Health Issues Some groups don't get skin cancer

[rainforests1]

Hunters and gatherers spend a lot of time outside. Yet doing a Google search I've come up with no reason to believe they get skin cancer. Is skin cancer a problem with hunters and gatherers? If not, is it possible that diet is the big factor in skin cancer(not the sun, like we're told).

Doing another Google search, low intake in Vitamin D is linked to many health problems. Some cancers being one of them. Some possible conclusions drawn from these two:

1.Our hatred of the human body may be causing us problems.
2.The sun is our friend, not the enemy.
3.It may be diet that causes cancer much more than anything else(including skin cancer)
4.Sunscreens may be causing more problems than they're helping.

Thoughts?

 

[Mischief]

I have many thoughts, chief among them being wonder at the amazing leaps of logic some people are capable of.

First, do you have anything at all on which to base your assumption that hunters and gatherers don't get skin cancer, other than that you can't find anything on Google that says they do? Has any study been done on the incidence of skin cancer among hunter gatherers?

You might find studies like the ones summarized by this article instructive: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm You might gather from it some thoughts about the linkage between skin pigmentation and incidence of skin cancer.

This summarizes the role of skin pigmentation in protecting skin from the harmful effects of ultraviolet light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color

As far as the asserted linkage between Vitamin D levels and skin cancers:
http://dermatologistsblog.com/vitam...kin-cancer-risk-independent-of-time-outdoors/

Skin cancer rates are double for people who work outdoors: http://www.safetysolutions.net.au/articles/37690-Outdoor-workers-at-double-risk-of-skin-cancer

As the last cited study points out, 70% of workers with suspicious lesions are forty years old or older. I would suspect that, if a study were done on skin cancer among hunter/gatherers, you might find rates of skin cancer that aren't all that high, simply because hunter/gatherers don't live all that long. The average life expectancy among traditional hunter/gatherers varies from 21 to 37 years, depending on the group studied. http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf

IOW, hunter/gatherers generally don't live long enough to develop skin cancer, just as they don't live long enough to develop prostate cancer or a host of other conditions.

 

[Mischief]

Actually, the surest way to avoid getting cancer, heart disease, or a whole bunch of other medical conditions is to die young, as hunter/gatherers tend to do.

 

[Envy]

I'm doing my part on avoiding skin cancer by avoiding the outside world as much as possible.

 

[Mischief]

I'm doing my part on avoiding skin cancer by avoiding the outside world as much as possible.

But do you hate your body? Because that's what might actually cause skin cancer.

 

[Envy]

But do you hate your body? Because that's what might actually cause skin cancer.

Yes, I'm constantly abusing it with food that it obviously knows is bad for it like broccoli, Brussels sprouts and spinach.

 

[rainforests1]

http://huntergatherer.com/why-hunter-gatherers/
http://www.cavemandoctor.com/2011/11/29/were-cavemen-cancer-free/
These are two of the many that talk about Cancer incidence among hunters and gatherers. Even if we ignore them for now, are we claiming ALL groups get skin cancer?

One of the other problems is that many in the Western world get skin cancer at a young age. My brother had it at around 15. The life expectancy of hunters and gatherers is irrelevent. There are many, many hunters and gatherers who live into their 60's and 70's. You do have a comparison.

 

[rainforests1]

http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/av...-cancer-recent-studies-challenge-that-advice/
This is the other problem:this study states indoor workers get more skin cancer than outdoor workers. It's a fact that studies conflict with one another. Therefore, we don't know what causes skin cancer. We're still told by our doctors to put those chemicals on our body anyways. There's big business with sunscreens, so our society will continue to promote them.

 

[nigel1]

RF1, your arguments would be more credible if you used credible sources, rather than just the few Google hits that satisfy what it is you want to find. A paleo diet site and a reference to some casual observations from an otherwise undocumented doctor from 100 years ago really don't make the case.

Again, I don't think you know what a hunter/gatherer is, sorry to rub it in. Are you next going to suggest that farmers don't spend time outside?

 

[Mischief]

RF1, your arguments would be more credible if you used credible sources, rather than just the few Google hits that satisfy what it is you want to find. A paleo diet site and a reference to some casual observations from an otherwise undocumented doctor from 100 years ago really don't make the case.

Again, I don't think you know what a hunter/gatherer is, sorry to rub it in. Are you next going to suggest that farmers don't spend time outside?

This.

 

[mary1]

I'm doing my part on avoiding skin cancer by avoiding the outside world as much as possible.

lol I'm with you on that!

 

[Calliegirl]

That skin cancer 'study' (which blames windows in buildings for causing cancer) only references one type of skin cancer, and fails to take into account that outdoor workers usually wear sunblock, hats and other types of protection against the sun.

The first link is simply a guy trying to sell his book based on nothing but his opinion, no facts, no studies. And nigel nicely summed up the second link.

 

[nigel1]

That skin cancer 'study' (which blames windows in buildings for causing cancer) only references one type of skin cancer, and fails to take into account that outdoor workers usually wear sunblock, hats and other types of protection against the sun.

The first link is simply a guy trying to sell his book based on nothing but his opinion, no facts, no studies. And Nigel nicely summed up the second link.

nigel has no upper-case 'n' in it. And that's a fact!

 

[Calliegirl]

Fixed.

 

[rainforests1]

If you do a Google search like "sunscreen causes cancer", you'll find there's a lot of people who feel this way. It could be one of the many, many different factors that causes skin cancer.

There are 7 billion people in the world, including many smaller groups(the Hunzas, for instance). Which people get skin cancer? Which ones don't? If it's because of a problem with the ozone, shouldn't we all be effected by this? This is where debating would be a necessity but our society obviously doesn't like to debate.

 

[RabbitLuvr]

If you do a Google search like "sunscreen causes cancer", you'll find there's a lot of people who feel this way. It could be one of the many, many different factors that causes skin cancer.

"Lots of people" feeling the "same way" about something, and posting about it on the internet isn't exactly scientific evidence...

 

[nigel1]

If you do a Google search like "sunscreen causes cancer", you'll find there's a lot of people who feel this way. It could be one of the many, many different factors that causes skin cancer.

There are 7 billion people in the world, including many smaller groups(the Hunzas, for instance). Which people get skin cancer? Which ones don't? If it's because of a problem with the ozone, shouldn't we all be effected by this? This is where debating would be a necessity but our society obviously doesn't like to debate.

If you want to believe that sunscreen causes cancer, that is fine. We can't stop you. Does that now mean that nothing else causes skin cancer? Like the sun? Is susceptibility due to something a little more rational than self-hatred or whether you eat peach pits?

Have you not considered the definitely credible sources that Mischief posted, like the one from the CDC?

 

[rainforests1]

The link from the CDC is a government source. They're the ones most likely to have an agenda, and therefore the last source I'd trust.

Which people get skin cancer? Which ones don't? If it's because of a problem with the ozone, shouldn't we all be effected by this?

Nobody has even tried to answer these questions. I had asked a similar question earlier. If you can't answer the question, you're obviously ignorant on the question of skin cancer. If we could just acknowledge our ignorance that would be appreciated.

 

[Mischief]

The link from the CDC is a government source. They're the ones most likely to have an agenda, and therefore the last source I'd trust.

Nobody has even tried to answer these questions. I had asked a similar question earlier. If you can't answer the question, you're obviously ignorant on the question of skin cancer. If we could just acknowledge our ignorance that would be appreciated.

In post #2 above, I addressed a number of factors which explain why some groups are more prone to getting skin cancer than others.

This is why trying to engage in a discussion with you ends up being a waste of time - you ignore anything that doesn't support your conspiracy theory du jour. It's not that people aren't willing to discuss matters - it's that people don't want to waste their time and efforts repeatedly banging their heads against a brick wall.

 

[nigel1]

The link from the CDC is a government source. They're the ones most likely to have an agenda, and therefore the last source I'd trust.

Nobody has even tried to answer these questions. I had asked a similar question earlier. If you can't answer the question, you're obviously ignorant on the question of skin cancer. If we could just acknowledge our ignorance that would be appreciated.

If you don't think the CDC is credible but are willing to believe the claims of a self-promoting Paleo-diet fad book writer, I don't think anyone can help you. Your questions have all been answered, it just appears that people can't find quite the right combination of conspiracy theory and misinformation to satisfy you in the way you seem to desire. How about a quote from Lyndon Larouche or a Scientologist or Breathatarian website. Would that be good enough for you?