In article ,
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow writes:
|
| I had the same - it's overstated. Yes, whites have lost much of the
| protection, but the darker skinned of us aren't half as sensitive to
| sun as is made out. By far the worst risk is sunbathing, especially
| if you get badly sunburnt - and it is unclear whether sunscreen
| makes
| things worse or better.
|
| Hmmmmmmmm. I don't think I agree with you. The sun related skin
| cancers I have to have removed all the time are on the backs of my
| hands and my forearms. My husband's and most other men's that we know
| seem to be on their faces (high cheeks, tops of ears and bridge of
| nose).

There is some confusion. You are talking about the common skin cancers,
basal and squamous cell carcinomas, which rarely metastasise. Yes, they
are strongly correlated with lifetime total exposure. But, even in sunny
countries, the risk is VERY high only for fair-skinned whites (typically
ones with fair eyes or hair) and the claims that even a small amount of
exposure for others is certain to cause cancer are quite simply nonsense.
But overdoing it is pretty likely to, for anyone with less than a dark
brown skin.

The worst risk is melanoma, which is what I was referring to, and which
has the properties I mentioned. The evidence is that tanning DOES have
SOME protective effect, which is not surprising considering how it has
evolved, and it is unclear whether sunscreen reduces or increases the
danger. But it is VERY foolish to rely on tanning alone in sunny
countries, unless you have black or dark brown skin.

In the UK, of course, the sun is rarely strong enough even to tan me,
and it is rarely warm enough to WANT to strip off :-( But I am very
sallow for someone of mainly celtic ancestry - perhaps a throwback to
the Armada :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.