Wealth and Skin Cancer

Discussion in 'Health & Body' started by mm84321, Mar 23, 2011.

  1. mm84321

    mm84321 Senior member

    Messages:
    3,040
    Likes Received:
    7
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009


  2. Kajak

    Kajak Senior member

    Messages:
    2,519
    Likes Received:
    168
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Location:
    Canada
    Well, wealthy people have more time to tan, so it makes sense.
     


  3. HgaleK

    HgaleK Senior member

    Messages:
    4,972
    Likes Received:
    100
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Location:
    NY
    Well, wealthy people have more time to tan, so it makes sense.

    I just figured that the green dye in benjamins mutated more than one's ego...
     


  4. greg_atlanta

    greg_atlanta Senior member

    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    Atlanta


  5. mm84321

    mm84321 Senior member

    Messages:
    3,040
    Likes Received:
    7
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Well, wealthy people have more time to tan, so it makes sense.

    Actually, I may suspect it is also because the wealthy are probably more diligent users of chemical sunscreens, which may actually be accelerating the growth of malignant cells.

    http://www.aolnews.com/2010/05/24/st...rating-cancer/
     


  6. blahman

    blahman Senior member

    Messages:
    4,559
    Likes Received:
    371
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Location:
    3rd Rock From the Sun
    ^^ Or people end up thinking they are immune to skin cancer when they put sunscreen on so end up staying under the sun for much too long.
     


  7. mm84321

    mm84321 Senior member

    Messages:
    3,040
    Likes Received:
    7
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    ^^ Or people end up thinking they are immune to skin cancer when they put sunscreen on so end up staying under the sun for much too long.
    That certainly could be a part of it too. Although, I do think that limitations of daily sun exposure are largely inaccurate. Perhaps the combination of prolonged exposure and the chemical sunscreens is the problem.
     


  8. HgaleK

    HgaleK Senior member

    Messages:
    4,972
    Likes Received:
    100
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Location:
    NY
    That certainly could be a part of it too. Although, I do think that limitations of daily sun exposure are largely inaccurate. Perhaps the combination of prolonged exposure and the chemical sunscreens is the problem.
    Edit: have a link to the full study on melanoma and vitamin A?
     


  9. Kajak

    Kajak Senior member

    Messages:
    2,519
    Likes Received:
    168
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Location:
    Canada
    That certainly could be a part of it too. Although, I do think that limitations of daily sun exposure are largely inaccurate. Perhaps the combination of prolonged exposure and the chemical sunscreens is the problem.

    Its like anything else. Build up a tolerance slowly. Slowly darken your tan, don't get burnt in order to minimize skin cancer risk. Also use non-PABA sunscreens, since cheap crap is carcinogenic.
     


  10. mm84321

    mm84321 Senior member

    Messages:
    3,040
    Likes Received:
    7
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Edit: have a link to the full study on melanoma and vitamin A?
    The only link I have is to an analyses of the study by the Environmental Working Group. The study was once made publicly available by the FDA, but it seems that they have since taken it offline. "Recently available data from an FDA study indicate that a form of vitamin A, retinyl palmitate, when applied to the skin in the presence of sunlight, may speed the development of skin tumors and lesions (NTP 2009). This evidence is troubling because the sunscreen industry adds vitamin A to 41 percent of all sunscreens." http://www.ewg.org/2010sunscreen/ful...cancer-growth/
     


  11. HgaleK

    HgaleK Senior member

    Messages:
    4,972
    Likes Received:
    100
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Location:
    NY
    My big issue is that studies find a lot of things, and not all of them are reinforced by further studies.

    Good, but a slightly larger sample size might be nice for future studies.

    Most is unspecific and we have unpublished, though relevant data.

    Some and may are both unspecific. Also, we now have multiple reasons for removal from testing.

    No data presented on the reasons for removal from testing. We are now dealing with lesions, tumors, and anything else in unspecified amounts, and all recorded as being the same thing.

    We're mixing terms here and using data that doesn't necessarily mean anything at this point.

    They're exposing them to a lot of radiation, so of course they're going to develop tumors. In fact, these mice are used because they're likely to develop tumors: "The hairless mouse is highly susceptible to skin cancer, tumors and lesions under the conditions of this test." What percent of the non vitamin A coated animals developed tumors? We apparently don't even know whether or not the tumors were the cause for withdrawal (which we've somehow managed to redefine as survival in this article).

    Good bull! Show me a data set that includes time till first incidence of lesion or tumor and the growth rate and this study will shed some light on the issue at hand! But wait... we having nothing.

    Lets go back to this one again. We're using withdrawal under dubious circumstances as a proxy for survival, which we're using as a proxy for rate of tumor or lesion development.

    When did we get back to withdrawn? Also, how did we come to this 11-to-21 percent? The study took place over a year and is getting results that are a function of time. If Matthias mouse gets chlamydia and decides to bail on the study early (since we aren't controlling for non vitamin A related withdrawals) then all of our results get raped if we take an average.

    Glad to see that we're surviving again- it feels more heroic. What this should say is that the mice in this study exposed to vitamin A were, on average, removed for a variety of reasons sooner than mice treated with only UV or only neutral cream.


    While caution is always advised, and being informed is important, this really is quite silly.
     


  12. mm84321

    mm84321 Senior member

    Messages:
    3,040
    Likes Received:
    7
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    My big issue is that studies find a lot of things, and not all of them are reinforced by further studies.
    Which is exactly why subsequent studies need to be conducted. I appreciate your interpretation of the findings; it is important to be an honest skeptic. But we cannot rule anything out until it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
     


  13. HgaleK

    HgaleK Senior member

    Messages:
    4,972
    Likes Received:
    100
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Location:
    NY
    Which is exactly why subsequent studies need to be conducted.

    I appreciate your interpretation of the findings; it is important to be an honest skeptic. But we cannot rule anything out until it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


    I just hate alarmism created by manipulated data. I would love to future studies on this, but I can't take any of the results in this specific instance seriously. The analysis wouldn't have received a passing grade in a 100 level science course.
     


Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by