Natural Sunscreen for my Daughter

[Tolley]

However, on a population level the incidence of skin cancer is vastly lower in people with darker skin tones.

Darker skin, of course, is a natural evolutionary adaptation to stronger sun exposure and lighter skin the opposite.

As to changing rates, keep in mind the erosion of the ozone layer. UV rays are coming through much more directly than they used to, making equivalent durations of sun exposure much more dangerous.

And, of course, people are living longer, which increases the risk of every type of cancer since all cancers result from cumulative genetic mutations: some of them sometimes inherited (making the person more susceptible form the get-go), , some of them from environmental causes and some of them purely accidental (the more times a cell divides -- related to how old you are - -the more accidental mutations you'll accumulate).

Lastly people are much more mobile than in the past. Far more light skinned people managing to travel to and live in or spend significant time in, countries near the equator. (Australia being a whole continent full of them, and not coincidentally being the melanoma capital of the world).

Yes Sheryl no doubt sun is a major factor in skin cancer but still it doesn't explain why they can occur in people who don't have much sun exposure and in areas that never see the sun and in black people and often not in people with fair skin who have lots of sun exposure.

There must be other factors at play ie compromised immune system, dietary factors, EMFs, degradation of food supply chain could all possibly play a part?

Your assumptions about skin cancer are all without any foundation. You are making the classic mistake of confusing association with cause.

Skin cancer is largely caused by exposure to UV...."B" is considered the most dangerous but now there are more concerns being raised about "A".....all skin colours get cancer. if you skin is already naturally dark then in general, you have in general more protection.....but you are not immune - black-skinned people are particularly susceptible to certain deadly kinds of melanoma.

There is little evidence to suggest that the amount of UV about is increasing - (the "hole in the ozone layer" was in fact one of the first successful environmental measures taken internationally and is decreased in size - (it was never directly over Australia.) - it is people's exposure and detection that are the main factors.

The increases in skin cancer note especially in the western world are due largely to two factors......

Firstly - lifestyle - in Europe and North America more in the last 50 years, people have been able to travel abroad for their summer holidays and fashion dictates they strip down to the bare minimal and deliberately cultivate a tan...meaning they won't leave until they have actually damaged their skin. Up until the 1920s a tan was considered a sign of being working class in Western Society....after that various health movements and Hollywood promoted the idea that a tan was healthy....and so people followed...eventually with the resulting increases in cancer. In Thailand of course dark skin is still regarded as the hallmark of someone who works in the fields.

It has also bee suggested that periods of unemployment in the 70s and 80s resulted in increases as people without jobs spent more time just sitting outside..

Secondly detection - for instance the UK health service now detects more skin cancers than Australia does..........Australia has lead the awareness campaigns for skin cancer to the extent that now they have identified a problem of vit D deficiencies that are caused by a lack of sun. As a country with a high number of fair-shinned people in a very sunny climate they re caught between a rock and a hard place.

As far as areas that "never see the sun" - well as said these people now often go to warmer places whereas before that wasn't an occurrence. However, it doesn't have to be "sunny" to have a UV problem. UVC rays are bounced back off the atmosphere, but UV are strongest as one gets nearer the equator because the less atmosphere they travel through the more they are observed.......this means also if you live at altitude the UV is far stronger than at see level...there is also the problem of reflection - anyone who has been skiing will tell you how after a few days on the slops their exposed skin is tanned - even under the chin! Under clouds still up to 50

5 of the UV can penetrate - I can vouch for that at after a particularly cloudy pop festival in the 80s coming back with a bright red face after 3 days with no sun at all. ...and that was in thr uK where UVB levels are low all year round.

There are currently people testing the various UV protection creams for adverse health effects - this is only right - however as yet there are no conclusive reports as to what harm they cause or to what extent.......it of course makes great headlines in the tabloids who like to find at least one new carcinogen a week.

someone once made 2 lists of all the substances that the Daily Mail (UK) claimed could cause or protect you against cancer...needles to say several items e.g. coffee, wine, appeared on both lists. - One "scientific" article in a newspaper does not constitute a "fact" - especially if it is accompanied by the word "breakthrough" - never believe just one article in the media - read up throughly before you cautiously come to any conclusion

Melanoma can appear inside the anus, inside the nose, under fingernails etc that is what I mean by areas not getting any sun. Further there are fair skinned people who have had massive amounts of UV exposure who never had skin cancer and others with hardly any UV exposure who got skin cancer.

While obviously sun exposure is the major factor in skin cancer there must be more at play than just UV exposure.

[cumgranosalum]

However, on a population level the incidence of skin cancer is vastly lower in people with darker skin tones.

Darker skin, of course, is a natural evolutionary adaptation to stronger sun exposure and lighter skin the opposite.

As to changing rates, keep in mind the erosion of the ozone layer. UV rays are coming through much more directly than they used to, making equivalent durations of sun exposure much more dangerous.

And, of course, people are living longer, which increases the risk of every type of cancer since all cancers result from cumulative genetic mutations: some of them sometimes inherited (making the person more susceptible form the get-go), , some of them from environmental causes and some of them purely accidental (the more times a cell divides -- related to how old you are - -the more accidental mutations you'll accumulate).

Lastly people are much more mobile than in the past. Far more light skinned people managing to travel to and live in or spend significant time in, countries near the equator. (Australia being a whole continent full of them, and not coincidentally being the melanoma capital of the world).

Yes Sheryl no doubt sun is a major factor in skin cancer but still it doesn't explain why they can occur in people who don't have much sun exposure and in areas that never see the sun and in black people and often not in people with fair skin who have lots of sun exposure.

There must be other factors at play ie compromised immune system, dietary factors, EMFs, degradation of food supply chain could all possibly play a part?

Your assumptions about skin cancer are all without any foundation. You are making the classic mistake of confusing association with cause.

Skin cancer is largely caused by exposure to UV...."B" is considered the most dangerous but now there are more concerns being raised about "A".....all skin colours get cancer. if you skin is already naturally dark then in general, you have in general more protection.....but you are not immune - black-skinned people are particularly susceptible to certain deadly kinds of melanoma.

There is little evidence to suggest that the amount of UV about is increasing - (the "hole in the ozone layer" was in fact one of the first successful environmental measures taken internationally and is decreased in size - (it was never directly over Australia.) - it is people's exposure and detection that are the main factors.

