Miami Installs Free Public Sunscreen Dispensers In Fight Against Cancer 210
HughPickens.com writes: If you walk along South Beach in Miami right now, you will notice something strange, even by Florida standards: Dotting the sandscapes are sky-blue boxes that supply free sunscreen. In a novel experiment this year, the City of Miami Beach has put 50 free sunscreen dispensers in public spaces, and those dispensers are full of radiation-mitigating goo, free to any and all passersby. BBC reports that one in five people living in Florida will eventually suffer from skin cancer but the new campaign hopes that increasing people's awareness will lead to a change in behavior. "[The sunscreen dispensers'] visibility — even without additional messaging — could be a good cue to action," says Dr Richard De Visser, a psychologist who has researched health campaigns.
The sunscreen is the type that is effective at preventing cancer and premature skin aging: Broad-spectrum, water resistant, and SPF 30. You can buy a product that is labeled as higher than SPF 30, but it's almost always a waste, and potentially harmful. Above SPF 30, the difference is essentially meaningless. SPF 15 filters out about 93 percent of UV-B rays, SPF 30 filters out 97 percent, SPF 50 filters out 98 percent, and SPF 100 might get you to 99. The problem, though, is the psychology of the larger number. "We put on the "more powerful" sunscreens and then suddenly think we're Batman or some other superhero who can stay out in the sun indefinitely." says James Hamblin. "But no sunscreen is meant to facilitate prolonged exposure of bare skin to direct sunlight." Dr. Jose Lutzky, head of the melanoma program out Mount Sinai, says Florida is second behind California in incidence of melanoma but the trend is going in the wrong direction. "Unfortunately, our numbers are growing. That is really something we do not want to be first in."
The sunscreen is the type that is effective at preventing cancer and premature skin aging: Broad-spectrum, water resistant, and SPF 30. You can buy a product that is labeled as higher than SPF 30, but it's almost always a waste, and potentially harmful. Above SPF 30, the difference is essentially meaningless. SPF 15 filters out about 93 percent of UV-B rays, SPF 30 filters out 97 percent, SPF 50 filters out 98 percent, and SPF 100 might get you to 99. The problem, though, is the psychology of the larger number. "We put on the "more powerful" sunscreens and then suddenly think we're Batman or some other superhero who can stay out in the sun indefinitely." says James Hamblin. "But no sunscreen is meant to facilitate prolonged exposure of bare skin to direct sunlight." Dr. Jose Lutzky, head of the melanoma program out Mount Sinai, says Florida is second behind California in incidence of melanoma but the trend is going in the wrong direction. "Unfortunately, our numbers are growing. That is really something we do not want to be first in."
Anti-Sunscreen (Score:2, Funny)
Waiting for the protests from the folks who believe Sunscreen actually causes cancer (chemicals in the lotion vs the sun's rays).
[John]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Never mind the cancer, what about my rickets!
Re: (Score:3)
Never mind the cancer, what about my rickets!
AUTISM, you fool!
Re:Anti-Sunscreen (Score:5, Funny)
the folks who believe Sunscreen actually causes cancer (chemicals in the lotion vs the sun's rays).
That only happens if you eat too much of it.
Re: (Score:2)
That only happens if you eat too much of it.
Actually, it's just like pork and chicken . . . you just need to be careful to cook it long enough.
The best way to prepare sunscreen, is to rub it all over your exposed body parts, and then lie out in the sun for a long time. When it is well-done, lick it off your exposed body parts.
You might get some strange looks from others out in the sun, but it's delicious.
Re:Anti-Sunscreen (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Anti-Sunscreen (Score:4, Interesting)
Man is not a rational animal.
He is a rationalizing animal.
- Heinlein
Re: (Score:2)
Waiting for the protests from the folks who believe Sunscreen actually causes cancer
Just remember to take your vitamin D.
Vitamin d deficiencies - the latest thing - are probably related to the present day aversion to sun, and only very indirectly to sunscreen. Not the chemicals in it, just a side effect of doing it's job.
Back when I was a child, we were worried about getting too much Vitamin D Deficits in people with deep pigmentation living in northern cities like Detroit is a real problem.
We've gone from an age where getting outside was considered healthy, to one where I hear pre
Re: (Score:3)
Titanium dioxide nanoparticle sunscreen does cause cancer. At micron size, it works well; at nanometer scale, the TiO2 particles migrate through the cell membrane, where they harmlessly do nothing. Sunlight reaching the skin reflects off these particles, lengthening its path through the cell, avoiding interaction with melanin, and more frequently damaging DNA than sunlight on untreated skin.
