|
Disposable Overall for sale
|
"Sacha" wrote in message k... On 15/11/04 18:27, in article , "Duncan Heenan" wrote: "Sacha" wrote in message k... snip I have the best outfit for gardening when the weather's good - nothing at all. Very comfortable, fits perfectly, easily washed, and no tan lines (our garden is completely secluded). Not suitable for working with holly or nettles, but perfect for everything else. Don't knock it until you've tried it! And you are - presumably - married to Jennie Bond! ;-) -- Sorry, you lost me there. What's the connection to Jennie Bond? (Some people say I look like James Bond though.....) She has said that she, too, gardens in the nuddy in her Devonshire garden. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) I always knew there was something nice about her! |
"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message ... The message from "Duncan Heenan" contains these words: Don't knock it until you've tried it! Yes well. We were totally secluded too. I was surprised a couple of times by neighbours. One day our rural bus broke down and they laid on a double-decker higher than the hedge. Around then, I got skin cancer. Never think that tan is protecting you, it's not. Janet More people die in bed than anywhere else, so statistically laying in bed is the most dangerous thing you can do. I don't think a tan is protecting me, I just like not to have to wrap myself up for the sake of other people. I know the risks and am prepared to take them. Looks like you did too. Sorry to hear about your problem, I hope it's been fixed. My mother-in-law, who hated the sun all her life and rarely went out in it got skin cancer, which she lived with for about 10 years until she died of an unrelated heart attack. Such is life. |
In article , Duncan Heenan
writes More people die in bed than anywhere else, so statistically laying in bed is the most dangerous thing you can do. Rubbish. You may be seeking a clever way to make a point, but please don't denigrate a serious science in doing so. -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
"Kay" wrote in message ... In article , Duncan Heenan writes More people die in bed than anywhere else, so statistically laying in bed is the most dangerous thing you can do. Rubbish. You may be seeking a clever way to make a point, but please don't denigrate a serious science in doing so. -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" What serious science do you refer to? Medicine or Statistics? I was using twisted irony to illustrate the difficulty in some cases of deciding causality when interpreting statistical data, which has been something I've been involved in professionally for much of my adult life. I find that in serious issues it often helps to exercise one's sense of humour; I apologise that in this case it led to a failure in yours. Serious science doesn't have to be solemn science. As for Medicine, I am still waiting for the apology from the medical world for forcing me to drink full fat milk at school, because 'it was good for me', and now condemning me when I do so. I was also taught at school that sunshine was good for me, and now I'm told it's not. I wonder what the next fashion in that 'serious science' will be? |
Duncan Heenan wrote:
"Kay" wrote in message ... In article , Duncan Heenan writes More people die in bed than anywhere else, so statistically laying in bed is the most dangerous thing you can do. Rubbish. You may be seeking a clever way to make a point, but please don't denigrate a serious science in doing so. -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" What serious science do you refer to? Medicine or Statistics? I was using twisted irony to illustrate the difficulty in some cases of deciding causality when interpreting statistical data, which has been something I've been involved in professionally for much of my adult life. I find that in serious issues it often helps to exercise one's sense of humour; I apologise that in this case it led to a failure in yours. Serious science doesn't have to be solemn science. As for Medicine, I am still waiting for the apology from the medical world for forcing me to drink full fat milk at school, because 'it was good for me', and now condemning me when I do so. I was also taught at school that sunshine was good for me, and now I'm told it's not. I wonder what the next fashion in that 'serious science' will be? Sure, sure. As a statistician you understand the problems. The clot who says "My grandad smoked forty a day and lived to 97", however, does not understand the statistical basis of epidemiology, and is usually drawing an inference you would not draw. You know that knowledge advances unevenly, and with set-backs; and there are indeed intellectual fashions; but even the least solemn medical science does discover facts. Mike. |
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message ... Duncan Heenan wrote: Sure, sure. As a statistician you understand the problems. The clot who says "My grandad smoked forty a day and lived to 97", however, does not understand the statistical basis of epidemiology, and is usually drawing an inference you would not draw. You know that knowledge advances unevenly, and with set-backs; and there are indeed intellectual fashions; but even the least solemn medical science does discover facts. Mike. I think you use the term 'statistical bias' loosely. Eliminating bias, particularly sampling bias is at the root of statistics, and therefore many aspects of epidemiology. Medical science stated as a fact that full fat milk and sunshine were good for me as a child. It now states as a fact that they are not. When the orthodoxy (or fashion as I unkindly called it) changes, the next idea will be stated as a fact. It is a brave person working in a profession who is actually prepared to stand up and shout 'The Emperor is wearing no clothes!". Which is more or less where I can in I think. |
