Home / alt.fashion / Monday, May 23, 2005
"ami kio" <...@cant–take–anymore–spam.com> wrote in message
news:BEB81F75.69F95%...@cant–take–anymore–spam.com...
treatable but they are totally scary. I had a basal cell removed from
the side of my nose many years ago and I would much rather slather on
sunscreen daily than go through that again. My neighbor's grandson got
melanoma when he went to summer camp and didn't wear a hat.
Audrey
"Lily" <Lil...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4197–429170FE–...@storefull–3218.bay.webtv.net...
young children, one a baby) who has just been diagnosed
with stage 4 brain cancer (in four places), which metastisized
from melanoma. They're searching the planet for medical
treatment to save her life, which major medical centers have
told her is pointless.
I guess my point would be, if you're one of the 7000 (a
number I find highly suspect BTW) who dies, the notion
of "Hello Sunshine!" is, well, at best, ironic.
––AJ
"Lily" <Lil...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2553–4298AD0E–...@storefull–3217.bay.webtv.net...
exposure.
http://www.skincancer.org/basal/index.php
Audrey
"Lily" <Lil...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2553–4298AD0E–...@storefull–3217.bay.webtv.net...
majors (sorry Trilby, sorry Ahmward) & not with the really
cool kids taking statistics, I am somewhat more sentient than,
say, my jade tree, and understand that statistics have no
compassion.
My points were (and remain) that 1) it is my experience that
you can find statistics to support almost anything (think about
the recent reversal on Vitamin E, for instance) and 2) melanoma
is very dangerous and often tragic (I'm not that old & hang
with an alarmingly healthy bunch of people and know five who
have died from it).
That 7000 figure is b.s., IMO.
––AJ
"Lily" <Lil...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15121–4299EA80–...@storefull–3211.bay.webtv.net...
a big difference in one's feelings about these statistics.
Until a few months ago the American Heart Association
suggested, because of statistics, people with certain kinds
of heart disease should take Vitamin E. Siuddenly they
discovered it was not only not helpful but possibly harmful.
So you can quote statistics as long as the day is long,
you can imply I'm a lazy debater because I'm suspicious
of them, and you can continue to fail to understand that
it was not so much the information (which was interesting)
but your cheery tone that some people found offensive.
At any rate I wish you the best and if I've been offensive
to you, or anyone else, I apologize.
––AJ
"shinypenny" <shinypenny0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117378202.694712.263...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There are truly multiple thousands of people who don't use sunscreen.
There are many I know who don't use sunscreen and really want the glow
of a tan. My walking buddy never uses it and thinks she'll be fine
because we walk early in the day. We need to wear sunglasses when we
walk and I use sunscreen and a hat. Others have fair skin and in spite
of trying to be cautious, they still have basal cells. My next door
neighbor has had four or five of them. She is blonde, fair skinned and
spends very little time outside the house. I live in the largest
agricultural area in the United States and probably the world and our
hot weather lasts from now until the end of October. The sun, of
course, keeps rising every day of the year. There are so many people who
must work outdoors in the intense heat. If a survey were done I think
the statistics for regular sunscreen users would be very small.
Audrey
Audrey
"Lauri" <res0r...@spamlessverizon.net> wrote in message
news:h3sj91d2cvc62cpgcf772469n3ov72t...@4ax.com...
light and you don't have to work hard to rub it in. An added bonus is
it has that Coppertone beach smell, if you like that sort of thing.
Costco sells it at a good price.
Audrey
"AJ" <ajfash...@att.net> wrote in message
news:i20me.846427$w62.816...@bgtnsc05–news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Lily" <Lil...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4197–429170FE–...@storefull–3218.bay.webtv.net...
I have a young acquaintance (30 years old, with two very
young children, one a baby) who has just been diagnosed
with stage 4 brain cancer (in four places), which metastisized
from melanoma. They're searching the planet for medical
treatment to save her life, which major medical centers have
told her is pointless.
I guess my point would be, if you're one of the 7000 (a
number I find highly suspect BTW) who dies, the notion
of "Hello Sunshine!" is, well, at best, ironic.
––AJ
I'll add to that my neighbors grandson who had melanoma at age 5 when he
went to a summer camp in the mountains. He had fair skin and the dark
spot was on the back of his head. His mom was the camp nurse. Luckily
he was treated immediately. Our former beloved zoo director was not as
fortunate: he died due to melanoma. If you are rolling the dice, it is
better to be on the side of caution.
Audrey
SOT: Hello––Again!––Sunshine
Lil...@webtv.net (Lily)
5/23/2005 1:58:22 AM
Yahoo news has an article about the recent research on the dangers of
sun exposure, which found that the benefits of vitamin D far outweigh
the risks of skin cancers. I'm sorry I don't have the link, but the
article is easily findable.
The specific benefit researchers observed was that Vitamin D appears to
help prevent cancer, not to cause it. Except in the case of skin
cancers––from which 7,000 deaths are projected for next year––some
exposure to sunshine, the most available and effective source of Vitamin
D––seems to fight every other type of cancer––from which 570,000 deaths
are projected for next year.
Researchers have concluded that since most skin cancers are easily
treatable and not life–threatening, it's preferable to try and prevent
the cancers that are life threatening. A lot of dermatologists are
revising their warnings against exposure.
When I was a teenager sunshine was considered a good clearer–upper of
acne. and in my experience, it was. I've also always felt that it was
healthy––not to the extent of burning, of course––to "get some sun."
So I'm glad to learn that I don't have to be fanatical about sunscreens
any more, and that I don't have to be afraid to walk through a parking
lot to my car without (sun!) protection.
The suggested "dosage" by the way, is about 15 minutes a couple of times
a week.
Lily
sun exposure, which found that the benefits of vitamin D far outweigh
the risks of skin cancers. I'm sorry I don't have the link, but the
article is easily findable.
The specific benefit researchers observed was that Vitamin D appears to
help prevent cancer, not to cause it. Except in the case of skin
cancers––from which 7,000 deaths are projected for next year––some
exposure to sunshine, the most available and effective source of Vitamin
D––seems to fight every other type of cancer––from which 570,000 deaths
are projected for next year.
Researchers have concluded that since most skin cancers are easily
treatable and not life–threatening, it's preferable to try and prevent
the cancers that are life threatening. A lot of dermatologists are
revising their warnings against exposure.
When I was a teenager sunshine was considered a good clearer–upper of
acne. and in my experience, it was. I've also always felt that it was
healthy––not to the extent of burning, of course––to "get some sun."
So I'm glad to learn that I don't have to be fanatical about sunscreens
any more, and that I don't have to be afraid to walk through a parking
lot to my car without (sun!) protection.
The suggested "dosage" by the way, is about 15 minutes a couple of times
a week.
Lily
Lil...@webtv.net (Lily)
5/23/2005 1:58:22 AM
Yahoo news has an article about the recent research on the dangers of
sun exposure, which found that the benefits of vitamin D far outweigh
the risks of skin cancers. I'm sorry I don't have the link, but the
article is easily findable.
The specific benefit researchers observed was that Vitamin D appears to
help prevent cancer, not to cause it. Except in the case of skin
cancers––from which 7,000 deaths are projected for next year––some
exposure to sunshine, the most available and effective source of Vitamin
D––seems to fight every other type of cancer––from which 570,000 deaths
are projected for next year.
Researchers have concluded that since most skin cancers are easily
treatable and not life–threatening, it's preferable to try and prevent
the cancers that are life threatening. A lot of dermatologists are
revising their warnings against exposure.
When I was a teenager sunshine was considered a good clearer–upper of
acne. and in my experience, it was. I've also always felt that it was
healthy––not to the extent of burning, of course––to "get some sun."
So I'm glad to learn that I don't have to be fanatical about sunscreens
any more, and that I don't have to be afraid to walk through a parking
lot to my car without (sun!) protection.
The suggested "dosage" by the way, is about 15 minutes a couple of times
a week.
Lily
sun exposure, which found that the benefits of vitamin D far outweigh
the risks of skin cancers. I'm sorry I don't have the link, but the
article is easily findable.
The specific benefit researchers observed was that Vitamin D appears to
help prevent cancer, not to cause it. Except in the case of skin
cancers––from which 7,000 deaths are projected for next year––some
exposure to sunshine, the most available and effective source of Vitamin
D––seems to fight every other type of cancer––from which 570,000 deaths
are projected for next year.
Researchers have concluded that since most skin cancers are easily
treatable and not life–threatening, it's preferable to try and prevent
the cancers that are life threatening. A lot of dermatologists are
revising their warnings against exposure.
When I was a teenager sunshine was considered a good clearer–upper of
acne. and in my experience, it was. I've also always felt that it was
healthy––not to the extent of burning, of course––to "get some sun."
So I'm glad to learn that I don't have to be fanatical about sunscreens
any more, and that I don't have to be afraid to walk through a parking
lot to my car without (sun!) protection.
The suggested "dosage" by the way, is about 15 minutes a couple of times
a week.
Lily
ami kio <...@cant–take–anymore–spam.com>
5/24/2005 12:01:57 AM
On 5/23/05 12:58 AM, in article
4197–429170FE–...@storefull–3218.bay.webtv.net, "Lily" <Lil...@webtv.net>
wrote:
exceeds the recommended dosage in the article. Couple that with how many
people apply too little sunscreen (remember that you're supposed to use 1oz
for your body), using this article to justify not wearing sunscreen is akin
to all–you–can–eat–buffet regulars who are medically obese justifying their
habits with the "it's healthy to have a bit of meat of your bones" article.
</soapbox>
I still strongly recommend wearing sunscreen where the skin shows your age
first (i.e. Hands, feet, neck, face). I try to be religious about applying
sunscreen in those areas (which admittedly doesn't always happen); I will
skip my shoulders/arms/thighs/calves when I'm in a rush.
ami
––
Check out my ebay auctions at http://tinyurl.com/26jcu for shoes, purses,
and more!
4197–429170FE–...@storefull–3218.bay.webtv.net, "Lily" <Lil...@webtv.net>
wrote:
Yahoo news has an article about the recent research on the dangers of
sun exposure, which found that the benefits of vitamin D far outweigh
the risks of skin cancers. I'm sorry I don't have the link, but the
article is easily findable.
The specific benefit researchers observed was that Vitamin D appears to
help prevent cancer, not to cause it. Except in the case of skin
cancers––from which 7,000 deaths are projected for next year––some
exposure to sunshine, the most available and effective source of Vitamin
D––seems to fight every other type of cancer––from which 570,000 deaths
are projected for next year.
Researchers have concluded that since most skin cancers are easily
treatable and not life–threatening, it's preferable to try and prevent
the cancers that are life threatening. A lot of dermatologists are
revising their warnings against exposure.
When I was a teenager sunshine was considered a good clearer–upper of
acne. and in my experience, it was. I've also always felt that it was
healthy––not to the extent of burning, of course––to "get some sun."
So I'm glad to learn that I don't have to be fanatical about sunscreens
any more, and that I don't have to be afraid to walk through a parking
lot to my car without (sun!) protection.
The suggested "dosage" by the way, is about 15 minutes a couple of times
a week.
Lily
<soapbox> However, the amount of time that many people spend in the sun far sun exposure, which found that the benefits of vitamin D far outweigh
the risks of skin cancers. I'm sorry I don't have the link, but the
article is easily findable.
The specific benefit researchers observed was that Vitamin D appears to
help prevent cancer, not to cause it. Except in the case of skin
cancers––from which 7,000 deaths are projected for next year––some
exposure to sunshine, the most available and effective source of Vitamin
D––seems to fight every other type of cancer––from which 570,000 deaths
are projected for next year.
Researchers have concluded that since most skin cancers are easily
treatable and not life–threatening, it's preferable to try and prevent
the cancers that are life threatening. A lot of dermatologists are
revising their warnings against exposure.
When I was a teenager sunshine was considered a good clearer–upper of
acne. and in my experience, it was. I've also always felt that it was
healthy––not to the extent of burning, of course––to "get some sun."
So I'm glad to learn that I don't have to be fanatical about sunscreens
any more, and that I don't have to be afraid to walk through a parking
lot to my car without (sun!) protection.
The suggested "dosage" by the way, is about 15 minutes a couple of times
a week.
Lily
exceeds the recommended dosage in the article. Couple that with how many
people apply too little sunscreen (remember that you're supposed to use 1oz
for your body), using this article to justify not wearing sunscreen is akin
to all–you–can–eat–buffet regulars who are medically obese justifying their
habits with the "it's healthy to have a bit of meat of your bones" article.
</soapbox>
I still strongly recommend wearing sunscreen where the skin shows your age
first (i.e. Hands, feet, neck, face). I try to be religious about applying
sunscreen in those areas (which admittedly doesn't always happen); I will
skip my shoulders/arms/thighs/calves when I'm in a rush.
ami
––
Check out my ebay auctions at http://tinyurl.com/26jcu for shoes, purses,
and more!
"ahmward" <nospam.ahmw...@yahoo.com>
5/23/2005 10:24:47 PM
"ami kio" <...@cant–take–anymore–spam.com> wrote in message
news:BEB81F75.69F95%...@cant–take–anymore–spam.com...
On 5/23/05 12:58 AM, in article
4197–429170FE–...@storefull–3218.bay.webtv.net, "Lily"
<Lil...@webtv.net>
wrote:
<soapbox> However, the amount of time that many people spend in the
sun far
exceeds the recommended dosage in the article. Couple that with how
many
people apply too little sunscreen (remember that you're supposed to
use 1oz
for your body), using this article to justify not wearing sunscreen is
akin
to all–you–can–eat–buffet regulars who are medically obese justifying
their
habits with the "it's healthy to have a bit of meat of your bones"
article.
</soapbox>
I still strongly recommend wearing sunscreen where the skin shows your
age
first (i.e. Hands, feet, neck, face). I try to be religious about
applying
sunscreen in those areas (which admittedly doesn't always happen); I
will
skip my shoulders/arms/thighs/calves when I'm in a rush.
ami
––
Check out my ebay auctions at http://tinyurl.com/26jcu for shoes,
purses,
and more!
I'd much rather get my Vitamin D from milk. Skin cancers may be easily 4197–429170FE–...@storefull–3218.bay.webtv.net, "Lily"
<Lil...@webtv.net>
wrote:
<soapbox> However, the amount of time that many people spend in the
sun far
exceeds the recommended dosage in the article. Couple that with how
many
people apply too little sunscreen (remember that you're supposed to
use 1oz
for your body), using this article to justify not wearing sunscreen is
akin
to all–you–can–eat–buffet regulars who are medically obese justifying
their
habits with the "it's healthy to have a bit of meat of your bones"
article.
