I am british, have an easily tanned skin and have rarely been sunburnt.
For the first 30 years of my life I was outdoors as much as possible - cycling, tennis, sailing were my summer pastimes, all in the UK.
I never used sunblock or anything else, after all I didn't need it, I had a healthy tan.
In my late forties I noticed a mole on my cheekbone which was changing. It starting getting bigger, itching and spotted blood onto my pillow at night. It turned out to be a rodent ulcer, basal cell carcinoma, and was removed by simple surgery. Ten years later I was given the all clear.
I have been using sunblock and appropriate clothing/hats since I was told I had skin cancer. It is never too late to start.
Sun block/cream
Back to Si's original comment I dont wear a helmet either.
I fully accept julk's point there is a risk to everyone, I said I dont court the sun and I wear protective clothing and a hat in severe conditions.
However I am against the seperation of people from nature by the ever increasing dependance on chemicals. I wont take pain killers because I feel they lower your natural pain tolerance. We have never sterilized anything in the house except brewing equipment and we never get sickness nor do our children. I took antibiotics once and have never fully recovered from its side effects.
So I cant point to suncream and say this stuff will do you harm in the end but I believe my abstinence from all such things has kept me much healthier overall. The human body has had many generations of evolution to get the balance just right. If the ozone depletion is increasing the uv levels, I want to evolve along with it.
I fully accept julk's point there is a risk to everyone, I said I dont court the sun and I wear protective clothing and a hat in severe conditions.
However I am against the seperation of people from nature by the ever increasing dependance on chemicals. I wont take pain killers because I feel they lower your natural pain tolerance. We have never sterilized anything in the house except brewing equipment and we never get sickness nor do our children. I took antibiotics once and have never fully recovered from its side effects.
So I cant point to suncream and say this stuff will do you harm in the end but I believe my abstinence from all such things has kept me much healthier overall. The human body has had many generations of evolution to get the balance just right. If the ozone depletion is increasing the uv levels, I want to evolve along with it.
There is much talk about chemicals and the use/dangers thereof. Personally, I douse myself and ingest chemicals on a regular basis, mainly hydrogen and oxygen in the form of water. Doesn’t seemed to have harmed me. So let’s be more specific and not just refer to chemicals as though they are some dirty word or will result in instant death. I’m not sure what proof there is that suntan lotion will damage your health owing to the chemicals that are used in the production of the protective lotion. I am aware that skin cancer is a serious issue that should not be taken lightly. But then I have also had a basal cell carcinoma successfully treated (good old chemicals). A friend was not so lucky, their skin cancer was squamous cell carcinoma that required amputation of part of a digit. Hopefully, they will not suffer further problems as the cancerous cells from the carcinoma can spread via the lymph glands, but this is rare. As always, it’s a personal choice in what you do. Some people smoke, some people drink a lot of alcohol on occasions and some people ride bikes without helmets while some choose to wear one. Everyone has that choice. I agree with Si and others that precautions are sensible, be it lotions or clothing, as skin cancer is a real issue that can affect even those who think they have no worries as they tan easily and have always done so – julk proves that point.
I suppose if we avoid chemicals and hope evolution will win the day, we might not see cyclists on the road in future as by a process of natural selection (evolution) we will realise that it is too dangerous! I avoid as much medication as possible as I like to know when I’m ill and would rather have some pain, that prevented me from doing something that will only make matters worse, rather than numb the pain. However, when it comes to something like treating a carcinoma, then I’m first in line for the treatment as I know it takes many years to evolve and I may not be around to see the results. If we do not separate people from nature by intervention and treatment (chemicals) then I assume we are quite happy for a vastly increasing mortality rate with ever increasing debilitating disease. I suppose this would solve the current shortage of housing, and who knows, a dose of the plague might be good for society that is often accused of being uncaring/useless anyway: all in favour of giving it a go?
