boogaloo wrote:There is evidence that, if you tan rather than burn, regular exposure to the sun so that you are always tanned will prevent melanoma and increase the chance of surviving melanoma if you get it. So all we have to do is live naked
like
intended and work outdoors instead of indoors.
Thanks for making an effort to bring some credibility to this argument.
http://www.westonaprice.org/Sunlight-and-Melanoma.html
"sun exposure ... caus(es) the skin to age prematurely and to become loose and leathery. This is called solar elastosis (SE). When researchers at the University of New Mexico investigated melanoma, they found a marked decrease in the disease in patients with solar elastosis. In other words, more sun exposure equals less incidence of melanoma. And for those patients who did have melanoma, the subsequent mortality from the disease was approximately one-half as high among those patients with signs of SE."
This internet article is quoting from some good sources. The Journal of the National Cancer Institute is a well respected, peer reviewed publication. The author of the article however, is very selective in what he uses.
At no time does he correctly identify which journal he is using and this makes it difficult to assess the validity of his argument. I could use the exact same article you are using and produce the following quotes:
- "Solar radiation is a well-established skin carcinogen, responsible for more cancers worldwide than any other single agent,"
- "In an article published in the London Telegraph, Professor Jonathan Rees, a dermatologist at Newcastle University, said, "The facts of this are that ultraviolet light is the major known cause of skin cancer."
I would like to see you continue your argument with the use of the original journal and not an internet article written by a retired MD with a criminal background.
Good article this one. The conclusive paragraph states the following:
"Although there are numerous questions remaining about melanoma risk and UV exposure, including exposure timing, age at exposure, behavioral components, modulating effects of host susceptibility factors on exposure, and the biological mechanisms of melanoma induction (29),
the body of evidence implicates UV exposure as a major contributor to melanoma etiology."
The bold type is from me.
http://behindthemedicalheadlines.com/ar ... oma-update
"There is evidence that sunscreens prevent squamous skin cancer, but not melanomas. ... With melanoma, it seems that intermittent sun exposure, particularly that received in childhood and adolescence, is most relevant. Melanoma occurs more frequently in individuals with poor sun tolerance, that is those who freckle and burn as opposed to tan."
Another good source. I agree with the key points you have highlighted but for the purpose of the current argument (that skin cancer may be caused by the use of sunscreen) you really should have read the next line of the article:
"There is no evidence to support the suggestion that sunscreen use increases melanoma risk."
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-6-21/72235.html
[quoting from an editorial in the British Medical Journal]
"... non-melanoma skin cancers occur on the most sun exposed areas, such as the face and hands, whereas most melanomas occur on the areas least exposed to the sun [2]. Intermittent and occupational sun exposure has been found to reduce the risk of malignant melanoma [2–5]."
Not the best source...
The online news article is selectively quoting from an editorial written for the British Medical Journal. No real problem there, but without a subscription I can't read the full article. I'll not comment on the your quote but I will state that the author of the article (John Briffa) has a vested interest in the natural health industry. This seems to be a common theme in the argument that sunlight may not cause skin cancer.
Well Boogaloo, I'll thank you again for putting together a structured argument. Good to see some effort put in rather than Roy's ignorant, lazy one-liners...
