Guest guest Posted August 29, 2003 Report Share Posted August 29, 2003 In a message dated 8/29/03 10:13:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Idol@... writes: > That's pretty remarkable. However, there must be increased UV at least in > some parts of the world due to the depletion of the ozone layer. How else > do you explain the increased pigmentation response of Antarctic birds, for > example? No idea... but since the effects of pollution would be expected to be somewhat local, it makes sense that Anartica would be affected less. However, I don't think folks living in Antarctica are getting skin cancer :-) Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 Thanks a lot chris what am I gonna do with my wide brimmed sunglasses and my UV repellant pajamas now. Please stop confusing me with the facts. ;-P > I'm sure you're all familiar with the pathetic excuse for the proliferation > of skin cancer-- that it is caused by UV rays, hence we should never leave the > house between 10 and 2 unless we have at least 30 SPF sunblock, longsleeve > shirts, pants, and a wide brimmed hat with UV-protecting sunglasses. > > One of the ideas behind this is that the ozone layer depletion has caused an > increase in UV rays. > > In fact this is 100% completely false, and while I read this on a different > subject days ago, I suddently made the connection randomly today in my mind. > > Walters cites the Mount Observatory in California (Ecofarm, p > 48) which has determined that there has been a 26% DECREASE in ultraviolet > light intensity over the last 50 years, attributed to pollutants. Overall light > intensity has dropped 10% by their figures and 14% according to the > sonian Institute, but UV light has actually taken by far the biggest drop, so not > only is less light available but a much smaller portion of that light intensity > is UV rays now. > > Chris > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 Chris There is also a theory that sun tan lotions can cause skin cancer. And wearing sun glasses which block UV rays is unhealthy. I'd like to learn more about it really. However, can't see myself stopping the sun tan lotion as I burn very easily and there's no way I'm staying indoors during the best (sunniest) weeks of the year! Jo > I'm sure you're all familiar with the pathetic excuse for the proliferation > of skin cancer-- that it is caused by UV rays, hence we should never leave the > house between 10 and 2 unless we have at least 30 SPF sunblock, longsleeve > shirts, pants, and a wide brimmed hat with UV-protecting sunglasses. > > One of the ideas behind this is that the ozone layer depletion has caused an > increase in UV rays. > > In fact this is 100% completely false, and while I read this on a different > subject days ago, I suddently made the connection randomly today in my mind. > > Walters cites the Mount Observatory in California (Ecofarm, p > 48) which has determined that there has been a 26% DECREASE in ultraviolet > light intensity over the last 50 years, attributed to pollutants. Overall light > intensity has dropped 10% by their figures and 14% according to the > sonian Institute, but UV light has actually taken by far the biggest drop, so not > only is less light available but a much smaller portion of that light intensity > is UV rays now. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 I've had the same experience and I'm quite fair skinned. I think coconut oil does wonders in that dept. Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 Chris- That's pretty remarkable. However, there must be increased UV at least in some parts of the world due to the depletion of the ozone layer. How else do you explain the increased pigmentation response of Antarctic birds, for example? >Overall light >intensity has dropped 10% by their figures and 14% according to the >sonian Institute, but UV light has actually taken by far the biggest >drop, so not >only is less light available but a much smaller portion of that light >intensity >is UV rays now. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 Jo- I've heard -- and, I think, experienced myself -- that rearranging your fat consumption to be much more saturated (IOW cutting out most unsaturates and replacing them with things like coconut oil and beef fat) will, over time, dramatically reduce your tendency to burn as the unsaturated (particularly polyunsaturated) acids your body has incorporated into its cell membranes and whatnot gradually get replaced with saturated ones. Obviously there are no dietary absolutes -- and there shouldn't be -- but I used to burn much more easily, so I think it's true. It could be that eating more fat overall in addition to making sure it's much more saturated will accelerate the process, but I don't know for sure. >However, can't see myself >stopping the sun tan lotion as I burn very easily and there's no way >I'm staying indoors during the best (sunniest) weeks of the year! - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 At 10:13 PM 8/29/2003 -0400, you wrote: >However, there must be increased UV at least in >some parts of the world due to the depletion of the ozone layer. How else >do you explain the increased pigmentation response of Antarctic birds, for >example? Now I wonder if those birds get more cancer? hmmmm. ;-) -=mark=- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 At 10:28 PM 8/29/2003 -0400, you wrote: >I've heard -- and, I think, experienced myself -- that rearranging your fat >consumption to be much more saturated (IOW cutting out most unsaturates and >replacing them with things like coconut oil and beef fat) will, over time, >dramatically reduce your tendency to burn as the unsaturated (particularly >polyunsaturated) acids your body has incorporated into its cell membranes >and whatnot gradually get replaced with saturated ones. Obviously there >are no dietary absolutes -- and there shouldn't be -- but I used to burn >much more easily, so I think it's true. It could be that eating more fat >overall in addition to making sure it's much more saturated will accelerate >the process, but I don't know for sure. My experience over the past 5 years on a raw food diet (meats included) together with plenty of raw fats has made me much more resistance to burning here in the L.A. area. It is significantly different than, say, 7 years ago when I would burn fairly easily and peel. I can almost burn now but never peel anymore. I think it is not only the fats but that I do not bathe on days I will take the sun - thereby keeping my natural skin oils intact for the rays. -=mark=- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 Hi That makes sense. However, I have been eating a diet high in saturated fats for over 3 years now, however I still use olive oil sometimes, and I still burn easily. however, I don't know how easily compared to 5 years ago. Jo --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > Jo- > > I've heard -- and, I think, experienced myself -- that rearranging your fat > consumption to be much more saturated (IOW cutting out most unsaturates and > replacing them with things like coconut oil and beef fat) will, over time, > dramatically reduce your tendency to burn as the unsaturated (particularly > polyunsaturated) acids your body has incorporated into its cell membranes > and whatnot gradually get replaced with saturated ones. Obviously there > are no dietary absolutes -- and there shouldn't be -- but I used to burn > much more easily, so I think it's true. It could be that eating more fat > overall in addition to making sure it's much more saturated will accelerate > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 In a message dated 8/30/03 10:02:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Idol@... writes: > You could still have dietary issues to address, but also, it can take a > long time -- and no doubt the more excess unsaturates you start out with, > the longer it's going to take. I wonder if the turnover rate is higher the more fat/SFA you consume per body weight or per unit of body fat? I'm 5'8 " with pretty low body fat and consume 200 and sometimes as much as 300 grams of saturated fat in a day, and I seem to have considerably increased my sun burning/recovery toleration over the last year and a half. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 Hi Jo, I read somewhere that it can take up to four years to eliminate the bad fats accummulated in the fatty tissues. But it can be speeded up by doing a detox/purfication program developed by Hubbard in 1957. See my separate post on this program. Bee > > Jo- > > > > I've heard -- and, I think, experienced myself -- that rearranging > your fat > > consumption to be much more saturated (IOW cutting out most > unsaturates and > > replacing them with things like coconut oil and beef fat) will, > over time, > > dramatically reduce your tendency to burn as the unsaturated > (particularly > > polyunsaturated) acids your body has incorporated into its cell > membranes > > and whatnot gradually get replaced with saturated ones. Obviously > there > > are no dietary absolutes -- and there shouldn't be -- but I used to > burn > > much more easily, so I think it's true. It could be that eating > more fat > > overall in addition to making sure it's much more saturated will > accelerate > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 I think both sunscreen and sunglasses are very bad ideas. The body *needs* sunlight, and especially UV radiation, both on the bare eyes and on the skin, for proper hormonal balance. While excess UV radiation could contribute to free radical damage, the best defense is, as Suze pointed out, plenty of carotenoids, along with high saturated fat in the diet. I've personally found that a good method is to build up sun tolerance by controlled exposure to sun. Once you get some melanin in your skin you will be much less likely to burn. What I do is get as much sun as I can within the limits I know I won't burn at, and slowly increase it. In less than two weeks I was able to build my sun tolerance up by getting large exposure in shorts and no shirt in the early morning and late afternoon, with 10-15 minutes between 10 and 2. I kept up my early morning and late afternoon exposure to whatever I had time for, and gradually increased my 10-2 exposure so that now I can go out in whatever kind of sun for basically however long I want with no sunscreen of any kind and not get a burn. It's a good idea, if you remember, to do this in the spring. I personally go without a shirt outside whenever it's not too cold to. I don't know if this is " macho " or whatever but if it is I mediate it by reading a book when I'm walking around :-) Doing this early in the year has a surprising effect on sun tolerance come summer, as well as creating a variety of hormones on the skin, including adrenal hormones to give your adrenals a rest. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 >>>>That makes sense. However, I have been eating a diet high in saturated fats for over 3 years now, however I still use olive oil sometimes, and I still burn easily. however, I don't know how easily compared to 5 years ago. ---------->jo, one thing that might help is a carotenoid supplement and carotenoid-rich foods before and during the months that you are tanning (see below). although it may be too late to start now. carotenoids increase the body's production of melanocytes (melanin), which protects against burning and makes your skin more pigmented. i have a pet theory that equitorial regions are particularly abundant in carotenoids in part as protection against sun damage. the past few summers i've used only CO whe sunbathing, except occassionally putting some Aubrey Organics sun lotion on my face. i usually get a little red the first or second time out, then just get a nice tan thereafter for the rest of the summer. and i often sunbathe around midday when the sun is strongest (although i'm in maine, so it's relative). i believe i was taking beta-plex (carotenoid complex from Scientific Botanicals) most or all of last summer. this summer i just forgot to order it earlier on, but started taking it a few weeks ago, but it's probably too late to have much use as far as sun protection goes for this year. -------------------------- Evidence for antioxidant nutrients-induced pigmentation in skin: results of a clinical trial. Abstract The aim of this study was to demonstrate that modification of the cellular redox-equilibrium occurs as a consequence of antioxidant nutrients intake (carotenoids, vitamine E and vitamine C) and that these nutrients play a role in the pigmentation of the skin without any UV exposure. We conducted a randomized, double-blind study in 20 healthy subjects to evaluate and to compare the efficacy of two mixtures of dietary antioxidants with regard to direct determination of melanin and carotenes by chromametry at selected skin sites and multiple reflection spectrometry from a 1 cm2 region of skin of different parts of the body. Efficacy was assessed by a significant improvement of these parameters, in comparison with measurements performed on the day of randomization, before dietary supplement intake. The formulations per capsule of study dietary supplements are: 13 mg of beta-carotene, 2 mg of lycopene, 5 mg of vitamine E and 30 mg of vitamine C (B13/L2) or 3 mg of beta-carotene, 3 mg of lycopene, 5 mg of vitamine E and 30 mg of vitamine C (B3/L3). A 8-week B13/L2-supplementation lead to a detectable carotenodermia whereas the B3/L3-supplementation not. Signicative increase of melanin concentrations in skin were found after 4, 5, 6 and 8 weeks of dietary antioxidant intake in both groups (p < 0.05). These results are discussed with regard to the redox control theory of melanocytes which regulates the tyrosinase activity. http://research.bmn.com/medline/jbrowse/record?uid=MDLN.97430972 -------------------------- Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- “The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 Jo- You could still have dietary issues to address, but also, it can take a long time -- and no doubt the more excess unsaturates you start out with, the longer it's going to take. >That makes sense. However, I have been eating a diet high in >saturated fats for over 3 years now, however I still use olive oil >sometimes, and I still burn easily. however, I don't know how easily >compared to 5 years ago. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 The information I have from my training as a CNT (certified nutritional therapist) is that " Sunburn easily, suffer sun poisoning, or muscles easily fatigued " ... " are all signs of essential fatty acid deficiency. There is also a connection between these symptoms and a need for calicum and RNA supplementation. Essential fatty acid deficiency is often due to a biliary dysfunction, leading to imcomplete emulsification of fatty acids. " So they would be co-factors involved in EFA assimulation. Applying the 5 foundations: digestion, mineral balance, fatty acid balance blood sugar balance, and hydration, all play an important role. One could be taking the best EFA and it may not be " the one " that is best suite for ones particular body. Janice --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > Jo- > > You could still have dietary issues to address, but also, it can take a > long time -- and no doubt the more excess unsaturates you start out with, > the longer it's going to take. > > >That makes sense. However, I have been eating a diet high in > >saturated fats for over 3 years now, however I still use olive oil > >sometimes, and I still burn easily. however, I don't know how easily > >compared to 5 years ago. > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 jopollack2001 wrote: > I'd like to learn more about it really. However, can't see myself > stopping the sun tan lotion as I burn very easily and there's no way > I'm staying indoors during the best (sunniest) weeks of the year! I've read on www.dcnutrition.com that 1/2 tsp MSM in water taken before exposing yourself to the sun will protect you from burning. I hope I remembered the dosage accurately. I also think that I've heard that coconut oil has a similar effect. Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 Yes, but it needs to be noted that essential fatty acids are also found in grass-fed animals, especially grass-fed butter. Dr. Mercola has written that about the need for EFAs at: http://www.mercola.com/2003/aug/2/sunscreen_cancer.htm " However, I believe that it is the worsening omega-3:6 ratios, not sunscreens, that are the cause of the increase in skin cancers. In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences published a " http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/13/7510 " showing that the omega 6:3 ratio was the key to preventing skin cancer development. An " http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=8275194 & dopt=Abstract " done over 10 years ago showed a 40 percent reduction in melanoma for those who were eating fish, which is rich in omega-3s. And this was without any attention to lowering omega-6 fats. Omega-3 and omega-6 fats are both essential for human health, however the typical American consumes far too many omega-6 fats in their diet while consuming very low levels of omega-3. While the ideal ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats is 1:1, our ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 averages from 20:1 to 50:1! " " You must exercise caution. At the beginning of the season go out in the sun gradually, perhaps as little as 10 minutes a day. Progressively increase your time in the sun so that in a few weeks you will be able to have normal sun exposure with little risk of skin cancer. Remember never to get burned, that is the key. Remember also never to use sunscreen, another key. You can creatively use your clothing to block the sun's rays during your build-up time. The bottom line is, please avoid getting sucked into the hype that sunlight is dangerous. It is only dangerous if you are clueless about fat nutrition, which most medical doctors are. If you choose to ignore your omega 6:3 ratio and stay out of the sun, you could limit your risk of skin cancer, but is that worth the risk of getting MS, breast or prostate cancer? " Bee > > Jo- > > > > You could still have dietary issues to address, but also, it can > take a > > long time -- and no doubt the more excess unsaturates you start out > with, > > the longer it's going to take. > > > > >That makes sense. However, I have been eating a diet high in > > >saturated fats for over 3 years now, however I still use olive oil > > >sometimes, and I still burn easily. however, I don't know how > easily > > >compared to 5 years ago. > > > > > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 Janice Please could you expand a little on this? It has been suggested I supplement with a high quality fish oil to increase EFA to aid depression. the fact that I burn easily may also indicate the need. What is RNA supplementation? And what does: due to a > biliary dysfunction, leading to imcomplete > emulsification of fatty > acids. mean? Thanks Jo ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://uk.messenger./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 --- Roman <romeml@...> wrote: > jopollack2001 wrote: > I've read on www.dcnutrition.com that 1/2 tsp MSM in > water taken before exposing yourself to the sun will > protect you from burning. I hope I remembered the > dosage accurately. I also think that I've heard that > coconut oil has a similar effect. Thanks Roman. What's MSM? I've heard of using coconut oil ON the body, but most people think this will just make me fry, instead of protecting me! Jo ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://uk.messenger./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 Jo > Janice > Please could you expand a little on this? It has been > suggested I supplement with a high quality fish oil to > increase EFA to aid depression. the fact that I burn > easily may also indicate the need. It is difficult to know for certain if a particular nutrient or supplement will work with out being able to check the body and it's responses. And this might be exactly what your body needs. Every cell membrane is composed of a structural fat layer, every nerve fiber is covered in a structural fat, fats provide source of energy in our diet, and fats are the building blocks for cell membranes and homones. EFA's are extremely important for good health and over all well-being, including our moods. > > What is RNA supplementation? First off RNA is one of the 2 nucleic acids, the other being DNA. They both function as that of repeating building blocks. RNA is copied from DNA but differs from DNA in several respects. One different aspect is that DNA is doubled stranded, RNA is singled stranded. Ribosomes are the sites of protein synthesis. Ribosomes are named for their high content of RNA. The product line that I am most familar with is