I suppose if we avoid chemicals and hope evolution will win the day, we might not see cyclists on the road in future as by a process of natural selection (evolution) we will realise that it is too dangerous! I avoid as much medication as possible as I like to know when I’m ill and would rather have some pain, that prevented me from doing something that will only make matters worse, rather than numb the pain. However, when it comes to something like treating a carcinoma, then I’m first in line for the treatment as I know it takes many years to evolve and I may not be around to see the results. If we do not separate people from nature by intervention and treatment (chemicals) then I assume we are quite happy for a vastly increasing mortality rate with ever increasing debilitating disease. I suppose this would solve the current shortage of housing, and who knows, a dose of the plague might be good for society that is often accused of being uncaring/useless anyway: all in favour of giving it a go?
-
montmorency
- Posts: 271
- Joined: 31 May 2007, 11:00pm
- Location: Oxfordshire
meic wrote:I almost never wear suncream.
At the moment the health authorities are warning about the resurgence of ricketts because people whose ancestors come from sunnier climates are not able to produce vit D from our feeble British Sun.
Suncream is not necessary for me as I catch some sun early in the year and build up a tan slowly while the sun is still weak. Also I am not eligible to join the League of ST George so my skin is not very sensitive.
So for a tanned not-fair skinned person in Britain, suncream isnt that important.
For a thoroughbred Scot in Australia thinks are different, maybee.
When I lived in Australia I didnt use suncream but I wore a long sleeved shirt even while swimming. You got enough sun through the material and on the few occasions that you took the shirt off for a minute or so.
I was quite put off by the sight of 40year olds with the skin of 80year olds but most of the cancers were on the fair skinned rather than the tanned.
The classic places for cancers to develop are at the edges of where your clothes cover, neck-line or top of thighs were shorts end. It is the strong sun on skin that hasnt built up a resistant tan.
Meic, I think you are making a pretty good case for all nude, er, exposure, early in the year, and then often after that!
(I thought those nude cyclists were barmy, but perhaps they were on to something!
)
On a more serious note, I don't particularly fancy the chemicals in sun-creams, or indeed their high cost!
Regards,
M.
This is a forum using common language not a scientific forum. The usage of the word chemicals was perfectly correct in the setting. To suddenly start applying the language of a scientific paper is merely a debating trick and if people persisted in doing so it would bring an end to all effective communication. Are we suddenly to start using the scientific meaning of the word plastic instead of its common usage? Do we revert to organic meaning based on the carbon-carbon bond? No this is a common language forum and resorting to jargon may intimidate those who dont have a scientific education.
The problem with common language, and common sense for that matter, is that it is rarely common and its meaning open to interpretation. I agree that we need to avoid overly complex explanations, but we must surely aspire to ensuring facts are presented and not simply support fiction. Such fiction manifests itself in statements that I believe hold no weight. I will agree that protective lotions are full of chemicals, but disagree that automatically makes them bad for you or harmful; any evidence to support this? The reason I referred to the misuse of the term chemicals is that we are missing the point that we all take chemicals on a regular basis, it’s just that we rarely ever consider the way in which we are exposed to them and the use of the term chemicals appears to be synonymous with bad. I disagree as there is ample evidence where chemicals, in the form of medication, bring relief and sustain human life. The current debate on drugs for Alzheimer’s disease and the properties of echinacea are 2 examples.
As for evolution, well I’m sure all the insulin dependent diabetics would beg to differ on the hypothesis that if we avoid chemicals, call it medication to simplify matters, then we will somehow evolve to cope with that condition. Personally, I think they would just simply die. (Both family members and friends suffer from diabetes and welcome their daily dose of chemicals) I also believe that the evolution hypothesis is not relevant: am I to assume gentle exposure to cigarette smoke will help alleviate the risk of lung cancer? It may be that some people are more tolerant to UV than others and in the future there might be a simple test, based on an individual’s genes, to identify those more susceptible to carcinomas than others. But in the meantime, I believe that Si’s concern is valid and precautions, that include protective clothing and lotions, are sensible rather than wait around for evolution to take care of everything. I particularly favour Horizon’s suggestion of a nice siesta, in the shade of course.
