Yeah, real science :the Experts don't know in other words

[tim-from-pa]

As a continuation of "skin cancer awareness month", I thought I'd show articles about melanoma, the deadliest kind, and their concern how this shot up drastically in the last 40 years or so.

When we read this article, the bottom line is they just don't know, but tanning beds take a big hit:

http://www.aad.org/media-resources/stats-and-facts/conditions/melanoma-trends

Do you get a "satisfactory answer" just reading this article from the dermatology experts? I thought not.

In this next article, they throw all sorts of statistics around, and Australia actually banned the beds. But you don't have to read the confusing statistics. All you have to read is ONE:

In October of last year, Australia banned the use of tanning beds, citing a study estimating that 1 in 6 melanomas in young Australians 18 to 29 years old could be prevented if tanning salons were shut down.

OK... one in six. That means 5/6 of those with melanomas are not tanning bed related (or there abouts). When young women were asked why they tanned on beds, the primary reason is to look better, but they also stated that it helps their mood and helps them to relax (sounds like a vitamin D deficiency to me, but anyways).... the bottom line, and the agenda they are trying to push stated in the last sentence of the article is:

...we need to focus our attention on teaching sun avoidance at an early age.

Oh? really? The sun is just as bad as artificial light man creates? I had a go-around months back with someone who said I over exaggerated that NOBODY was saying to avoid the sun. We just have to be reasonable (which I agree with) but the MESSAGE is not that of reason, but avoidance, and there's the proof. Like Dracula, they hate the sun, and salt and anything else that causes these liberal devils to melt and become skeletons or something.

http://www.fhcrc.org/en/news/center...n-the-hot-seat-as-skin-cancer-rates-jump.html

Now... I did not touch on this thread the real reason for skin cancer increase, but the two articles here suggest, "we don't know" and "let's find a scapegoat" which borders in politics, IMO. Yeah, real science.

 

[TOG]

Do you get a "satisfactory answer" just reading this article from the dermatology experts?

Yes, I do. According to that article, the increase in melanoma is due to increased exposure to ultra violate radiation.

Some people are not protecting themselves from sun exposure while others subject themselves to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from indoor tanning beds and lamps. In fact, nearly 28 million people tan indoors in the United States annually.5,6 Nearly 70 percent of tanning salon patrons are Caucasian girls and women, primarily aged 16 to 29 years, which Dr. Rigel says may explain why the torso is the most common location for developing melanoma in females 15-29 years old.7,8 Depletion of the ozone layer may contribute to the increase in melanoma incidence because it allows more UV radiation to reach the earth's surface.

Did you forget to read that part?

I thought not.

You thought wrong.

In this next article, they throw all sorts of statistics around, and Australia actually banned the beds. But you don't have to read the confusing statistics. All you have to read is ONE:

In October of last year, Australia banned the use of tanning beds, citing a study estimating that 1 in 6 melanomas in young Australians 18 to 29 years old could be prevented if tanning salons were shut down.

OK... one in six. That means 5/6 of those with melanomas are not tanning bed related (or there abouts).

If you look at some of the statistics with tanning beds, for example, one session in a tanning bed increases your chance of melanoma by 20 percent. Nowadays it’s been found that in women between the ages of 18 and 29, 76 percent of their melanomas are associated with tanning bed use.

Did you miss that, or were you hoping we would?

The TOG​

 

[tim-from-pa]

TOG:

You missed my point. I'm not advocating tanning bed use. The statistics they gave (not me) would imply that even without them the vast majority of melanoma cases would still exist and there are many times the cases than years ago. So a bed just contributes, but is not the rampant cause of it. They blame UV, which tanning beds are just part of the issue since it's man-made does not have the same ratio as in the sun, so then they turn on the sun instead.

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

a few thousand years ago, the scientists knew that eating good prevented illness usually. (when Living and trusting in obedience to the Creator).
a few decades ago, after sunblock started being used, skin cancer increased right in line with sunblock use by 17% give or take some (i.e. sunblock did not reduce cancer occurrence).

however, for the ones who like to read to find out why when that is possible, there was a book published in line with medical knowledge and studies, but against the politics of same, that told.

the title of the book is "nutrition , the cancer answer" by maureen salaman. that, and about 500 other books, by max gerson,m.d.(the only doctor i know who testified before the congress of the untied states to get the known and proven cures of cancer approved through the legal channels the untied states required --- which known and proven cures are now being widely used in official cancer medical clinics around the untied states but 'unofficially' as 'pallative' or 'supportive' therapies in conjunction with slash/poison/burn therapies that are destructive and very very expensive(the reason they are used) ) ,
jethro kloss, linus pauling (nobel prize winner run out of the untied states for daring to publish the known and proven cure for heart disease), dr.shutes (likewise), adelle davis (one of the first nationwide best selling authors exposing the fda as a pawn of the profiteers), the diamonds (gentle, simple books "fit for life" and "fit for life 2" and perhaps others),
"Moses Wasn't Fat" (wonderful, delightful, easy reading true from Scripture and historically why the Israelites were so healthy when they were so healthy), etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...... (and a lot more for the voracious reader seeking truth from God).....

the simple basic truth : "God knows."

