RoyStewart wrote:PapaWoolacombe wrote:ffs everything is carcogenic or bad for you if you have too much of it.. get a grip...
Actually Mr Woolacombe, not everything is carcinogenic.
Some substances are very toxic, while others are beneficial to the body.
You and I both know this, so why tell me to 'get a grip' when I am discussing the matter calmly and politely?
Clearly there are different 'camps' of thought when it comes to health. Is this not a good thing?
Please allow me to point out that I have offered a very nice recipe for a waterproof zinc sunblock.
:D :D :D :D
PapaWoolacombe wrote:ffs everything is carcogenic or bad for you if you have too much of it.. get a grip...
RoyStewart wrote:RoyStewart wrote:There is evidence that cinnamates cause cancer in rats.
And none whatsoever that it causes cancer in humans. Im not saying it doesnt, but the sun definitely does.
You should really qualify this statement by saying that there is no evidence that you are presently aware of regarding the relationship between cinnamates and cancer. Yes, and as you say, the sun can cause cancer.
Phil wrote:im sat here laughing so hard at this how stupid can some one be to argue that sun block causes cancer
[/quote]PapaWoolacombe wrote:ffs everything is carcogenic or bad for you if you have too much of it.. get a grip...
namino tsume wrote:now now, be nice....
But Roy, if what your saying is true, that compounds/chemicals in commercial sunblock actually do the opposite as what they're intended on doing then surly this matter would have been tested and retested in labs.
Also, i would trust a commercial sunblock designed and tested to protect you from UV rays much more then i would trust my own compound which may or may not work.
now, if you feel so strongly that these chemicals can cause cancer, why not attempt to test it out, or try to find a friend in a position to test it out. Who knows you could be right, or you could be wrong.
But thats exactly right, there is no evidence! and as every science "friendly" person knows or understands, with out evidence you have no case.
Your 'hypothesis' if you want to call it that, is based around studies of rats? correct me if im wrong but reading through these post that seems to be the only hard evidence you produced. But what about the years thousands people have been using sunblock. Surely you would have a ton more people with skin cancer, then a decrease in the number.
Now i know several people who religiously use sunblock becuase they constantly burn. I know of about a 63 year old man who has to use it everytime he goes out in the sun during the summer, and yet he has no traces of skin cancer. For all the users of sunblock if one just happens to have a reaction to it possibly causing skin cancer, i think it is well worth it to use sunblock.
This argument is a very poor one. It attempts to suggest that all things are equal in toxicity, and it is just a matter of the size of the dose. Clearly this does not really tell us anything useful at all.
People who use this argument are really saying something like " I don't care if substance X is toxic or not, I am going to use it anyway " This is fair enough. I am not trying to make you stop using Bullfrog or whatever . . that's up to you . .I don't care what you do . .but I am interested in the truth.
|Casting surfers in SoCal for major network TV show
|Heard of Surfers Alliance?
RELATED: Longboarders Only
|Car share with surfers from Brisbane to Surf Paradise?
RELATED: Surf Chat
|Looking to Sponsor Surfers
RELATED: Surf Chat
Author: Git Sum
|What do surfers want in a mobile app?