As regards questioning such terms as plastic, well yes we should question what type of plastic as appropriate when it contributes to the debate. After all, we wouldn’t want to use the wrong plastic, would we? We tend to assume common usage, but that can lead to an over-simplification of the situation. So on occasions, it may be wise to specify what type of plastic we are considering. As for jargon, is there anyone using this Forum that was surprised top learn that hydrogen and oxygen constitute that liquid commonly known as water? If so, it may shock you to learn that we inhale nitrogen as it forms part of the gas commonly known as air.
It’s no debating trick. I’m just concerned with fact, be it palatable or not, rather than headline type comments. I suppose that’s because while I read both ‘tabloid’ and ‘broadsheets’, I tend to find some are interested only in headlines while others try to substantiate the headlines. For communication to be effective, surely we should consider differing points of view, even if that view has to penetrate the veneer of a differing point of view. However, if this Forum is simply for people to make wild, unsubstantiated claims without anyone offering a different point of view, then OK, we shouldn’t question anything.
As for evolution, well I’m sure all the insulin dependent diabetics would beg to differ on the hypothesis that if we avoid chemicals, call it medication to simplify matters, then we will somehow evolve to cope with that condition. Personally, I think they would just simply die. (Both family members and friends suffer from diabetes and welcome their daily dose of chemicals) I also believe that the evolution hypothesis is not relevant: am I to assume gentle exposure to cigarette smoke will help alleviate the risk of lung cancer? It may be that some people are more tolerant to UV than others and in the future there might be a simple test, based on an individual’s genes, to identify those more susceptible to carcinomas than others. But in the meantime, I believe that Si’s concern is valid and precautions, that include protective clothing and lotions, are sensible rather than wait around for evolution to take care of everything. I particularly favour Horizon’s suggestion of a nice siesta, in the shade of course.
As regards questioning such terms as plastic, well yes we should question what type of plastic as appropriate when it contributes to the debate. After all, we wouldn’t want to use the wrong plastic, would we? We tend to assume common usage, but that can lead to an over-simplification of the situation. So on occasions, it may be wise to specify what type of plastic we are considering. As for jargon, is there anyone using this Forum that was surprised top learn that hydrogen and oxygen constitute that liquid commonly known as water? If so, it may shock you to learn that we inhale nitrogen as it forms part of the gas commonly known as air.
It’s no debating trick. I’m just concerned with fact, be it palatable or not, rather than headline type comments. I suppose that’s because while I read both ‘tabloid’ and ‘broadsheets’, I tend to find some are interested only in headlines while others try to substantiate the headlines. For communication to be effective, surely we should consider differing points of view, even if that view has to penetrate the veneer of a differing point of view. However, if this Forum is simply for people to make wild, unsubstantiated claims without anyone offering a different point of view, then OK, we shouldn’t question anything.
-
reohn2
But surely the biggest debating trick is to dismiss an alternative view without a valid reason by using facile comments in an attempt to justify the dismissal.
Meic
Any point in my last post you disagree with? What do you think is being ‘side stepped’? As regards emotional images, I simply reported fact with no emotion attached and was certainly not attempting to play on emotions, particularly as emotions are generated by different images in different people. After all, I can get ‘emotional’ just looking at my bike.
Reohn2
Thank you and I hope you were not getting carried away by all that bonne homme being shown in the House yesterday (Blair/Cameron etc)! I think our ‘core values’ are remarkably similar and being able to have differences of opinion, on occasions, is no bad thing as it is often quoted as a tenant of a productive and progressive society.
Meic
Any point in my last post you disagree with? What do you think is being ‘side stepped’? As regards emotional images, I simply reported fact with no emotion attached and was certainly not attempting to play on emotions, particularly as emotions are generated by different images in different people. After all, I can get ‘emotional’ just looking at my bike.
Reohn2
Thank you and I hope you were not getting carried away by all that bonne homme being shown in the House yesterday (Blair/Cameron etc)! I think our ‘core values’ are remarkably similar and being able to have differences of opinion, on occasions, is no bad thing as it is often quoted as a tenant of a productive and progressive society.
-
mhara
FYI - the latest issue of the New Scientist has an article by Jessica Marshall on some of the latest research findings re the potentially lethal deficiencies of sun-screens. The incidence of melanoma continues to rise, despite more and more people using these 'chemicals'. Its incidence is increasing faster than any other type of skin cancer. The article states "By letting you stay longer in the sun, sunscreens increase your UVA exposure".
