Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

1) We evolved for millions of years in the direct light of the sun. We
need it to live. It is essential for life. Why is it that, in the 21st
century, doctors now see the sun as a source of illness and skin
cancer? One would think that millions of years of evolution would have
made this concept impossible. Kinda like blaming fish deaths on
drowning.

2) Maine and the State of Washington (the foggy states) has more skin
cancer per capita than California and Florida (the big Sun States).

3) If sun exposure causes the damage that leads to skin cancer, why
are skin cancers not predominantly on the face, the neck and/or the
hands and forearms where one tends to get a lot of sun exposure
whether you want it or not? Skin cancers are predominantly on the
upper torso, on the back and on the chest, beneath where a typical
short sleeve shirt would cover, where one would have to explicitly
uncover oneself to get excessive sun exposure.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:44:41 -0700, TC <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>3) If sun exposure causes the damage that leads to skin cancer, why
>are skin cancers not predominantly on the face, the neck and/or the
>hands and forearms where one tends to get a lot of sun exposure
>whether you want it or not? Skin cancers are predominantly on the
>upper torso, on the back and on the chest, beneath where a typical
>short sleeve shirt would cover, where one would have to explicitly
>uncover oneself to get excessive sun exposure.

Sunburn is a bigger concern than simply tanning. Tanning at least
gives the body tha ability to adapt and protect itself. The upper
torso is more likely to be burned as many have rarely ever seen
sunlight.

Have a reference on the melanoma site frequency?
It was my understanding the back of the neck is on
of the most frequent site for melanoma. It certainly is
the most over toasted part of my skin.



On Jul 9, 11:44 am, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1) We evolved for millions of years in the direct light of the sun. We
> need it to live. It is essential for life. Why is it that, in the 21st
> century, doctors now see the sun as a source of illness and skin
> cancer? One would think that millions of years of evolution would have
> made this concept impossible. Kinda like blaming fish deaths on
> drowning.
>
> 2) Maine and the State of Washington (the foggy states) has more skin
> cancer per capita than California and Florida (the big Sun States).
>
> 3) If sun exposure causes the damage that leads to skin cancer, why
> are skin cancers not predominantly on the face, the neck and/or the
> hands and forearms where one tends to get a lot of sun exposure
> whether you want it or not? Skin cancers are predominantly on the
> upper torso, on the back and on the chest, beneath where a typical
> short sleeve shirt would cover, where one would have to explicitly
> uncover oneself to get excessive sun exposure.

Hi rates of skin cancer happens in countries with high access to
sunblock and modern skin care products

On Jul 10, 2:44 am, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1) We evolved for millions of years in the direct light of the sun. We
> need it to live. It is essential for life. Why is it that, in the 21st
> century, doctors now see the sun as a source of illness and skin
> cancer? One would think that millions of years of evolution would have
> made this concept impossible. Kinda like blaming fish deaths on
> drowning.
>
> 2) Maine and the State of Washington (the foggy states) has more skin
> cancer per capita than California and Florida (the big Sun States).
>
> 3) If sun exposure causes the damage that leads to skin cancer, why
> are skin cancers not predominantly on the face, the neck and/or the
> hands and forearms where one tends to get a lot of sun exposure
> whether you want it or not? Skin cancers are predominantly on the
> upper torso, on the back and on the chest, beneath where a typical
> short sleeve shirt would cover, where one would have to explicitly
> uncover oneself to get excessive sun exposure.

On Jul 9, 6:55 pm, Tim <T...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:44:41 -0700, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >3) If sun exposure causes the damage that leads to skin cancer, why
> >are skin cancers not predominantly on the face, the neck and/or the
> >hands and forearms where one tends to get a lot of sun exposure
> >whether you want it or not? Skin cancers are predominantly on the
> >upper torso, on the back and on the chest, beneath where a typical
> >short sleeve shirt would cover, where one would have to explicitly
> >uncover oneself to get excessive sun exposure.
>
> Sunburn is a bigger concern than simply tanning. Tanning at least
> gives the body tha ability to adapt and protect itself. The upper
> torso is more likely to be burned as many have rarely ever seen
> sunlight.