</soapbox>
I still strongly recommend wearing sunscreen where the skin shows your
age
first (i.e. Hands, feet, neck, face). I try to be religious about
applying
sunscreen in those areas (which admittedly doesn't always happen); I
will
skip my shoulders/arms/thighs/calves when I'm in a rush.
ami
––
Check out my ebay auctions at http://tinyurl.com/26jcu for shoes,
purses,
and more!
treatable but they are totally scary. I had a basal cell removed from
the side of my nose many years ago and I would much rather slather on
sunscreen daily than go through that again. My neighbor's grandson got
melanoma when he went to summer camp and didn't wear a hat.
Audrey
"AJ" <ajfash...@att.net>
5/28/2005 3:23:58 PM
"Lily" <Lil...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4197–429170FE–...@storefull–3218.bay.webtv.net...
Yahoo news has an article about the recent research on the dangers of
sun exposure, which found that the benefits of vitamin D far outweigh
the risks of skin cancers. I'm sorry I don't have the link, but the
article is easily findable.
The specific benefit researchers observed was that Vitamin D appears to
help prevent cancer, not to cause it. Except in the case of skin
cancers––from which 7,000 deaths are projected for next year––some
exposure to sunshine, the most available and effective source of Vitamin
D––seems to fight every other type of cancer––from which 570,000 deaths
are projected for next year.
Researchers have concluded that since most skin cancers are easily
treatable and not life–threatening, it's preferable to try and prevent
the cancers that are life threatening. A lot of dermatologists are
revising their warnings against exposure.
When I was a teenager sunshine was considered a good clearer–upper of
acne. and in my experience, it was. I've also always felt that it was
healthy––not to the extent of burning, of course––to "get some sun."
So I'm glad to learn that I don't have to be fanatical about sunscreens
any more, and that I don't have to be afraid to walk through a parking
lot to my car without (sun!) protection.
The suggested "dosage" by the way, is about 15 minutes a couple of times
a week.
Lily
I have a young acquaintance (30 years old, with two very sun exposure, which found that the benefits of vitamin D far outweigh
the risks of skin cancers. I'm sorry I don't have the link, but the
article is easily findable.
The specific benefit researchers observed was that Vitamin D appears to
help prevent cancer, not to cause it. Except in the case of skin
cancers––from which 7,000 deaths are projected for next year––some
exposure to sunshine, the most available and effective source of Vitamin
D––seems to fight every other type of cancer––from which 570,000 deaths
are projected for next year.
Researchers have concluded that since most skin cancers are easily
treatable and not life–threatening, it's preferable to try and prevent
the cancers that are life threatening. A lot of dermatologists are
revising their warnings against exposure.
When I was a teenager sunshine was considered a good clearer–upper of
acne. and in my experience, it was. I've also always felt that it was
healthy––not to the extent of burning, of course––to "get some sun."
So I'm glad to learn that I don't have to be fanatical about sunscreens
any more, and that I don't have to be afraid to walk through a parking
lot to my car without (sun!) protection.
The suggested "dosage" by the way, is about 15 minutes a couple of times
a week.
Lily
young children, one a baby) who has just been diagnosed
with stage 4 brain cancer (in four places), which metastisized
from melanoma. They're searching the planet for medical
treatment to save her life, which major medical centers have
told her is pointless.
I guess my point would be, if you're one of the 7000 (a
number I find highly suspect BTW) who dies, the notion
of "Hello Sunshine!" is, well, at best, ironic.
––AJ
Lil...@webtv.net (Lily)
5/29/2005 2:01:44 AM
Audrey wrote:
<<Melanoma, however, is not the only type of cancer caused by sun
exposure.
http://www.skincancer.org/basal/index.php>>
Of course not, but it's the one that can kill you. The issue raised was
not the incidence of skin cancers per year, but the number of deaths
resulting from them as compared to the number of deaths caused by all
other types of cancer.
Skin cancers are by far the most easily treatable and least deadly forms
of the disease.
Lily
<<Melanoma, however, is not the only type of cancer caused by sun
exposure.
http://www.skincancer.org/basal/index.php>>
Of course not, but it's the one that can kill you. The issue raised was
not the incidence of skin cancers per year, but the number of deaths
resulting from them as compared to the number of deaths caused by all
other types of cancer.
Skin cancers are by far the most easily treatable and least deadly forms
of the disease.
Lily
Lil...@webtv.net (Lily)
5/29/2005 7:07:10 PM
<<Apparently, the, as it were, dog one has in this hunt makes a big
difference in one's feelings about these statistics.>>
I agree. That's what I thought I said.
<<Until a few months ago the American Heart Association suggested,
because of statistics, people with certain kinds of heart disease should
take Vitamin E. Siuddenly they discovered it was not only not helpful
but possibly harmful.>>
However, at least 10 years ago people with high blood pressure were
advised against taking Vitamin E supplements for t that reason.
<<So you can quote statistics as long as the day is long, you can imply
I'm a lazy debater because I'm suspicious of them, and you can continue
to fail to understand that it was not so much the information (which was
interesting) but your cheery tone that some people found offensive.>>
I didn't imply you were a lazy debator. I stated outright that we each
process the same information differently, depending on our personal
experiences.
I welcomed the report as good news. I didn't expect that expressing
relief at finding out something was less unhealthy rather than more
could be considered offensive.
Lily
difference in one's feelings about these statistics.>>
I agree. That's what I thought I said.
<<Until a few months ago the American Heart Association suggested,
because of statistics, people with certain kinds of heart disease should
take Vitamin E. Siuddenly they discovered it was not only not helpful
but possibly harmful.>>
However, at least 10 years ago people with high blood pressure were
advised against taking Vitamin E supplements for t that reason.
<<So you can quote statistics as long as the day is long, you can imply
I'm a lazy debater because I'm suspicious of them, and you can continue
to fail to understand that it was not so much the information (which was
interesting) but your cheery tone that some people found offensive.>>
I didn't imply you were a lazy debator. I stated outright that we each
process the same information differently, depending on our personal
experiences.
I welcomed the report as good news. I didn't expect that expressing
relief at finding out something was less unhealthy rather than more
could be considered offensive.
Lily
Lil...@webtv.net (Lily)
5/28/2005 1:40:30 PM
AJ wrote:
<<I guess my point would be, if you're one of the 7000 (a number I find
highly suspect BTW) who dies, the notion of "Hello Sunshine!" is, well,
at best, ironic.>>
Certainly personal experience with a tragic illness makes one more than
usually sensitive to the dangers and the consequences of the disease.
It's hard to avoid saying, "Tell that to the person who dies from it,"
when you know someone who does––or when
you read research with conclusions contrary to those you'd accepted.
It's sort of a combination of synchronicity and compassion.
And please keep in mind that the research didn't conclude––and I didn't
claim–– that there was no causal relationship between sun exposure and
skin cancers.
As for suspect statistics:
http://www.dermatologychannel.net/skincancer/melanoma/index.shtml
"Melanoma is an increasingly common skin cancer that is highly curable,
yet potentially fatal. In the United States, the incidence of melanoma
has increased more rapidly than any other cancer. In 1935, the lifetime
risk for melanoma was 1 in 1500. In 1960, it increased to one in 600.
The risk was 1 in 105 in 1992, and by 1998 was 1 in 88. It is estimated
to be 1 in 75 in 2000. The American Cancer Society estimates that over
47,000 cases of melanoma will be diagnosed in the year 2000 and that it
will claim more than 7000 lives.
