moderate" sun exposure?
Umm... you wrote, " What is the difference between sunburn and suntan?
Not much. One is a slower "damage", one is a little faster "damage".
Do either cause skin cancer? Doubt it."
You're not defending "moderate". You're defending sunburn and
suntan. "Moderate" is what I wrote above.
2) Skin cancers do not commonly occur on the parts of the body that
gets the most exposure.
Where are you getting these stats from?
3) The states where there is more chance of sun exposure has less skin
cancers than states with less chance of sun exposure.
Again, I don't know where you're getting your data, but let me say
this. In the South, many people get out of the mid day sun because
it's freaking hot. Up North, they can bask in the sun longer because,
generally, it's cooler and the sun isn't as hot.
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever
remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (Sherlock Holmes)
Okay, Sherlock...
Patrick
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- From: TC
- Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- From: Tim
- Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- From: TC
- Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- From: NoOption5L
- Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- From: TC
- Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- Prev by Date: Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- Next by Date: Re: FDA says "no" in Tomato connection to reduced cancer risk: From "Sham vs. Wham: The Health Insider"
- Previous by thread: Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- Next by thread: Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|