What is the difference between sunburn and suntan? Not much. One is a
slower "damage", one is a little faster "damage". Do either cause skin
cancer? Doubt it.

On Jul 9, 7:29 pm, betaine_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Have a reference on the melanoma site frequency?
> It was my understanding the back of the neck is on
> of the most frequent site for melanoma. It certainly is
> the most over toasted part of my skin.
>
> On Jul 9, 11:44 am, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 1) We evolved for millions of years in the direct light of the sun. We
> > need it to live. It is essential for life. Why is it that, in the 21st
> > century, doctors now see the sun as a source of illness and skin
> > cancer? One would think that millions of years of evolution would have
> > made this concept impossible. Kinda like blaming fish deaths on
> > drowning.
>
> > 2) Maine and the State of Washington (the foggy states) has more skin
> > cancer per capita than California and Florida (the big Sun States).
>
> > 3) If sun exposure causes the damage that leads to skin cancer, why
> > are skin cancers not predominantly on the face, the neck and/or the
> > hands and forearms where one tends to get a lot of sun exposure
> > whether you want it or not? Skin cancers are predominantly on the
> > upper torso, on the back and on the chest, beneath where a typical
> > short sleeve shirt would cover, where one would have to explicitly
> > uncover oneself to get excessive sun exposure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002133.htm

Melanoma skin cancers are most frequently found on the backs of men,
and on the backs or legs of women. These tend to be larger than a
pencil eraser, have two or more colors (usually black and brown), and
uneven edges.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:08:03 -0000, TC <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 9, 6:55 pm, Tim <T...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:44:41 -0700, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >3) If sun exposure causes the damage that leads to skin cancer, why
>> >are skin cancers not predominantly on the face, the neck and/or the
>> >hands and forearms where one tends to get a lot of sun exposure
>> >whether you want it or not? Skin cancers are predominantly on the
>> >upper torso, on the back and on the chest, beneath where a typical
>> >short sleeve shirt would cover, where one would have to explicitly
>> >uncover oneself to get excessive sun exposure.
>>
>> Sunburn is a bigger concern than simply tanning. Tanning at least
>> gives the body tha ability to adapt and protect itself. The upper
>> torso is more likely to be burned as many have rarely ever seen
>> sunlight.
>
>What is the difference between sunburn and suntan? Not much. One is a
>slower "damage", one is a little faster "damage". Do either cause skin
>cancer? Doubt it.

Obviously you have never had suburn which causes the skin to turn red
than the dead skin peels off. No differen't than if you burned
yourself on a very hot plate. I have had sunburn bad enough as a kid
to have a big water blister, not good.

On Jul 10, 9:08 am, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 6:55 pm, Tim <T...@anywhere.com> wrote:

> What is the difference between sunburn and suntan? Not much. One is a
> slower "damage", one is a little faster "damage". Do either cause skin
> cancer? Doubt it.

Let's see... go with your 'doubts' OR the advice of dermatologists/
doctors...? Hmmmm... I think it's probably wiser to go the latter,
with people who actually STUDY the effects, and say it's best to limit
your exposure to early morning/very late afternoon sun (less than 30
minutes will get you all the vitamin D you need) and keep the skin
covered or try to stay out of it as much as possible the rest of the
day.

I don't want skin/face that looks like a prune.