"While the incidence of melanoma is rising dramatically, the number of
deaths caused by the disease remains relatively constant. The reason for
this is not entirely clear, but early detection, reinforced by public
awareness programs, is at least partially responsible for the relatively
high survival rate. "
So, according to the American Cancer Society, melanomas were responsible
for approximately 7000 of all cancer related deaths in the US in the
year 2000.
Naturally this is of no comfort to you or your friend and I can't
imagine why it would be.
These are simply statistics used to quantify the perceived and actual
dangers of one cancer–causing factor. Statistics have no compassion.
Lily
<<I guess my point would be, if you're one of the 7000 (a number I find
highly suspect BTW) who dies, the notion of "Hello Sunshine!" is, well,
at best, ironic.>>
Certainly personal experience with a tragic illness makes one more than
usually sensitive to the dangers and the consequences of the disease.
It's hard to avoid saying, "Tell that to the person who dies from it,"
when you know someone who does––or when
you read research with conclusions contrary to those you'd accepted.
It's sort of a combination of synchronicity and compassion.
And please keep in mind that the research didn't conclude––and I didn't
claim–– that there was no causal relationship between sun exposure and
skin cancers.
As for suspect statistics:
http://www.dermatologychannel.net/skincancer/melanoma/index.shtml
"Melanoma is an increasingly common skin cancer that is highly curable,
yet potentially fatal. In the United States, the incidence of melanoma
has increased more rapidly than any other cancer. In 1935, the lifetime
risk for melanoma was 1 in 1500. In 1960, it increased to one in 600.
The risk was 1 in 105 in 1992, and by 1998 was 1 in 88. It is estimated
to be 1 in 75 in 2000. The American Cancer Society estimates that over
47,000 cases of melanoma will be diagnosed in the year 2000 and that it
will claim more than 7000 lives.
"While the incidence of melanoma is rising dramatically, the number of
deaths caused by the disease remains relatively constant. The reason for
this is not entirely clear, but early detection, reinforced by public
awareness programs, is at least partially responsible for the relatively
high survival rate. "
So, according to the American Cancer Society, melanomas were responsible
for approximately 7000 of all cancer related deaths in the US in the
year 2000.
Naturally this is of no comfort to you or your friend and I can't
imagine why it would be.
These are simply statistics used to quantify the perceived and actual
dangers of one cancer–causing factor. Statistics have no compassion.
Lily
"ahmward" <nospam.ahmw...@yahoo.com>
5/28/2005 12:05:04 PM
"Lily" <Lil...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2553–4298AD0E–...@storefull–3217.bay.webtv.net...
AJ wrote:
<<I guess my point would be, if you're one of the 7000 (a number I
find
highly suspect BTW) who dies, the notion of "Hello Sunshine!" is,
well,
at best, ironic.>>
Certainly personal experience with a tragic illness makes one more
than
usually sensitive to the dangers and the consequences of the disease.
It's hard to avoid saying, "Tell that to the person who dies from it,"
when you know someone who does––or when
you read research with conclusions contrary to those you'd accepted.
It's sort of a combination of synchronicity and compassion.
And please keep in mind that the research didn't conclude––and I
didn't
claim–– that there was no causal relationship between sun exposure and
skin cancers.
As for suspect statistics:
http://www.dermatologychannel.net/skincancer/melanoma/index.shtml
"Melanoma is an increasingly common skin cancer that is highly
curable,
yet potentially fatal. In the United States, the incidence of melanoma
has increased more rapidly than any other cancer. In 1935, the
lifetime
risk for melanoma was 1 in 1500. In 1960, it increased to one in 600.
The risk was 1 in 105 in 1992, and by 1998 was 1 in 88. It is
estimated
to be 1 in 75 in 2000. The American Cancer Society estimates that over
47,000 cases of melanoma will be diagnosed in the year 2000 and that
it
will claim more than 7000 lives.
"While the incidence of melanoma is rising dramatically, the number of
deaths caused by the disease remains relatively constant. The reason
for
this is not entirely clear, but early detection, reinforced by public
awareness programs, is at least partially responsible for the
relatively
high survival rate. "
So, according to the American Cancer Society, melanomas were
responsible
for approximately 7000 of all cancer related deaths in the US in the
year 2000.
Naturally this is of no comfort to you or your friend and I can't
imagine why it would be.
These are simply statistics used to quantify the perceived and actual
dangers of one cancer–causing factor. Statistics have no compassion.
Lily
Melanoma, however, is not the only type of cancer caused by sun <<I guess my point would be, if you're one of the 7000 (a number I
find
highly suspect BTW) who dies, the notion of "Hello Sunshine!" is,
well,
at best, ironic.>>
Certainly personal experience with a tragic illness makes one more
than
usually sensitive to the dangers and the consequences of the disease.
It's hard to avoid saying, "Tell that to the person who dies from it,"
when you know someone who does––or when
you read research with conclusions contrary to those you'd accepted.
It's sort of a combination of synchronicity and compassion.
And please keep in mind that the research didn't conclude––and I
didn't
claim–– that there was no causal relationship between sun exposure and
skin cancers.
As for suspect statistics:
http://www.dermatologychannel.net/skincancer/melanoma/index.shtml
"Melanoma is an increasingly common skin cancer that is highly
curable,
yet potentially fatal. In the United States, the incidence of melanoma
has increased more rapidly than any other cancer. In 1935, the
lifetime
risk for melanoma was 1 in 1500. In 1960, it increased to one in 600.
The risk was 1 in 105 in 1992, and by 1998 was 1 in 88. It is
estimated
to be 1 in 75 in 2000. The American Cancer Society estimates that over
47,000 cases of melanoma will be diagnosed in the year 2000 and that
it
will claim more than 7000 lives.
"While the incidence of melanoma is rising dramatically, the number of
deaths caused by the disease remains relatively constant. The reason
for
this is not entirely clear, but early detection, reinforced by public
awareness programs, is at least partially responsible for the
relatively
high survival rate. "
So, according to the American Cancer Society, melanomas were
responsible
for approximately 7000 of all cancer related deaths in the US in the
year 2000.
Naturally this is of no comfort to you or your friend and I can't
imagine why it would be.
These are simply statistics used to quantify the perceived and actual
dangers of one cancer–causing factor. Statistics have no compassion.
Lily
exposure.
http://www.skincancer.org/basal/index.php
Audrey
"shinypenny" <shinypenny0...@yahoo.com>
5/29/2005 7:50:02 AM
Lily wrote:
sunscreen usage has also gone up?
<scratching head>
jen
"Melanoma is an increasingly common skin cancer that is highly curable,
yet potentially fatal. In the United States, the incidence of melanoma
has increased more rapidly than any other cancer. In 1935, the lifetime
risk for melanoma was 1 in 1500. In 1960, it increased to one in 600.
The risk was 1 in 105 in 1992, and by 1998 was 1 in 88. It is estimated
to be 1 in 75 in 2000. The American Cancer Society estimates that over
47,000 cases of melanoma will be diagnosed in the year 2000 and that it
will claim more than 7000 lives.
Does anyone wonder why melanoma rates are going up at the same time yet potentially fatal. In the United States, the incidence of melanoma
has increased more rapidly than any other cancer. In 1935, the lifetime
risk for melanoma was 1 in 1500. In 1960, it increased to one in 600.
The risk was 1 in 105 in 1992, and by 1998 was 1 in 88. It is estimated
to be 1 in 75 in 2000. The American Cancer Society estimates that over
47,000 cases of melanoma will be diagnosed in the year 2000 and that it
will claim more than 7000 lives.
sunscreen usage has also gone up?
