8
   

The sun doesn't produce skin cancer, sunscreens do!

 
 
luismtzzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 03:02 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
First. I am expecting you admit that there are serious plasma cosmology scientist that are doing good research to prove that this theory is real using the scientific method you claim in other post that is a scam. In order to have a good conversation i hoped that you could use palsma cosmology based ideas with cited references to disprove what i said about our sun producing uv light. It seems you are even saying that uv radiation do not causes cancer, so you are telling me that neither gamma rays nor x rays produce cancer too? So please, i take my time to read about electric cosmology to have a good conversation about this theory (which i think is good material for a scifi novel, and i love scifi).

I can guess that you are from a country above the tropical line. Since you seem to be blind to the effects of solar light over the skin. I live on an area that has solar exposure 90 per cent of the year and i have seen alot of skin cancer first hand since i am a field doctor.

<<<<<<And how come that the people get skin cancer on places where the sun doesn't shine?

The sun shines everywhere. This question was poorly written. I think you mean areas of the body not exposed to the solar light. That is a simple question logically cloths can not completely protect against uv light and uv light is not the only cause of skin cancer. Although is the leading cause. Also there are skin neoplasms types that do not require sun exposure. When you stated:

The sun doesn't produce skin cancer, sunscreens do!

You didnt detailed which type of skin cancer. You were very unespecific.

http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/uva-and-uvb/understanding-uva-and-uvb
http://www.who.int/uv/faq/skincancer/en/index1.html

>>>>>>>>How come there is more skincancer at places with less sun, than on places with lots of sun?

http://www.science20.com/the_evilutionary_biologist/colors_of_the_world

This question is pretty easy to answer. You white skinned people are more prone to skin cancer than us brunnet, black, and caramel colored people of the world. Melanin is a powerful protector against uv light damage.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6571/

Also countries above the tropical line have more income and more access to medical diagnosis and treatment. Most medical information from undeveloped countries is always incomplete. In my country many people die in farms withiout having a proper medical treatment and are often categorized as incidental deaths or death because of high age.

>>>>>>How come skin cancer increased when sunscreens where introduced?

Two reasons, first social awarenes. The knowledge induced an increase in detections. Its like trying to blame capilar glicemic test for causing diabetes, it just incresases detection.

And second. Simple estadistics. Sunscreens where introduced in 1950, when the world population was estimated in 2 billion. Today we are 7 billion. It is logical to understand that any cancer detection had more than doubled its numbers. More humans more diseases.

<<<<<<<<<<<How come there is more skin cancer with people who work indoors, and less skincancer ate people who work outdoors in the sun (lifeguards e.g.)?

Again there are many types of skin cancer, uv light is not the only factor involved but is the most common. Skin colour plays a role in the defense of the skin. Lifeguards always use sun screen, i have met some, and they are really aware of the risks of skin cancer. They recive an estensive training and learn to protect themselves. Some of them say that a lifeguard without sunscreen is like a lifeguard that cant swim.

Soooooo, i am waiting for your answers regarding electric cosmology.


Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 04:38 pm
What do the official medical statistics show, namely is there more skin cancer around nowadays?
If so, why?
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 05:44 pm
Take this quiz.
http://theoatmeal.com/quiz/sun_surface
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 06:02 pm
I could last for a half of a second . . . but i lied . . . i have never farted in the bathtub.
0 Replies
 
luismtzzz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 06:10 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
In Europe and worldwide

Malignant melanoma is the ninth most common cancer in Europe, with more than 100,000 new cases diagnosed in 2012 (3% of the total). In Europe (2012), the highest World age-standardised incidence rates for malignant melanoma are in Switzerland for men and Denmark for women; the lowest rates are in Albania for both men and women. UK malignant melanoma incidence rates are estimated to be the ninth highest in males in Europe, and seventh highest in females.18 These data are broadly in line with Europe-specific data available elsewhere.19

Malignant melanoma is the 19th most common cancer worldwide, with around 232,000 new cases diagnosed in 2012 (2% of the total). Malignant melanoma incidence rates are highest in Australia/New Zealand and lowest in South Central Asia, but this partly reflects varying data quality worldwide.18

Use our interactive map to explore the data for malignant melanoma.

Variation between countries may reflect different prevalence of risk factors, use of screening, and diagnostic methods.