Patrick

On Jul 10, 7:21 pm, Tim <T...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:08:03 -0000, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 9, 6:55 pm, Tim <T...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:44:41 -0700, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >3) If sun exposure causes the damage that leads to skin cancer, why
> >> >are skin cancers not predominantly on the face, the neck and/or the
> >> >hands and forearms where one tends to get a lot of sun exposure
> >> >whether you want it or not? Skin cancers are predominantly on the
> >> >upper torso, on the back and on the chest, beneath where a typical
> >> >short sleeve shirt would cover, where one would have to explicitly
> >> >uncover oneself to get excessive sun exposure.
>
> >> Sunburn is a bigger concern than simply tanning. Tanning at least
> >> gives the body tha ability to adapt and protect itself. The upper
> >> torso is more likely to be burned as many have rarely ever seen
> >> sunlight.
>
> >What is the difference between sunburn and suntan? Not much. One is a
> >slower "damage", one is a little faster "damage". Do either cause skin
> >cancer? Doubt it.
>
> Obviously you have never had suburn which causes the skin to turn red
> than the dead skin peels off. No differen't than if you burned
> yourself on a very hot plate. I have had sunburn bad enough as a kid
> to have a big water blister, not good.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There is a finer line than one would thimk between a sunburn and a
suntan. Every tan begins as a burn. Tanning is the bodies response to
a burn. The only difference is a matter of degrees. A burn is just
more sun exposure than a tan.

On Jul 10, 8:04 pm, NoOptio...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jul 10, 9:08 am, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 6:55 pm, Tim <T...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> > What is the difference between sunburn and suntan? Not much. One is a
> > slower "damage", one is a little faster "damage". Do either cause skin
> > cancer? Doubt it.
>
> Let's see... go with your 'doubts' OR the advice of dermatologists/
> doctors...? Hmmmm... I think it's probably wiser to go the latter,
> with people who actually STUDY the effects, and say it's best to limit
> your exposure to early morning/very late afternoon sun (less than 30
> minutes will get you all the vitamin D you need) and keep the skin
> covered or try to stay out of it as much as possible the rest of the
> day.
>
> I don't want skin/face that looks like a prune.
>
> Patrick

Let's see.... go with what makes sense in the real world or go with
what doesn't make sense in the real world.... hmmmmm?

Dermatologists don't *study* sun, sun exposure and skin cancer. They
study conditions and treatments. They treat patients and conditions
according to what they've been taught in med school. And virtually all
the universities where medical doctors are taught the subject is
heavily funded by either the food industry or the pharmaceutical
industry or both.

Again here is what makes sense.

1) We evolved as an organism with the sun, why would moderate exposure
over a lifetime become dangerous to us.

2) Skin cancers do not commonly occur on the parts of the body that
gets the most exposure.

3) The states where there is more chance of sun exposure has less skin
cancers than states with less chance of sun exposure.

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever
remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (Sherlock Holmes)

On Jul 9, 1:44 pm, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 2) Maine and the State of Washington (the foggy states) has more skin
> cancer per capita than California and Florida (the big Sun States).

Look at http://dceg.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/atlas/mapview2?direct=melswm70
to see that the southern states have a much higher mortality from
melanoma.

> 3) If sun exposure causes the damage that leads to skin cancer, why
> are skin cancers not predominantly on the face, the neck and/or the
> hands and forearms where one tends to get a lot of sun exposure
> whether you want it or not? ...

One website says: "Basal cell skin cancer occurs on the face, scalp,
ears, hands, shoulders and back."

If sunlight has nothing to do with skin cancer, people would also have
to watch their ass.

--
Ron

On Jul 11, 9:43 am, Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 1:44 pm, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2) Maine and the State of Washington (the foggy states) has more skin
> > cancer per capita than California and Florida (the big Sun States).
>
> Look athttp://dceg.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/atlas/mapview2?direct=melswm70
> to see that the southern states have a much higher mortality from
> melanoma.
>
> > 3) If sun exposure causes the damage that leads to skin cancer, why
> > are skin cancers not predominantly on the face, the neck and/or the
> > hands and forearms where one tends to get a lot of sun exposure
> > whether you want it or not? ...
>
> One website says: "Basal cell skin cancer occurs on the face, scalp,
> ears, hands, shoulders and back."
>
> If sunlight has nothing to do with skin cancer, people would also have
> to watch their ass.
>
> --
> Ron

How do you explain melanomas which predominate on the back.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 07:54:13 -0700, TC <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:

>How do you explain melanomas which predominate on the back.