 

[TOG]

TOG:

You missed my point. I'm not advocating tanning bed use. The statistics they gave (not me) would imply that even without them the vast majority of melanoma cases would still exist and there are many times the cases than years ago. So a bed just contributes, but is not the rampant cause of it. They blame UV, which tanning beds are just part of the issue since it's man-made does not have the same ratio as in the sun, so then they turn on the sun instead.

You're looking at different sets of statistics, and you mustn't confuse them. The ratio of 1/6 is for the total number of melanoma cases in the entire population of Australia. But among women between 18 and 29 years old in the United States, 76% of melanoma cases are related to using tanning beds. You can't take the statistics from Australia and apply them to young women in the US. There's a pretty big difference in the relation to tanning beds in those two groups, and that difference actually supports the theory that UV radiation causes melanoma, or at least increases the chances of getting melanoma. Whether it is caused by human activity or by natural causes, it has long been known that the ozone layer is very thin over Australia, which means that UV radiation from the sun is much stronger there than it is in the US, which has a thicker ozone layer protecting it. While Australians get most of their UV radiation from the sun, young American women get most of their exposure to UV radiation in tanning salons, so most skin cancer among young American women is related to tanning bed use, while most cases in Australia are not.

You have said elsewhere that sun block is the cause of the increase in melanoma cases.

Starting in the early 1980s, in response to the rapidly rising toll of skin cancer, state anti-cancer societies ran public education programs to encourage Australians to reduce their exposure to the sun. The Slip! Slop! Slap! program encouraged fair-skinned Australians to protect themselves by slipping on a shirt, slopping on sunscreen, and slapping on a hat. Over time, this program evolved into the comprehensive SunSmart campaign involving public education, training for various professionals, the provision of resources to organizations and communities, and formal program evaluation activities.
source

According to this, sun block usage increased after skin cancer cases started increasing. I could therefore hardly be the cause of the increase. The same site goes on to say...

SunSmart Program Effectiveness
Survey research from the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria shows that the proportion of people who like to get a suntan has decreased markedly over the past decade, from 61 percent in 1988 to 35 percent in 1998. The findings also show a consistent increase over the last 13 years in the proportion of people who report seeking shade in the middle of the day, using a hat, covering up with clothing, and applying sunscreen. There has been a 50 percent reduction in people getting sunburnt in the decade from 1988 to 1998.

Trends in Skin Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates
The incidence of melanoma fell from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s in Australians under 60 years of age, however it continued to increase in older Australians. Similarly, the incidence of basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell cancinoma declined in people below 50 from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s but continued to increase in older people, particularly men.

In terms of mortality, after more than 60 years of steadily increasing mortality from melanoma, the trend finally changed. Specifically, the mortality rate slowed in men and declined in women from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s--the first time a fall in melanoma mortality had ever been reported for any population of European origin.
Source

So, people spent less time in the sun, used more sunblock, and the rate of skin cancer started going down. Yeah... It must be the sunblock that's causing the cancer.

The TOG​

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

relax. God created all things simple, and man corrupted everything.

sunblock stops the body from producing the vitamin D that is needed to prevent cancer. also, cancer is a deficiency disease, as proven (for those who care to looke) over a century ago, so the poorer the diet, the more the cancer. (just search the internet and books at a good health food store, if God provides the time and mind to.). if not, well, believing man has always been the popular road. (not right, but popular!) ... ... ironic , isn't it, that we must trust God to reveal the truth to us, no matter who says what..... oh, wait! not ironic! .... ("++++++++") ... bubonic... ? ,, no .... cholonic..... no..... esoteric..... no ...... hmmmm..... what then ?

 

[tim-from-pa]

Wow TOG:

Never knew you were that way; always thought you thought along my line, not by the establishment that brainwashed everyone into believing they have a healthier way, yet all I look around is that people have been following advice, such as avoiding the sun and using sunblock, and they are sicker than ever. I don't know how you say the cancer rates are decreasing. All the leftists in their panic say it's increasing, the earth's heating up, there's all this UV from the sun we've never had before, and yada yada yada.

So tell us. How much vitamin D do you get a day? Do you know? Ever occur to anyone that the problem may not be the sun, but us? And if so, why? That's the problem with this generation: it's the next guy's fault and God put this big cancer-causing orb in the sky. It's not me! (as in the end they are led to a lake of fire and I hope they have their sunscreen.)

 

[TOG]

relax. God created all things simple, and man corrupted everything.

sunblock stops the body from producing the vitamin D that is needed to prevent cancer. also, cancer is a deficiency disease, as proven (for those who care to looke) over a century ago, so the poorer the diet, the more the cancer. (just search the internet and books at a good health food store, if God provides the time and mind to.). if not, well, believing man has always been the popular road. (not right, but popular!) ... ... ironic , isn't it, that we must trust God to reveal the truth to us, no matter who says what..... oh, wait! not ironic! .... ("++++++++") ... bubonic... ? ,, no .... cholonic..... no..... esoteric..... no ...... hmmmm..... what then ?

My mom died of cancer last summer. There was nothing wrong with her diet and nothing that a change in diet could have helped. Her cancer was caused by smoking for nearly 70 years. It wasn't a "deficiency disease".

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

Wow TOG:

Never knew you were that way; always thought you thought along my line, not by the establishment that brainwashed everyone into believing they have a healthier way,

So, everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed? I suppose that's one way of avoiding having to look at actual facts.

I don't know how you say the cancer rates are decreasing.

Read the article (the word "Source" is a link to it). Their data comes from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Australasian Association of Cancer Registries and the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria.

All the leftists in their panic say it's increasing

Well, I guess that settles it. If a "leftist" says it, it must be wrong. Let's not bother to look at actual statistics from the country with both the highest UV radiation (due to the thinnest ozone layer) and the highest rate of skin cancer in the entire world. Those two things have absolutely nothing to do with it. The leftists say it, so it's wrong.

The TOG​

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

yes, it still was a deficiency disease. the body protects itself against troubles with the means that God has built into it wisely.
like if the body has enough of the enzyme used to migrate mercury out of the body, then it doesn't get autism. if it doesn't have enough of the enzyme, or any other nutrient/substance that is needed, then it loses ground against the toxin and sometimes bad results are seen.

if someone abuses their own body with toxins, or even inadvertently or on purpose is toxified by others , the body may reach its limits of its ability to deal with it. that is simple and totally in line with the way God designed our bodies.

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

simply, when I got medical and pharmacy school through the us navy, I had NO IDEA what was behind the (medical) system. Never had I heard, that I remember, anything against it.
Then, by sheer grace, like Carey Reams, and millions of others, it was revealed right from the horses mouth. (they told me themselves !!!). Gradually. Over more than a decade. They didn't even try to hide it (the instructors, the manufacturers, and the sellers, and the perpetrators). They didn't have to. They are in control(of the economy, the politics, the schools, society, even the churches). Well, GOD IS IN CONTROL, but He allowed them their way for now. And like a little grey-haired lady at a yard sale a decade or so ago said (resulting in simple peace of mind again at the time) "Don't worry, God will take care of them. "... and so He will. (As He took care of every country that ever hurt His people, in Scripture, and historically. He is not surprised nor caught off guard. He knows what He is doing, and will certainly finish what He started.)

 

[TOG]

if someone abuses their own body with toxins, or even inadvertently or on purpose is toxified by others , the body may reach its limits of its ability to deal with it. that is simple and totally in line with the way God designed our bodies.

Exactly. And if someone inadvertently or on purpose exposes himself to excessive levels of UV radiation, then the body can no longer handle it and he gets cancer.

The TOG​

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

Tada! Simple , yes.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Also agreed. except..... why is the sun "all of a sudden" problem when people have been basking in it for thousands of years? More UV, we say? I have to find that other thread of mine where a NASA scientist said that the extra UV only can account for a small percentage increase, whereas the cancer society claims this skin cancer is growing in leaps and bounds (as evidenced by the fact we have to have a specific month set aside to be aware of it). Because I and another young lady had this out a few months back.

Basically, I'll make this much of a concession if there is extra UV from the sun from man's pollution. Much like the tanning booths, it may contribute if there is excess only. But in reality, my gut tells me it's one quarter the sun's fault, and 3 quarters the fault of a degenerating human body (generation) can't withstand the sun any longer. Can this be reversed? Possibly. But to burn in the sun in only ten minutes is abnormal (the measly amount they tell you to get just to sound open-minded about it) Face it, no kid used to play in the sun only 10 minutes -- not in my generation. And I remember very few getting sunburned, although it did happen once in a blue moon. The best way is to start with antioxidants and good supplementation that our "well balanced" diets of today are lacking due to processing, GMO's etc. I think that along with added chemicals in the environment and ingestion is the problem.

The establishment and man's fallen ways have gotten us so deceived, we don't know the truth any longer. And we are told good is bad and bad is good. Authoritative mandates are creeping into our lives even down to what we eat, and what we think or believe. It's the Isaiah 5:20 principle. This isn't about my opinion. This is about truth.

 

[TOG]

Also agreed. except..... why is the sun "all of a sudden" problem when people have been basking in it for thousands of years?

The problem is not the sun, per se, but an increased amount of UV radiation due to the thinning of the ozone layer as well as the increased use of tanning beds.

But to burn in the sun in only ten minutes is abnormal (the measly amount they tell you to get just to sound open-minded about it) Face it, no kid used to play in the sun only 10 minutes -- not in my generation. And I remember very few getting sunburned, although it did happen once in a blue moon.

I guess blue moons must be pretty common in Oklahoma, where I grew up. I got sun burned pretty much every summer. That wasn't because of a poor diet, but because I have very fair skin and burn easily. Those with somewhat darker skin, such as Mexicans or Native Americans can stand more exposure to the sun and burn less frequently.

Ten minutes isn't the maximum time you should spend in the sun. There is no maximum time. I remember reading about that long ago (probably about 50 years ago), and it was meant for fair skinned people (such as myself) who were starting to tan. They were told to not spend more than 10 minutes at a time in the sun to start with. Once they got some color, they could spend more time in the sun. Ten minutes was not chosen because that's how long it takes to get a sun burn, but because that was less than what it takes to burn. I can tell you from experience, it doesn't take much more than mayby 30 minutes for fair skinned people to burn if the sun is strong enough.

The TOG​

 

[tim-from-pa]

......

Ten minutes isn't the maximum time you should spend in the sun. There is no maximum time. I remember reading about that long ago (probably about 50 years ago), and it was meant for fair skinned people (such as myself) who were starting to tan. They were told to not spend more than 10 minutes at a time in the sun to start with. Once they got some color, they could spend more time in the sun. Ten minutes was not chosen because that's how long it takes to get a sun burn, but because that was less than what it takes to burn. I can tell you from experience, it doesn't take much more than mayby 30 minutes for fair skinned people to burn if the sun is strong enough.

The TOG​

Glad we can agree on this, so that I can feel comforted when I get hollered at to "get out of the sun" (with the reasoning of the one who hollers, "it's too much for me so it must be for you, too") because even after a long winter I can take an hour, and during the summer later on, several. I am fair skinned as well. The rule of thumb is to sun until one starts to turn just slightly red, then get out. That's not the message, though, is my gripe to refer back to the article I quote about "sun avoidance". To avoid means to go out little or not at all, and for God's sake run to your car if you don't have sunscreen. I get chastised that I am making them say things they aren't and being overly severe, but that's the message regardless, I quoted it straight from them, and that's how people take it. "Oh but that's not what we mean! You can have some sun!" Well, that's not how it's coming out. The sun is treated like a forbidden dessert that we can indulge in "once in awhile" but not often. The message then becomes "the sun is bad". People then are becoming severely vitamin D deficient with no sun, and it's contributing to killing us with cancer, and heart disease, and other medical maladies. But in fact, it's our life-giver on Earth. One type of idolatry that I can understand (not that I endorse it) is primitive sun-god worship. I can see why -- they understood the power of the sun.

 

[turnorburn]

it was around 1990 when i spoke to a scientist that had just returned from an expedition to the North Pole somehow we got started on a conversation about the Ozone layer, remember now this was almost 20 years ago.. He said the hole in the Ozone was humungous, and growing.. I'm thinking this may/does have something to do with it.. the timing would run it in parallel to the book of the Revelation.. wouldn't it?

tob

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

yes

 

[Christ_empowered]

I think Australia banned the tanning beds because it cost the government loads of money to fix the cancers caused by them. I would think they'd tax them, but taxes may not have been enough to compensate the health system for costs.

 

[agua.]

it was around 1990 when i spoke to a scientist that had just returned from an expedition to the North Pole somehow we got started on a conversation about the Ozone layer, remember now this was almost 20 years ago.. He said the hole in the Ozone was humungous, and growing.. I'm thinking this may/does have something to do with it.. the timing would run it in parallel to the book of the Revelation.. wouldn't it?

tob

Better turn over or you'll burn in this sun TOB.

I think Australia banned the tanning beds because it cost the government loads of money to fix the cancers caused by them. I would think they'd tax them, but taxes may not have been enough to compensate the health system for costs.

It's funny you say that CE. We've increased taxes on alcohol and smokes in an attempt to cut down usage. I'm not sure if these taxes go directly into the health system; probably not.