The increases in skin cancer note especially in the western world are due largely to two factors......

Firstly - lifestyle - in Europe and North America more in the last 50 years, people have been able to travel abroad for their summer holidays and fashion dictates they strip down to the bare minimal and deliberately cultivate a tan...meaning they won't leave until they have actually damaged their skin. Up until the 1920s a tan was considered a sign of being working class in Western Society....after that various health movements and Hollywood promoted the idea that a tan was healthy....and so people followed...eventually with the resulting increases in cancer. In Thailand of course dark skin is still regarded as the hallmark of someone who works in the fields.

It has also bee suggested that periods of unemployment in the 70s and 80s resulted in increases as people without jobs spent more time just sitting outside..

Secondly detection - for instance the UK health service now detects more skin cancers than Australia does..........Australia has lead the awareness campaigns for skin cancer to the extent that now they have identified a problem of vit D deficiencies that are caused by a lack of sun. As a country with a high number of fair-shinned people in a very sunny climate they re caught between a rock and a hard place.

As far as areas that "never see the sun" - well as said these people now often go to warmer places whereas before that wasn't an occurrence. However, it doesn't have to be "sunny" to have a UV problem. UVC rays are bounced back off the atmosphere, but UV are strongest as one gets nearer the equator because the less atmosphere they travel through the more they are observed.......this means also if you live at altitude the UV is far stronger than at see level...there is also the problem of reflection - anyone who has been skiing will tell you how after a few days on the slops their exposed skin is tanned - even under the chin! Under clouds still up to 50

5 of the UV can penetrate - I can vouch for that at after a particularly cloudy pop festival in the 80s coming back with a bright red face after 3 days with no sun at all. ...and that was in thr uK where UVB levels are low all year round.

There are currently people testing the various UV protection creams for adverse health effects - this is only right - however as yet there are no conclusive reports as to what harm they cause or to what extent.......it of course makes great headlines in the tabloids who like to find at least one new carcinogen a week.

someone once made 2 lists of all the substances that the Daily Mail (UK) claimed could cause or protect you against cancer...needles to say several items e.g. coffee, wine, appeared on both lists. - One "scientific" article in a newspaper does not constitute a "fact" - especially if it is accompanied by the word "breakthrough" - never believe just one article in the media - read up throughly before you cautiously come to any conclusion

Melanoma can appear inside the anus, inside the nose, under fingernails etc that is what I mean by areas not getting any sun. Further there are fair skinned people who have had massive amounts of UV exposure who never had skin cancer and others with hardly any UV exposure who got skin cancer.

While obviously sun exposure is the major factor in skin cancer there must be more at play than just UV exposure.

There you go again; association not causation..just because some skin cancers aren't caused by UV it doesn't follow that the rest aren't.

If you just read up on how cancers start - usually a malfunction in DNA, you then look for the causes. there has of course been a massive amount of research into the causes of cancer and this inevitably is accompanied by a massive amount of misinformation and misinterpretation in the media.

your initial proposal that the increase in skin cancers is caused by sun creams is at present totally without foundation....no report has ever suggested this

Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, but it increase your chances greatly and some people who don't smoke get it too.....there are other factors at play - genetic for a start...... - so it is the same with skin cancer not everyone with fair skin will get it....but the chances are greatly increased and people with black skin can get melanomas....

finding alternatives does not disprove the main rule......

you logic brings to mind 2 examples.

1 - Dogs have 4 legs....my cat has 4 legs therefore my cat is a dog.

2- Mel Smith and Griff Jones in one of their face-to-face sketches.....

Mel - "my grandfather smoked 50 fags and drank a litre of whiskey every day."

Griff - "really how old was he when he died?"

Mel - "45"

[cumgranosalum]

However, on a population level the incidence of skin cancer is vastly lower in people with darker skin tones.

Darker skin, of course, is a natural evolutionary adaptation to stronger sun exposure and lighter skin the opposite.

As to changing rates, keep in mind the erosion of the ozone layer. UV rays are coming through much more directly than they used to, making equivalent durations of sun exposure much more dangerous.

And, of course, people are living longer, which increases the risk of every type of cancer since all cancers result from cumulative genetic mutations: some of them sometimes inherited (making the person more susceptible form the get-go), , some of them from environmental causes and some of them purely accidental (the more times a cell divides -- related to how old you are - -the more accidental mutations you'll accumulate).

Lastly people are much more mobile than in the past. Far more light skinned people managing to travel to and live in or spend significant time in, countries near the equator. (Australia being a whole continent full of them, and not coincidentally being the melanoma capital of the world).

sorry Sheryl - dark skin came first fair skin is an adaption....it's to do with Vit D processing (folic acid) which was a mutation that proved useful when finding UV was more difficult is cooler, cloudier climes....

[Sheryl]

That is what I was saying. Obviously dark came first because humans first evolved in Africa. And they evolved with dark skin because this had an advantage there. As some of them slowly migrated north they gradually developed lighter skin also as an evolutionary adaptation.

[cumgranosalum]

That is what I was saying. Obviously dark came first because humans first evolved in Africa. And they evolved with dark skin because this had an advantage there. As some of them slowly migrated north they gradually developed lighter skin also as an evolutionary adaptation.

"Darker skin, of course, is a natural evolutionary adaptation to stronger sun exposure and lighter skin the opposite"

an adaption from what? the first humns came out of Africa with dark skin.

the process of fair skin...

"This full kaleidoscope of skin colors was a relatively recent evolutionary development, according to biologists, occuring alongside the migration of modern humans out of Africa between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago."

the latest idea...

"study at Penn State University has found that Europeans' light skin stems from a gene mutation from a single person who lived 10,000 years ago."

http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/the-light-skin-of-the-irish-can-be-traced-to-india-and-the-middle-east-239166271-239671671.html

(I'm Indo - Irish)

in areas with lower UV this was an advantage for fair-skinned people over the normal dark-skinned as an aid to producing Vit D.

MI_LightSkinofIrish_PhotoCall.jpg

[Sheryl]

That is what I was saying. Obviously dark came first because humans first evolved in Africa. And they evolved with dark skin because this had an advantage there. As some of them slowly migrated north they gradually developed lighter skin also as an evolutionary adaptation.

"Darker skin, of course, is a natural evolutionary adaptation to stronger sun exposure and lighter skin the opposite"

an adaption from what? the first humns came out of Africa with dark skin.

From a paler, fur-covered skin. As humans gradually evolved from primates and ceased to have fur, the underlying skin -- now directly exposed to the sun --- darkened.

[cumgranosalum]

That is what I was saying. Obviously dark came first because humans first evolved in Africa. And they evolved with dark skin because this had an advantage there. As some of them slowly migrated north they gradually developed lighter skin also as an evolutionary adaptation.

"Darker skin, of course, is a natural evolutionary adaptation to stronger sun exposure and lighter skin the opposite"

an adaption from what? the first humns came out of Africa with dark skin.

From a paler, fur-covered skin. As humans gradually evolved from primates and ceased to have fur, the underlying skin -- now directly exposed to the sun --- darkened.

I see you are modifying your original stance, however, I think you need to review the evolution of homo sapiens and the skin color of his predecessors.....fur??

homo Sapiens was in all probability dark skinned and the lighter skinned variation emerged as he moved into climes with less UV.

there were at certain times more than one species of hominid alive on the planet, however they were different species or subspecies.......it is unlikely that even the species that homo sapiens evolved from were "furry" and they most likely had dark skin......the time line for this is millennia, but your implication was originally that homo sapiens may have first had light coloured skin and evolved to be dark....not in anyone else's book that one....

[Tolley]

However, on a population level the incidence of skin cancer is vastly lower in people with darker skin tones.

Darker skin, of course, is a natural evolutionary adaptation to stronger sun exposure and lighter skin the opposite.

As to changing rates, keep in mind the erosion of the ozone layer. UV rays are coming through much more directly than they used to, making equivalent durations of sun exposure much more dangerous.

And, of course, people are living longer, which increases the risk of every type of cancer since all cancers result from cumulative genetic mutations: some of them sometimes inherited (making the person more susceptible form the get-go), , some of them from environmental causes and some of them purely accidental (the more times a cell divides -- related to how old you are - -the more accidental mutations you'll accumulate).

Lastly people are much more mobile than in the past. Far more light skinned people managing to travel to and live in or spend significant time in, countries near the equator. (Australia being a whole continent full of them, and not coincidentally being the melanoma capital of the world).

Yes Sheryl no doubt sun is a major factor in skin cancer but still it doesn't explain why they can occur in people who don't have much sun exposure and in areas that never see the sun and in black people and often not in people with fair skin who have lots of sun exposure.

There must be other factors at play ie compromised immune system, dietary factors, EMFs, degradation of food supply chain could all possibly play a part?

Your assumptions about skin cancer are all without any foundation. You are making the classic mistake of confusing association with cause.

Skin cancer is largely caused by exposure to UV...."B" is considered the most dangerous but now there are more concerns being raised about "A".....all skin colours get cancer. if you skin is already naturally dark then in general, you have in general more protection.....but you are not immune - black-skinned people are particularly susceptible to certain deadly kinds of melanoma.

There is little evidence to suggest that the amount of UV about is increasing - (the "hole in the ozone layer" was in fact one of the first successful environmental measures taken internationally and is decreased in size - (it was never directly over Australia.) - it is people's exposure and detection that are the main factors.

The increases in skin cancer note especially in the western world are due largely to two factors......

Firstly - lifestyle - in Europe and North America more in the last 50 years, people have been able to travel abroad for their summer holidays and fashion dictates they strip down to the bare minimal and deliberately cultivate a tan...meaning they won't leave until they have actually damaged their skin. Up until the 1920s a tan was considered a sign of being working class in Western Society....after that various health movements and Hollywood promoted the idea that a tan was healthy....and so people followed...eventually with the resulting increases in cancer. In Thailand of course dark skin is still regarded as the hallmark of someone who works in the fields.

It has also bee suggested that periods of unemployment in the 70s and 80s resulted in increases as people without jobs spent more time just sitting outside..

Secondly detection - for instance the UK health service now detects more skin cancers than Australia does..........Australia has lead the awareness campaigns for skin cancer to the extent that now they have identified a problem of vit D deficiencies that are caused by a lack of sun. As a country with a high number of fair-shinned people in a very sunny climate they re caught between a rock and a hard place.

As far as areas that "never see the sun" - well as said these people now often go to warmer places whereas before that wasn't an occurrence. However, it doesn't have to be "sunny" to have a UV problem. UVC rays are bounced back off the atmosphere, but UV are strongest as one gets nearer the equator because the less atmosphere they travel through the more they are observed.......this means also if you live at altitude the UV is far stronger than at see level...there is also the problem of reflection - anyone who has been skiing will tell you how after a few days on the slops their exposed skin is tanned - even under the chin! Under clouds still up to 50

5 of the UV can penetrate - I can vouch for that at after a particularly cloudy pop festival in the 80s coming back with a bright red face after 3 days with no sun at all. ...and that was in thr uK where UVB levels are low all year round.

There are currently people testing the various UV protection creams for adverse health effects - this is only right - however as yet there are no conclusive reports as to what harm they cause or to what extent.......it of course makes great headlines in the tabloids who like to find at least one new carcinogen a week.

someone once made 2 lists of all the substances that the Daily Mail (UK) claimed could cause or protect you against cancer...needles to say several items e.g. coffee, wine, appeared on both lists. - One "scientific" article in a newspaper does not constitute a "fact" - especially if it is accompanied by the word "breakthrough" - never believe just one article in the media - read up throughly before you cautiously come to any conclusion

I still don't buy your hypothesis that the increase in skin cancers in fair skinned people can be explained away by taking more holidays in sunny places and taking your clothes off to sunbathe more often. Where is the evidence to support this?

Better detection may account for some of the percentage increase but not anything like 300 percent!

I am not saying that the sun still isn't the trigger for most skin cancers but for some reason like diet eg degraded food chain, pesticides, herbicides, pollution, EMFs etc we are now more susceptible to skin cancer than we were previously.

Check this link below where they reckon skin cancer has increased 300 percent in the US over the last 20 years. You just cant explain away that sort of rapid increase in incidence.

http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts/nonmelanoma-skin-cancer-incidence-jumps-by-approximately-300-percent

Here is more detail about the alarming increase in melanomas around the globe. It is fastest growing cancer.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470300_2

[MaeJoMTB]

That is what I was saying. Obviously dark came first because humans first evolved in Africa. And they evolved with dark skin because this had an advantage there. As some of them slowly migrated north they gradually developed lighter skin also as an evolutionary adaptation.

Evolution is only a theory.

[cumgranosalum]

That is what I was saying. Obviously dark came first because humans first evolved in Africa. And they evolved with dark skin because this had an advantage there. As some of them slowly migrated north they gradually developed lighter skin also as an evolutionary adaptation.

Evolution is only a theory.

Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the scientific meaning of the word theory - the inference I draw from your comment is that you think the concept of evolution is a hypothesis which it isn't.

Same as gravity, the Sun as centre of the solar system, the link between smoking and ill-health......etc etc....

[cumgranosalum]

However, on a population level the incidence of skin cancer is vastly lower in people with darker skin tones.

Darker skin, of course, is a natural evolutionary adaptation to stronger sun exposure and lighter skin the opposite.

As to changing rates, keep in mind the erosion of the ozone layer. UV rays are coming through much more directly than they used to, making equivalent durations of sun exposure much more dangerous.

And, of course, people are living longer, which increases the risk of every type of cancer since all cancers result from cumulative genetic mutations: some of them sometimes inherited (making the person more susceptible form the get-go), , some of them from environmental causes and some of them purely accidental (the more times a cell divides -- related to how old you are - -the more accidental mutations you'll accumulate).

Lastly people are much more mobile than in the past. Far more light skinned people managing to travel to and live in or spend significant time in, countries near the equator. (Australia being a whole continent full of them, and not coincidentally being the melanoma capital of the world).

Yes Sheryl no doubt sun is a major factor in skin cancer but still it doesn't explain why they can occur in people who don't have much sun exposure and in areas that never see the sun and in black people and often not in people with fair skin who have lots of sun exposure.

There must be other factors at play ie compromised immune system, dietary factors, EMFs, degradation of food supply chain could all possibly play a part?

Your assumptions about skin cancer are all without any foundation. You are making the classic mistake of confusing association with cause.

Skin cancer is largely caused by exposure to UV...."B" is considered the most dangerous but now there are more concerns being raised about "A".....all skin colours get cancer. if you skin is already naturally dark then in general, you have in general more protection.....but you are not immune - black-skinned people are particularly susceptible to certain deadly kinds of melanoma.

There is little evidence to suggest that the amount of UV about is increasing - (the "hole in the ozone layer" was in fact one of the first successful environmental measures taken internationally and is decreased in size - (it was never directly over Australia.) - it is people's exposure and detection that are the main factors.

The increases in skin cancer note especially in the western world are due largely to two factors......

Firstly - lifestyle - in Europe and North America more in the last 50 years, people have been able to travel abroad for their summer holidays and fashion dictates they strip down to the bare minimal and deliberately cultivate a tan...meaning they won't leave until they have actually damaged their skin. Up until the 1920s a tan was considered a sign of being working class in Western Society....after that various health movements and Hollywood promoted the idea that a tan was healthy....and so people followed...eventually with the resulting increases in cancer. In Thailand of course dark skin is still regarded as the hallmark of someone who works in the fields.

It has also bee suggested that periods of unemployment in the 70s and 80s resulted in increases as people without jobs spent more time just sitting outside..

Secondly detection - for instance the UK health service now detects more skin cancers than Australia does..........Australia has lead the awareness campaigns for skin cancer to the extent that now they have identified a problem of vit D deficiencies that are caused by a lack of sun. As a country with a high number of fair-shinned people in a very sunny climate they re caught between a rock and a hard place.

As far as areas that "never see the sun" - well as said these people now often go to warmer places whereas before that wasn't an occurrence. However, it doesn't have to be "sunny" to have a UV problem. UVC rays are bounced back off the atmosphere, but UV are strongest as one gets nearer the equator because the less atmosphere they travel through the more they are observed.......this means also if you live at altitude the UV is far stronger than at see level...there is also the problem of reflection - anyone who has been skiing will tell you how after a few days on the slops their exposed skin is tanned - even under the chin! Under clouds still up to 50

5 of the UV can penetrate - I can vouch for that at after a particularly cloudy pop festival in the 80s coming back with a bright red face after 3 days with no sun at all. ...and that was in thr uK where UVB levels are low all year round.

There are currently people testing the various UV protection creams for adverse health effects - this is only right - however as yet there are no conclusive reports as to what harm they cause or to what extent.......it of course makes great headlines in the tabloids who like to find at least one new carcinogen a week.

someone once made 2 lists of all the substances that the Daily Mail (UK) claimed could cause or protect you against cancer...needles to say several items e.g. coffee, wine, appeared on both lists. - One "scientific" article in a newspaper does not constitute a "fact" - especially if it is accompanied by the word "breakthrough" - never believe just one article in the media - read up throughly before you cautiously come to any conclusion

I still don't buy your hypothesis that the increase in skin cancers in fair skinned people can be explained away by taking more holidays in sunny places and taking your clothes off to sunbathe more often. Where is the evidence to support this?

Better detection may account for some of the percentage increase but not anything like 300 percent!

I am not saying that the sun still isn't the trigger for most skin cancers but for some reason like diet eg degraded food chain, pesticides, herbicides, pollution, EMFs etc we are now more susceptible to skin cancer than we were previously.

Check this link below where they reckon skin cancer has increased 300 percent in the US over the last 20 years. You just cant explain away that sort of rapid increase in incidence.

http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts/nonmelanoma-skin-cancer-incidence-jumps-by-approximately-300-percent

Here is more detail about the alarming increase in melanomas around the globe. It is fastest growing cancer.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470300_2

"You just cant explain away that sort of rapid increase in incidence." - well in the sense that if you look at the current examinations of this, you can......and not with wild associations with abstract concepts of "chemicals" (everything has a chemical formula)

Again you are missing the point - "I still don't buy your hypothesis"

it is n't MY hypothesis" - it is put forward by those far more erudite and better informed than myself, don't be obsessed with the messenger, it is the MESSAGE that is important.

"Where is the evidence to support this?" - I have to say this is to my mind an utterly facile comment. In my experience when people start saying things like "where is your citation?" it is usually because they have run out of argument and have the misguided belief that this is how a rational argument is conducted.

the "evidence" that you require is the pattern of holidays take over te last 60 or so years - this is hugely documented - i.

I might point out that you have not put forward a shred of evidence in support of your argument. As ever you are confusing association with causation and have not put forward any mechanism that may support your ideas.

the concept of travel abroad is accompanied by a perfectly satisfactory mechanism as the process by which UV affects the skin o induce cancer is well researched and pretty well explained...no such explanations exist for any of your hypotheses.

What you really need is to be informed on both the subject and how to put forward a rationalised point of view (no not everyone is entitled to a point of view - that comes from rational thought).

So to do this you need to learn how to read up on something and take a critical or analytical approach to coming to a conclusion, rather than just grab any headline that fits with some paranoid view......use some critical thought and forget about conspiracy theories otherwise it is quite impossible to have an intelligent discussion.

repeating the same ill-conceived idea doesn't make it any more plausible either....the information is out there - all it takes is for you to understand it and draw a logical conclusion. drawing a conclusion first and then looking round for any crazy article that supports you ideas is not how it is done.

as for your two web addresses, i fail to see what you hope to pint out with them as neither in any way suggests that the increase is due to anything else but UV exposurein fact the first article says...

"One of the explanations for the slowing in the melanoma incidence rates in these countries is the decrease in sun exposure of the type likely to cause melanoma (improved sun exposure behaviour), particularly to parts of the body normally covered by clothes. With effective skin cancer prevention campaigns and public education, further declines in incidence can be expected over the coming years."

which supports the UV exposure theory.

[Tolley]

You really don't have a clue yet pretend you know something.

Now read this which is actually based on something other than thin air hypothesis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2791455/

Skin Cancer

Some evidence supports links between skin cancer and pesticide exposure, although specific pesticides have not been implicated. A study of residential pesticide exposure revealed a significant increase in melanoma among those who used indoor pesticides four or more times a year (OR=2.18) and/or those who used pesticides for ten years or more (OR=2.48); a significant dose response was observed.123 Other studies of pesticide exposures provide mixed evidence: spouses of pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health study had increased melanoma, while melanoma risk among applicators was not elevated.27

Evidence continues to link skin cancer and exposure to metals and to combustion by-products. Cutaneous melanoma was also associated with copper and zinc exposure based on toenail concentrations, although caution is warranted given questions about the validity of toenails as a bio-marker of long term exposure.124 A case-control study of chemical exposures among men identified a consistent increased risk of all skin cancer types (squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma (both nodular and superficial multi-focal), and malignant melanoma) associated with arsenic exposure, although only malignant melanoma was significantly increased.125 In this study, risk of malignant melanoma was also elevated for other established skin carcinogens, such as coal, PAHs, pitch and tar. Exposure to tar, pitch, soot, coal, and PAHs was associated with similarly elevated risk for squamous cell carcinoma. Risk of basal cell carcinoma was non-significantly elevated with coal exposure. A review article of oil refining workers and the risk of malignant melanoma found strong evidence of an association from multiple studies and the lack of such an association among studies funded by industry.126

In Air Force veterans not occupationally exposed to Agent Orange (veterans other than the Ranch Hands), there was a significant dose-response trend associated with increased melanoma risk and serum dioxin levels, although increased risk at each exposure quartile was not significantly elevated. A modest dose-response trend was also observed in relation to basal or squamous cell skin cancer and serum dioxin levels as well as increased risk of melanoma and years served in Southeast Asia.114

An update of a cohort mortality study of workers exposed to PCBs finds persistent evidence regarding excess mortality from melanoma (SMR= 2.43).39 However, the strength of the evidence is somewhat limited since no exposure-response trend was observed.

Melanoma was strongly associated with exposure to mineral oils in a study of aerospace workers. Workers exposed to mineral oils at both medium (OR=2.15) and high levels (OR=3.32) were at increased risk, although risk was only significant for the high exposure category. A test for a dose-response trend was significant.10

Additional studies examining specific occupations and risk of melanoma found elevated risk (OR=1.50) among California firefighters;40 high risk among Swedish women employed as educators, bank tellers, dental nurses, librarians/archivists/curators, horticultural workers and hatmakers/milliners;127 excess risk among a cohort of petroleum workers (SIR=137);72 excess mortality among males associated with computer manufacturing35 and among females as well as males and females in another semiconductor facility;36 and a 15% increase in melanoma risk among a cohort of 43,000 Norwegian nurses.52 Lastly, a meta-analysis of cancer risk associated with employment as a female flight attendant revealed a 2-fold elevation in risk of melanoma (combined RR=2.13).51 Studies included in this meta-analysis did not control for lifestyle factors such as time spent sun-bathing and evidence to date does not suggest a risk of UV radiation exposure within confines of the airplane. A similar meta-analysis found evidence of increased melanoma and other skin cancer among male cabin attendants and civilian pilots

[cumgranosalum]

You really don't have a clue yet pretend you know something.

Now read this which is actually based on something other than thin air hypothesis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2791455/

Skin Cancer

Some evidence supports links between skin cancer and pesticide exposure, although specific pesticides have not been implicated. A study of residential pesticide exposure revealed a significant increase in melanoma among those who used indoor pesticides four or more times a year (OR=2.18) and/or those who used pesticides for ten years or more (OR=2.48); a significant dose response was observed.123 Other studies of pesticide exposures provide mixed evidence: spouses of pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health study had increased melanoma, while melanoma risk among applicators was not elevated.27

Evidence continues to link skin cancer and exposure to metals and to combustion by-products. Cutaneous melanoma was also associated with copper and zinc exposure based on toenail concentrations, although caution is warranted given questions about the validity of toenails as a bio-marker of long term exposure.124 A case-control study of chemical exposures among men identified a consistent increased risk of all skin cancer types (squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma (both nodular and superficial multi-focal), and malignant melanoma) associated with arsenic exposure, although only malignant melanoma was significantly increased.125 In this study, risk of malignant melanoma was also elevated for other established skin carcinogens, such as coal, PAHs, pitch and tar. Exposure to tar, pitch, soot, coal, and PAHs was associated with similarly elevated risk for squamous cell carcinoma. Risk of basal cell carcinoma was non-significantly elevated with coal exposure. A review article of oil refining workers and the risk of malignant melanoma found strong evidence of an association from multiple studies and the lack of such an association among studies funded by industry.126

In Air Force veterans not occupationally exposed to Agent Orange (veterans other than the Ranch Hands), there was a significant dose-response trend associated with increased melanoma risk and serum dioxin levels, although increased risk at each exposure quartile was not significantly elevated. A modest dose-response trend was also observed in relation to basal or squamous cell skin cancer and serum dioxin levels as well as increased risk of melanoma and years served in Southeast Asia.114

An update of a cohort mortality study of workers exposed to PCBs finds persistent evidence regarding excess mortality from melanoma (SMR= 2.43).39 However, the strength of the evidence is somewhat limited since no exposure-response trend was observed.

Melanoma was strongly associated with exposure to mineral oils in a study of aerospace workers. Workers exposed to mineral oils at both medium (OR=2.15) and high levels (OR=3.32) were at increased risk, although risk was only significant for the high exposure category. A test for a dose-response trend was significant.10

Additional studies examining specific occupations and risk of melanoma found elevated risk (OR=1.50) among California firefighters;40 high risk among Swedish women employed as educators, bank tellers, dental nurses, librarians/archivists/curators, horticultural workers and hatmakers/milliners;127 excess risk among a cohort of petroleum workers (SIR=137);72 excess mortality among males associated with computer manufacturing35 and among females as well as males and females in another semiconductor facility;36 and a 15% increase in melanoma risk among a cohort of 43,000 Norwegian nurses.52 Lastly, a meta-analysis of cancer risk associated with employment as a female flight attendant revealed a 2-fold elevation in risk of melanoma (combined RR=2.13).51 Studies included in this meta-analysis did not control for lifestyle factors such as time spent sun-bathing and evidence to date does not suggest a risk of UV radiation exposure within confines of the airplane. A similar meta-analysis found evidence of increased melanoma and other skin cancer among male cabin attendants and civilian pilots

Yet again you seem to have difficulty in understanding the articles you post...there is nowhere in this article that it suggests that any of this is a major factor in the dramatic rise of SKIN cancers.

You appear to be fishing around for headlines you think support your ideas, but in fact they actually contradict you.

why you didn't read this in the previous article is beyond me...

"The epidemiological data confirm that the major environmental risk factor for melanoma is intermittent sunlight exposure."

this last article you refer to is about cancer in general caused by both environmental and occupational causes - no has anywhere on this thread denied their contribution, but there is no evidence to conect it to a large increase in population around the world. (UV is of course an environmental cause in itself).

there is one paragraph on skin cancers inlcuding this clause

"Studies included in this meta-analysis did not control for lifestyle factors such as time spent sun-bathing"

nowhere in any of the report does it suggest as you do that the dramatic increase is due to "chemicals" - something which you have failed to specify or rationalise.

It is also worth bearing in mind that thanks to modern health and safety the use of and contact with these various compounds and substances has been gradually reduced whilst the cancer rates have risen exponentially.

[Tolley]

You really don't have a clue yet pretend you know something.

Now read this which is actually based on something other than thin air hypothesis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2791455/

Skin Cancer

Some evidence supports links between skin cancer and pesticide exposure, although specific pesticides have not been implicated. A study of residential pesticide exposure revealed a significant increase in melanoma among those who used indoor pesticides four or more times a year (OR=2.18) and/or those who used pesticides for ten years or more (OR=2.48); a significant dose response was observed.123 Other studies of pesticide exposures provide mixed evidence: spouses of pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health study had increased melanoma, while melanoma risk among applicators was not elevated.27

Evidence continues to link skin cancer and exposure to metals and to combustion by-products. Cutaneous melanoma was also associated with copper and zinc exposure based on toenail concentrations, although caution is warranted given questions about the validity of toenails as a bio-marker of long term exposure.124 A case-control study of chemical exposures among men identified a consistent increased risk of all skin cancer types (squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma (both nodular and superficial multi-focal), and malignant melanoma) associated with arsenic exposure, although only malignant melanoma was significantly increased.125 In this study, risk of malignant melanoma was also elevated for other established skin carcinogens, such as coal, PAHs, pitch and tar. Exposure to tar, pitch, soot, coal, and PAHs was associated with similarly elevated risk for squamous cell carcinoma. Risk of basal cell carcinoma was non-significantly elevated with coal exposure. A review article of oil refining workers and the risk of malignant melanoma found strong evidence of an association from multiple studies and the lack of such an association among studies funded by industry.126

In Air Force veterans not occupationally exposed to Agent Orange (veterans other than the Ranch Hands), there was a significant dose-response trend associated with increased melanoma risk and serum dioxin levels, although increased risk at each exposure quartile was not significantly elevated. A modest dose-response trend was also observed in relation to basal or squamous cell skin cancer and serum dioxin levels as well as increased risk of melanoma and years served in Southeast Asia.114

An update of a cohort mortality study of workers exposed to PCBs finds persistent evidence regarding excess mortality from melanoma (SMR= 2.43).39 However, the strength of the evidence is somewhat limited since no exposure-response trend was observed.

Melanoma was strongly associated with exposure to mineral oils in a study of aerospace workers. Workers exposed to mineral oils at both medium (OR=2.15) and high levels (OR=3.32) were at increased risk, although risk was only significant for the high exposure category. A test for a dose-response trend was significant.10

Additional studies examining specific occupations and risk of melanoma found elevated risk (OR=1.50) among California firefighters;40 high risk among Swedish women employed as educators, bank tellers, dental nurses, librarians/archivists/curators, horticultural workers and hatmakers/milliners;127 excess risk among a cohort of petroleum workers (SIR=137);72 excess mortality among males associated with computer manufacturing35 and among females as well as males and females in another semiconductor facility;36 and a 15% increase in melanoma risk among a cohort of 43,000 Norwegian nurses.52 Lastly, a meta-analysis of cancer risk associated with employment as a female flight attendant revealed a 2-fold elevation in risk of melanoma (combined RR=2.13).51 Studies included in this meta-analysis did not control for lifestyle factors such as time spent sun-bathing and evidence to date does not suggest a risk of UV radiation exposure within confines of the airplane. A similar meta-analysis found evidence of increased melanoma and other skin cancer among male cabin attendants and civilian pilots

Yet again you seem to have difficulty in understanding the articles you post...there is nowhere in this article that it suggests that any of this is a major factor in the dramatic rise of SKIN cancers.

You appear to be fishing around for headlines you think support your ideas, but in fact they actually contradict you.

why you didn't read this in the previous article is beyond me...

"The epidemiological data confirm that the major environmental risk factor for melanoma is intermittent sunlight exposure."

