Skin Cancer

[oldman]

Having defended Roy, I wouldn't be running out getting burnt regularly thinking there was no problem with it.

Everything in moderation, and use clothing/rashies etc to cover up rather than rubbing chemical concoctions into yourself, where you can.

[Trev]

Now if Roy had put things like that in the beginning................
Never doubted what he said about Vitamin D (except the amount of exposure needed).
And, at the end of the day, is it better to use sunscreen or not.
I'll still be using it, on the odd occasion I venture out in the middle of the day. In conjuction with a long sleeved rashie and a hat.

[Animal_Chin]

My tone may not convey Old-Man, but I'm not "hiding behind" the idea of peer reviewed process, It's just considered the best available method for establishing the credibility of a piece of research. It's not infallible ofcourse, but there is no better way...

Everything else you said in your post I pretty much agree with. Nano-particle technology needs further study before being considered safe, but this is accepted in the scientific community.

My beef with Roy is his statement in the first or second post of this thread:

Most 'sunscreens' also cause cancer.

He then refuses to provide evidence to back this claim, either through sheer laziness or more likely, lack of available evidence.

I believe that Roy's views are dangerous and he needs to be challenged.

[oldman]

Go for your life gentlemen.

So many factors in the cancer riddle generally.

[roy Stewart]

but there is no better way... [regarding the 'peer review system' ](sic)

You moan about me not posting evidence and yet you post that sort of sweeping statement with no other evidence than " it's just considered the best available method " . . . realise that your posts are full of such circular arguments and blithe assumptions.

Most 'sunscreens' also cause cancer.

I believe that Roy's views are dangerous and he needs to be challenged.

Dangerous ? Anyone who takes my advice would wear all natural sunblock, and make sure that they got sufficient vitamin D via moderate sun exposure.

I don't see how that's dangerous, it's just playing it safe.

Your accusation is therefrore overly emotional and extremely illogical.

.

[roy Stewart]

Sorry I missed this shite fight.

Hate to say it folks, but Roy's comments are much closer to current and past science than you might think.

Animal_chin, you are hiding behing that term "peer-reviewed material". In just about every field of study, there is no such thing as consensus in peer reviewed work. Further, you clearly haven't been reading the peer reviewed papers that I have.

Here is the current state of science peer reviewed work that I have been reading;

- current sunscreens are very different from sunscreens made 20 or 30 years ago, because they regularly have to remove certain chemicals from sunscreens after they have found them to be harmful to humans, and in some cases carcinogenic (but I won't use that term 'toxic'). Never heard of these substances? Check it out for yourself.

- the history of sunscreen development is that they have used stuff that works in terms of screening the sun with very little or no peer reviewed research on other possible harmful effects of applying these chemicals on your skin;

- nano-particles have recently been added to many sunscreens these days and peer-reviewed scientific papers establish that nano-particles are a whole new world of possible harmful effects at the macro and cellular levels, and yet the testing that is being done is being done on human beings over a generation, not via some lab rats;

- Roy is largely correct about his vitamin d deficiency statements, although not sure of his claims about only UVB really being required for vit d production.

- current scientific reviewed papers point to vitamin d having an active role in prevention of cancers, with melanoma being one of them.

- current thinking on melanoma is that the significant factor is how many times you were sunburnt before puberty, so if you are past puberty, current thinking is that sun exposure is unlikely to be a significant factor in melanoma.

You're all shooting the messenger, but then again the messenger was Roy.

Sometimes the madman is pointing the right way.

Thanks for weighing in. .. .

( I'm actually sober and sane by the way )

.

[roy Stewart]

No need to be abusive a chin.

It's laughable that you attempt to evaluate the material entirely on the basis of some spurious standard of source credibility.

Yes Roy, I know your feelings on the peer review system...

Still waiting for a better standard from you.

Believing stuff just because it comes from a particular source is a form of intellectual and moral suicide, and as such is highly dangerous to humanity in general and yourself personally.