Biotics. They have a supplement, Nuclezyme-Forte, which is listed as a RNA/DNA B-Complex formula. The RNA contained in the product is from yeast and the DNA is from fish. It contains other things as well. If you want more info I can send it to you personally. I do not want to take advantage of this group by promoting a particular product, which I do sell, and can't be purchased except through health care professionals. > And what does: > due to a biliary dysfunction, leading to imcomplete > emulsification of fatty acids mean? > The small intestine provides the main area for fat digestion. Bile salts are secreted from the gall bladder and begin to emulsify the fat globules into particles (micelles) making them miscible in water. Pancreatic lipase breaks the clumps of triglycerides (fats) in the micelles into their glycerol and constituent fatty acids, mono and diglycerides and short and medium length chains of fatty acids. The long and the short of that is the gallbladder is not able to do it's job aiding in the absorbtion of fats and is needing some assistance. And in most cases when there is a gallbladder issue there is also a liver issue. Janice ______________________________________________________________________ __ > Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE > Messenger http://uk.messenger./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 In a message dated 8/31/03 10:05:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > ---->this makes me wonder...are tanning beds dangerous? i've always been > under the impression they are dangerous because of the UV radiation...is > that wrong? UV-C radiation might be harmful, which normally we wouldn't have exposure to due to ozone but can get emitted by fluorescent lights. I don't know if tanning beds emit UV-C, but I do know they primarily emit UV-A, which is NOT dangerous and in fact is extremely healthful if you are not careless and do not exceed a reasonable dose of radiation. Of course, nothing makes up for the full spectrum of the sun, but if you are in a jam, tanning could be beneficial I think. Again, might want to check up on the UV-C possibility. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 23:42:59 -0000 " jopollack2001 " <jopollack2001@...> wrote: > Chris > > There is also a theory that sun tan lotions can cause skin cancer. > And wearing sun glasses which block UV rays is unhealthy. > > I'd like to learn more about it really. However, can't see myself > stopping the sun tan lotion as I burn very easily and there's no way > I'm staying indoors during the best (sunniest) weeks of the year! > > Jo Hi Jo, This quote from Ray Peats article on coconut oil, http://garcia.efn.org/~raypeat/coconut.rtf, might be helpful for you: In the l960s, Hartroft and Porta gave an elegant argument for decreasing the ratio of unsaturated oil to saturated oil in the diet (and thus in the tissues). They showed that the " age pigment " is produced in proportion to the ratio of oxidants to antioxidants, multiplied by the ratio of unsaturated oils to saturated oils. More recently, a variety of studies have demonstrated that ultraviolet light induces peroxidation in unsaturated fats, but not saturated fats, and that this occurs in the skin as well as in vitro. Rabbit experiments, and studies of humans, showed that the amount of unsaturated oil in the diet strongly affects the rate at which aged, wrinkled skin develops. The unsaturated fat in the skin is a major target for the aging and carcinogenic effects of ultraviolet light, though not necessarily the only one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 >>>>In the l960s, Hartroft and Porta gave an elegant argument for decreasing the ratio of unsaturated oil to saturated oil in the diet (and thus in the tissues). They showed that the " age pigment " is produced in proportion to the ratio of oxidants to antioxidants, multiplied by the ratio of unsaturated oils to saturated oils. More recently, a variety of studies have demonstrated that ultraviolet light induces peroxidation in unsaturated fats, but not saturated fats, and that this occurs in the skin as well as in vitro. Rabbit experiments, and studies of humans, showed that the amount of unsaturated oil in the diet strongly affects the rate at which aged, wrinkled skin develops. The unsaturated fat in the skin is a major target for the aging and carcinogenic effects of ultraviolet light, though not necessarily the only one. ---------->theoretically, and i think practically, the PUFA consumption can be countered by consuming a higher amount of antioxidants. not that i'd recommend consuming lots of PUFA, just saying...although in practical terms it would be hard to know how much unless you have your antioxidant levels tested! Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 Suze, I guess this goes back to the whole " causality " debate. Sunlight is going to exist as long as people do, probably longer, and always has, so if it plays some role in the etiology of skin cancer which is in fact caused by a completely emasculated diet it's as much a cause as " blood " causes cancer by delivering nutrients to the cancer cells. That said, I for one am not convinced that UV rays can really be treated as a variable in any way with a causative role in skin cancer. Sunscreens have shown to be ineffective in preventing skin cancer, and I've heard that epidemiological evidence indicates the opposite might be true, as I heard one analysis where skin cancer decreased by lattitude as one neared the equator. Skin cancer has gone up as UV rays have decreased. The case seems pretty weak to me. Addressing causality again, heating oils to high temps causes them to oxidize, but no one blames oxygen, even though the oxygen is oxidizing the oil and not the heat. Because the oxygen is always in the air, and no one in their right mind would try to eradicate it, because it would harmful to life, whereas heating the oil can be avoided with no negative impact. So IF IF IF UV rays from the sun play some etiological role in the in skin cancer, I think it's analogous to the oil-heat-oxygen example above. Chris In a message dated 9/1/03 8:13:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > > ------->chris, i was just thinking about this and wondering if UV radiation > in_conjunction_with a diet lacking antioxidants and carotenoids, and too > heavy in PUFAs (ie; SAD) could *together* " cause " skin cancer? i mean, the > radiation causes free radical formation and free radicals can and do damage > DNA that leads to cancer mutations. a well nourished body, though, without > excess PUFA in the skin, has adequeate defenses. however, the fact that UV > light is reduced by 14% (or thereabouts) doesn't necessarily indicate that > it doesn't play *any* role in the formation of skin cancer, since the > american diet may be....say...70% reduced in antioxidants and carotenoids > (as opposed to traditional diets) and increased in PUFAs (what...200% over > the past 50 years or something?), which would leave people vulnerable to UV > damage. these are arbitrary #s, but i'm thinking that the normal protective > factors are no longer in the american diet, so americans on SAD are as > vulnerable to UV radiation as they are to other external forces that > traditional folks had protection against due to a proper diet. > > what do you (or anyone else) think? " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore Roosevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 >>>>>I'm sure you're all familiar with the pathetic excuse for the proliferation of skin cancer-- that it is caused by UV rays.... ....In fact this is 100% completely false, and while I read this on a different subject days ago, I suddently made the connection randomly today in my mind. Walters cites the Mount Observatory in California (Ecofarm, p 48) which has determined that there has been a 26% DECREASE in ultraviolet light intensity over the last 50 years, attributed to pollutants. Overall light intensity has dropped 10% by their figures and 14% according to the sonian Institute, but UV light has actually taken by far the biggest drop, so not only is less light available but a much smaller portion of that light intensity is UV rays now.<<<<<< ------->chris, i was just thinking about this and wondering if UV radiation in_conjunction_with a diet lacking antioxidants and carotenoids, and too heavy in PUFAs (ie; SAD) could *together* " cause " skin cancer? i mean, the radiation causes free radical formation and free radicals can and do damage DNA that leads to cancer mutations. a well nourished body, though, without excess PUFA in the skin, has adequeate defenses. however, the fact that UV light is reduced by 14% (or thereabouts) doesn't necessarily indicate that it doesn't play *any* role in the formation of skin cancer, since the american diet may be....say...70% reduced in antioxidants and carotenoids (as opposed to traditional diets) and increased in PUFAs (what...200% over the past 50 years or something?), which would leave people vulnerable to UV damage. these are arbitrary #s, but i'm thinking that the normal protective factors are no longer in the american diet, so americans on SAD are as vulnerable to UV radiation as they are to other external forces that traditional folks had protection against due to a proper diet. what do you (or anyone else) think? Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- the big joke-- UV rays and skin cancer I'm sure you're all familiar with the pathetic excuse for the proliferation of skin cancer-- that it is caused by UV rays, hence we should never leave the house between 10 and 2 unless we have at least 30 SPF sunblock, longsleeve shirts, pants, and a wide brimmed hat with UV-protecting sunglasses. One of the ideas behind this is that the ozone layer depletion has caused an increase in UV rays. In fact this is 100% completely false, and while I read this on a different subject days ago, I suddently made the connection randomly today in my mind. Walters cites the Mount Observatory in California (Ecofarm, p 48) which has determined that there has been a 26% DECREASE in ultraviolet light intensity over the last 50 years, attributed to pollutants. Overall light intensity has dropped 10% by their figures and 14% according to the sonian Institute, but UV light has actually taken by far the biggest drop, so not only is less light available but a much smaller portion of that light intensity is UV rays now. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.