Talk:Ultraviolet light and cancer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is hopeless. Is it any more than a WP:POVFORK of ozone depletion? Its built around one dodgy Sepp page reporting ancient research. I've at least corrected that bit, but its still hopelessly out of date.
William M. Connolley 11:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a common misconception that if you get a 'tan' instead of getting 'sunburnt' when going to the beach etc that you are immune to getting skin cancer and Melanomas. This, however, is wrong.
[edit] Moved from article to talk page
Posted 11 November 2006 by 87.226.70.233
<Discussion> RE:There is a common misconception that if you get a 'tan' instead of sunburn, you are immune to getting skin cancer. This, however, is wrong.
I am representing the standpoint of naturists (nudists). Similarly as all the lands over the World, Naturists are the ultimate most exposed folks between all humans to UV rays. Yet WHY then they has the most smallest rate for melanomas and basoteliomas?? Under my count those 2000 people we as organisation know, coming frequently at our nude beaches, every year dies, someone - from car accidents, from eldness, deep-in body cancers or other factors. But in the 50 years term NONE had been died from skin cancers!! It means the statement about straight correlation between UV dosage and skin cancer AT LEAST in nudists is plainly wrong. Why? I agree, that it is not well explained. But for me is clear that not only dosage is important but the intensity of rays FLOW too. The small UV flow may be easily stopped by melanin - natural antioxidant detoxifying body and killing cancer while in the `chemical tray`. Just `Radiochemical BIGEST HALF law` says the ALL radiation effects are induced not by a shoot of ionizating particle into target - our case DNA, but to that chemical what is over 50% into mixture, and alive cells has such a water clearly even over 80% around an every cell core. There in a water happens RADIOLYSE similarly as electrolyse or hemolyse at other physical-chemical processes, generating an O- and H+ free radicals, what are those agents making an deaathly `chemical hit` to DNA. Therefore such capable free radical swallower as melanin plus in advance it`s dark colour shade effect makes skin SENSITIVITY to UV until 100~fold more resistant (at least on my personal skin, what may burn at 10 minutes ar early spring but may be risk-free insolated week long so soon as at midsummer when darkened). My suggestions (hypothesis) : the cancer rate may be induced only
1) when skin is untrained so white that the natural defence mechanism is fallen asleep 2) when UV rays FLOW is so giant (as made by tanning bed lamps) that daily dose is cached just in 15 or `quick` type lamps into 5 minutes - then free radical defence mechanism is heavily overloaded, just it has limited number of `soldiers` against UV. 3) when people are using a textiles covering a parts of flesh, and its clear that any textile bit moves on a flesh so that small `white stripe` areas becomes exposed to overdoses what are safe only for well taned skin - but on small skin patches may be gotten up to 100~fold overexposure.
Hope doctors ought to hear-in the naturist association opinion, otherhow their statements in some certain cases may contradict to the experimental experience. Posted by ngo LNA vice-chairman
