People who sunbathe often have much higher exposure to environmental toxins -> skin cancer

Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
772
Tell me that there is no place in the world without all this crap .... at least I die in peace ... in the end what do we think we can achieve with power alone and eliminating PUFAs ???!
 

Nomane Euger

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2020
Messages
1,407
Tell me that there is no place in the world without all this crap .... at least I die in peace ... in the end what do we think we can achieve with power alone and eliminating PUFAs ???!
hi"in the end what do we think we can achieve with power alone and eliminating PUFAs ???!"are you asking,or is that a rethorical question?
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
772
hi"in the end what do we think we can achieve with power alone and eliminating PUFAs ???!"are you asking,or is that a rethorical question?
non-rhetorical question in the sense that we commit ourselves a lot with nutrition and lifestyle and maybe all this is canceled by the environmental pollution that we don't even see .... it would seem quite sad and frustrating.
 

Nomane Euger

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2020
Messages
1,407
non-rhetorical question in the sense that we commit ourselves a lot with nutrition and lifestyle and maybe all this is canceled by the environmental pollution that we don't even see .... it would seem quite sad and frustrating.
it does not necessary,i live arround paris in the subburb where there is pollution,and i have experienced certain intense positives state that i would have though only possible in fantaisy.you can reach a state where you feel your power and energy are infinite even in polluated places,what you eat,your activities and the peoples you spend time with has way more impact than the average air pollution on how you feel
 
OP
BearWithMe

BearWithMe

Member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
2,020
non-rhetorical question in the sense that we commit ourselves a lot with nutrition and lifestyle and maybe all this is canceled by the environmental pollution that we don't even see .... it would seem quite sad and frustrating.
No lifestyle or dietary improvement is ever cancelled, because health damage is additive.

It is quite the opposite actually, the more poluted our environment is, the more important is proper nutrition and lifestyle to lower the total toxic burden, and to give the body nutrients and energy it needs to cope with the environmental polution.
 

Nomane Euger

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2020
Messages
1,407
@BearWithMe hi,on what do you base of your claim that sunlight increase the absorbtion through the skin of these environnementals polluants?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
772
Would applying butter to the skin have the power to protect?
 

Nomane Euger

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2020
Messages
1,407
I never said anything like that.
i thought your text implyed it when i first asked you this question a copples of days ago,why then someone sunbathing would be expose to more polluants than people that dont sunbath considering that polluants are in building/houses and outside?
 
OP
BearWithMe

BearWithMe

Member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
2,020
i thought your text implyed it when i first asked you this question a copples of days ago,why then someone sunbathing would be expose to more polluants than people that dont sunbath considering that polluants are in building/houses and outside?
There is generally more polution outdoors than indoors. Polution doesn't spread homogenously in the air. Especially the larger, heavier particles. Of course, it depends on many factors.

But the key difference is in the clothing.

When you sunbathe, you are naked. The particles fall directly on your skin an potentially get absorbed.

When you have your clothes on, most of the particles stuck on the clothes, then you wash them out and they can't get absorbed.
 

Herbie

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
2,192
Actually it might be worth elaborating.

Western world have different kind of polution than before, not less polution.

Less apparent, but more dangerous polution. Polution that will kill you more slowly, without causing immediate obvious symptoms, so nobody realize it was the polution that killed them.

Car engines are perfect example of that. We are focusing on reducing CO2 and PM10 emissions, and we are very succesfull in reducing them. Cars produce less visible smoke, and we pat ourselves on our backs, how we have much less polution than before.

But the exact changes in engine construction, that will cause it to release less CO2 and PM10, will cause it to release more NOx and PM2.5.

Well, guess what is more harmful to human health...

Also, keep in mind that few decades back, people did not considered things like DDT as polution either. They thought it was perfectly safe and sprayed it everywhere like crazy.

I guarantee you that 20 years from now, many of the things we are considering perfectly safe and routinely use will be banned and considered polution.
The thing about cars and the west is they have catalytic and dpf's now and engines are much smaller than they used to be and much cleaner air coming out of them but developing countries don't have these things, it's very apparent when visiting them how horrible it is to try breath on the streets, they are the countries which have experienced huge population growth where the west is dying but has the most strict environmental rules. Europe is a museum and thats who mandates the euro emitions standards.
 
