Sunlight does NOT cause skin Cancer!

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by eXia7
Yeah, I personally think that the sunscreen itself is what causes skin cancer, also with the tanning oil as well.


Anyone remember this from Robocop 2?




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
My father has worked his whole life in the sunlight, He has lots of sunspots and moles. He might have skin cancer.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I knew it.....this whole sunsrceen thing was developed by the vampires that live among us......see cause they really.....and I mean REALLY hate the sun.

Jus' Sayin'




spez



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
i know a man who worked most of his life in construction outside in the sun, and most of the time he was battling some sort of skin cancer, not to mention his arms and hands were completely discolored and full of blisters.

im no doctor but common sense tells me that prolonged exposure to the sun cant be good for you.

when was the last time you went to the beach and didn't use sun block?

i'll tell you what i made that mistake once and the pain and burning that i felt for days did not seem "natural" to me.

i think too much time exposed to the sun does cause skin cancer



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I think most of you have missed the mark here. Skin cancer and cancer in general is usually caused by hot particles in the biosphere.

Heres what happened:



If you are unlucky enough to breath one in or swallow one or have one land on your skin and get stuck there, your screwed.

Sunshine is good for you unless your the type that burns too easily in which case you should stay in the shade and absorb indirect sunlight for the melatonin and vitamin D production.

Nukes cause cancer. Why do you think they stopped testing them and now rely on computer modeling?

Frater
edit on 27-1-2013 by Frater because: Fixed utube and added more info.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I dunno, I think you may be wrong here. If the cells of the body are bombarded by too much radiation, they are going to mutate or break down, which basically equates to damage. Cancer is basically a conglomeration of mutated cells if I'm not mistaken, so I do not see why sunlight could not cause cancer. I do not really know one way or the other, but that seems like a logical assumption that I just made.


have you noticed how animals dont get skin cancer? thats because they dont smoke cigarettes, use sunbeds or apply chemicals (cream) to their skin. lack of sun is far worse for our health than too much sun. if you dont believe me just ask joseph fritzl's children. i see what you mean about radiation but if that was true the whole of africa would have skin cancer



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashley0113eezy

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I dunno, I think you may be wrong here. If the cells of the body are bombarded by too much radiation, they are going to mutate or break down, which basically equates to damage. Cancer is basically a conglomeration of mutated cells if I'm not mistaken, so I do not see why sunlight could not cause cancer. I do not really know one way or the other, but that seems like a logical assumption that I just made.


have you noticed how animals dont get skin cancer? thats because they dont smoke cigarettes, use sunbeds or apply chemicals (cream) to their skin. lack of sun is far worse for our health than too much sun. if you dont believe me just ask joseph fritzl's children. i see what you mean about radiation but if that was true the whole of africa would have skin cancer


Animals do get skin cancer, if I remember correctly it is more common in pigs than humans. Lack of sun is bad, but the amount you need each day is measured in minutes. White people are more likely to get skin cancer than Blacks, Asians, and Latinos.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnoEht
i know a man who worked most of his life in construction outside in the sun, and most of the time he was battling some sort of skin cancer, not to mention his arms and hands were completely discolored and full of blisters.

im no doctor but common sense tells me that prolonged exposure to the sun cant be good for you.

when was the last time you went to the beach and didn't use sun block?

i'll tell you what i made that mistake once and the pain and burning that i felt for days did not seem "natural" to me.

i think too much time exposed to the sun does cause skin cancer


was the man a drinker or a smoker? did he eat plenty of pork? could there be another reason why he was always battling some sort of skin cancer? did he use a lot of sun cream to "protect" his skin? because i know a few people who work in construction and work outdoors and none of them have ever had skin cancer. oh and my grandparents are from jamaica where sunlight is strong and none of them have skin cancer. they dont use sun cream.

but if an eskimo moved to jamaica then his skin might burn like yours did. all depends on the person and if that person is built for that amount of sun



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly

Originally posted by Neutradol
Think sunlight alone can cause skin cancer? So did I! But according to the guy in this video, it doesn't. In fact, it actually protects against skin cancer! Watch and see for yorself. Very interesting stuff.

tv.naturalnews.com...



Sun light causes skin cancer?

I started to have my doubts when they started marketing sunscreen...all double digit factors of it.



Yeah, I personally think that the sunscreen itself is what causes skin cancer, also with the tanning oil as well.


Actually there is very good evidence to support sunscreen causing skin cancer. While it does ensure that your skin will not burn, there are chemicals in the sunscreen itself that activate free radicals in your skin and mixed with the sunlight can cause skin cancer. If you look at a graph of when each country started pushing sunscreen, you will see a jump in skin cancer AFTER they started pushing it. The correlation is pretty clear.

The problem with tanning beds is this: UVA and UVB come from the sun. UVA actually destroys vitamin D, while UVB produces it. The tanning beds, 90% of them are UVA only. Since vitamin D prevents all forms of cancer, including skin, the complete absence of vitamin D and the more damaging UVA allowed to run by itself, is not good. If I go to a tanning bed, I make sure that it has the natural percentage of UVB in it as well.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by anton74

Originally posted by ashley0113eezy

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I dunno, I think you may be wrong here. If the cells of the body are bombarded by too much radiation, they are going to mutate or break down, which basically equates to damage. Cancer is basically a conglomeration of mutated cells if I'm not mistaken, so I do not see why sunlight could not cause cancer. I do not really know one way or the other, but that seems like a logical assumption that I just made.


have you noticed how animals dont get skin cancer? thats because they dont smoke cigarettes, use sunbeds or apply chemicals (cream) to their skin. lack of sun is far worse for our health than too much sun. if you dont believe me just ask joseph fritzl's children. i see what you mean about radiation but if that was true the whole of africa would have skin cancer


Animals do get skin cancer, if I remember correctly it is more common in pigs than humans. Lack of sun is bad, but the amount you need each day is measured in minutes. White people are more likely to get skin cancer than Blacks, Asians, and Latinos.


but pigs get taken all across the earth just to be farmed so we can eat bacon. so the chances are the pigs with the skin cancer are living in a place where a pig would never be without humans. for example australia, did pigs exist in a hot country like australia before english people went over and wanted bacon? does any animal living in its natural habitat get skin cancer?



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ashley0113eezy
 


Animals in their natural habitat do get skin cancer but, fur does help alot in preventing it. In fact, it has been found in Whales and Dolphins. I do agree though that a poor diet does inncrease your risk of getting not just cancer but, alot of other diseases as well(that haven't already been connected to it).



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I dunno, I think you may be wrong here. If the cells of the body are bombarded by too much radiation, they are going to mutate or break down, which basically equates to damage. Cancer is basically a conglomeration of mutated cells if I'm not mistaken, so I do not see why sunlight could not cause cancer. I do not really know one way or the other, but that seems like a logical assumption that I just made.


I agree that if there was too much UV radiation bombarding your skin we're talking a different story here, but under normal sunlight conditions it would take quite a bit. IMO anyways, because why wouldn't there be much higher skin cancer rates in the tropics?


If you believe the statistics the Australian government has accumulated, then there are higher rates of skin cancer in Aus. Apparently this has to do with the ozone layer hole in the atmosphere above Aus. (and thus lack of a natural UV radiation 'blocker'). I have olive skin complexion and it takes around 30 minutes to get severe burns in 30-40 degree weather (Celsius) in Australia. In Europe on the contrary, I can stay out in the sun in 30-40 degree weather all day and it only results in a dark tan.
www.skincancer.gov.au...

Australia has the highest skin cancer incidence rate in the world.
Australians are four times more likely to develop a skin cancer than any other form of cancer.
Approximately two in three Australians will be diagnosed with skin cancer before the age of 70.


There is also this site that predicts skin cancer rates due to ozone depletion:
www.theozonehole.com...

I dont necessarily subscribe to the science in the links, so I'm not going to defend them. Personally, although I believe that high doses of UV radiation can contribute to cancer, I'm not convinced that its only a one cause, one effect situation. Surely genetics plays a role in it. Also I'm not convinced that the nano particles used in sunscreen are 'good' for humans.
edit on 27/1/2013 by phalanx001 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27/1/2013 by phalanx001 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27/1/2013 by phalanx001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
No one wants to say this so I will.

Dark skinned people require more sun exposure than light skinned. It's the same proportion with Vitamin D deficiencies.

The reason why skin cancer is elevated in countries like the USA is that we have a large number of light skinned people living in areas that are better suited to those requiring the extra sun exposure/dark skin. It's the same thing in the more southern regions of Europe and the Mediterranean areas not to mention South Africa!

On the other end of this there are complications to not having enough Vitamin D. Take a dark skinned person and have them live a sedentary life in the Northern Climates and you'll see elevated numbers of D deficiency related illness in them. Maybe even skin cancer strangely enough!

Look to the geological origins of the various breeds of human for the obvious. As for the tropics... Again, dark skinned people are better suited to the climate. You'll still find anomalies in all geological regions as there are other factors including sedentary lifestyle and over exposure.

To achieve a healthy exposure level:

Light/fair skinned, about 15-60 minutes a day is cool. Lighter=shorter exposure.
Dark skinned, up to 4 hours depending on melanin levels in the skin. Darker=longer exposure.

Don't burn and there's not much to worry about, generally.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Atlantican
 

What you said.

People believe what they want to believe. We all do it occasionally.

But science is science.

