ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th February 2019, 01:12 PM   #41
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,397
Actually the anti-sunscreen information is completely different than the anti-vax information.

Anti-vax is pure woo, and can get you killed and/or vector the disease to a person far more vulnerable.

Anti-sunscreen has a lot to do with the fact people don't get enough sun anyway. So if a basically sedentary person who stays inside most of the time actually applies sunscreen when they finally do go outside for any length of time, the health benefits from sunscreen (which are minimal anyway) are outweighed by reducing the already scarce sunshine they do get.

But if you are laying out on the beach or surfing for hours daily or any other high exposure activity, then you are getting plenty of sun and sunscreen could help you not get burned.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2019, 02:10 PM   #42
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 19,975
Reducing the risk of cancer is not a "minimal benefit". And the biggest benefit of sun is Vitamin D. You can take supplements for that, I do.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2019, 02:18 PM   #43
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,242
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Reducing the risk of cancer is not a "minimal benefit". ....,.
It is for a LOT of cancers. Like prostate, that they don't even treat in many circumstances.

But yeah, reduce the risk of skin cancer. But this is a skeptics site, I want somebody to show me that sunscreens actually DO that.

43 posts, and noibdy has linked to study yet that shows efficacy.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2019, 02:46 PM   #44
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,805
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
..........43 posts, and noibdy has linked to study yet that shows efficacy.
Try this.

And this.

Quote:
RESULTS:
Ten years after trial cessation, 11 new primary melanomas had been identified in the daily sunscreen group, and 22 had been identified in the discretionary group, which represented a reduction of the observed rate in those randomly assigned to daily sunscreen use (hazard ratio [HR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.24 to 1.02; P = .051). The reduction in invasive melanomas was substantial (n = 3 in active v 11 in control group; HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.97) compared with that for preinvasive melanomas (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.81).

CONCLUSION:
Melanoma may be preventable by regular sunscreen use in adults.
And this.

Quote:
the incidence of squamous-cell carcinoma was significantly lower in the sunscreen group than in the no daily sunscreen group (1115 vs 1832 per 100,000; 0.61 [0.46-0.81]).


Now, how about you back up your claim that x-rays occur naturally in direct correlation with UV levels.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Last edited by MikeG; 14th February 2019 at 02:53 PM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2019, 03:14 PM   #45
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,306
Let’s see now ....

Some heavy smokers live to a ripe old age and never get lung (or any other) cancer.

Some people who have never smoked in their lives get lung cancer, and die from it (I know, or knew, one such person).

Therefore smoking does not cause lung cancer.

Have I accurately captured your logic, casebro?

ETA: ninjaed

Last edited by JeanTate; 14th February 2019 at 03:17 PM. Reason: ETA
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2019, 03:47 PM   #46
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
You are absolutely right. But with risks so small, shouldn't it be up to me whether I choose to use that apparently useless product?
Who exactly is that question aimed at? Nobody has said or even vaguely hinted that sunscreen should be compulsory so this is quite the bizarre strawman.

Quote:
I bet X-ray levels parallel UV levels.
Why do you think that?
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 02:19 AM   #47
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,480
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
I take that as a "No, I don;t know of any proof of the efficacy of sun screen".
And I take that as "I don't want to know anything that contradicts my irrationally chosen belief, so LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 02:41 AM   #48
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,853
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
I take that as a "No, I don;t know of any proof of the efficacy of sun screen".

Then make your own choices. If you believe there's no evidence then just act on it. Laugh at those who pointlessly spend money on sunblock and lie stark bollock naked in the sun all day.

There's no compulsion here, your mind is clearly made up and I don't think anyone's going to change it so knock yourself out and go top up your tan.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 03:17 AM   #49
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,805
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Then make your own choices. If you believe there's no evidence then just act on it. Laugh at those who pointlessly spend money on sunblock and lie stark bollock naked in the sun all day.

There's no compulsion here, your mind is clearly made up and I don't think anyone's going to change it so knock yourself out and go top up your tan.
Actually, that highlights one of the problems with long term studies of sun creams: some of the people who use them then stay longer in the sun than they otherwise would. Indeed, some sun bathers slap on the cream and then stay lying in the sun all day.

There are also studies measuring the effectiveness of varying amounts of the stuff, and, believe it or not, the more you put on the more effective it is. Studies have to account for the random quantities that people apply, many of which are below the recommended "dosages".

Nonetheless, the studies I linked to show that Casebro's mind-made-up they-don't-prevent-cancer is sheer wishful thinking on his behalf. Bollocks, in other words.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 04:19 AM   #50
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,384
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
"Blocking uva and uvb" is not "Preventing skin cancer".
Since UV is the cause of many skin cancers then yes, it is.
And before you ask for "proof", smartcooky posted a link to a paper explaining it.

Originally Posted by casebro View Post
But yeah, reduce the risk of skin cancer. But this is a skeptics site, I want somebody to show me that sunscreens actually DO that.
This is also not a lazy bastard site.
A simple Google would pull up the literature, which is what I did which showed the number of studies done. I expect the ones Mike has since posted were in the ones I saw.

FFS, this is like asking for someone to show you the stuff showing the effects of CO2 on climate...
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 05:40 AM   #51
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,496
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
This idiot's husband works in the White House.
Linky

She also thinks sunscreen is some sort of evil plot.

Stupidity is not rare. This example is newsworthy only because the twit is married to the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications.

Stupid people often marry stupid people. That too is so common as to be unremarkable apart from those who earn a moment of fame, as through appointment.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:19 PM   #52
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Moderator
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Most cancers have other causes than UV. Why would you not think skin cancer just might have some other causes too? No doubt if you stuck a UV bulb up your ass it would cause a higher rate of colon cancer, but coat it with sun screen and you'll still catch cancer at the usual dark places rate.

If UV is "the cause", why do so many skin cancers happen in places that are hid from the sun? They don't just happen on nose, shoulder, tips of ears, but also on thighs and tops of feet. And undersides of both fore arms, not just the 'trucker's tan' side. The causation of UV is based on the fact yes, the rate is higher in sunnier places. But it's not an absolute link- people in San Francisco and London get skin cancer too.

Okay OP, with all the sunscreen flooding the first world, lets check an absolute- melanoma death rate over time. Isn't it something like only one in 5,000 of us die of melanoma? Pretty low chances of YOU suffering that fate.

Mean time, don't be a sun worshiper, wear a hat, and wear more protection when welding. And be sure to take vit D3, it's deficiency is higher than the death rate from melanoma. D3 levels are inversly related to clogged arteries, which kill 1,500 per 5,000.
Ultra violet can be reflected up from various things including: sand, water and snow. Areas that have no protection (i.e. the whitest places) have no defences.

It only takes one sunburn.
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:22 PM   #53
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 71,496
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Sun screen does not prevent brain cancer, colon cancer, breast cancer, stomach cancer, etc. Why should I expect it to prevent skin cancer?
Come on Casebro, I know you're smarter than that.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:35 PM   #54
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 71,496
Fun fact: for some as yet undetermined reason there is more melanoma in the NW than there is in the more sunny California.

My son worked on the data in one of his college courses. Professor of corse took credit, I think Mike was mentioned in the credits.

I don't think we know why yet, has nothing to do with sunscreen. .... carry on.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; Yesterday at 11:37 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.