roy Stewart wrote:dUg wrote:roy Stewart wrote:You know perfectly well that you can do some online research yourself, but you want me to do it so that you can scoff at my sources. . .. it's an old tactic.
No, it's called providing supporting evidence.
As rightly Trev pointed out, YOU made the somewhat sweeping claim that "the whole thing is a scam", therefore YOU must have a means to back it up, or humbly accept further pasting. This whole X-files "the truth is out there" sh1t ain't gonna cut it.
You seem to be labouring under the illusion that there is some kind of court case going on. In fact I'm just offering my opinion as food for thought, take it, leave it, complain about it, or research it as you choose.
.
You seem to be labouring under the illusion that I am the enemy of free thought and opinion.
In fact, you are absolutely right Roy, people should research and form their own opinions. Problem is, we are drowning in a sea of misinformation and vested interests... multibillion dollar big business on one side, and deluded conspiracy theorists on t'other. I am not suggesting that either's position warrants consideration. The problem is that these days, people are often more easily swayed toward the "it's all a scam" view because they think holding such an opinion is the lesser of two evils. It isn't... but that's just
my opinion.
Raising nanoparticles was an interesting deviation, but as far as I can tell there is just not enough long term study into their effects. Stuff like this is food for thought though:
Test tube studies have shown that nanoparticle ingredients in sunscreens produce dangerous free radicals and damage DNA, especially with exposure to UV light. Shockingly, Blue Scope Steel has found that colour bond roofs that have come into contact with nano-sunscreens age 100 times more rapidly than those that have not.
http://nano.foe.org.au/node/291
( If anyone can find a link to the actual Bluescope study that would be interesting too... apparently the effect was first noticed as finger shaped patches on colourbond, where tourist's sunscreen coated hands had touched them )
In terms of sunscreen "causing" or "increasing" cancer, there have been several quite good studies including this one:
A study published in 1999 examined the incidence of two types of skin cancer in 1621
residents of Nambour, in southeast Queensland. Participants were randomly assigned
to either apply SPF 15+ sunscreen daily or not for four and a half years. No harmful
effect of daily sunscreen use was reported. Participants who used sunscreen daily
experienced a significant decrease in squamous-cell carcinoma, and no change in
incidence of basal-cell carcinoma.
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16 ... l.pdf+html
http://www.cancerwa.asn.au/resources/ca ... ancer-myth
I am not aware of any similar studies that have produced violently opposing results, but like you Roy, my thirst for knowledge amidst the drought of ignorance remains unquenched... the more I know, the less I know.
![rofl :D](./images/smilies/rolf.gif)