And there is some support for Meic's view that a gently aquired and persitent tan is safer than irregular exposure. Perhaps Meic, you might now change your view on the helpfulness of scientific approaches?
Pages 38 - 41, New Scientist issued for the week commencing 30th June.
And there is some support for Meic's view that a gently aquired and persitent tan is safer than irregular exposure. Perhaps Meic, you might now change your view on the helpfulness of scientific approaches?
Pages 38 - 41, New Scientist issued for the week commencing 30th June.
Oracle: you have a point, and so does meic. (How's that for fairness?!) I eat organic vegetables on the basis that harmful "chemicals" have not been used on them, but I wouldn't like to argue the case scientifically! I think by "chemicals" we laypeople mean manufactured substances that aren't normally found in our immediate environment. I like the fact that these "chemicals" are used to make bicycle bits but draw the line at putting them on my skin. But I would certainly agree that my language is a bit broad brush to say the least!
-
montmorency
- Posts: 271
- Joined: 31 May 2007, 11:00pm
- Location: Oxfordshire
The skin, so we are told my experts, is an incredibly complex organism, and a certain amount, perhaps a lot, of what you rub on it is absorbed by it.
Applying, say, a medicinal ointment for a limited time to treat a specific complaint is one thing, but to go on applying something day after day (perhaps hour after hour), is quite another.
Do I really want (taking one at random) "vinyl isodecanoate crosspolymer" absorbed into my system? Do you know what it does? Does anyone?
That's just one of a long list.
Regards,
M.
Applying, say, a medicinal ointment for a limited time to treat a specific complaint is one thing, but to go on applying something day after day (perhaps hour after hour), is quite another.
Do I really want (taking one at random) "vinyl isodecanoate crosspolymer" absorbed into my system? Do you know what it does? Does anyone?
That's just one of a long list.
Regards,
M.
New Scientist – an interesting article. But it does not support the view, espoused by some on this Forum, that ‘chemicals’ in sunscreen lotion are fundamentality harmful. Regards the increase in the incidence of melanoma, the article does not explain the significant difference in rate of increase (for men) due to location (Australia compared to USA and UK) even though UVA, which it suggests may be more damaging than UVB, is not affected by latitude. It does highlight research that suggests increased levels of melanin may result in reduced susceptibility to melanoma and those who tan are less likely to develop melanoma. But this is due to inherited genes and although a tan might offer better protection against melanoma, it is stressed that ‘it’s not worth risking the UV exposure required to get one’. Further, it states ‘in the meantime, short of covering up altogether, a sunscreen with good UVA protection would seem to be the best defence’. So, short of wearing a burka when cycling, appropriate sunscreen protection appears to be a good idea, according to the article in New Scientist!
Regards the application of medical ointments on a daily basis that may contain some strange sounding substances, such as vinyl isodecanoate crosspolymer, some people have to do this and have not exhibited any problems, others may react. Rather like nut allergy and why some need hypo-allergic products. However, just because something sounds like it is not natural does not mean to say it is harmful. The purpose of vinyl isodecanoate crosspolymer appears to be in ensuring the product sticks to the skin and it also improves water resistance.
Regards the application of medical ointments on a daily basis that may contain some strange sounding substances, such as vinyl isodecanoate crosspolymer, some people have to do this and have not exhibited any problems, others may react. Rather like nut allergy and why some need hypo-allergic products. However, just because something sounds like it is not natural does not mean to say it is harmful. The purpose of vinyl isodecanoate crosspolymer appears to be in ensuring the product sticks to the skin and it also improves water resistance.