Give it up.

Incidence of skin cancer rising dramatically and environmental toxins, herbicides, pesticides, heavy metals, radiation, emfs etc increasing dramatically over the last few decades.

.

Your supposition that it is caused by people taking more holidays to sunny countries therefore the increase in skin cancers is quite feeble especially considering people are much more sun aware these days and much more likely to wear sun creams and are more careful not to over expose themselves. There is a lack of rigouros evidence to wholly support a huge increase to just this factor

That is not to say that some of that increase isn't related to that just that the we know from the sources I have quoted that there is a strong link between environmental toxins and skin cancers therefore it is not hard to work out that the real culprit is more likely to be environmental toxins.

[cumgranosalum]

You really don't have a clue yet pretend you know something.

Now read this which is actually based on something other than thin air hypothesis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2791455/

Skin Cancer

Some evidence supports links between skin cancer and pesticide exposure, although specific pesticides have not been implicated. A study of residential pesticide exposure revealed a significant increase in melanoma among those who used indoor pesticides four or more times a year (OR=2.18) and/or those who used pesticides for ten years or more (OR=2.48); a significant dose response was observed.123 Other studies of pesticide exposures provide mixed evidence: spouses of pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health study had increased melanoma, while melanoma risk among applicators was not elevated.27

Evidence continues to link skin cancer and exposure to metals and to combustion by-products. Cutaneous melanoma was also associated with copper and zinc exposure based on toenail concentrations, although caution is warranted given questions about the validity of toenails as a bio-marker of long term exposure.124 A case-control study of chemical exposures among men identified a consistent increased risk of all skin cancer types (squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma (both nodular and superficial multi-focal), and malignant melanoma) associated with arsenic exposure, although only malignant melanoma was significantly increased.125 In this study, risk of malignant melanoma was also elevated for other established skin carcinogens, such as coal, PAHs, pitch and tar. Exposure to tar, pitch, soot, coal, and PAHs was associated with similarly elevated risk for squamous cell carcinoma. Risk of basal cell carcinoma was non-significantly elevated with coal exposure. A review article of oil refining workers and the risk of malignant melanoma found strong evidence of an association from multiple studies and the lack of such an association among studies funded by industry.126

In Air Force veterans not occupationally exposed to Agent Orange (veterans other than the Ranch Hands), there was a significant dose-response trend associated with increased melanoma risk and serum dioxin levels, although increased risk at each exposure quartile was not significantly elevated. A modest dose-response trend was also observed in relation to basal or squamous cell skin cancer and serum dioxin levels as well as increased risk of melanoma and years served in Southeast Asia.114

An update of a cohort mortality study of workers exposed to PCBs finds persistent evidence regarding excess mortality from melanoma (SMR= 2.43).39 However, the strength of the evidence is somewhat limited since no exposure-response trend was observed.

Melanoma was strongly associated with exposure to mineral oils in a study of aerospace workers. Workers exposed to mineral oils at both medium (OR=2.15) and high levels (OR=3.32) were at increased risk, although risk was only significant for the high exposure category. A test for a dose-response trend was significant.10

Additional studies examining specific occupations and risk of melanoma found elevated risk (OR=1.50) among California firefighters;40 high risk among Swedish women employed as educators, bank tellers, dental nurses, librarians/archivists/curators, horticultural workers and hatmakers/milliners;127 excess risk among a cohort of petroleum workers (SIR=137);72 excess mortality among males associated with computer manufacturing35 and among females as well as males and females in another semiconductor facility;36 and a 15% increase in melanoma risk among a cohort of 43,000 Norwegian nurses.52 Lastly, a meta-analysis of cancer risk associated with employment as a female flight attendant revealed a 2-fold elevation in risk of melanoma (combined RR=2.13).51 Studies included in this meta-analysis did not control for lifestyle factors such as time spent sun-bathing and evidence to date does not suggest a risk of UV radiation exposure within confines of the airplane. A similar meta-analysis found evidence of increased melanoma and other skin cancer among male cabin attendants and civilian pilots

Yet again you seem to have difficulty in understanding the articles you post...there is nowhere in this article that it suggests that any of this is a major factor in the dramatic rise of SKIN cancers.

You appear to be fishing around for headlines you think support your ideas, but in fact they actually contradict you.

why you didn't read this in the previous article is beyond me...

"The epidemiological data confirm that the major environmental risk factor for melanoma is intermittent sunlight exposure."

Give it up.

Incidence of skin cancer rising dramatically and environmental toxins, herbicides, pesticides, heavy metals, radiation, emfs etc increasing dramatically over the last few decades.

.

Your supposition that it is caused by people taking more holidays to sunny countries therefore the increase in skin cancers is quite feeble especially considering people are much more sun aware these days and much more likely to wear sun creams and are more careful not to over expose themselves. There is a lack of rigouros evidence to wholly support a huge increase to just this factor

That is not to say that some of that increase isn't related to that just that the we know from the sources I have quoted that there is a strong link between environmental toxins and skin cancers therefore it is not hard to work out that the real culprit is more likely to be environmental toxins.

So now you've finally given up trying to argue you point and seem to think by repeating your untenable original stance it wil make it more plausible despite the fact that every article you have referenced actually contradicts you?

Again you fail to understand what is happening "Your supposition"? No! it's not MY supposition it is the theiory held by those who study such things as skin cancer - you still don't discern between messenger and message.

Your argument is getting scattered too - Nobody has denied (i'll say it again) that their are other causes of skin cancer but nowhere have you provided anyone one who supports your theory that "chemicals" (still undefined) are responsible for the exponential increase - there is however a huge amount of scientists who based on the evidence available to them, believe that UV is the main source of skin cancer - just read those articles you referenced.

[Tolley]

You really don't have a clue yet pretend you know something.

