ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Not the way I see it. ;) Correct. You also seemed confused why a natural site making medical claims should be held to any standards, so there is that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 This topic gives me a headache. Oh wait, is that a medical claim? I probably should not say it until the FDA and scientific journals agree with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 I have always found it odd that people hold the FDA and their approval in such high esteem. Every single commercial I have ever seen that starts out with, "If you or a loved one has ever suffered from death, heart attack, stroke, or some other horrible side effect because they took *insert name of drug approved by FDA here* call this number now!" Same with every news story and article that I have read about some new drug that was used for a few years before it started killing people and was recalled due to safety- ALL of them initially approved by the FDA. A doctor at the VA clinic tried to get me take Avandia years ago because I was right on the line of being diabetic (I'm diabetic now) and the lady who sat behind me in church talked it up, telling me I should take it, "The doctor wouldn't prescribe it if it wasn't safe!" Ha! I chickened out and never did take it- then the news stories and commercials started- Avandia has been recalled- tens of thousands of people died from blood clots caused by Avandia :-/ Yep. Lady who say behind me in church ended up in the hospital with blood clots- luckily she lived through it. My current (awesome) doctor only prescribes Metformin for diabetes because it has been around forever and has been tested and proven to be safe (except for the rare risk of acidic ketosis {?} something like that, in older people.) And yet you tell someone you are taking herbal supplements and they're like, "You better be careful with those- they aren't regulated by the FDA!" The day there are dozens of commercials offering free legal counsel for those who have suffered death, heart attack and stroke from St. John's Wort, Ginger Root or Calcium D-Glucarate- then I'll give a crap about the FDA and their "approval". Herbs not being regulated is problematic because companies are not required to adhere to the dosage information listed on the container. One doesn't know how much they are getting. There isn't a regulatory board for "herbalists" so any nutjob can make recommendations and cause someone serious harm. Things are not safe just because they are herbs, plants are serious medicine, and can cause death or serious damage. People have been harmed irreparably from taking supplements and they have been linked to kidney and liver failure. People have had to have liver transplants from taking black cohosh while taking the correct dosage as listed on the package. St John's Wart has caused serious allergic reactions and can lead to sun sensitivity, it also can have serious interactions with some medication. Ginger can lead to blood thinning which can be very serous for some people. It is naive at best to make declarations that herbs are not harmful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Correct. You also seemed confused why a natural site making medical claims should be held to any standards, so there is that. Personally, I hold any site on the internet where a person is relating their thoughts and experiences to the same standard I hold this site when folks do the same - interesting to learn about and consider, but not the "end" of the story as "the" answer - only one person's experience as related on the net. No "standards" are expected. As mentioned before, there are tons of variability in real life situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 ??? I posted a natural site, not a medical one. Why would you expect medical advice? Natural things rarely need medical/official approval from what I know. That fact has no bearing on whether they might work - or not. You posted a site for a person selling a certain brand of oils. That particular brand is known for making dubious claims in order to make a buck. I am interested in natural remedies but I expect people to be responsible about it. That person is interested in selling oils and offering medical advise without any sort of real information to back their claims. That doesn't help their credibility in regard to the information they provide. That person states on their website, #3-Holistic-if it falls under "modern" medicine I have something to replace it-just ask your health will thank you. Oh really? And what is this person's education in regard to holistic medicine? She attended some sort of essential oil seminar from Young Living? I am sure that is a great place to trust one's health. It is an *insane* claim that they can replace *any* allopathic medicine with a natural one. My problem isn't that people are making natural recommendations, it is that they are doing so without any real studies, scientific facts, or education to back those claims. I don't believe natural medicine is ineffective, I believe it is effective and can be extremely dangerous in irresponsible hands and I do mean the hands of people selling these oils without any education regarding their use as well as the countless websites offering similar advice regarding herbal remedies. If someone wants to see an actual holistic practitioner with an actual education on the topic then that something else entirely. Natural advice does not mean it needs to be lacking in any sort of facts or science. It is not magic. It is dangerous. And as for Young Living and other places telling people to chug essential oils y'all can count me in the unsurprised category when people sue them for destroying their livers Does anyone really think someone putting patches on their back is any sort of study? They can post that when they do a couple hundred. Drug companies are required to do trials, people are going off some lady who stuck things on her back? She didn't even list the conditions in which she was working! Yes, someone wanting to make claims regarding essential oils DOES still need to adhere to the scientific method before anyone ought to take any notice of their claims. Anecdotal does not equal anecdata. If people want natural remedies to be taken seriously, at all, then they should expect people making claims to adhere to certain principals or it will not be taken seriously. I would think people would want natural remedies to be taken seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 I had no idea sunscreen could be the source of controversy that could go on for days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Everything has chemicals. Water is technically a chemical. Nothing is "chemical free." That is a strange claim. That statement (I don't use chemicals) always makes me chuckle. Um, you are chemicals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 I had no idea sunscreen could be the source of controversy that could go on for days. Me either! I shudder to think about where science would be right now if no one were allowed to experiment on their own and share their results - no matter how unofficial. However, I'll agree with those suggesting looking into anything deeper than a message board if truly interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Me either! I shudder to think about where science would be right now if no one were allowed to experiment on their own and share their results - no matter how unofficial. However, I'll agree with those suggesting looking into anything deeper than a message board if truly interested. And those people who made a difference stuck to the scientific method, we should expect that for ALL people making scientific claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Herbs not being regulated is problematic because companies are not required to adhere to the dosage information listed on the container. One doesn't know how much they are getting. There isn't a regulatory board for "herbalists" so any nutjob can make recommendations and cause someone serious harm. :iagree: People talk about Big Pharma but ignore Big Supplement. The supplement industry spent a lot of money and intimidated a lot of people in order to stay unregulated. They continue to do so anytime a lawmaker even thinks about regulating supplements and "natural" products. Google it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 The day there are dozens of commercials offering free legal counsel for those who have suffered death, heart attack and stroke from St. John's Wort, Ginger Root or Calcium D-Glucarate- then I'll give a crap about the FDA and their "approval". The purpose of those commercials is to find potential big-buck lawsuit clients to make lawyers rich. The law firms know the big money is in the companies that produce patented drugs, not in the very fragmented supplements market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 And those people who made a difference stuck to the scientific method, we should expect that for ALL people making scientific claims. And you know this how? In the history of many things we teach about it's usually someone who has an idea, that idea is often spurned by "the establishment," they do experimenting on their own (keeping their own data), and after a bit - sometimes quite a bit - of time they slowly convince others of their claim. THEN it can hit more official science channels. I'm sure there are also many ideas that never make the cut, due to not hitting the right channels and/or due to the idea not exactly panning out. Then there are those that make the cut (like margarine or plastics) that later get pulled back or modified. Really, it's not all that different than the stage many "natural healings" are at now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeacherZee Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 I had no idea sunscreen could be the source of controversy that could go on for days. Cupcakes were the subject of a major controversy here. I think we can turn anything into a controversy :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheres Toto Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 My husband and I have a few things we say to ourselves when we start to hear the "it's all natural!" line, especially in reference to healthcare. Things like, "well, hemlock is natural, too. How about that arsenic? Maybe we'll just whip up an oleander salad with dinner." Which is just to say that natural does not automatically equal healthy. And every time I hear about the dangers of chemicals I want to post about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 And you know this how? In the history of many things we teach about it's usually someone who has an idea, that idea is often spurned by "the establishment," they do experimenting on their own (keeping their own data), and after a bit - sometimes quite a bit - of time they slowly convince others of their claim. THEN it can hit more official science channels. I'm sure there are also many ideas that never make the cut, due to not hitting the right channels and/or due to the idea not exactly panning out. Then there are those that make the cut (like margarine or plastics) that later get pulled back or modified. Really, it's not all that different than the stage many "natural healings" are at now. Do you mean how do I know Einstein, Kepler, Faraday, Dewey, Herschel, Issac Newton, and most of the most famous scientists in history used the scientific method? In order to be listened to by the establishment they have to prove it. Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin wrote what is still one of the most famous thesis in history and it was against the established line of thought. She proved it, which was why it was accepted. http://oasis.lib.harvard.edu/oasis/deliver/~hua03004 But I don't think many of these people who are endorsing "natural healing" are using the same methods of research and study. Someone sticking essential oils on their back and calling it an experiment is just an example of part of the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheres Toto Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 :iagree: People talk about Big Pharma but ignore Big Supplement. The supplement industry spent a lot of money and intimidated a lot of people in order to stay unregulated. They continue to do so anytime a lawmaker even thinks about regulating supplements and "natural" products. Google it. :iagree: This is part of what never makes sense to me. People act like the supplement companies, the "natural" product companies, etc. are in it out of the goodness of their hearts and aren't trying to make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 :iagree: This is part of what never makes sense to me. People act like the supplement companies, the "natural" product companies, etc. are in it out of the goodness of their hearts and aren't trying to make money. Many of them are the same companies. "Big Pharma" owns several supplement companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammi K Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 I'd rather smear the chemical on my skin when I have to be out in the sun, rather than get the cancer treatment chemicals pumped into my body later. :iagree: We had a pretty bad scare about 10 years ago when my daughter (Caucasian - but with dark Mediterranean skin color who NEVER burned hence, never saw the need for sun screen) had a mole removed from her ankle that showed moderate and severe atypical cells. Seeing a half dollar size scar from an excised mole on your 12 year old was enough to make me re-think the whole sun screen issue! We also try to avoid the peak exposure hours. The kids also wear rash vests when swimming. heck, my son is so convinced he even wear his rash vest when he swims indoors! (Granted, he's kind of a weirdo....... :coolgleamA: ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheres Toto Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Many of them are the same companies. "Big Pharma" owns several supplement companies. And that is also a very good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammi K Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 And every time I hear about the dangers of chemicals I want to post about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. I've heard that it has been found in high percentages in many solid tumors! :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danestress Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 I had no idea sunscreen could be the source of controversy that could go on for days. As a newcomer reader (to this thread), I think it is because the posters are not arguing about sunscreen. They are arguing about what kind of information, and how much of it, is necessary in order to have a ' valid' opinion about the risks of an activity (being in the sun) and the products marketed for protection (in this case, physical or chemical screens). And while individual experience is of some importance for short term effects (a person who reacts to gluten or a particular ingredient in sunscreen), it is trickier with something like skin cancer from sun exposure or the health risks of products designed to prevent it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trulycrabby Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 The Stupendous Sunscreen Scandal of 2014 :o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 And every time I hear about the dangers of chemicals I want to post about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. I hear dihydrogen monoxide is responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of people every year, many of them children. Seems it is very dangerous when inhaled in liquid form, should be banned for sure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 I hear dihydrogen monoxide is responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of people every year, many of them children. Seems it is very dangerous when inhaled in liquid form, should be banned for sure! I totally agree. I am an educator of safety around dehydrogen monoxide. Very dangerous stuff and people don't take it seriously enough. And yet I love to surround myself in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 :iagree: Thanks for the info. I'd ask for a link if I were still curious, but to be honest, I'm not. I just had to stay up from 1:30am until 7am two nights ago watching ponies, so was looking for "interesting" threads to keep my mind active. I hadn't heard a thing about coconut or carrot oil as sunscreen before and still have no specific recommendation about using them or similar - other than I KNOW if I were using sunscreen more than the once or twice per year that we use it, I'd be definitely considering natural options. Um, link? I just clicked on the picture YOU linked. The info was all there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 I hear dihydrogen monoxide is responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of people every year, many of them children. Seems it is very dangerous when inhaled in liquid form, should be banned for sure! However, when falling from the sky from gray puffy things it can make a nice, effective, natural sunscreen. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Um, link? I just clicked on the picture YOU linked. The info was all there. Perhaps so. When I end up staying up practically all night I'll admit I might not notice all that much on links I'm looking at half-heartedly. ;) I looked at the pic, but didn't click on it. I wasn't even aware they did sales - I mainly saw the recipes and figured if anyone were intrigued and wanted to try it, they could do so themselves. As I stated before, we rarely use sunscreen ourselves, so I don't particularly care what's in it and just pick a high number and waterproof when we actually want it. If we ever decided we needed to use it regularly, then I'd care far more what's in it and would do some research. If anyone had a decent natural chemical formula that worked well for them, I'd likely try it over man-made chemical deals. To each our own on it IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happypamama Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 We all burn super easily, and this year, we have had good success with Badger, slathered on heavily. We do limit exposure during peak hours, and we use hats and rash guards, but Badger has worked well for us this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 If we ever decided we needed to use it regularly, then I'd care far more what's in it and would do some research. If anyone had a decent natural chemical formula that worked well for them, I'd likely try it over man-made chemical deals. To each our own on it IMO. But, again, that depends upon what you mean by all of that. Someone said they don't want "chemicals" like zinc oxide, but zinc as a physical barrier is one of the safest, natural, studied, effective sunblocks out there. The brightly colored versions are popular among the teens (and surfers) here: http://www.amazon.com/Zalan-5056-Zinc-Stick/dp/B00IFMA3PW/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1406755969&sr=8-6&keywords=zinc+oxide+stick http://www.amazon.com/Caribbean-Breeze-Wacky-Wipe-Zinc-Oxide/dp/B005N56NPI/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1406756038&sr=8-5&keywords=zinc+oxide+color Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 But, again, that depends upon what you mean by all of that. Someone said they don't want "chemicals" like zinc oxide, but zinc as a physical barrier is one of the safest, natural, studied, effective sunblocks out there. The brightly colored versions are popular among the teens (and surfers) here: http://www.amazon.com/Zalan-5056-Zinc-Stick/dp/B00IFMA3PW/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1406755969&sr=8-6&keywords=zinc+oxide+stick http://www.amazon.com/Caribbean-Breeze-Wacky-Wipe-Zinc-Oxide/dp/B005N56NPI/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1406756038&sr=8-5&keywords=zinc+oxide+color Zinc oxide is a naturally occurring mineral...(essentially rust with zinc instead of iron - almost anything will combine with oxygen). It's man-made version is more pure. It's still the same thing that we could get from nature itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Peregrine Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 But, again, that depends upon what you mean by all of that. Someone said they don't want "chemicals" like zinc oxide, but zinc as a physical barrier is one of the safest, natural, studied, effective sunblocks out there. The brightly colored versions are popular among the teens (and surfers) here: http://www.amazon.com/Zalan-5056-Zinc-Stick/dp/B00IFMA3PW/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1406755969&sr=8-6&keywords=zinc+oxide+stick http://www.amazon.com/Caribbean-Breeze-Wacky-Wipe-Zinc-Oxide/dp/B005N56NPI/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1406756038&sr=8-5&keywords=zinc+oxide+color That's what we try to use. Sunscreens with only zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide. I thought it was the other chemicals everyone else was worried about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Zinc oxide is a naturally occurring mineral...(essentially rust with zinc instead of iron - almost anything will combine with oxygen). It's man-made version is more pure. It's still the same thing that we could get from nature itself. I agree. But, you wouldn't know that from some of the posts. One of the posters told calandalsmom that she was "biased against" natural sunscreens when calandalsmom said zinc oxide sunscreens were the best. That's exactly why some of the posts (which you appeared to be defending?) make zero sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 I agree. But, you wouldn't know that from some of the posts. One of the posters told calandalsmom that she was "biased against" natural sunscreens when calandalsmom said zinc oxide sunscreens were the best. That's exactly why some of the posts (which you appeared to be defending?) make zero sense. What I'm defending are poster's rights to decide things for themselves knowing that "science" is not a 100% always-going-to-be-true deal - or even true for every person due to the variability of us humans. Some may choose to use sunscreen liberally (either type). Some (like us) may choose not to. We all have our reasons for what we choose even though our choices and beliefs may differ. And differing beliefs really aren't grounds for all the implied condensation that was going on IMO. That really is like Uncle Billy Bob condemning homeschooling since that isn't his preference and he can't/won't understand that others might believe differently - perhaps even based upon personal experiences. Sunscreen itself? Other than choosing to not use it often as we don't have that need/desire/whatever, I don't know all that much about the different types (and have tried to make that clear in my posts). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 No, condemning science isn't at all the same as condemning homeschooling. I don't agree that all types of choices are absolutely equal. Pooh-poohing science to pretend that every opinion is equal? That rubbing some essential oil on myself is the same as a double blind scientific study? I disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Cupcakes were the subject of a major controversy here. I think we can turn anything into a controversy :D Cupcakes are more fun than sunscreen, in my completely unresearched, unsubstantiated, and unscientific opinion. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Peregrine Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Cupcakes are more fun than sunscreen, in my completely unresearched, unsubstantiated, and unscientific opinion. ;) No study required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Can cupcakes be used as sunscreen? Can you make your sunscreen in a crockpot? Do your return your shopping cart after you've purchased screen? Are there pictures of men in kilts applying sunscreen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Can cupcakes be used as sunscreen? Can you make your sunscreen in a crockpot? Do your return your shopping cart after you've purchased screen? Are there pictures of men in kilts applying sunscreen? pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease Or really any combination of those things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 What I'm defending are poster's rights to decide things for themselves knowing that "science" is not a 100% always-going-to-be-true deal - or even true for every person due to the variability of us humans. Some may choose to use sunscreen liberally (either type). Some (like us) may choose not to. We all have our reasons for what we choose even though our choices and beliefs may differ. And differing beliefs really aren't grounds for all the implied condensation that was going on IMO. That really is like Uncle Billy Bob condemning homeschooling since that isn't his preference and he can't/won't understand that others might believe differently - perhaps even based upon personal experiences. Sunscreen itself? Other than choosing to not use it often as we don't have that need/desire/whatever, I don't know all that much about the different types (and have tried to make that clear in my posts). I don't think people have an option to choose whether or not they should believe in science. I am not ok with people believing Jesus rode around on a dinosaur either. I am going to assume you just worded that oddly and don't mean one is allowed not to believe in science. People can believe what they want but I am going to disagree with the T-Rex eating watermelons just as I am going to disagree with the flawed science being presented by some of the people who present themselves as experts. (referring to random people on websites such as YL chick, not anyone here) The first thing I teach my kids about science is the scientific method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I suppose it's now against the rules for someone to post a photo of cupcake-themed / cupcake-scented sunscreen. (Or sunscreen-themed cupcakes.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 He isn't applying sunscreen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 He isn't applying sunscreen! That is why is he looking at you. He needs help! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 That is why is he looking at you. He needs help! LOL!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HS Mom in NC Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 What the research has shown is that gradual normal sun exposure does not cause skin cancer and can actually help prevent it since gradually building a tan reduces sun burn risk. It's getting little to no exposure then burning that causes it. So in many countries they are now trying to do a better job at educating people that they should be getting out without sunscreen for short times each day since its actually healthy and does not cause skin cancer when done in that way. So many people started over doing the sunscreen that cases of rickets actually went up a ton. So, the recommendation is short periods each day with no sunscreen and sunscreen only when out long enough to burn. My husband and I have been doing this lately. I believe the studies were from Australia and they saw a decrease in skin cancer for people who follow the recommendations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammi K Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 My husband and I have been doing this lately. I believe the studies were from Australia and they saw a decrease in skin cancer for people who follow the recommendations. Anecdotal, to be sure, but the daughter I mentioned previously, with the moderate and sever atypical cells in her mole spent most of her childhood IN Australia. She always tanned dark as can be and never once burned. I always poo-pooed the Australian sentiment about 'no hat, no play' and abundant sunscreen. My kid was naturally tan. She didn't need no stinkin' sunscreen! And, further more, no one was going to tell me what to put on my kid's skin. That was then. Now, she's not a real fan of the huge purple scar on her ankle and she is even less pleased with the yearly full body skin checks. You can use your imagination here, but when I say 'full body' I'm not kidding. And, I was not at all a fan of being told that "We're not saying it's malignant, but it is essential we don't delay in removing it. Does tomorrow work for you?" The whole experience sure changed my way of thinking. I think I will need to see several serious studies on the 'gradual tanning' philosophy before we shift gears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 No, condemning science isn't at all the same as condemning homeschooling. I don't agree that all types of choices are absolutely equal. Pooh-poohing science to pretend that every opinion is equal? That rubbing some essential oil on myself is the same as a double blind scientific study? I disagree. I don't think people have an option to choose whether or not they should believe in science. I am not ok with people believing Jesus rode around on a dinosaur either. I am going to assume you just worded that oddly and don't mean one is allowed not to believe in science. People can believe what they want but I am going to disagree with the T-Rex eating watermelons just as I am going to disagree with the flawed science being presented by some of the people who present themselves as experts. (referring to random people on websites such as YL chick, not anyone here) The first thing I teach my kids about science is the scientific method. :banghead: No one is saying that anyone needs to change how THEY feel. We're all entitled to our beliefs (SAME WITH HOMESCHOOLING STUDIES pro or con). It's just far nicer on message boards when posters can accept that others FEEL DIFFERENTLY, can still be intelligent, and THAT'S OK! The scientific method is the FIRST thing we teach too! :banghead: And when we actually do labs and study studies, we've NEVER found one that gives us the exact same result 100% of the time, so we also talk about variability. When we study science HISTORY we talk about what used to be commonly accepted truths that now aren't or are now modified - like smoking (once doctors advised patients to do this!), certain chemicals in plastic, or trans fats/margarines, etc, and we teach our students to think for themselves knowing themselves AND the results of studies. Others can do as they wish. If everyone always followed accepted advice and no one ever tried new things, doctors still wouldn't be washing hands before delivering babies. My husband and I have been doing this lately. I believe the studies were from Australia and they saw a decrease in skin cancer for people who follow the recommendations. There are some intriguing studies on this. So far, it's worked with my family and ancestors. It does not mean it will work for all. No study is 100%. Some even have issues when undergoing routine stuff like surgeries and vaccs (I'm pro vacc BTW, but allowing for others to do things differently should they have reasons to do so). It helps to know what is likely to be in an individual's genetics, but even then, there can be surprises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Anecdotal, to be sure, but the daughter I mentioned previously, with the moderate and sever atypical cells in her mole spent most of her childhood IN Australia. She always tanned dark as can be and never once burned. I always poo-pooed the Australian sentiment about 'no hat, no play' and abundant sunscreen. My kid was naturally tan. She didn't need no stinkin' sunscreen! And, further more, no one was going to tell me what to put on my kid's skin. That was then. Now, she's not a real fan of the huge purple scar on her ankle and she is even less pleased with the yearly full body skin checks. You can use your imagination here, but when I say 'full body' I'm not kidding. And, I was not at all a fan of being told that "We're not saying it's malignant, but it is essential we don't delay in removing it. Does tomorrow work for you?" The whole experience sure changed my way of thinking. I think I will need to see several serious studies on the 'gradual tanning' philosophy before we shift gears. If the sun were causing the issue, why would it be on the ankle? There are other causes of cancer besides the sun. Sunscreen isn't the answer to all skin cancers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 He isn't applying sunscreen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 If the sun were causing the issue, why would it be on the ankle? There are other causes of cancer besides the sun. Sunscreen isn't the answer to all skin cancers. actually, the tops of feet and ankles is one of those places my derm warned me about. Wearing sandals, shorts, capri pants, etc means that our feet and ankles get a lot of UV exposure and most people don't put sunblock there. And remember, light reflects and bounces, so the feet and ankles get exposed not just directly but by light bouncing off sidewalks etc. You might not tan or burn there, but it is the constant drip, drip, drip of UV over time that causes problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.