-
montmorency
- Posts: 271
- Joined: 31 May 2007, 11:00pm
- Location: Oxfordshire
Oracle wrote:New Scientist – an interesting article. But it does not support the view, espoused by some on this Forum, that ‘chemicals’ in sunscreen lotion are fundamentality harmful. Regards the increase in the incidence of melanoma, the article does not explain the significant difference in rate of increase (for men) due to location (Australia compared to USA and UK) even though UVA, which it suggests may be more damaging than UVB, is not affected by latitude. It does highlight research that suggests increased levels of melanin may result in reduced susceptibility to melanoma and those who tan are less likely to develop melanoma. But this is due to inherited genes and although a tan might offer better protection against melanoma, it is stressed that ‘it’s not worth risking the UV exposure required to get one’. Further, it states ‘in the meantime, short of covering up altogether, a sunscreen with good UVA protection would seem to be the best defence’. So, short of wearing a burka when cycling, appropriate sunscreen protection appears to be a good idea, according to the article in New Scientist!
Regards the application of medical ointments on a daily basis that may contain some strange sounding substances, such as vinyl isodecanoate crosspolymer, some people have to do this and have not exhibited any problems, others may react. Rather like nut allergy and why some need hypo-allergic products. However, just because something sounds like it is not natural does not mean to say it is harmful. The purpose of vinyl isodecanoate crosspolymer appears to be in ensuring the product sticks to the skin and it also improves water resistance.
Yes, but what else does it do? And (as I say), that was one of a very long list.
Interesting though, that you mention burkas, because I was going to mention that people in the middle east, who appear to be pretty darkskinned naturally, tend to cover up pretty much completely.
This might be partly due to natural/cultural modesty, but may have evolved as the sensible precaution.
Someone else talked about swimming in shirts in Australia.
These would not cover up the bottom half (still vulnerable through the water, I imagine). Perhaps we will see a return to Victorian/Edwardian swimming costumes?
If people decide they wish to cover up rather than slap on the cream, perhaps we will also see a market for all-over, all-weather cycling gear.
I have not reed the NSc. article in question, but I will look out for it.
I worry, however, about phrases like "would seem to be".
Covering their bases weren't they.
Regards,
M.
I have not dismissed anybody's argument, either out of hand or with reasoning. In fact I agree with a lot of what other people have said. I disagree with the use of suncream as the only solution to the problem.
I do not know all the answers but at least I know that I dont know all the answers.
The point of my last 2 posts was not about suncream or sun related problems. It was about distorting the argument by using an inappropiate definition of the word chemicals.
In normal conversation the word chemicals is not perfectly defined as it is in the scientific world. However it most definetly is NOT the same meaning as the word in the scientific world, that much is sure even if we can not agree on what it actually means. Despite that we have a vague concensus on what it does mean.
To try and use a scientific definition in a common language conversation is invalid. Unless you believe that scientific terminology has some superiority even outside of its own circles. That is the only point I am labouring.
The mention of plastics is because the scientific meaning of plastics is something which changes in a flowing manner under pressure. This excludes materials which in common language are certainly plastics eg polyurethane.
Also to a scientist glass is a liquid (even though a supercooled one) because given a couple of million years it will end up as a puddle on the floor. To suddenly insert this fact into a common conversation where glass was being treated as a solid would only be detremental to the communication. Some people use such techniques in conversation inorder to win an argument by distracting their 'opponent' or undermining their confidence by showing their inadequacies in an irrelevent field.
I do not know all the answers but at least I know that I dont know all the answers.
The point of my last 2 posts was not about suncream or sun related problems. It was about distorting the argument by using an inappropiate definition of the word chemicals.
In normal conversation the word chemicals is not perfectly defined as it is in the scientific world. However it most definetly is NOT the same meaning as the word in the scientific world, that much is sure even if we can not agree on what it actually means. Despite that we have a vague concensus on what it does mean.
To try and use a scientific definition in a common language conversation is invalid. Unless you believe that scientific terminology has some superiority even outside of its own circles. That is the only point I am labouring.
The mention of plastics is because the scientific meaning of plastics is something which changes in a flowing manner under pressure. This excludes materials which in common language are certainly plastics eg polyurethane.
Also to a scientist glass is a liquid (even though a supercooled one) because given a couple of million years it will end up as a puddle on the floor. To suddenly insert this fact into a common conversation where glass was being treated as a solid would only be detremental to the communication. Some people use such techniques in conversation inorder to win an argument by distracting their 'opponent' or undermining their confidence by showing their inadequacies in an irrelevent field.