By ethnicity

Age-standardised rates for White males with malignant melanoma range from 13.1 to 13.6 per 100,000. Rates for Asian males are significantly lower, ranging from 0.2 to 0.8 per 100,000 and the rates for Black males are also significantly lower, ranging from 0.6 to 2.6 per 100,000. For females there is a similar pattern - the age-standardised rates for White females range from 14.7 to 15.2 per 100,000, and rates for Asian and Black females are also significantly lower ranging from 0.2 to 1.1 per 100,000 and 1.0 to 3.6 per 100,000 respectively.40

Ranges are given because of the analysis methodology used to account for missing and unknown data. For malignant melanoma, 38,097 cases were identified; 36% had no known ethnicity.

Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr, accessed December 2013.

Cancer Research UK Statistical Information Team. Statistics on the risk of developing cancer, by cancer type and age. Calculated using 2008 data for the UK using the ‘Adjusted for Multiple Primaries (AMP)’ method (Sasieni PD, Shelton J, Ormiston-Smith N, et al. What is the lifetime risk of developing cancer?: The effect of adjusting for multiple primaries. Brit J Cancer, 2011;105(3):460-5). http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/incidence/risk/

For some us facts:

http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts


Here some facts about my counry. They are in spanish and in english.

http://revistamedica.imss.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_multicategories&view=article&id=1415:prevalencia-del-cancer-de-piel-en-tres-ciudades-de-mexico-&Itemid=664


<<<namely is there more skin cancer around nowadays?
If so, why?

There are many factors involved:

More social awareness
Tendency of some risk groups to expose more to uv light (teens)
Changes in the diagnosis protocols. The patology requirements to diagnose melanoma changed and become more strict. Now they include prevously lesions not considered precancerous before.
Increase in life span. This solely factor is the reason for the boom of the incidence of every cancer. The older the organism the biiger probablities to accumulate dna defects that can lead to cancer.
Like i said before, more humans more disease. We passed form 2 billion to 7 billion humans in 60 years.

......................................................................................................................

By the way Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is a proven human carcinogen.
National Toxicology Program. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 2011: 429-430. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/UltravioletRadiationRelatedExposures.pdf.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2014 08:25 am
@luismtzzz,
luis-10
Quahog-0
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2014 03:56 pm
Beats me why any tanner wants to turn themselves into a wrinkled orange anyway..
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 08:19 am
it isn't as simple as the above!

Quote:
The Truth About Sunlight, Cancer and Vitamin D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFI9eF7rRLg
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 08:23 am
@luismtzzz,
Quote:
First. I am expecting you admit that there are serious plasma cosmology scientist that are doing good research to prove that this theory is real using the scientific method you claim in other post that is a scam


I didn't say it is a scam, I said it is a myth

Just look at the 'scientific method' cookbook.
If it really worked that way, we would have a lots of scientific problems solved.
we haven't.

there is simply not one way, one idiot cookbook way to describe the'scientific method". It is much more sloppy in reality.
And that is ok.

Quote:
The Myth of the Magical Scientific Method

The procedure that gets taught as "The Scientific Method" is entirely misleading. Studying what scientists actually do is far more interesting.


Quote:
On the other hand, the phrase is also commonly used in a much more specific sense -- an entirely misleading sense -- which implies that there is a unique standard method which is central to scientific progress. There is no such unique standard method -- scientific progress requires many methods -- but students in introductory science courses are taught that "The Scientific Method" is a straightforward procedure, involving testing hypotheses derived from theories in order to test those theories.


http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 08:31 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Sperm don't produce pregnancy, condoms do!
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 08:34 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Sperm don't produce pregnancy, condoms do!


if you want to think that, be my guest!
But you are not contributing anything lively here! Wink
of course you haven't even looked at the film, that is very clear considering the time lines for these postings.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 08:56 am
Quote:
Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists

The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.

One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.

]Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.

Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science.


http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 10:41 am
The scientific method is a teachable process by which students become familiarized with how cience actually approaches a problem that often involves unknown areas of inquiry.
William McComas, the "father of the scientific method deniers" Is a Science Education PHD who's mostly a product of Pa State Teachers Colleges . Hes not unknown to the science education world and , in 2001 he had his views presented to the PA Eucation of SCience Curriculum Standards Committee and pitched his "beliefs" and (IMHO) statements of the "bleeding obvious"
His assertion of the "myth" of the SM was appreciated in discussion but was not seriously considered in the curriculum standards reports. WHY? because calling the scientific method a "myth" of approach merely recognized that, when scientists are done with their theses and dissertations, they will probably, no longer stick slavishly to a methodology that encompasses all the steps in approaching research. Of course we don't apply all the rules , we learn the shortcuts and step over entire areas of the process.

