Researchers say that sunlight is addictive

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Oh man, even "researchers" are idiotic... this truly is idiocracy. It just hurts, do I seriously have to point out the incredibly obvious here? It pains me to feel that this is necessary.

*sigh*

Is eating an inherent addiction? Is defecating an inherent addiction? What about have sex, is it always an addiction?

Look, the term, "addiction" has a negative connotation, and is only appropriate for things that are inherently dangerous, and irrational.

What's happening with these "researchers" is a confusion between an incentive mechanism, and an addiction.

Sex is not an addiction. Banging everything that has jiggles can be detrimental to your well being. Huge difference.

Getting some sunlight is not detrimental. Turning African as a Caucasian is likely going to mess up your skin, and increase your chance of cancer.

Moderation is key. How many people out there are doing antisocial things just to get their fix of sunlight? Freaking ridiculous notion of it being an "addiction".

This term, along with "disorder" lost their meaning long ago... about the time common sense died out.
edit on 20-6-2014 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

What lends credence to this are things like "Seasonal Affective Disorder", which is basically the body becoming depressed from a lack of sunlight.

Otherwise, i agree....the methodology of the experiment seems to leave something to be desired.


and that is a serious disorder that I used to scoff at until a really good friend from California who I surf and camp with went to Seattle to live. He had to get a light box to combat his depression.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I lived in Coral Gables Florida (Miami) fro 5 years. And I noticed a huge difference moving back to Michigan. My energy level and mood would sing-song up and down with the sunshine change.

I can see why folks like tanning beds.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I think they meant essential.
lack of results in lack of recovery and also hinders dna self repair.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
And this is bad for you?

Those feel good chemicals wake you up, and not like any drugs, its the really good stuff your brain is designed for

As for avoiding Well, 10-3 pm is a good time to limit sun I suppose, not eliminate it. I wouldn't sungaze then, but definitely would tilt my head up and let the sun in the side of my eyes. But don't want a burn.

However that being said:

www.bmj.com...
Sunlight prevents cancer, study says

I never use sunblock or put it on my children Not to mention the sunblock often blocks UV B, when its UV A that is the problem and UV B prevents cancer.

www.natures-health-foods.com...


The fact is, clinical evidence shows that sunlight prevents 17 different kinds of cancer.

But our fear of the sun has kept us indoors and slathered with sunscreen.

And that’s bad news.

Turns out, a lack of sunshine can trigger deadly cancers, depression, bone loss, heart disease and more.



The profession with least skin cancer/cancer is Australian lifeguard.

www.nbcnews.com...
Ovarian Cancer Rates Lower In Sunny Areas.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


The Western Canada Melanoma Study, however, also detected a significant inverse association between melanoma and chronic or longterm occupational sun exposure in men, with the lowest risk (OR = 0.5) in those with maximum occupational exposure, suggesting that chronic exposure may be protective


Here is my province study , on outdoor workers, expecting to have higher cancer rates, instead they found a significant inverse result.

And that so called addictive element, thats the whole brain on sungazing, I guess, when you're wired up, your right and left become synchronized, kind of like Taoists, Buddhists, Tibetans, Indic, and all metaphysical practices highly recommend.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Just from visiting Florida I'd say this is true, people on the beach have leather looking skin yet they still are out sun bathing and can't get enough. At a certain point it can't be just about the tan.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
This is an example of people addicted to sunlight:


www.google.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Out here where I live, you will think twice about going out and sitting in the sun. The sun is brutal. The only good time to sun bathe is during winter as the intensity is not so harsh.
There is a paper/study out there that mentions you only need to be outside for about 15 minutes to attain your daily requirement of Vitamin D.
Keep in mind that some skin cancers can become aggressive, such as melanoma and squamus cell carcinoma.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 01:30 AM
link   
This is old news, as in really old news. I would guess it's been proven for over a decade. Tanning is addictive.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Unity_99
Here is my province study , on outdoor workers, expecting to have higher cancer rates, instead they found a significant inverse result.
It doesn't appear you understood the explanation:


These observations suggest that part of the increase in the incidence of melanoma in lowsunlight areas may be due to a reduction over the past 40 years of the size of this group of individuals “protected” by their exposure to UV light.
In other words, there are more 20 year old lifeguards than 60 year old lifeguards. So between age 20 and 60 a lot of people drop out of the lifeguard business.

If there wasn't such a reduction in the size of the lifeguard population then the inverse results might not have been obtained. That's what I expected even before I read the abstract and what I expected was right there in the abstract.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I didn't misunderstand the study in the least They found a significant reduction in cancer in their target group, outdoor workers, ie "roofers",

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


These observations suggest that part of the increase in the incidence of melanoma in lowsunlight areas may be due to a reduction over the past 40 years of the size of this group of individuals “protected” by their exposure to UV light.


You are suggesting, perhaps they even try to, infer, or clutch at straws, add something that isn't there to try and explain away the findings. That is not science

Not only did they find sunlight decreased cancer, but they found low sunlight areas increased cancer.

This had nothing to do with lifeguards, that was a different study than our BC one.


edit on 21-6-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I don't trust the sun.

But I fear and respect it.

Much like the government or my wife.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I guess that's good news for all those health insurance companies who are tired of paying for skin cancer. Obamacare. Spread the love and charity (really thin)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Lol. Praise the Sun.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

So now I wonder how the government will regulate it.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I guess we should avoid doing anything we're proud of or even thinking of things that bring us joy also, because those also stimulate our pleasure centers


EDIT:


originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Oh man, even "researchers" are idiotic... this truly is idiocracy. It just hurts, do I seriously have to point out the incredibly obvious here? It pains me to feel that this is necessary.



I was beat to it
edit on 23/6/2014 by zackli because: beat to the punch
edit on 23/6/2014 by zackli because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join