jasonc
Member
florida has gotten that cold and that hot and hotter. but the cold temps below 0 are rare. 20 ish isn't that uncommon at times. last year we had that.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Yeah, real science :the Experts don't know in other words
- Thread starter tim-from-pa
- Start date
Claudya
Member
Well I've spent all of the winter and spring outside most oft the day due to my job, I certainly get more than enough sunlight exposure for my daily dose of vitamin d, and I do have somewhat of a tan from being outside so much... Yet today I still got sunburnt.
Maybe sunscreen isn't such a bad idea. Gonna use some tomorrow.
Maybe sunscreen isn't such a bad idea. Gonna use some tomorrow.
Claudya
Member
Yeah there was a mention of that 18-29 group in relation to tan beds. Now that's a very special situation of UV overexposure.
What'd happen to the statistics if they leave out people that deliberately destroy their skin in tanning beds?
H
His_nee (Jeff)
Guest
....still a bad idea.... (or, at least, there's better ones >> )
http://wellnessmama.com/4621/eat-your-sunscreen/
"So, if skin cancer rates are rising despite sunscreen use and reduced sun exposure, perhaps there is a deeper underlying cause. I’ve written before about the link between nutrition and sunburn, and I’m becoming even more convinced of this as more evidence emerges. The most convincing part for me personally was my own reaction to the sun over the last couple of years."
tim-from-pa
Member
Excellent article, and she makes points similar to mine, supported with some basic statistics. But because she's not mainline, the anti-sun pushers will say 101 reasons why she's "wrong" and deny her points, but then if you disagree with their statistics, then all of a sudden you are in denial and stupid for not understanding statistics.
But she has a serious point. It's because of something with nutrition, and she uses personal example to prove that point. I have to laugh at her use of "healthy saturated fats" instead of the agenda-pushing leftists who are supposedly so open-minded calling it "artery-clogging saturated fats" to bias the reader right then and there. Most of the nutritional advice out there tells us "what to avoid", never ,ever addressing the need for nutrition such as vitamins which is probably the cause of the vast majority of these medical cases because people are told there is actually such thing as a "well balanced diet".
It's all just agendas, politics, and power-struggles, and I hate listening to anything these establishments say any longer. When they stop speaking profusely out of the wrong end of their bodies, I will listen. But I'm tired of getting sprayed and having to wear a brown shirt every time they speak. That's what I think about it all.
H
His_nee (Jeff)
Guest
Yhwh put it simply. "what is born of the flesh, is flesh, and profits nothing(is useless for life and everything pertaining to life)."
So, people have the kingdom on earth that they are born in, to trust (and die/stay dead).
Or, turn to Yhwh to see if He will help.
So, people have the kingdom on earth that they are born in, to trust (and die/stay dead).
Or, turn to Yhwh to see if He will help.
A
agua.
Guest
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the class of ’99
If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be
it. The long term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by
scientists whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable
than my own meandering"
Baz Luhrmann - Everybody's free to wear sunscreen
H
His_nee (Jeff)
Guest
..... like someone once said "go ahead, eat the apple, it won't hurt you..... .... ..... ..... "
tim-from-pa
Member
I accidentally ran into another push-into-your-face article quoting this same 76% that you said "I missed" the other day (and hoping everyone else would).
Actually, that does not say anything, and unlike what you were hinting at, does not imply that 76% of melanomas are tanning bed related. There is not enough information in that article or statement to state what percentage is tanning bed related across the board.
I stay with my guns about 5/6 of the cases in Australia are not tanning bed related... the culture is not much different than ours, and even without knowing the statistics, it is highly improbable that it causes only 1/6 of the cancer rates in Australia and 76% here.
But this is a prime example of their wording statistical results to make it say "whatever they want" and people fall for it. My original stance is correct, by their own admission and statistics, tanning beds are not the biggest culprit. This is, again, where they turn on the sun to blame somebody or something else for our own degenerative maladies these days. And just keep following mainstream advice on how to stay healthy, so that more and more people die, and then they can rag people even more with guilt on "what they did wrong" that our ancestors were doing the same thing for ages without consequence.
H
His_nee (Jeff)
Guest
....hiccup..... btw, did you notice that it said "will be diagnosed with..." not "will get..." . every year there is a bigger and bigger difference between those 2 numbers, since they started doing that around 1950 give or take 35 years, and even longer ago.
TOG
Member
You're mixing up different statistics that aren't comparable. You also seem to be asking the wrong question, imho. The question isn't "How many cases of melanoma 'across the board' are caused by tanning beds?", but rather "Do tanning beds cause or contribute to the likelihood of getting melanoma?". Since there are very few 80 year old men using tanning beds or who have even ever used a tanning bed, the rate of melanoma among that group is irrelevant to the question being asked. It's still important in the study of the various causes of melanoma, but if we're looking at tanning beds in particular, then we need to look at the people who use them. That happens to be young women, and among young women, 76% of melanoma is related to the use of tanning beds. The fact that 24% of melanoma cases in that age and gender group are not tanning bed related shows that people in that group sometimes get melanoma from other causes. The fact that over 3/4 of cases in that group are tanning bed related shows that using tanning beds can greatly increase a person's chance of getting melanoma.
The TOG
tim-from-pa
Member
I don't mix up statistics as I have a minor in mathematics, thank you. While I don't dispute that tanning beds "contribute" , I'm saying that it's a small contribution, and one of the scape goats. Tanning beds are man-made version of sunlight, all mixed up in ratios just as refined foods can make something healthy bad. So, take away tanning beds, and yes, maybe some cancers will go down, until the generally unhealthy population catches up and the rates will eventually still be higher. So then for the articles to throw the sun into the mix is downright deceiving. I don't want to rehash the part staying in the sun just until you get a little red and even you admitted that there is no limit depending on the person. That's not what I'm discussing with these articles. My stance is that the population burns easier than they once did.
OK, let's approach this from another angle. If we took 10,000 people from today back in time and compare them to 10,000 people say, 2000 years ago to live with them, my hypothesis is that there will be far more people from the future getting skin cancer than the 10,000 people of that time, using the same sun. So while the sun can cause some cases, my question posed is why more people now than in the past? Again, the explanation is supposedly more UV, but I say it's more a health issue of the population more than the slight increase in UV, and that's not being addressed at all.
TOG
Member
You're taking statistics that apply to a small part of the population (young women) and talking about them as if they apply to the entire population. Isn't that mixing them up?
While I don't dispute that tanning beds "contribute" , I'm saying that it's a small contribution, and one of the scape goats. [/quote]
It may be small over the entire population, but that's because a relatively small part of the entire population uses tanning beds. Among those that actually use tanning beds, over 3/4 of cases are caused by those tanning beds. That's not a small contribution.
That should be easy to prove if it's true. Australia has a higher rate of skin cancer than any country in the world. We know that they get more UV radiation than any other country because the ozone layer there is unusually thin. We also know that excessive exposure to UV can cause skin cancer. It is therefore logical to conclude that that's the reason why so many Australians have skin cancer. But if what you say is true, then all we have to do is compare the diet of average Australians to that of people elsewhere in the world to see if there's a corelation. If you can show that Australians have the least healthy diet in the world, then maybe you have a point. I doubt that that is the case though. There are countries in the world where a large part of the population is malnourashed or even starving, and they don't get skin cancer at the rate of Australians.
The TOG
tim-from-pa
Member
Speaking of Australia..... reminds me of the articles from my favorite Internet doctor Douglass.
Here's an article about the sun, melanoma, and skin cancer in Australia, and this is just one of many like it.
Read it carefully, as it's very short.
The thing I like about Dr. Douglass is we think alike on the statistics. He takes their own data to prove his point, as I do.
http://douglassreport.com/2011/07/20/sunshine-myth/
Here's an article about the sun, melanoma, and skin cancer in Australia, and this is just one of many like it.
Read it carefully, as it's very short.
The thing I like about Dr. Douglass is we think alike on the statistics. He takes their own data to prove his point, as I do.
http://douglassreport.com/2011/07/20/sunshine-myth/
TOG
Member
Since none of us here are actually doing these studies ourselves, and they seem to come to contradictory conclusions, how can we know which ones to believe? One way is to see if the conclusions fit with things we do know. Here's a map showing the rate of melanoma for the different countries in the world (source)
You can see the numbers by clicking on "source" above, but basically gray means "no data", lighter colors mean low rates of melanoma and darker colors mean high rates. As you can see, Africa, where very many people are malnourished, but most have dark skin that protects them from absorbing too much UV radiation, has very low rates of melanoma. Australia, where most people are well nourished, but where people often receive excessive amounts of UV because of the thin ozone layer, has a very high melanoma rate. If the primary cause was vitamin deficiency, then we would see the highest rates where people are most malnourished. but that's not what we see on that map. If UV is the primary cause, then we would expect to see the highest rates where people get the most exposure to UV radiation, either from the sun or tanning beds, and that's exactly what we see. Places where most people have fair skin and less protection from UV have higher rates of melanoma. Places where people get more UV from the sun have higher rates. Places where tanning bed use is more common have higher rates. Places where most people have dark skin and more protection from UV have lower rates of melanoma. Place where hardly anybody uses tanning beds have lower rates. Even if I had not read any of the articles that have been quoted here, I could figure out the connection just from that map.
You can see the numbers by clicking on "source" above, but basically gray means "no data", lighter colors mean low rates of melanoma and darker colors mean high rates. As you can see, Africa, where very many people are malnourished, but most have dark skin that protects them from absorbing too much UV radiation, has very low rates of melanoma. Australia, where most people are well nourished, but where people often receive excessive amounts of UV because of the thin ozone layer, has a very high melanoma rate. If the primary cause was vitamin deficiency, then we would see the highest rates where people are most malnourished. but that's not what we see on that map. If UV is the primary cause, then we would expect to see the highest rates where people get the most exposure to UV radiation, either from the sun or tanning beds, and that's exactly what we see. Places where most people have fair skin and less protection from UV have higher rates of melanoma. Places where people get more UV from the sun have higher rates. Places where tanning bed use is more common have higher rates. Places where most people have dark skin and more protection from UV have lower rates of melanoma. Place where hardly anybody uses tanning beds have lower rates. Even if I had not read any of the articles that have been quoted here, I could figure out the connection just from that map.
The TOG
tim-from-pa
Member
Hmmm..... I see something else in those maps. Those nations in red all descended from the lost tribes of Israel. Interesting. Maybe I am too worldly in my explanation. Maybe it's more like judgement from God, especially since those nations that do not have as much cancer (in the yellow) definitely have more UV from the more direct sunlight.
So it appears Dr. Douglass is right in that article -- it's not the sun. It's something with the individual.
So it appears Dr. Douglass is right in that article -- it's not the sun. It's something with the individual.
H
His_nee (Jeff)
Guest
H
His_nee (Jeff)
Guest
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/matthew-henry/John.16.7-John.16.15
[2.] That they do not come short of their end: He will guide them into all truth, as the skilful pilot guides the ship into the port it is bound for. To be led into a truth is more than barely to know it; it is to be intimately and experimentally acquainted with it; to be piously and strongly affected with it; not only to hJohn 14:26
Expanded Bible (EXB)
26 But the ·Helper [Counselor; Advocate; see 14:15] will teach you ·everything [all things] and will ·cause you to remember [remind you of] all that I told you. This Helper is the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name.John 14:26
Expanded Bible (EXB)
26 But the ·Helper [Counselor; Advocate; see 14:15] will teach you ·everything [all things] and will ·cause you to remember [remind you of] all that I told you. This Helper is the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name.ave the notion of it in our heads, but the relish and savour and power of it in our hearts;
[2.] That they do not come short of their end: He will guide them into all truth, as the skilful pilot guides the ship into the port it is bound for. To be led into a truth is more than barely to know it; it is to be intimately and experimentally acquainted with it; to be piously and strongly affected with it; not only to hJohn 14:26
Expanded Bible (EXB)
26 But the ·Helper [Counselor; Advocate; see 14:15] will teach you ·everything [all things] and will ·cause you to remember [remind you of] all that I told you. This Helper is the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name.John 14:26
Expanded Bible (EXB)
26 But the ·Helper [Counselor; Advocate; see 14:15] will teach you ·everything [all things] and will ·cause you to remember [remind you of] all that I told you. This Helper is the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name.ave the notion of it in our heads, but the relish and savour and power of it in our hearts;
tim-from-pa
Member
Remember.... the lost tribes are the 10 Northern tribes of Israel. Jews are from Judah. The maps that were provided is where British-Israel teaches are the lost tribes (so how did they know 100 years ago these nations would have higher skin cancer rates??). I must admit, I did not know this (about skin cancer) and is a new revelation to me. Whereas the nations closest to the equator actually has less cancer. It's all there in the map -- it's not from me as I admit I was surprised myself.
Thus, it proves virtually inconclusively to me that:
1) It's not all the sun
2) It's in the individual -- probably something they are doing to themselves such as tanning booths, poor nutrition, lack of vitamins, etc in those highly processed foods we eat due to our manifold sins and rebellions against Yahweh.
Even "starving" nations probably have better nutritional value in the little amount of food they have than the abundance of processed foods we have.
But the common man here knows no better, and then the governmental authorities and medical establishments rag and nag on us as if its our problem instead of the crap they've been feeding to us. Typical hypocrisy, nevertheless deserving due to our sins.
So, for that revelation, I thank TOG for supplying that map. Going into a tanning booth is vain and sinful. Going into the sun reasonably is not and is healthy. Thanks. A picture tells a thousand words. It supports my basic premise, but adds the dimension of spirituality to it.