Second degree sunburns.

On Jul 11, 8:48 am, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > On Jul 10, 9:08 am, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Jul 9, 6:55 pm, Tim <T...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> > > What is the difference between sunburn and suntan? Not much. One is a
> > > slower "damage", one is a little faster "damage". Do either cause skin
> > > cancer? Doubt it.

> > Let's see... go with your 'doubts' OR the advice of dermatologists/
> > doctors...? Hmmmm... I think it's probably wiser to go the latter,
> > with people who actually STUDY the effects, and say it's best to limit
> > your exposure to early morning/very late afternoon sun (less than 30
> > minutes will get you all the vitamin D you need) and keep the skin
> > covered or try to stay out of it as much as possible the rest of the
> > day.

> > I don't want skin/face that looks like a prune.

> Let's see.... go with what makes sense in the real world or go with
> what doesn't make sense in the real world.... hmmmmm?

Makes sense is what I wrote above.

> Dermatologists don't *study* sun, sun exposure and skin cancer. They
> study conditions and treatments. They treat patients and conditions
> according to what they've been taught in med school.

Sure. There aren't any on the research side.

> And virtually all
> the universities where medical doctors are taught the subject is
> heavily funded by either the food industry or the pharmaceutical
> industry or both.

Everything is a conspiracy with you. No one is going to talk you out
of your heavy meat and fat consumption, limited exercise, and basking
in the sun.

> Again here is what makes sense.

> 1) We evolved as an organism with the sun, why would moderate exposure
> over a lifetime become dangerous to us.

"Moderate" sun exposure?

Umm... you wrote, " What is the difference between sunburn and suntan?
Not much. One is a slower "damage", one is a little faster "damage".
Do either cause skin cancer? Doubt it."

You're not defending "moderate". You're defending sunburn and
suntan. "Moderate" is what I wrote above.

> 2) Skin cancers do not commonly occur on the parts of the body that
> gets the most exposure.

Where are you getting these stats from?

> 3) The states where there is more chance of sun exposure has less skin
> cancers than states with less chance of sun exposure.

Again, I don't know where you're getting your data, but let me say
this. In the South, many people get out of the mid day sun because
it's freaking hot. Up North, they can bask in the sun longer because,
generally, it's cooler and the sun isn't as hot.

> "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever
> remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (Sherlock Holmes)

Okay, Sherlock...

Patrick

On Jul 11, 9:30 pm, NoOptio...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jul 11, 8:48 am, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 9:08 am, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 9, 6:55 pm, Tim <T...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> > > > What is the difference between sunburn and suntan? Not much. One is a
> > > > slower "damage", one is a little faster "damage". Do either cause skin
> > > > cancer? Doubt it.
> > > Let's see... go with your 'doubts' OR the advice of dermatologists/
> > > doctors...? Hmmmm... I think it's probably wiser to go the latter,
> > > with people who actually STUDY the effects, and say it's best to limit
> > > your exposure to early morning/very late afternoon sun (less than 30
> > > minutes will get you all the vitamin D you need) and keep the skin
> > > covered or try to stay out of it as much as possible the rest of the
> > > day.
> > > I don't want skin/face that looks like a prune.
> > Let's see.... go with what makes sense in the real world or go with
> > what doesn't make sense in the real world.... hmmmmm?
>
> Makes sense is what I wrote above.
>
> > Dermatologists don't *study* sun, sun exposure and skin cancer. They
> > study conditions and treatments. They treat patients and conditions
> > according to what they've been taught in med school.
>
> Sure. There aren't any on the research side.
>
> > And virtually all
> > the universities where medical doctors are taught the subject is
> > heavily funded by either the food industry or the pharmaceutical
> > industry or both.
>
> Everything is a conspiracy with you. No one is going to talk you out
> of your heavy meat and fat consumption, limited exercise, and basking
> in the sun.