Chemotherapy will make a breakthrough and virtually eliminate cancer once it becomes 3d and is cheap enough for everyone. When that time comes, it'll be extremely rare to die from cancer. Yes, a good diet and lots of exercise reduces cancer, but it won't prevent all or even most cases. See, even if it could, it'd be a miracle if 75% of the people stuck to it. Removing cancer is expensive and crude and this is precisely why there's an industry behind it. No conspiracy. Well not the kind that's blathered on about on ATS. There might be some schemes to make money, sure.

It's no myth about sunlight and skin cancer. Overexposure is also estimated to be about 80% of the reason for premature wrinkling on the skin. This is especially true for white skinned peoples.

Science is not all a conspiracy. It's the best we have. It ain't perfect though. I'll agree that sunlight exposure is good for us on many levels, including psychology and others we're unaware of.

I'd be weary of naturalnews. In fact, I'd be weary of news altogether. They're all prejudiced in one way or another. It all boils down to sensationalism. Get multiple sources.

Nature is good for us, or it was. The modern world isn't normal or natural anymore. The air and water and every living creature is polluted. We've changed everything that's within reach. So be weary of believing that doing the natural thing is always the answer. It might come back and bite you.

This is good. Sometimes I need to be reminded of how crazy ATS can be. In fact, sometimes I need to be reminded of my own ignorance and prejudices. They exist, there's no denying.
edit on 27-1-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ashley0113eezy

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I dunno, I think you may be wrong here. If the cells of the body are bombarded by too much radiation, they are going to mutate or break down, which basically equates to damage. Cancer is basically a conglomeration of mutated cells if I'm not mistaken, so I do not see why sunlight could not cause cancer. I do not really know one way or the other, but that seems like a logical assumption that I just made.


have you noticed how animals dont get skin cancer? thats because they dont smoke cigarettes, use sunbeds or apply chemicals (cream) to their skin. lack of sun is far worse for our health than too much sun. if you dont believe me just ask joseph fritzl's children. i see what you mean about radiation but if that was true the whole of africa would have skin cancer


We had two dogs die from skin cancer... sneaky bastard must have been smoking all this time.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ashley0113eezy

Originally posted by anton74

Originally posted by ashley0113eezy

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I dunno, I think you may be wrong here. If the cells of the body are bombarded by too much radiation, they are going to mutate or break down, which basically equates to damage. Cancer is basically a conglomeration of mutated cells if I'm not mistaken, so I do not see why sunlight could not cause cancer. I do not really know one way or the other, but that seems like a logical assumption that I just made.


have you noticed how animals dont get skin cancer? thats because they dont smoke cigarettes, use sunbeds or apply chemicals (cream) to their skin. lack of sun is far worse for our health than too much sun. if you dont believe me just ask joseph fritzl's children. i see what you mean about radiation but if that was true the whole of africa would have skin cancer


Animals do get skin cancer, if I remember correctly it is more common in pigs than humans. Lack of sun is bad, but the amount you need each day is measured in minutes. White people are more likely to get skin cancer than Blacks, Asians, and Latinos.


but pigs get taken all across the earth just to be farmed so we can eat bacon. so the chances are the pigs with the skin cancer are living in a place where a pig would never be without humans. for example australia, did pigs exist in a hot country like australia before english people went over and wanted bacon? does any animal living in its natural habitat get skin cancer?


So you admit the sun causes skin cancer.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by kykweer
 


What kind of dogs were they? Did you have them outside all the time then, or were the house dogs you gave a bath to once a week?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


Bull terriers, we had the one girl in high school then got another one when she died, the dogs loved spending time in the sun. Hmmm didn't really bath them regularly.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


God bless the occasional rational thought! Great post.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I dunno, I think you may be wrong here. If the cells of the body are bombarded by too much radiation, they are going to mutate or break down, which basically equates to damage. Cancer is basically a conglomeration of mutated cells if I'm not mistaken, so I do not see why sunlight could not cause cancer. I do not really know one way or the other, but that seems like a logical assumption that I just made.


I agree that if there was too much UV radiation bombarding your skin we're talking a different story here, but under normal sunlight conditions it would take quite a bit. IMO anyways, because why wouldn't there be much higher skin cancer rates in the tropics?


Notice how people traditionally dressed in the tropics? Voluminous but loose clothing, hats, and so forth.
There are higher rates of skin cancer in the tropics among those people who did not evolve there. The rate of melenoma in Scottish people living in Scotland is much lower than people of Scottish descent living in Australia. Like sickle cell trait bing considered an evolutionary response to malaria, more melanin is considered an evolutionary response to evolving under more UV rays.

The video reminds me of ancient aliens: "may be" "could be". LOL. The very premise of the video is flawed. Sunlight does not "cause" cancer, but that over-exposure to UV rays increases cellular damage and thus increases risk of developing cancer. Some races, as I mentioned above, developed resistance to this effect over time.





top topics
 
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join