News Flash: The Sun does not kill people.

[Naturyl]

{Note: I wrote this in a somewhat comic-sarcastic style, so please don't take the tone personally.}

News flash, geniuses: The sun does not kill people.

In our haste to mindlessly and uncritically accept several decades worth of self-interested and blatantly biased advertising messages from the sunscreen industry, we managed to overlook the fact that the human race survived for some two or three million years while quite frequently being out in the sun. Gasp!

And, even more puzzlingly, while it was quite common to die at 30 from having your head bashed in by a mammoth, a rock, or a neighbor, it was apparently rather uncommon to die of cancer. Hmm, but wait, without New And Improved Cosmetico Brand Super Ultimate Mega SPF 99 Triple-Action Sunblock, everybody should have died of hideous melanoma, right? The world must have consisted of people lugging around enormous 90 pound sun-induced tumors, no? Perhaps that's why they invented the wheel...

Ah, but here's the rub, only recently rediscovered by scientists despite the fact that a nine year old on crack could have figured it out - the sun produces Vitamin D in the skin, and Vitamin D is good for you. So, it seems that by standing in the sun all day, our ancestors were getting a big dose of a crucial nutrient that actually helped protect them from cancer and about a million other things.

Sure, they still died young, because it would be another 800,000 years before things like hand-washing, germs, sanitation, and not randomly bludgeoning people to death were discovered. The lack of these puts kind of a damper on the whole life expectancy dealie. But as far as the sun goes, it wasn't killing them. In fact, doctors and scientists are now discovering exactly the opposite...

A lack of sun exposure is killing us.

Lack of sun exposure means lack of Vitamin D, and since we've now discovered that Vitamin D is not actually just a silly vitamin but rather a high-powered hormone that controls all kinds of health-related systems in the body, that ain't good. But don't take my word for it, because I could be some Internet whacko who makes stuff like this up at random (as if that ever happens on the Internet). Go Google Vitamin D. And look up the Vitamin D Council as well.

BUT WHAT ABOUT MELANOMAMA? WHADDABOUT MELANOMA???! MELANONONOAMA!!!!! MELLLLLLAAAAAAANNNNNOOOOMMMMAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

Oh no, melanoma! The sun gives it to you! Drat! There goes the whole premise - but wait, as it turns out, sun-induced melanoma is actually pretty rare. In fact, your chance of getting melanoma from the sun is far less than your chance of getting another (usually worse) form of cancer due to low Vitamin D. If a 1% chance of melanoma sounds worse than a 20% chance of colon cancer, then I can't help you, nor can anyone else, because you're officially brain dead.

BUT I STILL DON"T WANNA GET MELANOMA!!!!!!!!!!

Sigh.... fine. Then just go get some friggin Vitamin D pills. They're like sunlight in a bottle. How much should you take? The long answer is is that there's a wide variety of developing science and medical research focused on the issue of optimal dosage. The short answer is 1000-5000 IU a day. 1-2K if you want to be cautious, 4-5k if you want to go for the gusto. 2500 IU if you want the middle path.

Look, even if you hate vitamins and believe, like the skeptics, that they are all worthless quackery that do little more than make toilet water bright, get Vitamin D anyway. The emerging science is that solid. Research it, see for yourself, and then head for the vitamin aisle. You're on your own from there, because I'm not trying to sell anything.

Or, just take in a little sun. 20 minutes around midday will do fine. The sun does not kill people, you nut.

[enlightenment]

1. 20 minutes of sunlight will supply what's necessary.

Baking yourself like a Christmas goose isn't necessary.

By the way . . . you catch more flies with honey than vinegar (or snark). ;)

[Naturyl]

9. Agreed.

On both counts. Normally I don't write in this style but it was written for a specific project that uses that kind of tone.

And yeah, you never need to burn, and sunburn is definitely not healthy.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

2. Somebody is still thinking, good message.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Yeah, but sunburns suck ass so I wear sunscreen on my porcelain white skin. eom

[trotsky]

4. You do realize that due to ozone depletion...

the UV radiation we are exposed to from the sun is greater than what our ancient ancestors got, right?

And that most of those ancestors didn't live long enough (~25 years) to develop any kind of cancer, let alone melanoma?