Vanilla banana boat doesn't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Titanium dioxide nanoparticle sunscreen does cause cancer.
Hogwash. If that were true, there would be evidence that you could cite. Yet you provided no citation.
A quick Google search shows that there is a conjecture that titanium dioxide nanoparticles may be harmful, but no actual evidence. There is also no evidence to support your claim that TiO2 penetrates living cells.
Re: (Score:2)
The sunscreen usage is not mandatory (not yet?) — so there is little grounds to object on that account. But tax-paying is very mandatory, so, while you are waiting, could you explain, why Miami's taxpayers are more concerned about other people getting skin-cancer, than those would-be victims themselves are?
Re: (Score:2)
Everything will kill you.
However the trick is to get the right amount of stuff that will kill you the least.
Say exposure to the sun gives you a 1 in 1,000 chance of getting cancer.
Say exposure to the chemicals in sun screen give you a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting cancer. but it reduces getting cancer from the sun so it will be 1 in 5,000 so your chances of getting cancer from these elements would be 3 in 10,000 which is significantly less than 1 in 1,000
Re: (Score:2)
Better. [basspro.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. Are you saying 1 hour of sun dosed over 6 days is the same as 6 continuous hours? One gives you 3rd degree burns the other gives you a tan.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting a burn spikes the risk way up, but short of a burn, yes, it pretty much is cumulative. And yes, getting a tan does increase your risk of cancer, and general skin degradation. And the more you do it, the worse the risk grows.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt in the context of /. there are many sun worshipers here. I wear a hat and avoid extended periods in the sun but there is no way I am slathering that stuff on my face every time I go outside.
Re: (Score:2)
Citations needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Very well, citations you shall have.
http://www.skincancer.org/heal... [skincancer.org]
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin... [cdc.gov] ("A tan does not indicate good health. A tan is a response to injury, because skin cells signal that they have been hurt by UV rays by producing more pigment.")
http://www.mayoclinic.org/dise... [mayoclinic.org] ("Tanning...also puts you at risk. A tan is your skin's injury response to excessive UV radiation.")
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the first two links talk mostly or exclusively about indoor tanning — not the actual Sun. And the last link warns against sunburns and "excessive" tanning as harmful. None of the three cites actual scientific studies...
Do people, who sun-tan regularly but in moderation, have higher incidence of skin-cancer? Are their lives shorter because of that, or is there, perhaps, some benefit from Sun-exposure, that mitigates the alleged risks?
I'm afraid, my request for citations remains unfulfilled and
Re: (Score:2)
In Florida, not having a tan is status symbol. At 30 degrees North Latitude and below, you can fry in under an hour any day of the year. The only way to remain pale is to lock yourself inside. Basements are few and far between, and garages are full of the stuff that Northerners cram in their basements. And rarely climate-controlled. People garden almost year-round (gardeners are notably prone to melanomas), go to the lakes and beaches most of the year, and when all else fails, lay around in their own backya
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is a benefit to tans, it is called Vitamin D, which has substantial benefits. Not enough sun, and you start having other health issues. So much so, that they give people in the far northern climates UV light to counteract winter. And dark skinned people actually fair much worse the further north one lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Just got back from a cruise to Florida/Bahamas. One thing that I noted was how much stronger the sun felt from upstate NY. At one point, while looking at the sky, I felt like my eyebrows were being singed. It's one thing to know academically that the sun's rays are stronger the closer you get to the equator. It's quite another thing to feel it for yourself. (I don't think I really want to know how much hotter it would get if I kept going south.)
Re: (Score:2)
darwin will take care of him/her/them
Not really. AC is not likely to succumb to cancer before reproducing.
Re: (Score:2)
Particularly since the part of the body involved probably doesn't get sun exposure.
Re: (Score:3)
...Sunscreen actually causes cancer...
.
Whoa. Dude, I just saw on the Internet that "Sunscreen Actually Causes Cancer"!
A quick google shows that this is not a joke [inquisitr.com]
Re:Anti-Sunscreen (Score:5, Informative)
No, but it ignores a 20 year study that shows sunscreen gives no statistical reduction in skin cancer rates.
If this "study" actually existed, you could have provided a link to it. Yet you didn't.
Here is an actual real study [skincancer.org], published in JAMA, that shows the opposite: Sunscreen is effective in preventing melanoma and other skin cancers.