It is not a conspiracy and I've never put it in those terms. It is an
economic and educational fact. It is quite naive to think that these
universities would not serve thsoe that either paid to create them
initially or are now currently paying to fund them. They are not
independent from those who fund them. And pharma pays billions for
research that keep most of the universities financially afloat. That
is the simple reality.

>
> > Again here is what makes sense.
> > 1) We evolved as an organism with the sun, why would moderate exposure
> > over a lifetime become dangerous to us.
>
> "Moderate" sun exposure?
>
> Umm... you wrote, " What is the difference between sunburn and suntan?
> Not much. One is a slower "damage", one is a little faster "damage".
> Do either cause skin cancer? Doubt it."
>
> You're not defending "moderate". You're defending sunburn and
> suntan. "Moderate" is what I wrote above.
>
> > 2) Skin cancers do not commonly occur on the parts of the body that
> > gets the most exposure.
>
> Where are you getting these stats from?

It is a fact. Check any resource you wish to. Try Google. Melanomas
are more commonly found on the back. Why is Melanoma not more commonly
seen on the face or the hands, where we sunburn the most? If skin
cancer is caused by sun exposure, then we should see skin cancers
mostly where the skin is more exposed. Right? The face and the hands,
right? Simple cause and effect. Sun exposure causes sin cancer
therefore skin cancers should occur on the skin that gets the most sun
exposure, the face and the hands, right? That is simply not the case.
>
> > 3) The states where there is more chance of sun exposure has less skin
> > cancers than states with less chance of sun exposure.
>
> Again, I don't know where you're getting your data, but let me say
> this. In the South, many people get out of the mid day sun because
> it's freaking hot. Up North, they can bask in the sun longer because,
> generally, it's cooler and the sun isn't as hot.

Nonsense. The fact is that there are more sunny days and more
sunworshippers Florida and California and the people that work
outdoors will get more sun and more intense sun than people in
Washington state and in Maine. Yet, there is more skin cancer in Wash.
state and Maine than in California and Florida.

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/Table.aspx?Group=3f&Year=2002&Display=n

Here is the results of a few quick data searches.

Age-Adjusted Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates for the 10 Primary Sites
with the Highest Rates within Race- and Ethnic-Specific Categories
(Table 3.27.MF1)
Rates are per 100,000 persons and are age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S.
standard population (19 age groups - Census P25-1130).

Melanomas of the skin - male and female - white

Massachusetts - 21.5
Seattle - 24.7
Rhode Island - 27.4
New Hampshire - 27.3
Connecticut - 21.3

Texas - 12.8
California - 20.4
Florida - 17.0
Louisiana - 13.2
New Mexico - 17.7

As you can see the numbers show that people further north have more
skin cancers than those from the states known for a lot of sun. People
flock to the southern states specifically for the sun.

>
> > "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever
> > remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (Sherlock Holmes)
>
> Okay, Sherlock...
>
> Patrick

Sometimes the reality differs from the reported. And an advanced
degree does not guarantee true intelligence. Simple observations
overule book learning.

On Jul 11, 9:54 am, TC <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 9:43 am, Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote:
> > If sunlight has nothing to do with skin cancer, people would also have
> > to watch their ass.

> How do you explain melanomas which predominate on the back.

I am not sure that your information is correct. What needs to be
compared is the incidence of melonomas per unit area. The back is a
very large area.

Many people don't keep their backs covered when sunbathing or working
outside.

There is some variation in skin cancer rates on various body areas,
but exposure to sunlight seems to dominate other causes. Tar and some
other chemicals can increase the incidence of skin cancer.

http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2002news/cheladerm.htm has an interesting
theory about the mechanism of sunlight on causing skin cancer.

--
Ron