Take off the sunscreen
Classic. Decades of scare stories about the sun's evil rays, years of alarmist warnings by politicians and others ("for God's sake keep your kids out of the sun"), and what do we find is the major cause of cancer in northern countries? Lack of sunshine...:
For decades, researchers have puzzled over why rich northern countries have cancer rates many times higher than those in developing countries — and many have laid the blame on dangerous pollutants spewed out by industry. But research into vitamin D is suggesting both a plausible answer to this medical puzzle and a heretical notion: that cancers and other disorders in rich countries aren't caused mainly by pollutants but by a vitamin deficiency known to be less acute or even non-existent in poor nations... For many reasons, Canadians are among the people most at risk of not having enough vitamin D. This is due to a quirk of geography, to modern lifestyles and to the country's health authorities, who have unwittingly, if with the best of intentions, played a role in creating the vitamin deficiency... Only brief full-body exposures to bright summer sunshine — of 10 or 15 minutes a day — are needed to make high amounts of the vitamin. But most authorities, including Health Canada, have urged a total avoidance of strong sunlight or, alternatively, heavy use of sunscreen. Both recommendations will block almost all vitamin D synthesis.
related




Keep bookmarked posts here.
25 Comments
How ironic - most scientists were wrong, and their advice has likely been harmful to many people.
Global warming fanatics: take note.
This could be the 3rd best case for a lawsuit targeting fearmongers.
After the DDT ban.
After the United Nations IPCC Kyoto Hoax.
You really don't believe in global warming, do you Andrew?
There is a definite link between cancer and radiation... And that's all the sun's rays are - electro-magnetic radiation!
Try sitting out in the sun all day; you'll get burnnnnnned! Me, I'm going to stick with my SPF 60.
I'm sure you'll remember that before the Earth had an atmosphere, life couldn't live on land because the incoming photons from the sun didn't hit anything on the way down and burnt everything to a crisp.
(Carbon dioxide makes a pretty good absorbant, by the way, not sure if you heard the news.)
Anyway, your article mentioned a lot of ambiguous researchers and made sweeping claims, but gave very few quantitative results. It doesn't convince me and I'm sure it won't convince anyone who's read the article; there just isn't enough data to support the theory.
you might want to be careful about UV rays. i think it's only a problem in equatorial or tropical countries like Australia. in the more northern regions, like Canada, Britain, and Scandinavia, more sunshine probably wouldn't hurt.
that said, though, if global warming really occurs as certain scientists predicted them, we would get less sunlight but higher temperatures. the atmosphere of Venus is a good example. the extremely thick atmospheric clouds prevent about 60% of sunlight from penetrating the atmosphere. at the same time, the surface temperature of Venus routinely exceeds 400 degrees Celsius. so if you're on the planet of Venus, you would essentially see a relatively dim sky - for the split second before your body is completely roasted.
but anyway that's purely conjecture. it's near impossible for Earth to end up like that. besides, i'm already as green as they come and i don't want anybody telling me to do more than what i'm doing. not that i'm being green because i care, of course. i started using fluorescent light bulbs about a year before anyone thought about banning incandescent ones (no offense against incandescent bulbs) - only because the coils look like sinister snakes, which makes me manically cackle every time i think about them.
EVIL SNAKES! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
btw i checked one of my fluorescent light bulbs and it's apparently made in China. irony?
wait: i think "GYAHAHAHAHAHAHA!" is more appropriate than "MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!" when you're talking about cackling. yeah.
For a far more enlightening discussion of this issue than you are likely to find here (or on other Conservative blogs), go to:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/29/0724246
Note that nothing in the article Andrew quotes puts into the question the too much sunlight=too much vitamen d production=increased melanoma connection.
go figure .. scientific consensus gone wrong.
The problem has always been between sun BURN and cancer. Go easy, get a tan and you arr good to go.
Fred,
Yeah thats what I meant to say. Although no, you don't have to actually burn to increase the risk.
Sadly, whenever you hear a story like that, the first question has to be "Who funded the research?" For example, see this 2005 piece.
Steve L: ...only because the coils look like sinister snakes, which makes me manically cackle every time i think about them.
EVIL SNAKES! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Both are certainly possible, but I'm guessing you wanted to instead cackle maniacally.
Thanks for the laugh.
Don't go to slashdot.org for meaningful discussion of anything, you won't find it there.
Some of youse guys ought to learn how science works before you start commenting on how wrong it can be.
The natural world is full of often contradictory observations and ideas. I'd sooner trust the average scientist than, say, the average bus driver to come up with useful information. But I'll decide how to interpret it.
Then again, I use to be a scientist, so go figure.
Science is the new religion - people believe things without questioning them, regardless of what they're told.
Although by saying that science is like religion, I've probably given the NDP a reason to say that science is responsible for all the problems in the world...
You really don't believe there's any difference between global warming and ozone layer depletion do you Andrew (Doyle)?
