tim-from-pa
Member
- Aug 4, 2005
- 4,716
- 435
This article, as I suspected, supports what I say that the sun is NOT bad, but rather people exposed to the sun that get cancer probably have some nutritional deficiency (thanks to our modern processed food diets) because our ancestors did not burn in the sun and get cancer like we do today.
Earlier, I had some goings around with a young woman here, who wants to be a doctor, about the dangers of the sun, and she claimed I did not back up my arguments with evidence. I claimed the sun was not to blame, she blamed the sun because of the atmospheric changes. I basically said there are some atmospheric changes (and supported it with an article to satisfy her desire for my sources) that allows a tad more UV, but I suspected that the increase in skin cancer was due to our degradation, not because of the sun. I think highly of her, even when debating, but I hope she sees what this naturopath says, because she wanted to pursue this field. So this fellow states exactly what I was saying all along:
http://www.naturalnews.com/021903_sunscreen_skin_cancer.html
BUT..... if you must wear sunscreen, at least get something that does not harm you or the environment. Something (like this fellow suggests) with minerals like Zinc oxide. And non-nanoparticles so they are not absorbed by the skin.
I never wear the stuff, and I never burn, but since my wife and I are going on a cruise, she was ragging me about sunscreen. OK.... to keep the peace I agreed, but not the store-brand stuff, but rather something not harmful to oneself and something biodegradable. In that sense, it's no different than spending time in the shade when one is really in the sun. I found some stuff to get, and surprisingly, Mexico (our destination) would rather one used biodegradable stuff because they want to protect their waters. The stuff that the medical establishment, the pharmaceuticals, the sun-block companies, and even Michele Obamama recommend are not only carcinogenic to oneself, but pollute the waters and kill the coral reefs (surprisingly they claim they are protectors of the environment --- go figure). This processed, poor substitute in the name of health is about as imbecillic as claiming margarine is better for the health than butter.
I find this quite contrary with a generation that is supposedly interested in health and the environment to suggest something contrary to it. And to think, I'm not even what I call an environmentalist, but I care more than they claim to!
Earlier, I had some goings around with a young woman here, who wants to be a doctor, about the dangers of the sun, and she claimed I did not back up my arguments with evidence. I claimed the sun was not to blame, she blamed the sun because of the atmospheric changes. I basically said there are some atmospheric changes (and supported it with an article to satisfy her desire for my sources) that allows a tad more UV, but I suspected that the increase in skin cancer was due to our degradation, not because of the sun. I think highly of her, even when debating, but I hope she sees what this naturopath says, because she wanted to pursue this field. So this fellow states exactly what I was saying all along:
http://www.naturalnews.com/021903_sunscreen_skin_cancer.html
BUT..... if you must wear sunscreen, at least get something that does not harm you or the environment. Something (like this fellow suggests) with minerals like Zinc oxide. And non-nanoparticles so they are not absorbed by the skin.
I never wear the stuff, and I never burn, but since my wife and I are going on a cruise, she was ragging me about sunscreen. OK.... to keep the peace I agreed, but not the store-brand stuff, but rather something not harmful to oneself and something biodegradable. In that sense, it's no different than spending time in the shade when one is really in the sun. I found some stuff to get, and surprisingly, Mexico (our destination) would rather one used biodegradable stuff because they want to protect their waters. The stuff that the medical establishment, the pharmaceuticals, the sun-block companies, and even Michele Obamama recommend are not only carcinogenic to oneself, but pollute the waters and kill the coral reefs (surprisingly they claim they are protectors of the environment --- go figure). This processed, poor substitute in the name of health is about as imbecillic as claiming margarine is better for the health than butter.
I find this quite contrary with a generation that is supposedly interested in health and the environment to suggest something contrary to it. And to think, I'm not even what I call an environmentalist, but I care more than they claim to!