Try searching for your own intelligence, and stop relying lazily on some 'official word' as it will rot your brain in the long run, and will leave you open to being sold lies of all descriptions.



.

.

[Trev]

"Most people are chronically lacking in vitamin D

Most 'sunscreens' also cause cancer.

The whole thing is a scam."
Roy, three bald statements, no explanations until challenged.
We'll keep going round in circles as long as you like.
Simple really. You made the above statements unsupported.
You used the word "most" twice. "Most" means more than 50%. I can research as well as the next guy. Sorry, no supporting evidence. Not circular - just simply that you can't accept that you put your case poorly and irresponsibly.
And suggesting the whole thing is a scam is casting aspersions on some very responsible and caring people I have had dealings with over the years. Again, an irresponsible statement.
You really could resolve this whole thing by just once admitting you could have put your case more logically.

[roy Stewart]

You really could resolve this whole thing by just once admitting you could have put your case more logically.

I wasn't putting a case I was expressing an opinion.

You are all big boys now and can make your own decisions, do your own research and stop whingeing

.

[Trev]

"opinion"?
"OPINION"?
I'd hate to see how you stated a fact.

[Animal_Chin]

This is like arguing with my 4 year old nephew on who has the smelliest poo's, only less entertaining.

I give up Roy. You win. Sunscreen causes cancer.

I think the highlight of the entire falafel was Roy suggesting that the Cancer Council of Australia is secretly going about ensuring Australians get cancer just to justify their own existence. Cool stuff.

[roy Stewart]

"opinion"?
"OPINION"?
I'd hate to see how you stated a fact.

The point is that one is free here to state any opinion one cares to express.

I'll post supporting evidence or not at my whim, that's just the way it is. . . people can go ahead and freak out about it if they like that's their right.

.

[roy Stewart]

I give up Roy. You win. Sunscreen causes cancer.

Don't be ridiculous, it's only the majority of sunscreens which cause cancer weren't you listening ?

I think the highlight of the entire falafel was Roy suggesting that the Cancer Council of Australia is secretly going about ensuring Australians get cancer just to justify their own existence. Cool stuff.

I merely pointed out that cancer is vital for their existence. . .. and that they sell and promote carcinogens. . . . draw your own conclusions regarding the mental processes behind such actions.

.

[Kunji]

I use sunscreen. Even being of African American / Australian - Scottish decent. I'm dark, but not dark, dark. Still, the sun can have an effect on me. I go darker but dont really burn. Well, i can burn but havent in quiet some time. Use the 30+ if im out all day, probably a couple of times and just wearing shorts. But i need the sun because im in the office all day and wear clothes. The vitamin D might take a little more to get under my skin.

Not sure about the sunscreen causes cancer thing. I remember in the 80's there was some Paba (sp?) or something that was used in the chemical recipes used by some big brand sunscreen companies, but they took it out.

[RickyG]

Well, I'm not sure if this thread has prompted me but I've just booked myself in for a very long-overdue check-up at a local clinic tomorrow afternoon.

I can't believe it's been something like 5-6 years since my last one, especially given my fair, freckly skin and the number of times I was burnt badly as a kid. Guess I'll just have to see what happens.

[roy Stewart]

If anyone wants evidence of the fraudulent practices of sunscreen manufaturers, look at the information posted above that many sunscreens contain bleach to whiten skin thereby making the user think that the stuff is working. . . . .. when the bleach actually makes the skin more susceptible to burning.

THAT is a scam !


.

[Animal_Chin]

If anyone wants evidence of the fraudulent practices of sunscreen manufaturers, look at the information posted above that many sunscreens contain bleach to whiten skin thereby making the user think that the stuff is working. . . . .. when the bleach actually makes the skin more susceptible to burning.

THAT is a scam !


.

Well thank christ for that Roy! Evidence! At last!!!

...hang on.... "information posted above..." :?

...There's nothing there mate.

[roy Stewart]

Just do a search for "skin whitening sunblock " there are plenty of interesting results.

Many sunscreens which are not advertised as skin whiteners also have skin whiteners in them.

.