Time for a little science lesson. The ozone layer blocks harmful radiation. Depletion in this layer, believed to be caused by man-made CFCs, allows more radiation to reach the planet's surface, thus causing more severe sunburn.
Global warming, on the other hand, is believed to be caused by increased carbon dioxide (among other carbon compounds), which acts like a greenhouse to trap heat in the atmosphere (thus the term "greenhouse effect").
You got that Mr. Doyle? TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES.
The only connection between the two phenomena is tangential. CFCs are also carbon compounds, and in fact may contribute a small amount to the overall greenhouse effect. However, since quantities of these compounds are miniscule compared to CO2, their contribution to warming is insignificant.
Before you start nattering at others about their scientific understanding, or lack thereof, maybe you should learn the science yourself.
In any case, if CO2 actually acts as an "absorbant", then global warming would lead to LESS sunburn, not more, because global warming is allegedly being caused by INCREASING amounts of atmospheric CO2. Even your incorrect arguments contradict each other.
In any case, I don't think AC was suggesting that we can all safely go out and get blistering sun burns every day. He was simply pointing out that the scientific consensus that "no sun exposure is good sun exposure" was quite possibly WRONG.
I detect a bit of tongue-in-cheek (not a scientific term exactly) in Mr. Doyle's earlier post.
Nonetheless, scientific debate aside, our friend teddy is correct about conflicting information.
So much so that it's entirely possible, and common, for two seemingly irreconcilable things to be true...yes, sun exposure is good for you. This is intuitively obvious. Yes, sun exposure is bad for you, this is more experientially obvious...(slap, Ow!)
It's a question of risk and reward. How much of risk of radiation-related sickness are you ready to assume to avoid what level of Vitamin D deficiency?
Sounds vaguely economic, no?
Everything in moderation, as someone once said...but not too much.
Well, that's mud in the eye for those know-it-all scientists with their fancy confidence intervals and whatnot (and of course yet another proof that global warming is a hoax).
But seriously, what were they supposed to do? It's not as though they claimed that excess sun exposure causes melanoma when the truth is that it cures it. So the health establishment erred a little on the side of caution and it has apparently turned out, indeed, to be an error. So what? You make your decisions based on the best available evidence at the time; when you learn more you modify your views. Errors are part of scientific (and other) learning.
For a contrast, take the Charles Smith autopsy scandal. That's a case where people really could and should have acted differently.
A bus driver with a good head on his/her shoulders is a much better source of information and truth than a fanatic scientist. On any topic. Scientific or otherwise.
We have seen evidence of this every day since the UN/Mann 'hockey stick graph' was pulled out of thin air.
I wonder if Charles Smith was the guy who did that alien autopsy on TV back in 1994?
The idea of staying out of the sun has never been promoted, it's the idea to use sunscreen. Excess rays DO cause damage. A moderate amount is healthy.
Get a tan, not a burn.
I think what AC was getting at;
There is a world of difference between 'playing it safe' and 'fear mongering'.
Scaring the be-jesuzz out of people, for no good reason, is a crime. "FIRE" !! in the movie theatre.
Got that, Big Al ??
ron in kelowna said...
A bus driver with a good head on his/her shoulders is a much better source of information and truth than a fanatic scientist. On any topic. Scientific or otherwise."
well, maybe on driving a bus, or on the disadvantages of not getting an education. ;-)
question:
why did you change your name from "hoax aware"??? was it cause you sounded too much like a paranoid delusional schizophrenic???
A few comments:
Note that the Globe and mail story refers to a "4 year clinical trial" involving 1200 persons. This is not a very large cohort, statistically speaking, and the period seems very short, to establish what is usually a very long term effect. I haven't read the source study, but it does raise a few questions in my mind.
Further, it asserts a direct link between vitamin D deficiency and cancer. In fact, it is generally not possible to establish 'direct' links between cancer and any causative agent, and thus one must infer a link with statistical methods. These generally need careful design and interpretation, and good scientists typically draw conclusions from them very carefully. My experience is the media doesn't pay too much attention to these details, which is why there is often so much seemingly contradictory evidence.
I tend to think the more general problem is that the media breathlessly reports some research without digging into deeply into how powerful that research actually is (say, with global warming). The power of science is not that it is always right, but it has a good self-correcting mechanism (kind of like markets).
Oh, and by the way, the more people in the northern hemisphere die of cancer is probably related to the fact that we live longer lives!
C'mon, AC. Same QP in the house today had Libs screaming blue murder that the CPC climate change plan doesn't go nearly far enough........and demanding something be done about high gasoline prices. Has to be worth a column.
Look no farther than the "rock from Mars". Anyone ever seen a rock fall off Earth? Someone allegedly finds a rock in Antartica and says that proves that there is life on Mars. Scientists - say anything to increase their funding.
bigcitylib: of course this site isn't enlightened you are here,
Do you ever go to left wing blogs?
They are so enlightened non hysterical!!! You should spend more time there much more.