Re: (Score:2)
-they found that the highest risk personnel were the ones that stayed below deck (and tended to just get burnt when they did venture above)
not trained in sun avoidance technique, not provided with proper sun shading clothing
while the lowest incident rates were the ones above decks that had tans and the most exposure.
trained in sun avoidance, provided with proper clothing
no duh
Batman is not a Superhero (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you can't deny that the guy's not going to get skin cancer or sunburn in that suit, can you? May get a little hot wearing a black leathery-looking suit out in the sun, but hey, some people are into that kind of thing...
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not the reason (Score:2)
"We put on the "more powerful" sunscreens and then suddenly think we're Batman or some other superhero who can stay out in the sun indefinitely."
The reason why Batman can stay out in the sun indefinitely is not because he uses SPF 100. That's utter nonsense. The real reason is that he wears his underpants on the outside, thus adding a significant layer of protection. If you wear your underwear on the inside the extra protection is lost due to body warmth causing the underwear to expand and let UV light pass through nano holes (or larger, depending on the age of the garment).
Obligatory correction (Score:5, Informative)
"Miami Installs...." is not correct. Miami and Miami Beach are two different cities, separated by Biscayne Bay. Miami itself does not front on the ocean, so its own swimming beach is on Key Biscayne, an island with no direct driving connection to "The Beach". TFA doesn't say if that beach also got the dispensers.
Fascinating (Score:2)
Miami now gives out free sunscreen in a limited number of locations and this is news worthy of our attention? Why? Shit, my university in was giving out free condoms to new students in 1990 (and maybe before, I don't know) and it didn't make the news. I don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
this is news worthy of our attention?
I don't get it.
if you ever bothered to crawl out from under your shell, you'd need some sunblock, big time
Re: (Score:2)
this is news worthy of our attention?
I don't get it.
if you ever bothered to crawl out from under your shell, you'd need some sunblock, big time
And why is that? Skin cancer and the benefits of sunscreen are not a new issue and certainly pre-date early 1990 by, I dunno, about 20 years?
Re:Fascinating (you may be correct) (Score:2)
if you ever bothered to crawl out from under your shell, you'd need some sunblock, big time
Actually, you may be correct. Maybe this is news after all; the news being that US Luddites have, after almost half a century, have decided that perhaps wearing sunscreen is a good idea.
http://www.skincancer.org/medi... [skincancer.org]
Re: (Score:2)
RIP coral reefs (Score:4)
I'm guess they didn't go out of their way to use BP-2-free sunscreen...
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/n... [noaa.gov]
Phonebooth replacement (Score:2)
Not Free. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, no. You've got it all wrong. The Mafia-type drug bosses have figured out that it is in their best interests to keep people healthy and out of the doctor's office. Because they realize that they are in direct competition with the other drug lords in town.
It's called 'enlightened self interest'.
Batman analogy? (Score:2)
We put on the "more powerful" sunscreens and then suddenly think we're Batman or some other superhero who can stay out in the sun indefinitely.
Wait... since when is Batman analogous to someone who stays out in the sun all day? I'm am pretty sure Batman is the "dark knight" who mostly goes out after dark. That was the most confusing example anyone could possibly have come up with.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm am pretty sure Batman is the "dark knight"
Yes but before he got out in the sun he was the pasty pale-face knight
SPF -vs- percentages (Score:2)
SPF 15 filters out about 93 percent of UV-B rays, SPF 30 filters out 97 percent, SPF 50 filters out 98 percent, and SPF 100 might get you to 99.
Sounds like we need a new labeling system. Perhaps they should say "XX% percent protection for Y hours."
Re: (Score:2)
The whole SPF number doesn't make sense and neither does the amount of UV filtration.
There's four percentage points of difference between SPF 15 and 30, yet the SPF number is double.
Is each additional percentage of UV exposure some kind of logarithmic increase in risk? If moving from 93% to 97% filtration is meaningful, why wouldn't an extra percentage of filtration at SPF 50 also be meaningful?
It also makes me wonder why there are different SPF numbers sold at all. Maybe they should change it to just sel
SPF numbers (Score:2)
My wife goes to a dermatologist a couple of times per year and talked to her about SPF numbers and her dermatologist was pretty adamant about using some SPF number above 30.
I was kind of surprised, because I know I had read that SPF numbers above some number (30, even, maybe) were only marginally more effective.
I use whatever broad spectrum UVA/UVB spray-on SPF 50+ I can buy cheapest and re-apply every couple of hours or when I've been in the water much or toweled off. I never get sunburn and seldom get mu
Re: (Score:2)
It's because everyone's a quack.
"But no sunscreen is meant to facilitate prolonged exposure of bare skin to direct sunlight." This is just bullshit. No sunscreen is meant to last for an extended period of time; they all say reapply in 2 or 4 hours or such. A sunscreen which removes 97% of UV radiation turns some 5.5 hours of sun exposure into the equivalent of 10 minutes, stretched over a lot more time. If you'll notice, your body gets about 7,000 hours of sun exposure in 10 years if you're out in it
In my basement (Score:2)
Better than sunscreen (Score:2)
I don't like putting chemicals on my skin, so I just wear a giant sombrero. Here is a selfie of me and my cool lid:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6W-JqB-... [ytimg.com]
Wait for it ... (Score:2)
So, sooner or later this will get contaminated, or someone will mess with it ... and then people are going to get some nasty things from these dispensers.
You can try to do nice things, but anything dispensing a liquid into the grubby hands of the general public is likely to go horribly wrong fairly quickly.
I'm betting in a few months some lab tests will tell us these things are just plain nasty.
Re: (Score:2)
So, sooner or later this will get contaminated, or someone will mess with it ... and then people are going to get some nasty things from these dispensers.
You can try to do nice things, but anything dispensing a liquid into the grubby hands of the general public is likely to go horribly wrong fairly quickly.
I'm betting in a few months some lab tests will tell us these things are just plain nasty.
they dispense free hand sanitizer at just about every grocery store, perhaps you can list off the horrible things that have gone wrong
Re: (Score:2)
Well ... I can say that hand sanitizer is a partly self correcting problem here if the issue is the nasty gunk which will end up on the dispenser.
Sunscreen, however, doesn't have antiseptic properties.
Why is the number misleading? (Score:2)
damn it (Score:2)
Holiday World (Score:2)
Re:Any possibility that sunscreen causes cancer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Any possibility that sunscreen causes cancer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that and people with paler complexions are at a greater risk of sunburn and skin cancer (which is why they have to wear higher SPF).
Northern Europe isn't quite as sunny as much of North America. Put simply, white people aren't really evolved for the Florida climate.
Re: (Score:2)
Florida is at the same lattitude as Africa. No Europeans are evolved for this Climate.
Re: (Score:2)
Florida is at the same lattitude as Africa. No Europeans are evolved for this Climate.
If you credit "out of Africa", it's more likely that Europeans evolved AWAY from this climate. Florida is definitely not England when it comes to sun and temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because of the Moor/Muslim excursions and relatively recent.
Well, if you're talking in geological terms, you're correct. Most of us, however, don't consider 1300 + years of Islam history 'recent'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(...) Those that did were probably genetically hardier as well...or rich.
And many rich people got less sun exposure, especially in southern Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cancer is mostly a disease that comes with age. Yes, there are a lot of childhood cancer cases, notably in leukemia, but the majority of cancers is something for people who lived past their "breeding years".
Re: (Score:2)
It's not as dramatic as it seems. Reductions in infant mortality account for most of the change in the average.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Life expectancy even increased if you ignore all deaths before the age of 5. We can heal a lot of diseases that were lethal 2 centuries ago. And for those that still are we can prolong the life considerably.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"For thousands or millions of years humans have spent their lives outside farming, hunting, gathering, etc. and haven't had as much cancer as we have in todays society"
CFC's reduced the ozone layer causing more UV to get through to the ground
Re: (Score:2)
CFC's and the ozone layer are not so much of a problem any more. They replaced CFC's as the main liquid for refrigiragion and other heat transfer systems. And that was effective.
I think that (just my personal oppinion):
a) There may not have been that much less cancers in the past. Just not as well recorded.
b) Risk of cancer get really high if you get burned regularly (especially at young ages). There I think that people who live outside all year have less risk of getting burned than us living and working in
Re: (Score:2)
Or possibly cancer is more easily diagnosed that it was in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Or possibly cancer is more easily diagnosed that it was in the past.
Melanoma is not hard to spot. It's right there on your face. Or your arms. Or sometimes other places, if they get lots of sun exposure.
And if the black amorphous blob(s) don't give it away, then the rapid onset of death probably will. Melanoma is easily cured as long as it's skin deep, but if left untreated for long enough to dive inside, it's virtually uncurable.
Re: (Score:2)
For thousands or millions of years humans have spent their lives outside farming, hunting, gathering, etc. and haven't had as much cancer as we have in todays society. Now its coming out that the roundup sprayed onto all of our food likely causes cancer. I wonder if the chemicals in sunscreen might also have a link.
For thousands or millions of years humans have lived shorter. Cancer incidence increases with age (source [cancerresearchuk.org]), therefore, the reason why there was less cancer incidence in the past is because most people died of other causes before cancer could get them. I'm not arguing that some chemicals sprayed on crops may not induce, or, at least, increase the odds of, cancer, but just comparing the data from the past to the present data is not sound proof.
By the way, there is a chemical implied in the higher incidence o
Re: (Score:2)
Having survived until the age of 21, a male member of the English aristocracy in this period could expect to live:[24] 1200–1300: to age 64 1300–1400: to age 45 (due to the impact of the bubonic plague) 1400–1500: to age 69 1500–1550: to age 71
Now the above is noble men. But look at that date. 1550. People were living to 71 in 1550. That is only about 10 years below what we have in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Cancer until recently was a disease that no one talked about. People who died from cancer, would just be got sick and died, or death by old age, or died from unknown reasons.
It isn't a rise in cancer rates, but a rise in cancer survivors, due to proper and early diagnosis, and a support system to deal with the disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Great grandpa died of 'consumption.' Grandpa died of 'lung cancer.' Dad died of 'stage four 'impressively concatenated string of latin words' anterior pulmonary metastasized carcinomic blastoma or something.'
Re: (Score:2)
And great-great-great-great-etc-grandpa died of "an imbalance of the humors" or "struck down by a demon/witch posing as a human" (who the village then hunted down and killed). You wouldn't find cancer in many books centuries ago (as shown in this Google NGram chart [google.com]).
Re: (Score:2)
For thousands if not millions of years people simply didn't get old enough to die from skin cancer.
Re:Any possibility that sunscreen causes cancer? (Score:5, Insightful)
From [wikipedia.org]:
Joseph M. Mercola (born 1954) is an alternative medicine proponent, osteopathic physician, and web entrepreneur, who markets a variety of controversial dietary supplements
Raising alert status to yellow...
Mercola and colleagues advocate a number of unproven alternative health notions including homeopathy,
Going to code orange...
Mercola criticizes many aspects of standard medical practice, such as vaccination
CODE RED CODE RED!
Sorry, if it looks like a quack and sounds like a quack, he probably is a quack.
Re: (Score:2)
If it ducks like a quack, it's probably a quack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two things. One, now a days, people use 'autistic' or 'ass-burgers' where they used to use 'shy,' 'withdrawn,' 'quirky,' 'spacy,' and all sorts of words. Cousin Melvin wasn't 'rain-man levels of autistic,' he was 'beset by nervous breakdowns' and sent to live in the country.
Two, back in the olden days, you could physically beat mild autism out of a child, much like you could beat left-handedness, fingernail chewing, hair twirling, and other undesirable behavior out of them.
Re: (Score:2)
My son and I are good examples of this. When I was in school, I had trouble socializing and the social workers in school said I was "shy", "introverted", and "wouldn't feel like he fits in until college." (They were right on the last one.) My son is very much like me. When he had problems we had someone observe him and the diagnosis of Asperger's/High Functioning Autism came back. I have no doubts that - were I a child today - I'd have the Autism diagnosis as well. (I could seek a diagnosis for myself
Re: (Score:2)
Strange. How do you account for the rapid increase in autism? Your appeal to military alert systems is quaint, but irrelevant. Facts fight quacks, and you provided none, just ad-hominem attacks.
There are a bunch of possible explanations including changes in diagnostic criteria [geneticlit...roject.org]. It's not just mild behavioral cases being "upgraded" to autism. It's the other way too: I know someone who used to work in a an "autism" care home. The kids there were all diagnosed with autism but they were in reality much more disturbed than this. For example, one of the kids got angry one day so he pulled out his eyeball and threw it at a care worker. This wasn't a bad quality care home: these were kids from rich familie
Re: (Score:2)
Im sorry could you be less vague and handwavy? What, specifically, are you implying is causing autism? And what makes you think the rates are rising?
Re:Any possibility that sunscreen causes cancer? (Score:5, Informative)
Facts fight quacks, and you provided none, just ad-hominem attacks.
I don't think this is true. Or at least not as true as it should be. There is evidence to indicate that engaging these people in reasoned discussion boosts their standing because it makes the public think that they are saying something worth refuting. This is what they are craving, so ignoring or mocking them has its place.