OP
BearWithMe

BearWithMe

Member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
2,020
The thing about cars and the west is they have catalytic and dpf's now and engines are much smaller than they used to be and much cleaner air coming out of them but developing countries don't have these things, it's very apparent when visiting them how horrible it is to try breath on the streets, they are the countries which have experienced huge population growth where the west is dying but has the most strict environmental rules. Europe is a museum and thats who mandates the euro emitions standards.
Cars in developing countries definitely have DPFs and catalytic. The polution in developing countries in mostly industrial.

I have addresed the other points in the post you quote.
 
Last edited:

Herbie

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
2,192
Cars in developing countries definitely have DPFs and catalytic. The polution in developing countries in mostly industrial.

I have addresed the other points in the post you quote.
Many countries are not enforcing euro emmisons standards so they don't have to have to be sold with them from new. The current standard is euro 6 and most of China except Beijing is still on euro 3, same as India. Developing countries have many more motorcycles than cars which most dont have catalytic converters.
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
Car engines are perfect example of that. We are focusing on reducing CO2 and PM10 emissions, and we are very succesfull in reducing them. Cars produce less visible smoke, and we pat ourselves on our backs, how we have much less polution than before.
CO2 is not a pollutant. And what do you mean by "sucessfully reducing them" in regards to CO2? You know that CO2 is the end product when you burn carbon?
 
OP
BearWithMe

BearWithMe

Member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
2,020
CO2 is not a pollutant. And what do you mean by "sucessfully reducing them" in regards to CO2? You know that CO2 is the end product when you burn carbon?
Half of the posts in this thread are either implying I have said something I have never said, or ripping things I have actually said out of the conext, which gives them completely opposite meaning.

If you have quoted the whole post, it would be obvious I'm critisizing our attempts to reduce CO2. I'm literally saying reducing CO2 doesn't mean reducing polution.

Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you guys
 

OccamzRazer

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
2,060
All I know is that I feel better and look better when I get an hour of sun a day, particularly if it's morning sun.

If one's experience is different, they can just do what's best for them!
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
Half of the posts in this thread are either implying I have said something I have never said, or ripping things I have actually said out of the conext, which gives them completely opposite meaning.

If you have quoted the whole post, it would be obvious I'm critisizing our attempts to reduce CO2. I'm literally saying reducing CO2 doesn't mean reducing polution.

Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you guys

Maybe you shouldn't rant about efforts to reduce CO2 when the point you are trying to prove is that there are toxins in the air that cause skin cancer. It's confusing.

Our species evolved for hundreds of thousands of years in Africa, spending most of our lives under direct sunlight. At times, there was much more UV radiation reaching Earth than today (magnetic field fluctuations, changes in solar activity...)

Nowadays, air is full of garbage ranging from agricultural chemicals to nanoparticles from car/plane/ship exhausts, and many things inbetwen. All that s**t ends up on our skin, and gets absorbed.

Add to that the fact that most people who often sunbathe also often swim outdoors, and the fact that our waters are much more poluted than our air, and skin cancer almost seems surprisingly rare.

UV radiation probably have an effect, but it is more like a catalyst than cause of skin cancer. Which makes it great scapegoat, so we don't have to admit we fked up Earth so bad it is already pretty much unhabitable.

Western world have different kind of polution than before, not less polution.

Less apparent, but more dangerous polution. Polution that will kill you more slowly, without causing immediate obvious symptoms, so nobody realize it was the polution that killed them.

May I ask what your topic is? Is it air pollution and a suspected link to skin cancer or what? What I mean is: skin cancer is actually not a major killer. Deaths from skin cancer are only a tiny friction of the cancer deaths, and the leading cause of deaths in the United States is still heart disease.

There is generally more polution outdoors than indoors. Polution doesn't spread homogenously in the air. Especially the larger, heavier particles. Of course, it depends on many factors.

But the key difference is in the clothing.

When you sunbathe, you are naked. The particles fall directly on your skin an potentially get absorbed.

When you have your clothes on, most of the particles stuck on the clothes, then you wash them out and they can't get absorbed.

I am more concerned about toxins that I breathe in and the ones in my food. Have you thought about indoor pollution? Stuff gassing off from furniture etc?
 
OP
BearWithMe

BearWithMe

Member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
2,020
The point of this thread is that UV light doesn't cause skin cancer.

I'm not ranting about anything, I'm answering the questions that are being asked.

Air polution was not really the point of the OP and I don't know why all the replies revolve around that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom