Re: the big joke-- UV rays and skin cancer

[Guest guest]

>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?

From my reading, I don't think there is much doubt that UV

CAN cause changes in the cells that lead to cancer. The argument

is a lot like bacteria causing tooth decay, and you can argue

all day about it! (And we do!). UV rays are very, very damaging

and most animals are covered by fur or feathers, and at that

they limit their exposure to the sun (my chickens and goats

go into the shade for most of the hot part of the day).

Also light-skinned people traditionally lived in a cloudy

country, not in Africa or Southern California. There is

little doubt (among people who believe in genetics,

anyway) that light skin is an adaptation to clouds (which

makes you wonder how long it takes, because the Inuit

are still dark).

That said, there is also good evidence that lots of factors

(including several drugs) increase one's sun sensitivity

and make people burn easier. A lot of the increase in

skin cancer is among *Black* people, and on spots in

the body that aren't often exposed to the sun. But my parents

got a lot of skin cancer, and only on the parts that got

burned a lot. Their kids did NOT get it, mainly because

we moved North, I think (we are all on different diets).

So I don't think it is an either/or thing. Clearly people

need some amount of sun -- it makes your hormones

work better, helps you synthesize Vit. D, makes you

happier. Clearly too much UV causes sunburn, which

hurts and causes permanent skin changes that can

lead to cancer

, but " too much "

varies with the person and likely their diet and drugs they take.

Mainstream science right now is believing both, but there

are a LOT of factors (not just diet) that affect how quickly

a person burns. A lot of women now are using topicals

like Retin-A and exfoliators which get rid of the outer

layer of skin, and I think it is birth control pills that

increase your risk of sunburn (photosensitivity).

So my basic opinion is: if you stay out in the sun and

get sunburn, don't stay out in the sun so long next time.

Much of the skin damage seems to be caused by *sunburn* not

overall exposure to the sun -- people who are in the sun

a lot don't burn so much, because they are used to it.

-- Someone else

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/1/03 1:59:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Also light-skinned people traditionally lived in a cloudy

> country, not in Africa or Southern California. There is

> little doubt (among people who believe in genetics,

> anyway) that light skin is an adaptation to clouds (which

> makes you wonder how long it takes, because the Inuit

> are still dark).

My anthropology professor said there's archeological evidence some of the

first people spreading out of Africa had major bone disease, and that lighter

skin developed because black skin was crippling to folks with no dietary vitamin

D. The Inuit probably aren't developing lighter skin because they have so

much dietary vitamin D.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/1/03 6:45:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ---->except this time it would be chris and me arguing instead of chris and

> *you* ;-) it's nice to take turns and give your teammate a rest from time to

> time, so i'll take over from here. when i'm tired, i'll let you know, and

> you can go back to debating the bacteria thread with him, or start some

> other thread with the same causality theme, and *i'll* rest. eventually,

> we'll wear him down ;-) LOL

[snip]

> but of course, i think i

> agree with chris that the high incidence of UV-induced skin cancer is a

> result of dietary deficiency, not UV light, which has always been a

> constant. and i agree with what you said about different levels of exposure

> affecting people differently depending on their nutritional status, etc.

Well cute, :-) but we apparently aren't disagreeing on much and don't have

much to debate. Only I would say that UV light has been decreasing in very

significant quantities over the course of the 20th century, not remaining a

constant, despite increases in skin cancer.

Again, in a way the causality issue is semantics, but I don't really see the

point of even pushing for a causal role with UV radiation-- many viruses have

calcium-dependent enzymes, but I wouldnt say Ca intake causes viral

infections, cancers thrive off of glucose, but I wouldn't say carbohydrate

intake causes

cancer.

Especially from a Price-oriented approach I find it confusing that anyone

would argue against UV radiation. If there was any difference we could

highlight

between Price's healthy subjects and our society on this issue it is that

Price's healthy subjects received a FAR GREATER dose of UV radiation on their

skin and eyes, did NOT use sunscreens that blocked UV radiation, but used

coconut

oil as sunscreen (in the one case where he mentioned sun protection), and did

not use sunglasses.

So honestly this seems like arguing that saturated fat causes heart disease

or cancer to me. The evidence for it is roughly comparable to the saturated

fat/ dioxin issue, and it flies in the face of Price's research in the very same

way.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>> From my reading, I don't think there is much doubt that UV

CAN cause changes in the cells that lead to cancer. The argument

is a lot like bacteria causing tooth decay, and you can argue

all day about it!

---->except this time it would be chris and me arguing instead of chris and

*you* ;-) it's nice to take turns and give your teammate a rest from time to

time, so i'll take over from here. when i'm tired, i'll let you know, and

you can go back to debating the bacteria thread with him, or start some

other thread with the same causality theme, and *i'll* rest. eventually,

we'll wear him down ;-) LOL

>>>Also light-skinned people traditionally lived in a cloudy

country, not in Africa or Southern California. There is

little doubt (among people who believe in genetics,

anyway) that light skin is an adaptation to clouds (which

makes you wonder how long it takes, because the Inuit

are still dark).

-----> " clouds " ??? i thought that light skin was an adaptation to colder

climates where UV exposure is less than the tropics, and that light skin,

which absorbs UV light much more efficiently than dark skin, is a necessity

in order to absorb the available light (for vit. D synthesis, and whatever

else - hormone synthesis, i guess) during the shorter periods of

exposure...? if i'm not mistaken, melanin, abundant in dark skin, prevents

excess vit. d synthesis as would be necessy in a place where there's

extended UV exposure. and it helps prevent sun *burn* both functions being a

necessity in more tropical regions...

>>>>That said, there is also good evidence that lots of factors

(including several drugs) increase one's sun sensitivity

and make people burn easier. A lot of the increase in

skin cancer is among *Black* people, and on spots in

the body that aren't often exposed to the sun. But my parents

got a lot of skin cancer, and only on the parts that got

burned a lot. Their kids did NOT get it, mainly because

we moved North, I think (we are all on different diets).

---->i think it may depend on the *type* of skin cancer. according to lester

packer (antioxidant researcher) cutaneous melanoma is most common in

populations exposed to higher levels of UV radiation and has doubled in the

US within the past decade. i think i mentioned his experiments with inducing

UV damage in mice and finding that antioxidants protected against this

damage. he was able to reduce irradiation-induced lipid hydroperoxidation by

2/3 with dietary or topical vitamin E, for example. but of course, i think i

agree with chris that the high incidence of UV-induced skin cancer is a

result of dietary deficiency, not UV light, which has always been a

constant. and i agree with what you said about different levels of exposure

affecting people differently depending on their nutritional status, etc.

>>>> A lot of women now are using topicals

like Retin-A and exfoliators which get rid of the outer

layer of skin,

---->does retin-a remove the outer skin layer? vitamin A is recommended to

*protect* the skin against UV radiation, so i'm confused....

i do occassionally exfoliate, but now that you mention it, it might not be a

great idea to do in the summer time!

-- Someone else

---->oh, it's always nice to hear from someone else for a change! LOL ;-)

(just kidding of course! :-)

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>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>My anthropology professor said there's archeological evidence some of the

>first people spreading out of Africa had major bone disease, and that lighter

>skin developed because black skin was crippling to folks with no dietary

vitamin

>D. The Inuit probably aren't developing lighter skin because they have so

>much dietary vitamin D.

>

>Chris

That makes sense!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

but of course, i think i

>agree with chris that the high incidence of UV-induced skin cancer is a

>result of dietary deficiency, not UV light, which has always been a

>constant. and i agree with what you said about different levels of exposure

>affecting people differently depending on their nutritional status, etc.

It may or may not be a constant ... the thing that changed in MY lifetime,

anyway, was the concept of " tanning " -- going out suddenly and trying to get a

lot of sun, and often burning in the process. At one point it time, field

workers were always out in the sun, and used to it, and other people (upper

class mainly) stayed out of it. I never burned much in So. California, because I

was out in the sun the same amount constantly -- but my sisters did, they

" sunbathed " off and on. So yeah, IF UV is constant, then you can say the change

is dietary.

>---->does retin-a remove the outer skin layer? vitamin A is recommended to

>*protect* the skin against UV radiation, so i'm confused....

When I got Retin A for rosacea, I was warned to stay out of the sun. Ditto for

a couple of other drugs I've taken over the years (not skin creams), including

one antibiotic, I think. I'm not sure WHY some drugs make you more

sun-sensitive,

but I guess it is well-documented. Since a lot of folks are on a lot of drugs

nowadays,

I'd have to think that is a factor. One guy I know who got melanoma drinks a

LOT,

which could be another factor.

>i do occassionally exfoliate, but now that you mention it, it might not be a

>great idea to do in the summer time!

Yeah, I've never seen anyone mention it specifically, but I'd guess those dead

skin cells absorb some of the UV!

>-- Someone else

>

>---->oh, it's always nice to hear from someone else for a change! LOL ;-)

>

>(just kidding of course! :-)

Well, you DID say " or anyone else .... " so I figured I was " anyone else'

but that didn't sound right ... :-P

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/2/03 4:24:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> It may or may not be a constant ... the thing that changed in MY lifetime,

> anyway, was the concept of " tanning " -- going out suddenly and trying to get

> a lot of sun, and often burning in the process. At one point it time, field

> workers were always out in the sun, and used to it, and other people (upper

> class mainly) stayed out of it. I never burned much in So. California, because

> I was out in the sun the same amount constantly -- but my sisters did, they

> " sunbathed " off and on. So yeah, IF UV is constant, then you can say the

> change is dietary.

Sunbathing used to be common, way back in the day, like in Roman times, but

faded out with Christianity due to its association with paganism, according to

some article on Mercola's site.

I agree with you-- I think our exposure to the sun is very unnatural. It

would be natural to have considerable exposure to the sun all year long, except

the really cold months, and have the areas exposed remain more or less

constant, and have the UV exposure gradually increase into the summer. What we

do

instead is get *none* all year and suddenly go " tanning " in the middle of the

summer.

My suggestion for gradual exposure starting in the spring falls in line with

that.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>>> It may or may not be a constant ... the thing that changed in MY

lifetime,

> anyway, was the concept of " tanning "

----->i just want to clarify that when i said that UV radiation is a

" constant " i was reiterating what chris said earlier - that it is a constant

in human history - meaning over the millions of years that our species has

been around (apparently sans skin cancer). whereas a SAD diet is a *new*

variable, and thus a much more likely *cause* of skin cancer. IOW, i wasn't

saying that UV exposure over the past 40 years or 100 years has been a

constant for all human beings. that's another story!

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>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>Sunbathing used to be common, way back in the day, like in Roman times, but

>faded out with Christianity due to its association with paganism, according to

>some article on Mercola's site.

So that cinches it, Romans were crazy :-) Must have been all that wheat and

the lead acetate they put in their wine.

>I agree with you-- I think our exposure to the sun is very unnatural. It

>would be natural to have considerable exposure to the sun all year long, except

>the really cold months, and have the areas exposed remain more or less

>constant, and have the UV exposure gradually increase into the summer. What we

do

>instead is get *none* all year and suddenly go " tanning " in the middle of the

>summer.

Skin that is often exposed to the sun gets thicker too. I was thinking about

tanning --- and the skin on my middle is really thin and sensitive. It

makes me hurt just to think about it. People who get a lot of sun all

their lives get " leathery " ... which likely protects them, but they

also look wrinkly at a very young age, which isn't considered great

in our society. One missionary lady was commenting that her childhood friends,

who were her age (28 or so), looked 40-50 years old when she went back

to visit them.

Now in the 1900's, a woman was not allowed to strip into a bikini and lie

in the sun. A field hand could take off *his* shirt, and did ... but most

field workers wore big hats and loose clothes, to look at the pictures.

At any rate they were consistent. " Ladies " wore dresses up to their

neck and parasols, because they didn't want that nice leathery look.

>My suggestion for gradual exposure starting in the spring falls in line with

>that.

Yep, I'd agree. I work outside most of the year, typically NOT at noon (I

don't like heat much), about the same amount all year. Unless you

are " tanning " I can't see why folks wouldn't go out in the winter ...

it's not like our ancestors had a choice, and working out in the cold

and rain is really kind of fun if you are dressed for it. You don't

get a lot of skin exposure but it sure helps one's mood!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>>>>>Skin that is often exposed to the sun gets thicker too. I was thinking

about

tanning --- and the skin on my middle is really thin and sensitive. It

makes me hurt just to think about it. People who get a lot of sun all

their lives get " leathery " ... which likely protects them, but they

also look wrinkly at a very young age, which isn't considered great

in our society.

----->is this true of *everyone*? or just SADers, who are the majority in

our society, so seem to be held up as the " norm " . were WAP's primitives also

prematurely wrinkled? since UV radiation in_and_of_itself doesn't cause skin

damage, but rather interacts with the body's defenses (antioxidants,

carotenoids, melanin, etc), then i'd imagine that the leathery look would be

more common among SADers - even those who might get a lot less exposure to

UV radiation than some of WAP's primitives. IF WAP's groups did have

leathery skin at relatively " young " ages i bet if you took one of them and a

SADer, and exposed them to the same amount of UV radiation, the diet being

the only variable, the SADer would have much more leathery skin. which makes

me think it's not the radiation that causes the leathery look but radiation

+ a deficient diet.

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>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>>>>>>Skin that is often exposed to the sun gets thicker too. I was thinking

>about

>tanning --- and the skin on my middle is really thin and sensitive. It

>makes me hurt just to think about it. People who get a lot of sun all

>their lives get " leathery " ... which likely protects them, but they

>also look wrinkly at a very young age, which isn't considered great

>in our society.

>

>----->is this true of *everyone*? or just SADers, who are the majority in

>our society, so seem to be held up as the " norm " . were WAP's primitives also

>prematurely wrinkled? since UV radiation in_and_of_itself doesn't cause skin

>damage, but rather interacts with the body's defenses (antioxidants,

>carotenoids, melanin, etc), then i'd imagine that the leathery look would be

>more common among SADers - even those who might get a lot less exposure to

>UV radiation than some of WAP's primitives. IF WAP's groups did have

>leathery skin at relatively " young " ages i bet if you took one of them and a

>SADer, and exposed them to the same amount of UV radiation, the diet being

>the only variable, the SADer would have much more leathery skin. which makes

>me think it's not the radiation that causes the leathery look but radiation

>+ a deficient diet.

It could well be that SAD'er get MORE wrinkly. But if you look at old National

Geographics you'll see that most " outdoor type " people have a leathery look to

them ... you kind of assume they are all " old " but you'll notice a suspicious

lack of middle-aged people in that case. Also there is a LONG tradition of

keeping richer women out of the sun to preserve their complexions. I don't think

the leathery look is " damage " -- skin on any animal that is exposed to " real "

air and the elements is not thin and translucent, the " normal " way skin is, is

tough. The look we treasure is the " baby skin " look, which exists mainly in

immature animals, but it is decidedly artificial (i.e. it exists in

clothing-covered skin). Thin, sensitive skin doesn't work out in the elements,

but if the dermis thickens, it wrinkles easier.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:09:51 -0400

" Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> >>>>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!

>

>

Seems to me someone that motivated to test for antioxidants would do

just as well lowering their unsaturated fat consumption, and save money to

boot!