Re: (Score:3)
The main reason Im not engaging is that when someone endorses homeopathy, AND opposes vaccines, AND theyre selling dietery supplements, the changes that there will be a consensus on what constitutes "science" or "evidence" or "reason" is very small. I could try to use facts to debate each one point by point, but its not like I would be breaking bold new ground; a 5 minute google spree could tell you what the realistic risks and proven benefits are to vaccines, or the actual (limited) effectiveness of homeo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its really that theyre rejecting the vast corpus of medical knowledge embraced by actual doctors who actually practice, and then tout how they have the secret supplement to prevent autisim or osteoporosis.
Hint: They dont, and if they did, theyd be an actual practicing doctor. Theres a reason he doesnt have an MD or PHD.
Re: (Score:2)
Something is happening.
This is something else happening.
This must be causing that. Otherwise how do you explain it?
The logic of the retard.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it considered irony when you argue against someone who claims that vaccines cause autism and use a word ("retard") that people with autism find offensive?
Re:Restricting vitamin D production: not a good id (Score:5, Informative)
Way to go, FUD-thing!
10-15 minutes a day of exposure to direct sunlight is enough. Not to mention dietary sources, dickhead.
OTOH, hours per day of exposure to sub-tropical sunlight sans protection is enough to give you nightmares in your fifties, when your doctor starts telling you that "this lump has to go, and this one, and most of your ear, and this one, no, two, no three, on your scalp".
Of course, if you live above/below 60 degrees off the equator, you'll need all the exposure you can get, but for those of us in the rest of the world, we need to to be careful, because we don't have a risk of insufficient exposure, we run the risk of excessive exposure. See, it's all about context. The residents of Miami/Miami Beach don't face the risks of *insufficient* exposure, they face the risks of *excessive* exposure.
Too little, and you face the consequences of insufficient self-synthesized "vitamin D". Too much, and you face having multiple skin tumours.
Re: (Score:2)
You also need to consider your skin color. I'm quite a bit darker than my GF, and I can stay outside in the sun with no problem, unless I'm at a pool. My GF can get fried much quicker if she doesn't use sunscreen.
Re: (Score:2)
If one is wearing sunscreen, then "summer will never come" and the body will remain in a state of disrepair. Which benefits the health insurance industry (it's not a "health care" industry).
The geek tends to think like an adolescent.
Although most babies born in 1900 did not live past age 50, life expectancy at birth now exceeds 83 years in Japan --- the current leader ----and is at least 81 years in several other countries.
It wasn't until the 20th century that mortality rates began to decline within the older ages. Research for more recent periods shows a surprising and continuing improvement in life expectancy among those aged 80 or above.
The progressive increase in survival in these oldest age groups was not anticipated by demographers, and it raises questions about how high the average life expectancy can realistically rise and about the potential length of the human lifespan. While some experts assume that life expectancy must be approaching an upper limit, data on life expectancies between 1840 and 2007 show a steady increase averaging about three months of life per year.
Global Health and Aging [nih.gov]
In 1925, your life and health insurance client will be dead in 25 years. In 2015, your 25 year old client stands a good chance of living another 60 years. Which do you think yields a better return?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds to me that a glass of milk a day would've done you all a world of good.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you serious? That stuff has proteins. They call all kinds of trouble.
Re:If you can't eat it... (Score:4, Interesting)
Dickhead.
You think shampoo is entering your skin? Soap? Alcohol when you rub it on a wound (it might enter the blood through the wound, but through the skin)? Iodine before surgery? Paint? PVA glue? The water when you shower? Felt-tip? Oh no! Sweat is entering my skin!
Moron.
Nicotine patches are RECENT and have to be specially developed. You can't just slap a cigarette on your arm and hope the nicotine penetrates. It doesn't work like that.
P.S. Water is a chemical. Your use of the word "chemical" tells me exactly what kind of idiot you are.
Additionally, you could rub liquid-suspended asbestos on your skin. Chances are you'll die of skin cancer because you didn't block the sun before you die of lung cancer because of what you were using.
If you can't eat it - I assume that you never shower, bathe, brush teeth, gargle or apply medical dressings. You're chances of dying because of THOSE things not being done is probably greater than any other risk.
Re: (Score:2)
or they could remove it, picture the politicians that approved its removal having some monetary interest in skin cancer
Re: (Score:3)
On the flip side, think of the financial savings from public insurance treating fewer people for skin maladies. Your skeptical view is almost the default for /., to the point of being a platitude. To me, this is similar to requiring motorcycle helmets and the financial savings long term.