Dr McComas was , after all, trying to preach a "belief" in Panspemia as his own contribution to evolutionary reseqrch. He was unarmed in that arena. His only experience with lab work or discovery or field work, had been completed in his BA education at Lock Haven STate College and West Chester University. His pitching of SM as a myth of approach is a personal view that is pretty much based upon no experience
An example (I wont even use the SM as an example) is in the field of studio art training . We are carefully taught 2 and 3 point perspective in drawing and illustration courses(even with computer illustration the artist mut understand why something appears that way in 2D. We approach the rules and spend time showing our analyses lines when we apply the "rules of 2 and 3 point perspective"
After an artist is trained and is in the marketplace He or she most likely dismisses the rules and applies the broader " subjective approach" to what looks right . We often merely Check our perspective by learned tricks, (like holding our sketch work up to a mirror, which quickly reveals any perspective errors).
The actual steps of the SM are clearly in mind when solving a problem or doing research. In fact, dismissal of severl of the steps is what can yield incorrect or fraudulent results.

I believe that Dr McComas still advocates to a "belief" in panspermia. As I recall, he always appeared to be one of these "ALIENS TAUGHT US TO BECOME HUMAN" guys.

Since most of his work is self published , its often hard to take him seriously. His peer reviewed stuff does focus on the education of evolution and analyses of Darwins "oversights" and at least that was interesting.

As an addition. most journal articles that are published usually expose the approach that the research followed .


0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 03:26 pm
@luismtzzz,
Quote:
<<<<<<<<<<<How come there is more skin cancer with people who work indoors, and less skincancer ate people who work outdoors in the sun (lifeguards e.g.)?

Again there are many types of skin cancer, uv light is not the only factor involved but is the most common. Skin colour plays a role in the defense of the skin. Lifeguards always use sun screen, i have met some, and they are really aware of the risks of skin cancer. They recive an estensive training and learn to protect themselves. Some of them say that a lifeguard without sunscreen is like a lifeguard that cant swim.



It is my understanding from my dermatologist that the cancer causing properties of the sun are cumulative. As a kid on a swim team and one who practically lived in the pool, I constantly had sun burns on my back, shoulders, arms, legs and face. As an adult, one of my first jobs was as a gardener and greenhouse worker. I was constantly out in the sun and getting sunburned. I rarely used tanning lotions and never used sunblock unless you include a stripe of zinc oxide on a sunburned nose as sunblock.

As an adult working in accounting and tech support, I was rarely in the sun. Yet, at least 40 years since my last sunburn, basal cell cancers started appearing on my face and back. The dermatologist says this is thanks to the sunburned damage done as a kid.

Living in the high desert of New Mexico doesn't help. Here, I make a point of wearing hats and keeping skin covered as much as possible. I still don't use any sunblock, yet just this year two new basal cells were removed.


So, who is right, is it the sun or sunblock that causes skin cancer? I'm living proof that it is not from sun block since I've never used the stuff.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 01:58 am
http://www.davidicke.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/get-attachment-27-587x273.jpg

you really can't trust those 'scientists'
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 02:00 am
@Butrflynet,
Quote:
So, who is right, is it the sun or sunblock that causes skin cancer? I'm living proof that it is not from sun block since I've never used the stuff.


As you might know. just one example doesn't prove much.
like the grandpa who smoked much but lived to be a 105.You can't conclude from that that smoking is healthy.

btw I don't care what you dermatologist says. Experts mostly don't know what they are talking about. Like dentist who still recommend fluoride! idiots!
They are just shills for the Pharmaceutical Mafia, and they don't even know it.

George
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 07:41 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:
. . . Experts mostly don't know what they are talking about . . .
Then who does?
And how do we know that they know?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 07:44 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:

http://www.davidicke.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/get-attachment-27-587x273.jpg

you really can't trust those 'scientists'

It works so much better if you trust a meme someone posted on the internet.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 10:16 am
I never met Icke, but him and me were born and grew up in the same North Evington area of Leicester.
My only beef with him is that as far as i know, he's not got a shred of solid evidence for all his fantastic theories and stuff.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 11:47 am
@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:
My only beef with him is that as far as i know, he's not got a shred of solid evidence for all his fantastic theories and stuff.


Then I know for sure you haven't read any of his works!
I have and it is full of evidence,
He said that e.g the BBC was full of pedeophiles....look at it now!
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/29/2023 at 02:26:45