Oh wait, I'm sorry. This is one of THOSE rants. Facts not welcome. Again, sorry.

[laconicsax]

7. How dare you bring facts into this discussion? n/t

[Naturyl]

10. No, facts are quite welcome.

That's why I'd like to see scientific sources backing up your claims about the UV spectrum. 1 or 2 reliable links will do.

Also, I wasn't aware that cancer only happens to older people. Juvenile cancer wards around the world will be glad to hear it.

[trotsky]

13. I'll give you plenty more than 1 or 2 links.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=ozone+depletion+UVB

Within the first several results are links to the EPA and the NIH. There are more than 30,000 other results for you to peruse.

And I didn't say that "cancer only happens to older people." That's your strawman. You want to believe that cancer NEVER happened to ANYONE prior to the modern era, and that just isn't true.

[Naturyl]

16. No, I don't "want to believe" that

Nor do I in fact believe it. Cancer certainly occurred in ancient times - the question is whether it did so at a significantly lower rate. The evidence suggests that is the case.

I will go have a look at the link. I'm hoping to find that it is relevant to the issue of whether diminished UVB exposure in modern society is related to higher cancer incidence - although I'm skeptical that it will be.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

46. So did you click the link?

Did you find the government site showing that ozone depletion has increased the amount of UV radiation reaching the earth's surface?

Heck since you managed to get the proof you were wrong deleted, I'll post it so everyone can see. Here's the U.S. EPA weighing in.

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/effects

Effects on Human Health

Laboratory and epidemiological studies demonstrate that UVB causes nonmelanoma skin cancer and plays a major role in malignant melanoma development. In addition, UVB has been linked to cataracts -- a clouding of the eye’s lens. All sunlight contains some UVB, even with normal stratospheric ozone levels. It is always important to protect your skin and eyes from the sun. Ozone layer depletion increases the amount of UVB and the risk of health effects.

[marybourg]

5. Oh noes. The anti-vaccine, anti-fillings, anti -root canal kooks

have found another target!! Sun-screen!! I'll keep mine thanx; I live in Arizona and almost everyone here has had one or another type of skin cancer.

[Naturyl]

11. Exsqueeze me?

Wow, that was a lot of assumptions, and every one was off the mark. I totally oppose the anti-vaccine crowd and find them ridiculous. Fillings as a health issue has never even crossed my mind, ditto root canals. And for the record, I have no problem with fluoride, either.

Most non-melanoma skin cancers are easily treated. Only melanoma is really dangerous, and there's no legitimate scientific evidence that sunscreen prevents it. In fact, some researchers believe that it may contribute to melanoma development by blocking the vitamin D-producing UVB rays while doing nothing to stop the cancer-causing UVA rays.

But hey, if you love your sunscreen, go for it. There's no reason to lump me in with all of those caricatured bogeymen you listed, though.

[bemildred]

14. Things get real weird down here real fast.

Lots of hair-trigger issues and deep emotional commitments to black and white points of view.

I use sunscreen to avoid sunburn, otherwise I like a little sun, and I fry like a piece of bacon.

[Naturyl]

17. I use suncreen myself

If I'm going to be in the sun for more than 20-30 minutes.

Burning is not good and nobody (myself included) would say that it is. But moderate sun exposure is not harmful and may in fact be quite healthful.

[bemildred]

19. Yep. nt

[trotsky]

22. Ah, you're shifting your goalposts already.

If "the sun does not kill people" (your EXACT words), why do you use sunscreen?

Are you calling yourself a nut now?

[Naturyl]

23. Because sunburn hurts.

And a huge overdose of anything (including water) can hurt people. Acknowledging this doesn't really invalidate anything I said.

[trotsky]

25. Do you even know what sunburn is?

And you ARE backtracking and contradicting yourself. You spoke in absolutes in your OP, and I think you're now realizing your error. That's good.

[Naturyl]

27. Haha, you really think a lot of yourself, eh?

No worries, it's pretty funny to watch you self-congratulate over your imagined victories.

And now I better go figure out what sunburn is, if I can manage to spell it. Gonna be tough, but I'll try to be worthy of your rebukes.