Now read this which is actually based on something other than thin air hypothesis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2791455/

Skin Cancer

Some evidence supports links between skin cancer and pesticide exposure, although specific pesticides have not been implicated. A study of residential pesticide exposure revealed a significant increase in melanoma among those who used indoor pesticides four or more times a year (OR=2.18) and/or those who used pesticides for ten years or more (OR=2.48); a significant dose response was observed.123 Other studies of pesticide exposures provide mixed evidence: spouses of pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health study had increased melanoma, while melanoma risk among applicators was not elevated.27

Evidence continues to link skin cancer and exposure to metals and to combustion by-products. Cutaneous melanoma was also associated with copper and zinc exposure based on toenail concentrations, although caution is warranted given questions about the validity of toenails as a bio-marker of long term exposure.124 A case-control study of chemical exposures among men identified a consistent increased risk of all skin cancer types (squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma (both nodular and superficial multi-focal), and malignant melanoma) associated with arsenic exposure, although only malignant melanoma was significantly increased.125 In this study, risk of malignant melanoma was also elevated for other established skin carcinogens, such as coal, PAHs, pitch and tar. Exposure to tar, pitch, soot, coal, and PAHs was associated with similarly elevated risk for squamous cell carcinoma. Risk of basal cell carcinoma was non-significantly elevated with coal exposure. A review article of oil refining workers and the risk of malignant melanoma found strong evidence of an association from multiple studies and the lack of such an association among studies funded by industry.126

In Air Force veterans not occupationally exposed to Agent Orange (veterans other than the Ranch Hands), there was a significant dose-response trend associated with increased melanoma risk and serum dioxin levels, although increased risk at each exposure quartile was not significantly elevated. A modest dose-response trend was also observed in relation to basal or squamous cell skin cancer and serum dioxin levels as well as increased risk of melanoma and years served in Southeast Asia.114

An update of a cohort mortality study of workers exposed to PCBs finds persistent evidence regarding excess mortality from melanoma (SMR= 2.43).39 However, the strength of the evidence is somewhat limited since no exposure-response trend was observed.

Melanoma was strongly associated with exposure to mineral oils in a study of aerospace workers. Workers exposed to mineral oils at both medium (OR=2.15) and high levels (OR=3.32) were at increased risk, although risk was only significant for the high exposure category. A test for a dose-response trend was significant.10

Additional studies examining specific occupations and risk of melanoma found elevated risk (OR=1.50) among California firefighters;40 high risk among Swedish women employed as educators, bank tellers, dental nurses, librarians/archivists/curators, horticultural workers and hatmakers/milliners;127 excess risk among a cohort of petroleum workers (SIR=137);72 excess mortality among males associated with computer manufacturing35 and among females as well as males and females in another semiconductor facility;36 and a 15% increase in melanoma risk among a cohort of 43,000 Norwegian nurses.52 Lastly, a meta-analysis of cancer risk associated with employment as a female flight attendant revealed a 2-fold elevation in risk of melanoma (combined RR=2.13).51 Studies included in this meta-analysis did not control for lifestyle factors such as time spent sun-bathing and evidence to date does not suggest a risk of UV radiation exposure within confines of the airplane. A similar meta-analysis found evidence of increased melanoma and other skin cancer among male cabin attendants and civilian pilots

Yet again you seem to have difficulty in understanding the articles you post...there is nowhere in this article that it suggests that any of this is a major factor in the dramatic rise of SKIN cancers.

You appear to be fishing around for headlines you think support your ideas, but in fact they actually contradict you.

why you didn't read this in the previous article is beyond me...

"The epidemiological data confirm that the major environmental risk factor for melanoma is intermittent sunlight exposure."

Give it up.

Incidence of skin cancer rising dramatically and environmental toxins, herbicides, pesticides, heavy metals, radiation, emfs etc increasing dramatically over the last few decades.

.

Your supposition that it is caused by people taking more holidays to sunny countries therefore the increase in skin cancers is quite feeble especially considering people are much more sun aware these days and much more likely to wear sun creams and are more careful not to over expose themselves. There is a lack of rigouros evidence to wholly support a huge increase to just this factor

That is not to say that some of that increase isn't related to that just that the we know from the sources I have quoted that there is a strong link between environmental toxins and skin cancers therefore it is not hard to work out that the real culprit is more likely to be environmental toxins.

So now you've finally given up trying to argue you point and seem to think by repeating your untenable original stance it wil make it more plausible despite the fact that every article you have referenced actually contradicts you?

Again you fail to understand what is happening "Your supposition"?

No! it's not MY supposition it is the theiory held by those who study such things as skin cancer - you still don't discern between messenger and message.

Your argument is getting scattered too - Nobody has denied (i'll say it again) that their are other causes of skin cancer but nowhere have you provided anyone one who supports your theory that "chemicals" (still undefined) are responsible for the exponential increase - there is however a huge amount of scientists who based on the evidence available to them, believe that UV is the main source of skin cancer - just read those articles you referenced.

Just because some scientists believe the exponential increase in skin cancers is all due to increased UV exposure doesn't make it so especially without any hard evidence to back it up. I mean how flimsy is the more people travel these days theory. Give me a break.

The fact is environmental toxins could well be a bigger factor but doing a study of any type to ascertain this would be fraught with numerous difficulties.

[Sheryl]

Epidemiological data overhwelming support the linkage to UV exposure.

[cumgranosalum]

In case anyone thought this was me

"Just because some scientists believe the exponential increase in skin cancers is all due to increased UV exposure doesn't make it so especially without any hard evidence to back it up. I mean how flimsy is the more people travel these days theory. Give me a break.

The fact is environmental toxins could well be a bigger factor but doing a study of any type to ascertain this would be fraught with numerous diffic"

it wasn't it was Tolley?

[cumgranosalum]

In case anyone thought this was me

"Just because some scientists believe the exponential increase in skin cancers is all due to increased UV exposure doesn't make it so especially without any hard evidence to back it up. I mean how flimsy is the more people travel these days theory. Give me a break.

The fact is environmental toxins could well be a bigger factor but doing a study of any type to ascertain this would be fraught with numerous diffic"

it wasn't it was Tolley?

so let me see - who shall i consider more informed science and sceptically or Tolley?

[Tolley]

Let me put it in simple terms so that you can understand.

UV exposure is the trigger but the environmental toxins make people more susceptible to skin cancer.

[cumgranosalum]

Let me put it in simple terms so that you can understand.

UV exposure is the trigger but the environmental toxins make people more susceptible to skin cancer.

i think you've hit the nail on the head - it just isn't simple enough for you.

you also seem to have changed your theory......and that is the main difference here - there are 2 schools of thought - the one I subscribe to which is put forward by by the scientific community (which you have dismissed) after extensive research, and the other theory (theories now) that you yourself have concocted before doing any research - can you not see there is good reason to choose the former?

[Sheryl]

I think we have beaten this argument to death. Topic closed.