"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message ... The message from "Duncan Heenan" contains these words: I know the risks and am prepared to take them. Looks like you did too. Had I ever seen or known then, what malignant melanoma actually does to people, I would never have taken the risks I did. Janet. What risks did you take? |
In article , Kay writes: | In article , Duncan Heenan | writes | | Never think that tan is protecting you, it's not. | | More people die in bed than anywhere else, so statistically laying in bed is | the most dangerous thing you can do. | | Rubbish. | | You may be seeking a clever way to make a point, but please don't | denigrate a serious science in doing so. WHAT serious science is he denigrating? It isn't statistics, and it isn't even medical epidemiology, because I am afraid that you have misquoted both. There is a great deal of evidence that a tan does give SOME protection against melanoma. However, that is the sort of tan you get from regular outdoor work, and not from lobster broiling at the seaside or under a sunbed. There is also quite a lot of evidence that not exposing yourself to the sun at all causes a lot of OTHER problems, including other cancers, probably partly because of vitamin D deficiency. It isn't known if increasing it in the diet would alleviate all of the problems. There is also increasing support for my suspicion, which I first posted many years back, that the use of "sunscreen creams" may actually be a factor in the increase of melanoma. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Duncan Heenan wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message [...] the statistical basis of epidemiology, [...] I think you use the term 'statistical bias' loosely. [...] Over in AUE we call that "Skitt's Law". Mike. |
Sure, sure. As a statistician you understand the problems. The clot who says "My grandad smoked forty a day and lived to 97", however, does not understand the statistical basis of epidemiology, and is usually drawing an inference you would not draw. You know that knowledge advances unevenly, and with set-backs; and there are indeed intellectual fashions; but even the least solemn medical science does discover facts. My father smoked 40 a day and died when he was 52 (He would have been 100 on Friday as it happens.) My wife's Grandfather who also smoked 40 a day (and I used to bring my allocation from the Royal Navy for him) lived into his 90's. I don't smoke and am knocking on towards 70 :-)))) Make out of that what you will :-)))) My Doctor gave me 6 months to live over 10 years ago. Overweight and High Blood pressure. Weight down. Blood pressure down, and much to the annoyance of many subscribers to this newsgroup, ........ I AM STILL HERE :-))))))))))))))) Mike (with more friends than enemies :-)) |
In article , Duncan Heenan
writes What serious science do you refer to? Medicine or Statistics? I was using twisted irony to illustrate the difficulty in some cases of deciding causality when interpreting statistical data, which has been something I've been involved in professionally for much of my adult life. I find that in serious issues it often helps to exercise one's sense of humour; I apologise that in this case it led to a failure in yours. OK, fair enough. I just see so many cases of people both assuming causality and ignoring relative population sizes in comparing absolute numbers that I get a bit sensitive -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
In article ,
Janet Baraclough.. wrote: Science has not stated that sunshine is bad for you. Northern Europeans require it to utilise vitamin D and avoid rickets, and also to stimulate melatonin production and avoid SADS. The warning is specifically against over-exposure leading to sunburn. Yes, precisely. There is a great deal of evidence that a tan does give SOME protection against melanoma. Could you provide a web reference for that evidence? I am afraid not. The ones that I saw were in the medical literature, and not phrased in that way (though it was pretty obvious to anyone with a clue about statistics). The evidence is twofold: The common skin cancers tend to be on the parts of the body most exposed to the sun - especially the bridge of the nose. Melanoma is relatively more common on the trunk and others areas that are intermittently exposed. If I recall, it is particularly common on the back of the thighs (a protected location for workers, and very exposed when lying face down). Outdoor workers (including those who work bare-chested in the UK, and in the tropics) have the rate of the common ones you would expect from a direct exposure link, but a very much lower rate of melanoma. If I recall, comparable to the general public, though perhaps a bit higher (see below for the consequences). However, that is the sort of tan you get from regular outdoor work, AIUI Outdoor occupations (such as farming) have a higher incidence of all skin cancers, than indoor occupations. As I say above, that is definitely so for the common skin cancers, but I believe that it is either much less so or not so for melanoma. I can't remember whether the figures I saw were balanced for sun exposure, which is a significant point. To check if tanning has a protective effect, you need to compare outdoor workers with indoor workers who expose themselves comparably at less frequent intervals. Including the significant proportion of the population that avoids the sun entirely obviously brings the rate down. The only farmer that I know who died from melanoma was a soldier in North Africa during the war (and was blue-eyed and fair-haired). That episode is known to account for a considerable excess in the statistics, and was definitely in the "lobster roasting" class. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter