The sheer arrogance of nanny statists is astounding. Consider that they not only deem themselves knowledgable enough and capable of telling the whole world what to do and have it work out for the best, they are also willing to use force to enact their plans as a parent might with a small child. After all of that, then they have the gall to call individualists selfish.
If there's one thing I could give these people, it would be a little humility--but then again if I could give them humility then they wouldn't be nanny statists in the first place.
They have sunlight in Scotland?
Obviously they have enough. Actually I looked at two studies of interest regarding skin cancer. Men who work outside in the sun are actually less likely to come down with skin cancer than men who work inside and periodically tan. There is reason to believe that constant exposure to the sun may lessen one's likelihood of contracting skin cancer. It is the periodic tanner (which is most people) who seems to have the problem. But I wouldn't want to say that is proven -- just that two studies I looked at seemed to confirm that. And one of them was a metastudy of other studies.
Sometimes its hard to keep a rein on my Aspergers symptoms...sometimes my jokes fall flat.
"Men who work outside in the sun are actually less likely to come down with skin cancer than men who work inside and periodically tan. There is reason to believe that constant exposure to the sun may lessen one's likelihood of contracting skin cancer."
This jives with information I have read about the effects of pesticides on the incidence of cancer - farmers, who are most often exposed to herbicides/pesticides, have the lowest cancer rate of any demographic.
This would seem to suggest either a tolerance effect or a genetic predisposition/resistance to cancer.
My money is on genetics. More and more is known about the complex interactions between genes and environment every day. The hard part is filtering out which studies are politically motivated - lefties want everything to be environmental, and the weirdo racist fringe say everything is genetic.
Anyways, the point is that government (or any other type) of intervention is rarely likely to have any effect other than "shitty".
I've found a good site that debunks a lot of nanny-state nonsense, and the info in the sidebar alone is worth a look.
Certainly there is some genetic predisposition. Light skinned individuals are more likely to be detrimentally effected by UV rays. But the issue of individuals working outside indicates a strong non-genetic component. This latter concept is called hormesis -- which is the ability of the body to use exposure to items to build immunity or strengthen the system.
"This latter concept is called hormesis -- which is the ability of the body to use exposure to items to build immunity or strengthen the system."
I wasn't clear. I meant that an individual's genes will affect hormesis, in ways such as which items will be better dealt with; my redhead brother gets a sunburn if you light a match, while I tan pretty dark as well as freckle, and I never had a sunburn until my early 20's (incidentally at the same time red started showing up in my beard). What I'm saying is there is a genetically-predetermined ceiling at which a certain substance becomes toxic or carcinogenic, and there is only so much we can do to increase tolerances.
It depends on the individual and the item we are dealing with. No matter how much my brother tries to tan, he won't - he'll just get blisters the size of tennis balls. He has a low threshold. And, although there are lots of types of cancer in my (giant and Irish extended)family, the only ones to get skin cancer were the gingers.
I'm fascinated at the interplay between genes and environmental triggers.
www.gnxp.com is a good site for scholarly research news and commentary; as good for refuting white nationalists' misrepresentations of what the research tells us as it is for refuting idiotic leftist propaganda.
Commenting by HaloScan