[trotsky]

29. If that's how you have to bow out from your ridiculous OP, so be it.

Good luck to you. Please learn from this, and don't dispense irresponsible (and potentially harmful) medical advice.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

35. But your OP did not focus on Vitamin D deficiency.

It mocked those who advocate sensible protection from the sun.

And then more goalpost shifting and personal attacks from you. Why haven't you disputed any of the facts I've presented? Why are you too afraid to click on my link? Why do you continue to attack me rather than address the facts?

[Naturyl]

37. It didn't address vitamin D deficiency?

Then what was all of this about?

"Ah, but here's the rub, only recently rediscovered by scientists despite the fact that a nine year old on crack could have figured it out - the sun produces Vitamin D in the skin, and Vitamin D is good for you. So, it seems that by standing in the sun all day, our ancestors were getting a big dose of a crucial nutrient that actually helped protect them from cancer and about a million other things...

...Lack of sun exposure means lack of Vitamin D, and since we've now discovered that Vitamin D is not actually just a silly vitamin but rather a high-powered hormone that controls all kinds of health-related systems in the body, that ain't good. But don't take my word for it, because I could be some Internet whacko who makes stuff like this up at random (as if that ever happens on the Internet). Go Google Vitamin D. And look up the Vitamin D Council as well...

...In fact, your chance of getting melanoma from the sun is far less than your chance of getting another (usually worse) form of cancer due to low Vitamin D. If a 1% chance of melanoma sounds worse than a 20% chance of colon cancer, then I can't help you, nor can anyone else...

...
Sigh.... fine. Then just go get some friggin Vitamin D pills. They're like sunlight in a bottle. How much should you take? The long answer is is that there's a wide variety of developing science and medical research focused on the issue of optimal dosage. The short answer is 1000-5000 IU a day. 1-2K if you want to be cautious, 4-5k if you want to go for the gusto. 2500 IU if you want the middle path.

Look, even if you hate vitamins and believe, like the skeptics, that they are all worthless quackery that do little more than make toilet water bright, get Vitamin D anyway. The emerging science is that solid. Research it, see for yourself, and then head for the vitamin aisle."

That's almost half the text of the OP. But, of course, I "didn't address" the Vitamin D issue, did I? LOL.

[trotsky]

38. You can't even quote me accurately.

I refuse to argue with the strawmen you can't stop throwing out. Your increasing desperation is obvious.

[Naturyl]

39. So your quibble is that you actually said it doesn't "focus on" D deficiency?

Hehe, okie-dokie. I stand corrected. And now, because it is pretty clear that the OP *does* in fact "focus" on that issue (dedicating almost half the text to it), will you stand corrected as well?

Something tells me not to hold my breath.

[trotsky]

40. You proved above my initial objection to your post was correct. I thank you for that.

The rest is your strawmen.

[mahina]

6. I wish you were right.

I'd still have my buddy alive.

[HuckleB]

8. No one ever got cavities back then either!

Let's stop the toothpaste and flossing industry NOW!

(Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

[Naturyl]

12. Not as witty as you think.

These kind of responses don't really address the issues.

[HuckleB]

20. You'd have to bring up a an actual issue first.

:rofl:

BTW, a Google search for "Sun Does Not Cause Cancer" is quite enlightening. It brings up all the usual quacks.

[Naturyl]

24. Ah, so this is a non-issue?

Gotcha.

Appreciated the ROFL face. Doesn't it feel good to dismiss others?

As for the "usual quacks," I'd suggest also looking into the ones who still refuse to recognize the value of vitamin D in human physiological function. Additionally, please consider whether "guilt by association" is a logically fallacious mode of argument.

Hint: it is.

[trotsky]

26. More strawmen.

No one here is saying that Vitamin D is not an essential nutrient. We are disputing your OP suggesting that the sun can't harm people and can only help them. Further evidence of your realization that you were in error is your constant use of strawmen to represent others' arguments.

[Naturyl]

28. If you think my point was "the sun can't harm people and can only help them"...

Then your reading comprehension skills lag far behind your extremely healthy self-image.

My OP was obviously rhetorical and not intended to suggest that sun exposure is completely harmless even if taken to extremes (which would be ridiculous), but rather to make the point that the modern "sun scare" which causes people to avoid ALL sun exposure is not based in rational thought or reliable science.

The fact that you didn't get this is ironic, given your strident self-confidence in repeatedly admonishing me.

But you'll just accuse me of backpedaling, moving the goalposts, or somesuch once again, so whatever. :)

[HuckleB]

30. Nice spin!

:rofl:

[trotsky]

31. My confidence comes from knowing the facts are on my side.

That you cannot dispute the facts, but now are only attacking me personally and throwing out even more strawmen only serves to drive home that point.

[Naturyl]

34. The facts aren't on your side.

http://vitamindcouncil.org

There's a whole heap of facts at that site - all of which are decidedly not on your side.

But please do continue in your smug self-assurance. I won't be the one who pays for it.

[trotsky]

36. Oh no, that's not what your OP focused on. Not letting you shift the goalposts.

It contained several factual, logical, and rational errors that I have tried to correct but have been met with increasing personal attacks and a steadfast REFUSAL to even click on ONE LINK to learn a basic fact, namely that UV exposure is stronger and more dangerous today that it was in the idealized past that you try to romanticize.

[Naturyl]

41. You like that little "shift the goalposts" catchphrase, eh?

I see that phrase and others like it a lot in certain circles... but that's neither here nor there.

My OP contained no errors whatsoever and you have not shown it to contain any (or even come close to doing so). Instead you've simply proclaimed, asserted, and declared that errors exist over and over without actually rigorously identifying any - and all while taking a remarkably smug tone. That's typical of many self-styled "skeptics" these days who are in reality not skeptics at all, but rather fervent believers in the reactionary "debunking" ideology.

But hey, it's all good. If you want to talk about the dangers of increased UVB levels due to ozone depletion, I'm all for that. Because the thesis of my OP is that moderate sun exposure has health benefits due to widespread vitamin D deficiency, I guess you'd have to show how increased UVB levels refutes that. I'd personally suspect it's a good thing, since with more UV coming though, you can get adequate vitamin D quicker than you could in the past.

[trotsky]

45. Doesn't matter if I like it, it's what you are doing.

You yourself quoted above showing that I was correct, and you were wrong. Now you're simply in denial and having found that your beliefs conflict with reality, you cling tighter to those beliefs in a phenomenon demonstrated by numerous psychologists.

Because the thesis of my OP is that moderate sun exposure has health benefits due to widespread vitamin D deficiency

Nope, that's not what your original thesis was at all. You're SHIFTED THE GOALPOSTS, as I keep pointing out to you. You originally claimed that our ancestors were out in the sun "all day" without harm and that this actually protected them from cancer and "about a million other things" (not one of which you've deemed necessary to tell us, natch).

You take an extreme position that no one actually believes (a STRAWMAN), namely that somehow all sun exposure is dangerous and deadly, beaten that strawman into submission, and then made unwarranted and unsupported and factually incorrect claims to support yourself in that effort.

You've failed on all counts, and your increasing hostility toward me rather than supporting your argument simply proves the point.

[HuckleB]

32. Ah, now you're on to the Vitamin D will save the world routine!

:rofl:

Try again.

[Naturyl]

42. Save the world? LOL, no. Reduce cancer incidence significantly? Yes.

And that's good enough for me.

Look, I couldn't care less whether you're into vitamin D at all. It's your business. But the scientific studies say what they say - and what they say is that widespread vitamin D deficiency exists and increasing D levels cuts cancer incidence by significant amounts.

Them's the facts, and as devastating as the dreaded ROFL icon might be, it doesn't make them go away. :)

[HuckleB]

43. Your OP isn't exactly concerned with that, but whatever!

I'm tired of woo woo BS.

[littlewolf]

15. Good article ... grew up a farm we never even heard of

melanoma ....

However I do admit I wanted to give a smarty reply

"it depends on how close you get to the sun!"

but I chose not too ...
:D

[Naturyl]

18. Hehe... close range sun exposure is not recommended.

One should remain at least 93 million miles away at all times. :)

[laconicsax]

44. FWIW: You're closer than that for half the year.

The Earth is 94.5 million miles away from the Sun at aphelion and 91.4 million miles away at perihelion. We're only at or beyond 93 million miles between April and October.