<scratching head>
jen
chillled <chill...@hotmail.comeuppance>
5/29/2005 3:14:40 PM
shinypenny wrote:
long–sleeved shirts, and not applying enough sunscreen. My grandmother
was a dedicated gardener and never had a tan or sunburn. She wore hats
and long sleeves when she worked in the garden.
Lily wrote:
Does anyone wonder why melanoma rates are going up at the same time
sunscreen usage has also gone up?
<scratching head>
jen
I suspect people are relying solely on sunscreen, not wearing hats or Does anyone wonder why melanoma rates are going up at the same time
sunscreen usage has also gone up?
<scratching head>
jen
long–sleeved shirts, and not applying enough sunscreen. My grandmother
was a dedicated gardener and never had a tan or sunburn. She wore hats
and long sleeves when she worked in the garden.
"AJ" <ajfash...@att.net>
5/29/2005 12:21:57 PM
"Lily" <Lil...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2553–4298AD0E–...@storefull–3217.bay.webtv.net...
AJ wrote:
<<I guess my point would be, if you're one of the 7000 (a number I find
highly suspect BTW) who dies, the notion of "Hello Sunshine!" is, well,
at best, ironic.>>
Certainly personal experience with a tragic illness makes one more than
usually sensitive to the dangers and the consequences of the disease.
It's hard to avoid saying, "Tell that to the person who dies from it,"
when you know someone who does––or when
you read research with conclusions contrary to those you'd accepted.
It's sort of a combination of synchronicity and compassion.
And please keep in mind that the research didn't conclude––and I didn't
claim–– that there was no causal relationship between sun exposure and
skin cancers.
As for suspect statistics:
http://www.dermatologychannel.net/skincancer/melanoma/index.shtml
"Melanoma is an increasingly common skin cancer that is highly curable,
yet potentially fatal. In the United States, the incidence of melanoma
has increased more rapidly than any other cancer. In 1935, the lifetime
risk for melanoma was 1 in 1500. In 1960, it increased to one in 600.
The risk was 1 in 105 in 1992, and by 1998 was 1 in 88. It is estimated
to be 1 in 75 in 2000. The American Cancer Society estimates that over
47,000 cases of melanoma will be diagnosed in the year 2000 and that it
will claim more than 7000 lives.
"While the incidence of melanoma is rising dramatically, the number of
deaths caused by the disease remains relatively constant. The reason for
this is not entirely clear, but early detection, reinforced by public
awareness programs, is at least partially responsible for the relatively
high survival rate. "
So, according to the American Cancer Society, melanomas were responsible
for approximately 7000 of all cancer related deaths in the US in the
year 2000.
Naturally this is of no comfort to you or your friend and I can't
imagine why it would be.
These are simply statistics used to quantify the perceived and actual
dangers of one cancer–causing factor. Statistics have no compassion.
Lily, even though in college I was over with the geeky English <<I guess my point would be, if you're one of the 7000 (a number I find
highly suspect BTW) who dies, the notion of "Hello Sunshine!" is, well,
at best, ironic.>>
Certainly personal experience with a tragic illness makes one more than
usually sensitive to the dangers and the consequences of the disease.
It's hard to avoid saying, "Tell that to the person who dies from it,"
when you know someone who does––or when
you read research with conclusions contrary to those you'd accepted.
It's sort of a combination of synchronicity and compassion.
And please keep in mind that the research didn't conclude––and I didn't
claim–– that there was no causal relationship between sun exposure and
skin cancers.
As for suspect statistics:
http://www.dermatologychannel.net/skincancer/melanoma/index.shtml
"Melanoma is an increasingly common skin cancer that is highly curable,
yet potentially fatal. In the United States, the incidence of melanoma
has increased more rapidly than any other cancer. In 1935, the lifetime
risk for melanoma was 1 in 1500. In 1960, it increased to one in 600.
The risk was 1 in 105 in 1992, and by 1998 was 1 in 88. It is estimated
to be 1 in 75 in 2000. The American Cancer Society estimates that over
47,000 cases of melanoma will be diagnosed in the year 2000 and that it
will claim more than 7000 lives.
"While the incidence of melanoma is rising dramatically, the number of
deaths caused by the disease remains relatively constant. The reason for
this is not entirely clear, but early detection, reinforced by public
awareness programs, is at least partially responsible for the relatively
high survival rate. "
So, according to the American Cancer Society, melanomas were responsible
for approximately 7000 of all cancer related deaths in the US in the
year 2000.
Naturally this is of no comfort to you or your friend and I can't
imagine why it would be.
These are simply statistics used to quantify the perceived and actual
dangers of one cancer–causing factor. Statistics have no compassion.
majors (sorry Trilby, sorry Ahmward) & not with the really
cool kids taking statistics, I am somewhat more sentient than,
say, my jade tree, and understand that statistics have no
compassion.
My points were (and remain) that 1) it is my experience that
you can find statistics to support almost anything (think about
the recent reversal on Vitamin E, for instance) and 2) melanoma
is very dangerous and often tragic (I'm not that old & hang
with an alarmingly healthy bunch of people and know five who
have died from it).
That 7000 figure is b.s., IMO.
––AJ
Lil...@webtv.net (Lily)
5/29/2005 12:14:56 PM
AJ wrote:
<<Lily, even though in college I was over with the geeky English majors
(sorry Trilby, sorry Ahmward) & not with the really cool kids taking
statistics, I am somewhat more sentient than, say, my jade tree, and
understand that statistics have no compassion.>>
I didn't know it was cool to take statistics. I was a geeky English
major.
<<My points were (and remain) that 1) it is my experience that you can
find statistics to support almost anything (think about the recent
reversal on Vitamin E, for instance) . . .>>
Quoting, "lies, damned lies and statistics'" is a classic way to deny
the statistics you don't believe, but it is not true that you can find
numbers to support almost anything. If you can, I wish someone would
find statistics that would persuade me it was safe to smoke again.
<< . . . and 2) melanoma is very dangerous and often tragic (I'm not
that old & hang with an alarmingly healthy bunch of people and know five
who have died from it).
That 7000 figure is b.s., IMO.>>
While I personally have known or known of (by 6 degrees) people who died
from ovarian cancer, breast cancer, stomach cancer, lung cancer,
pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, cancer of the prostate, and a brain
tumor, I didn't know anybody who suffered from or died of a malignant
melanoma.
The 7,000 figure comes from the American Cancer Society. It may be BS,
but belief in its accuracy is based on anecdotal evidence, ie, our own
personal sets of statistics.
Again, I never suggested that a death caused by a malignant skin cancer
was less tragic or traumatic than a death from any other type of cancer.
I simply pointed out that according to the statistics collected by the
American Cancer Society it's far less common.
Lily
<<Lily, even though in college I was over with the geeky English majors
(sorry Trilby, sorry Ahmward) & not with the really cool kids taking
statistics, I am somewhat more sentient than, say, my jade tree, and
understand that statistics have no compassion.>>
I didn't know it was cool to take statistics. I was a geeky English
major.
<<My points were (and remain) that 1) it is my experience that you can
find statistics to support almost anything (think about the recent
reversal on Vitamin E, for instance) . . .>>
Quoting, "lies, damned lies and statistics'" is a classic way to deny
the statistics you don't believe, but it is not true that you can find
numbers to support almost anything. If you can, I wish someone would
find statistics that would persuade me it was safe to smoke again.
<< . . . and 2) melanoma is very dangerous and often tragic (I'm not
that old & hang with an alarmingly healthy bunch of people and know five
who have died from it).
That 7000 figure is b.s., IMO.>>
While I personally have known or known of (by 6 degrees) people who died
from ovarian cancer, breast cancer, stomach cancer, lung cancer,
pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, cancer of the prostate, and a brain
tumor, I didn't know anybody who suffered from or died of a malignant
melanoma.
The 7,000 figure comes from the American Cancer Society. It may be BS,
but belief in its accuracy is based on anecdotal evidence, ie, our own
personal sets of statistics.
Again, I never suggested that a death caused by a malignant skin cancer
was less tragic or traumatic than a death from any other type of cancer.
I simply pointed out that according to the statistics collected by the
American Cancer Society it's far less common.
Lily
Laurie0512 <laurie0...@earthlink.net>
5/29/2005 8:19:34 AM
shinypenny at shinypenny0...@yahoo.com wrote on 5/29/05 7:50 AM:
been told, and can start developing with just a few skin burns. That bad
burn you might have gotten when you were 16 or 17 could be fatal in the
future. People are getting them younger and younger (i.e. in their
early–mid 20s!) because they were careless as teenagers.
Laurie
who works for a dermatologist
Lily wrote:
Does anyone wonder why melanoma rates are going up at the same time
sunscreen usage has also gone up?
<scratching head>
jen
Most skin cancers, including Melanoma, develop during adolescence, as I have Does anyone wonder why melanoma rates are going up at the same time
sunscreen usage has also gone up?
<scratching head>
jen
been told, and can start developing with just a few skin burns. That bad
burn you might have gotten when you were 16 or 17 could be fatal in the
future. People are getting them younger and younger (i.e. in their
early–mid 20s!) because they were careless as teenagers.
Laurie
who works for a dermatologist
Lil...@webtv.net (Lily)
5/29/2005 6:24:50 PM
<<Most skin cancers, including Melanoma, develop during adolescence, as
I have been told, and can start developing with just a few skin burns.
That bad burn you might have gotten when you were 16 or 17 could be
fatal in the future. People are getting them younger and younger (i.e.
in their early–mid 20s!) because they were careless as teenagers.
Laurie
who works for a dermatologist>>
That's what my two dermatologists have told me.
Lily
I have been told, and can start developing with just a few skin burns.
That bad burn you might have gotten when you were 16 or 17 could be
fatal in the future. People are getting them younger and younger (i.e.
in their early–mid 20s!) because they were careless as teenagers.
Laurie
who works for a dermatologist>>
That's what my two dermatologists have told me.
Lily
"AJ" <ajfash...@att.net>
5/29/2005 9:26:48 PM
"Lily" <Lil...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15121–4299EA80–...@storefull–3211.bay.webtv.net...
AJ wrote:
<<Lily, even though in college I was over with the geeky English majors
(sorry Trilby, sorry Ahmward) & not with the really cool kids taking
statistics, I am somewhat more sentient than, say, my jade tree, and
understand that statistics have no compassion.>>
I didn't know it was cool to take statistics. I was a geeky English
major.
<<My points were (and remain) that 1) it is my experience that you can
find statistics to support almost anything (think about the recent
reversal on Vitamin E, for instance) . . .>>
Quoting, "lies, damned lies and statistics'" is a classic way to deny
the statistics you don't believe, but it is not true that you can find
numbers to support almost anything. If you can, I wish someone would
find statistics that would persuade me it was safe to smoke again.
<< . . . and 2) melanoma is very dangerous and often tragic (I'm not
that old & hang with an alarmingly healthy bunch of people and know five
who have died from it).
That 7000 figure is b.s., IMO.>>
While I personally have known or known of (by 6 degrees) people who died
from ovarian cancer, breast cancer, stomach cancer, lung cancer,
pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, cancer of the prostate, and a brain
tumor, I didn't know anybody who suffered from or died of a malignant
melanoma.
The 7,000 figure comes from the American Cancer Society. It may be BS,
but belief in its accuracy is based on anecdotal evidence, ie, our own
personal sets of statistics.
Again, I never suggested that a death caused by a malignant skin cancer
was less tragic or traumatic than a death from any other type of cancer.
I simply pointed out that according to the statistics collected by the
American Cancer Society it's far less common.
Lily
Apparently, the, as it were, dog one has in this hunt makes <<Lily, even though in college I was over with the geeky English majors
(sorry Trilby, sorry Ahmward) & not with the really cool kids taking
statistics, I am somewhat more sentient than, say, my jade tree, and
understand that statistics have no compassion.>>
I didn't know it was cool to take statistics. I was a geeky English
major.
<<My points were (and remain) that 1) it is my experience that you can
find statistics to support almost anything (think about the recent
reversal on Vitamin E, for instance) . . .>>
Quoting, "lies, damned lies and statistics'" is a classic way to deny
the statistics you don't believe, but it is not true that you can find
numbers to support almost anything. If you can, I wish someone would
find statistics that would persuade me it was safe to smoke again.
<< . . . and 2) melanoma is very dangerous and often tragic (I'm not
that old & hang with an alarmingly healthy bunch of people and know five
who have died from it).
That 7000 figure is b.s., IMO.>>
While I personally have known or known of (by 6 degrees) people who died
from ovarian cancer, breast cancer, stomach cancer, lung cancer,
pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, cancer of the prostate, and a brain
tumor, I didn't know anybody who suffered from or died of a malignant
melanoma.
The 7,000 figure comes from the American Cancer Society. It may be BS,
but belief in its accuracy is based on anecdotal evidence, ie, our own
personal sets of statistics.
Again, I never suggested that a death caused by a malignant skin cancer
was less tragic or traumatic than a death from any other type of cancer.
I simply pointed out that according to the statistics collected by the
American Cancer Society it's far less common.
Lily
a big difference in one's feelings about these statistics.
Until a few months ago the American Heart Association
suggested, because of statistics, people with certain kinds
of heart disease should take Vitamin E. Siuddenly they
discovered it was not only not helpful but possibly harmful.
So you can quote statistics as long as the day is long,
you can imply I'm a lazy debater because I'm suspicious
of them, and you can continue to fail to understand that
it was not so much the information (which was interesting)
but your cheery tone that some people found offensive.
At any rate I wish you the best and if I've been offensive
to you, or anyone else, I apologize.
––AJ
"ahmward" <nospam.ahmw...@yahoo.com>
5/29/2005 8:18:50 AM
"shinypenny" <shinypenny0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117378202.694712.263...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lily wrote:
Does anyone wonder why melanoma rates are going up at the same time
sunscreen usage has also gone up?
<scratching head>
jen
JenDoes anyone wonder why melanoma rates are going up at the same time
sunscreen usage has also gone up?
<scratching head>
jen
There are truly multiple thousands of people who don't use sunscreen.
There are many I know who don't use sunscreen and really want the glow
of a tan. My walking buddy never uses it and thinks she'll be fine
because we walk early in the day. We need to wear sunglasses when we
walk and I use sunscreen and a hat. Others have fair skin and in spite
of trying to be cautious, they still have basal cells. My next door
neighbor has had four or five of them. She is blonde, fair skinned and
spends very little time outside the house. I live in the largest
agricultural area in the United States and probably the world and our
hot weather lasts from now until the end of October. The sun, of
course, keeps rising every day of the year. There are so many people who
must work outdoors in the intense heat. If a survey were done I think
the statistics for regular sunscreen users would be very small.
Audrey
Audrey
Lauri <res0r...@spamlessverizon.net>
5/29/2005 4:47:08 PM
On 29 May 2005 08:47:46 –0700, "shinypenny" <shinypenny0...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
smoke, but she still seeks out an extremely dark tan every summer by
lying out beside the pool for hours at a time. That used to be the
thing to do back in my high school days, but it's really uncommon
anymore, at least up here in the northwest, to see people with the
George Hamilton tan.
I use sunscreen religiously on my face (and neck, now, since Jen first
mentioned it a few months ago!). I don't use it on my arms or legs,
but am realizing that I should also start doing that.
Lauri in WA (eastern WA, where it is hot and dry and sunny all through
the summer and fall)
I like my email spamless
wrote:
Cancer aside, if you care about wrinkles, religious sunscreen use is an
excellent idea.
I have a sister who is 3 years younger than me. Not only does she excellent idea.
smoke, but she still seeks out an extremely dark tan every summer by
lying out beside the pool for hours at a time. That used to be the
thing to do back in my high school days, but it's really uncommon
anymore, at least up here in the northwest, to see people with the
George Hamilton tan.
I use sunscreen religiously on my face (and neck, now, since Jen first
mentioned it a few months ago!). I don't use it on my arms or legs,
but am realizing that I should also start doing that.
Lauri in WA (eastern WA, where it is hot and dry and sunny all through
the summer and fall)
I like my email spamless
"ahmward" <nospam.ahmw...@yahoo.com>
5/29/2005 10:24:25 AM
"Lauri" <res0r...@spamlessverizon.net> wrote in message
news:h3sj91d2cvc62cpgcf772469n3ov72t...@4ax.com...
On 29 May 2005 08:47:46 –0700, "shinypenny" <shinypenny0...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I have a sister who is 3 years younger than me. Not only does she
smoke, but she still seeks out an extremely dark tan every summer by
lying out beside the pool for hours at a time. That used to be the
thing to do back in my high school days, but it's really uncommon
anymore, at least up here in the northwest, to see people with the
George Hamilton tan.
I use sunscreen religiously on my face (and neck, now, since Jen first
mentioned it a few months ago!). I don't use it on my arms or legs,
but am realizing that I should also start doing that.
Lauri in WA (eastern WA, where it is hot and dry and sunny all through
the summer and fall)
I like my email spamless
Coppertone sport with spf30is a good spray on for arms and legs. It's wrote:
I have a sister who is 3 years younger than me. Not only does she
smoke, but she still seeks out an extremely dark tan every summer by
lying out beside the pool for hours at a time. That used to be the
thing to do back in my high school days, but it's really uncommon
anymore, at least up here in the northwest, to see people with the
George Hamilton tan.
I use sunscreen religiously on my face (and neck, now, since Jen first
mentioned it a few months ago!). I don't use it on my arms or legs,
but am realizing that I should also start doing that.
Lauri in WA (eastern WA, where it is hot and dry and sunny all through
the summer and fall)
I like my email spamless
light and you don't have to work hard to rub it in. An added bonus is
it has that Coppertone beach smell, if you like that sort of thing.
Costco sells it at a good price.
Audrey
"shinypenny" <shinypenny0...@yahoo.com>
5/29/2005 8:47:46 AM
ahmward wrote:
skin cancer isn't a concern of mine. I did a lot of damage in my teen
years in search of a tan, and I routinely see the dr every year to
count moles and check for cancer.
When they started recommending sunscreen, I took it to heart and since
my early 20s have not gone a day without sunscreen on my face, even in
winter. (Unfortunately, it took me awhile to realize I should *also*
apply it to my neck and chest, and you can see the difference). In
summer I apply it all over from head to toe, using copious amounts, and
*before* I go out so it has time to sink in. Yesterday I didn't – on
purpose – because my back has been bothering me so I figured it was an
experiment. :–)
My kids are young and also fair and blonde, and I have lathered them up
consistently since they were born, too.
Wandering off the cancer issue and on to a vanity–related one. :–)
I met this woman recently, while out having a smoke after a restaurant
meal, who is also blonde and fair–skinned. She and I looked like we
could be sisters, and we hit it off right away, comparing notes about
how hard it is to find petite clothes, etc.
I was guessing this woman was at least 40 if not 50 years old because
she had a lot of wrinkles. I mentioned something about my kids going
into middle school, and her mouth dropped open. "You can't possibly be
old enough to have kids that age?"
Turns out she is 10 years *younger* than me. She then asked me how long
I've been smoking. I told her since I was 13. Her mouth dropped open
again. "How come smoking didn't give you wrinkles? I've also been
smoking that long, and look at my face! I always thought my smoking
gave me all these wrinkles."
We kept talking and comparing notes, and it turns out she's never used
sunscreen. Ever. She's no longer a sunworshipper, but she doesn't apply
a base of sunscreen or wear foundation with sunscreen.
Cancer aside, if you care about wrinkles, religious sunscreen use is an
excellent idea.
jen
There are truly multiple thousands of people who don't use sunscreen.
There are many I know who don't use sunscreen and really want the glow
of a tan. My walking buddy never uses it and thinks she'll be fine
because we walk early in the day. We need to wear sunglasses when we
walk and I use sunscreen and a hat. Others have fair skin and in spite
of trying to be cautious, they still have basal cells. My next door
neighbor has had four or five of them. She is blonde, fair skinned and
spends very little time outside the house.
Yep, I'm blonde, fair–skinned, and burn easily too. I'm not saying that There are many I know who don't use sunscreen and really want the glow
of a tan. My walking buddy never uses it and thinks she'll be fine
because we walk early in the day. We need to wear sunglasses when we
walk and I use sunscreen and a hat. Others have fair skin and in spite
of trying to be cautious, they still have basal cells. My next door
neighbor has had four or five of them. She is blonde, fair skinned and
spends very little time outside the house.
skin cancer isn't a concern of mine. I did a lot of damage in my teen
years in search of a tan, and I routinely see the dr every year to
count moles and check for cancer.
When they started recommending sunscreen, I took it to heart and since
my early 20s have not gone a day without sunscreen on my face, even in
winter. (Unfortunately, it took me awhile to realize I should *also*
apply it to my neck and chest, and you can see the difference). In
summer I apply it all over from head to toe, using copious amounts, and
*before* I go out so it has time to sink in. Yesterday I didn't – on
purpose – because my back has been bothering me so I figured it was an
experiment. :–)
My kids are young and also fair and blonde, and I have lathered them up
consistently since they were born, too.
Wandering off the cancer issue and on to a vanity–related one. :–)
I met this woman recently, while out having a smoke after a restaurant
meal, who is also blonde and fair–skinned. She and I looked like we
could be sisters, and we hit it off right away, comparing notes about
how hard it is to find petite clothes, etc.
I was guessing this woman was at least 40 if not 50 years old because
she had a lot of wrinkles. I mentioned something about my kids going
into middle school, and her mouth dropped open. "You can't possibly be
old enough to have kids that age?"
Turns out she is 10 years *younger* than me. She then asked me how long
I've been smoking. I told her since I was 13. Her mouth dropped open
again. "How come smoking didn't give you wrinkles? I've also been
smoking that long, and look at my face! I always thought my smoking
gave me all these wrinkles."
We kept talking and comparing notes, and it turns out she's never used
sunscreen. Ever. She's no longer a sunworshipper, but she doesn't apply
a base of sunscreen or wear foundation with sunscreen.
Cancer aside, if you care about wrinkles, religious sunscreen use is an
excellent idea.
jen
Lauri <res0r...@spamlessverizon.net>
5/29/2005 5:59:22 PM
On Sun, 29 May 2005 10:24:25 –0700, "ahmward"
<nospam.ahmw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
for it.
Lauri in WA
I like my email spamless
<nospam.ahmw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Coppertone sport with spf30is a good spray on for arms and legs. It's
light and you don't have to work hard to rub it in. An added bonus is
it has that Coppertone beach smell, if you like that sort of thing.
Costco sells it at a good price.
Thanks for the tip, Audrey––I'm going to Costco today and will look light and you don't have to work hard to rub it in. An added bonus is
it has that Coppertone beach smell, if you like that sort of thing.
Costco sells it at a good price.
for it.
Lauri in WA
I like my email spamless
"ahmward" <nospam.ahmw...@yahoo.com>
5/28/2005 9:07:16 AM
"AJ" <ajfash...@att.net> wrote in message
news:i20me.846427$w62.816...@bgtnsc05–news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Lily" <Lil...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4197–429170FE–...@storefull–3218.bay.webtv.net...
I have a young acquaintance (30 years old, with two very
young children, one a baby) who has just been diagnosed
with stage 4 brain cancer (in four places), which metastisized
from melanoma. They're searching the planet for medical
treatment to save her life, which major medical centers have
told her is pointless.
I guess my point would be, if you're one of the 7000 (a
number I find highly suspect BTW) who dies, the notion
of "Hello Sunshine!" is, well, at best, ironic.
––AJ
went to a summer camp in the mountains. He had fair skin and the dark
spot was on the back of his head. His mom was the camp nurse. Luckily
he was treated immediately. Our former beloved zoo director was not as
fortunate: he died due to melanoma. If you are rolling the dice, it is
better to be on the side of caution.
Audrey
"shinypenny" <shinypenny0...@yahoo.com>
5/29/2005 7:47:31 AM
ahmward wrote:
"But this is difficult. Vitamin D occurs naturally in salmon, tuna and
other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk, but diet accounts for
very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood, Giovannucci said.
Most supplements use an old form – D–2 – that is far less potent
than the more desirable D–3. Multivitamins typically contain only small
amounts of D–2 and include vitamin A, which offsets many of D's
benefits. As a result, pills might not raise vitamin D levels much at
all.
Government advisers can't even agree on an RDA, or recommended daily
allowance, for vitamin D. Instead, they say "adequate intake" is
200 international units a day up to age 50, 400 IUs for ages 50 to 70,
and 600 IUs for people older than 70. Many scientists think adults need
1,000 IUs a day. Giovannucci's research suggests 1,500 IUs might be
needed to significantly curb cancer."
"During short winter days, the sun's rays come in at too oblique an
angle to spur the skin to make vitamin D. That is why nutrition experts
think vitamin D–3 might be especially helpful during winter, and for
dark–skinned people all the time. But too much of the pill variety can
cause a dangerous buildup of calcium in the body. The government says
2,000 IUs is the upper daily limit.
It's almost impossible to overdose when getting vitamin D from
sunshine. However, it is possible to get skin cancer"
D absorption, while screening out the damaging ultraviolet rays.
jen
I'd much rather get my Vitamin D from milk.
Unfortunately, getting Vit D from food or supplements is not efficient: "But this is difficult. Vitamin D occurs naturally in salmon, tuna and
other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk, but diet accounts for
very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood, Giovannucci said.
Most supplements use an old form – D–2 – that is far less potent
than the more desirable D–3. Multivitamins typically contain only small
amounts of D–2 and include vitamin A, which offsets many of D's
benefits. As a result, pills might not raise vitamin D levels much at
all.
Government advisers can't even agree on an RDA, or recommended daily
allowance, for vitamin D. Instead, they say "adequate intake" is
200 international units a day up to age 50, 400 IUs for ages 50 to 70,
and 600 IUs for people older than 70. Many scientists think adults need
1,000 IUs a day. Giovannucci's research suggests 1,500 IUs might be
needed to significantly curb cancer."
"During short winter days, the sun's rays come in at too oblique an
angle to spur the skin to make vitamin D. That is why nutrition experts
think vitamin D–3 might be especially helpful during winter, and for
dark–skinned people all the time. But too much of the pill variety can
cause a dangerous buildup of calcium in the body. The government says
2,000 IUs is the upper daily limit.
It's almost impossible to overdose when getting vitamin D from
sunshine. However, it is possible to get skin cancer"
Skin cancers may be easily
treatable but they are totally scary. I had a basal cell removed from
the side of my nose many years ago and I would much rather slather on
sunscreen daily than go through that again. My neighbor's grandson got
melanoma when he went to summer camp and didn't wear a hat.
Yep. I'm hoping they find a way to make a sunscreen that allows vitamin treatable but they are totally scary. I had a basal cell removed from
the side of my nose many years ago and I would much rather slather on
sunscreen daily than go through that again. My neighbor's grandson got
melanoma when he went to summer camp and didn't wear a hat.
D absorption, while screening out the damaging ultraviolet rays.
jen
"shinypenny" <shinypenny0...@yahoo.com>
5/29/2005 8:04:44 AM
Lily wrote:
about borderline Vitamin D deficiencies possibly being the cause for
"unexplained" chronic back pain. It was just one small study, but they
put a bunch of people on very high doses of Vit D and within *days*
their back pain went away.
I personally found it quite intriguing because I've noticed my back
pain occurs in the winter and spring, and disappears completely in the
summer. It could be simply because I'm much more active in the summer.
I did notice that when I went to Japan this spring, despite a long
plane ride that made my back pain ten times worse, within a couple of
days during which we were constantly outdoors in bright sunshine
without any sunscreen my back pain completely disappeared. I felt fine
until a few days after my return to dreary cloudy weather and back to
my usual office routine.
It's hard to say whether the walking and avoidance of sitting all day
was what helped my back, or the sunshine, or a combo of both. All I
know is that yesterday, after a week of endless rain, we had a glorious
day of sunshine, and I went out to the beach to purposely soak it up. I
wore sunscreen on my face and neck, but deliberately not on my legs and
arms. It felt wonderful.
jen
Yahoo news has an article about the recent research on the dangers of
sun exposure, which found that the benefits of vitamin D far outweigh
the risks of skin cancers. I'm sorry I don't have the link, but the
article is easily findable.
Just wanted to add that about a year ago there was also an article sun exposure, which found that the benefits of vitamin D far outweigh
the risks of skin cancers. I'm sorry I don't have the link, but the
article is easily findable.
about borderline Vitamin D deficiencies possibly being the cause for
"unexplained" chronic back pain. It was just one small study, but they
put a bunch of people on very high doses of Vit D and within *days*
their back pain went away.
I personally found it quite intriguing because I've noticed my back
pain occurs in the winter and spring, and disappears completely in the
summer. It could be simply because I'm much more active in the summer.
I did notice that when I went to Japan this spring, despite a long
plane ride that made my back pain ten times worse, within a couple of
days during which we were constantly outdoors in bright sunshine
without any sunscreen my back pain completely disappeared. I felt fine
until a few days after my return to dreary cloudy weather and back to
my usual office routine.
It's hard to say whether the walking and avoidance of sitting all day
was what helped my back, or the sunshine, or a combo of both. All I
know is that yesterday, after a week of endless rain, we had a glorious
day of sunshine, and I went out to the beach to purposely soak it up. I
wore sunscreen on my face and neck, but deliberately not on my legs and
arms. It felt wonderful.
jen