"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Janet Baraclough.. writes:
|
| The ozone layer (or lack of it) plays a significant role in
screening
| UV. In Scotland the ozone layer is seriously depleted, May
usually has
| clear skies, and even when the temp is only 60 to 70 F, skin can
burn
| within minutes. It's not uncommon in that month for people here
to burn
| seriously enough to require hospital admission. Scotland has the
highest
| incidence of skincancer in the UK.

Yes, but you also have to remember that ultraviolet is also absorbed
by water vapour and water droplets, which I believe is the main
cause
of the low levels in the UK (especially outside May, June and July).

It is possible that Scotland (specifically) could have very high
levels on freak days in May, if both the ozone layer were depleted
and the atmosphere was very dry, but I have difficulty in believing
that anyone with normal skin will burn 'within minutes', due to the
sunlight alone, if by that you mean a small number of them.

The requirement for hospital admission proves little, because people
will have 9 months of essentially zero exposure, and then the low
temperatures encourage them to overexpose. It is common all over
the UK. And similar effects could lead to the cancer statistics.

| A couple of years back we were in Darwin Australia in May, also
clear
| skies, 90 degrees, sun much more direct, no burn sensation at
all. I met
| an Australian doctor there who had just arrived back from
Scotland, and
| remarked on the same thing. Her caucasian skin which never
blistered at
| home in Darwin,was burned in Scotland.

I don't know Darwin, but I suspect that you are assigning the effect
to the wrong cause. I have burnt and blistered on wholly overcast
days in autumn - the combination of salt, wind and minimal sunlight
can cause exactly the same symptoms, though I don't know why. In
particular, anyone used solely to the UK (i.e. tanned by exposure
to UK sunlight) WILL burn when exposed to the sun pretty well
anywhere in the dryish tropics.

The point about the above claims is that they would place Scotland
in
May as comparable to (say) Nairobi in terms of ultraviolet levels.
Yes, I am aware that they are also made by the politico-medical
stablishment, but their record for the abuse of statistics and just
plain deceit is unparalleled. That was why I tried hunting up some
figures. No joy. The few figures I have found have confirmed my
suspicions, but have been inconclusive.

The sunlight in the UK is not without its dangers, but I am not
convinced that they are due to its strength - in fact, I suspect
the converse!

| In the 80's when I was being treated for multiple malignant
melanoma,
| I asked about UV transmission through glass. The reply was that
single
| glazing,(car windows for example) and standard double glazing at
that
| time, offered virtually no protection at all.

Yes. I was referring to the known effect by which glass 'magnifies'
the strength of sunlight, as it affects plants. I believe that it
a reradiation effect.

What does that mean?
The intensity of the UV per unit wavelength increment is almost
negligible compared to that in the yellow-green region of the spectrum
of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth. If I understand
correctly what you mean by reradiation, namely absorption of UV and
reradiating at a longer wavelength, then the absorbed UV will be so
littlle that it will not resulet in a measurable increase in the
intensity of the botanically active frequencies.

Franz