• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

again... a lot of people in the age range who are getting diagnosed, actively didn't use sunscreen in the 70s.

every single friend's mom i know tells me their baby oil/reflector stories.
 
I mean you can surely argue that sunscreen has made it possible for people to sit out in the sun regularly for 8+ hours at once and regularly. It's not gonna be 100% protective.. It's sorta like a vaccine, the best way to avoid melanoma is avoiding the sun all together. So there, maybe that's a factor too.

But regardless there are various randomized controlled studies that show those who apply sunscreen have lower rates of melanoma than those who don't. So I'm not just not sure that there is any evidence that it's harmful...
 
what is zeke even arguing? just that he doesn't like sunscreen cause it interferes with his annual operation bronze god?
 
Preston said:
I mean you can surely argue that sunscreen has made it possible for people to sit out in the sun regularly for 8+ hours at once and regularly.
Click to expand...

But I'm pretty sure people spend much less time outdoors than they used to.
 
I'm not an oncologist, but I'd imagine our methods of detecting skin cancer have improved + hopefully increased knowledge of things that are abnormal probably plays a role too (though admittedly I'm starting to doubt the increased knowledge part with this convo)
 
zeke said:
But I'm pretty sure people spend much less time outdoors than they used to.
Click to expand...
This is an error in your analysis because that doesn't mean that fewer people overall should get skin cancer if on average people spend more times indoors. The people who spend more time indoors aren't getting melanoma. It's the people going to indoor tanning salons or the people laying out on the beach all day that are the most at risk. No one was going to tanning beds or laying out to get a tan in the 1930s. Now it's a major part of our culture and has been for a few decades.
 
hockeylover said:
I'm not an oncologist, but I'd imagine our methods of detecting skin cancer have improved + hopefully increased knowledge of things that are abnormal probably plays a role too (though admittedly I'm starting to doubt the increased knowledge part with this convo)
Click to expand...
Yeah it doesn't explain all of the increase but detection + people just living longer explains a good chunk of it for sure.
 
Preston said:
Yeah it doesn't explain all of the increase but detection + people just living longer explains a good chunk of it for sure.
Click to expand...
Feel like more detection doesn't automatically correlate to more incidence, part of it might just be we're catching more.
 
Last edited:
zeke said:
source please.

but yes I assume being a pasty fuck and using tanning beds / spray tans is the worst possible decision.
Click to expand...

Of the patients with a skin cancer, 37.7% of outdoor workers (343 out of 910) had multiple skin cancers vs. 28.6% of the indoor workers (234 out of 818), P < 0.001.

Using duration of outdoor work also clearly showed the importance of total duration or accumulation of sun exposure: only exposures of 5 years or more of outdoor work showed a statistically significantly increased risk, for all skin cancer types, but most strongly so for the NMSC (OR for AK: 3.45, BCC: 3.32, SCC: 3.67, in situ melanoma: 3.02, melanoma 1.97, all P < 0.05).


And more on the carcinogenic effects of excessive UV exposure https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1011134401001981?via=ihub
 
Last edited:
zeke said:
I'm mostly arguing that being a pasty fuck isn't healthy.
Click to expand...
take it up with my genetics bro.

it's not like pasty folks can just will themselves into tanning more...

and this is coming from someone who actually tans quite well given my complexion.

sounds like you support a master race here.
 
CH1 said:
@Mindz since you are closely linked to Big Sunscreen, what brand do you recommend? especially for the face (I'm heading south in a few days)
Click to expand...

I use pevonia personally. I'm allergic to a compound that's common in the normal drugstore sunscreens. I'll see if I can find a link.
 
Preston said:

Of the patients with a skin cancer, 37.7% of outdoor workers (343 out of 910) had multiple skin cancers vs. 28.6% of the indoor workers (234 out of 818), P < 0.001.

Using duration of outdoor work also clearly showed the importance of total duration or accumulation of sun exposure: only exposures of 5 years or more of outdoor work showed a statistically significantly increased risk, for all skin cancer types, but most strongly so for the NMSC (OR for AK: 3.45, BCC: 3.32, SCC: 3.67, in situ melanoma: 3.02, melanoma 1.97, all P < 0.05).


And more on the carcinogenic effects of excessive UV exposure https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1011134401001981?via=ihub
Click to expand...

This doesnt address the point that the rates are going up while people are spending more time indoors.
 
zeke said:
This doesnt address the point that the rates are going up while people are spending more time indoors.
Click to expand...
It addresses the point that people who spend more times indoors aren't making up the bulk of the cancer rates. Since they're at significantly decreased risk to those who spend more time outdoors. So the increase is more likely from the tanners, instagram models, tanning salon goers, etc. And not the tech engineer that hasn't left his closet in 13 years. I thought your argument was that excessive UV exposure does not cause cancer and if it wasn't I apologize.

But I will concede the point that prior to sunscreen we may have had a time limit on how long we could spend in the sun. With the products now we can be outside all day every single day of the week. And sunscreen is not 100% protective at all, nor is it often applied properly. So sure, that can be a factor to rates increasing. One of many possible theories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top