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

OT: American Politics

Preston said:
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.
Click to expand...

But we spend more time indoors on average than we used to.
 
zeke said:
But we spend more time indoors on average than we used to.
Click to expand...
Who does? The people getting melanoma spend more time indoors than we used to? What does the general population matter? That tells us nothing about where the increase in cancer rate is most common.
 
Last edited:
Preston said:
Who does? The people getting melanoma spend more time indoors than we used to? What does the general population matter? That tells us nothing about where the increase in cancer rate is most common.
Click to expand...

We don't live in a society of cave people and outdoorsmen.
 
zeke said:
We don't live in a society of cave people and outdoorsmen.
Click to expand...
You need to break down WHERE the increase is coming from. Which race? What are their habits? Outdoor workers? Indoor? Etc.

I agree if John Smith, the nerdy WFM tech engineer from META is getting skin cancer on the regular (and cases in this demo are up exponentially) then something weird is going on. But is that the case? You can't perform this analysis without that information.
 
zeke said:
I'm mostly arguing that being a pasty fuck isn't healthy.
Click to expand...

But...why?

It takes very little direct sun exposure to get your daily vitamin d fix and you can easily get it in shorts and a t shirt in 10 minutes. You're not picking up much of a tan in 10 minutes of sunlight a day.
 
Thanks to zeke I've learned a lot today. And tbh the scariest thing I've learned is how dangerous those tanning beds are. Even very occasional use makes your melanoma risk fucking skyrocket. That might help explain why melanoma has been fairly stable in all demos lately except women under 50. But glad to see tanning bed hysteria start to fade a bit (I think?).
 
Preston said:
You need to break down WHERE the increase is coming from. Which race? What are their habits? Outdoor workers? Indoor? Etc.
Click to expand...

You're the one arguing the split.

I'm noting that the overall trend is more indoor time, and that's both fewer outdoor laborers and more inside leisure time for everyone.
 
zeke said:
You're the one arguing the split.

I'm noting that the overall trend is more indoor time, and that's both fewer outdoor laborers and more inside leisure time for everyone.
Click to expand...
No no. You can't do that. You're doing the correlation = causation thing again and trying to explain something over a statistic that tells us very little about this particular diagnosis.. or at least you're JAQing off. If you're not looking at where the increase is coming from you are doing it very wrong. The general population trends tells us nothing about the prevalence of a particular diagnosis that only 1-3% of the world will receive in their entire lifetime.

You may have certain segments of the population that use tanning beds regularly or more than they used to, or sun tan more than they used to.. Or you may just have more lighter skinned folks living in hotter, sunnier areas than they used to (which is an actual thing that has happened too).

We know that excess UV exposure is the primary driver of melanoma. If the increase in melanoma extends to people who work indoors/people do don't travel and generally stay home often, then we can look at something else going on. But I don't think there is any evidence of that at the moment. Right now the primary driver of growth is women under 50 so we can all create our theories on why that is the case. Tanning bed and tanning culture is my bet to be one of the drivers. But it's just a guess really.
 
Preston said:
No no. You can't do that. You're doing the correlation = causation thing again and trying to explain something over a statistic that tells us very little about this particular diagnosis..
Click to expand...

Honestly think you're backwards here.

If you are arguing that there's a very specific set of people who spend so much more time in the sun than did before that their incidence of skin cancer alone can skew the worldwide averages i think you have some proving to do on a number of levels.
 
zeke said:
Honestly think you're backwards here.

If you are arguing that there's a very specific set of people who spend so much more time in the sun than did before that their incidence of skin cancer alone can skew the worldwide averages i think you have some proving to do on a number of levels.
Click to expand...
More people spend indoors than ever, yet travel is at all-time highs. Does that example help? Your very basic analysis just doesn't work at all to prove anything. It does not prove that tanning bed behavior has dropped or outdoor tanning habits have dropped. It doesn't prove anything really in the context of a melanoma diagnosis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top