Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 83145	2007-09-20 23:04:00	Climate change caused by man ?	wmoore (6009)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
593510	2007-09-23 06:52:00	Maybe man did it, maybe not. If it is found that it was caused by a man, I would like it known it was another man: I wasn't there that day. Since I have given up smoking, how much actual cash can I expect to get in carbon credits? :p	R2x1 (4628)
593511	2007-09-23 11:02:00	Yep I know from time onboard Navy ships ,its always some !@#$.	tedheath (537)
593512	2007-09-24 05:01:00	Not sure how many new Zealanders voted no, but 30 - 40 years ago you didn’t need sunblock, you could spend all summer out in the sun. What happens now?	Enigmur (10547)
593513	2007-09-24 12:10:00	Not sure how many new Zealanders voted no, but 30 - 40 years ago you didn’t need sunblock, you could spend all summer out in the sun. What happens now? Absolute rubbish. 40 years ago my nose used to peel several times a summer whereas it is a rare event now. Anyhow that would have more to do with the ozone layer than anything and they have only been measuring that since the 1950's so not long enough to really tell what is happening.	mikebartnz (21)
593514	2007-09-24 12:30:00	long enough to notice the huge hole open up	motorbyclist (188)
593515	2007-09-24 12:37:00	Not sure how many new Zealanders voted no, but 30 - 40 years ago you didn’t need sunblock, you could spend all summer out in the sun. What happens now? Yea right, that's why a lot of older people I know are all getting melanoma removed from their ears, faces, arms etc. It's because they all used to spend hours outside in the sun when they were younger and didn't even know what sunblock was.	CYaBro (73)
593516	2007-09-24 13:20:00	long enough to notice the huge hole open up That hole has probably been opening and closing for centuries but we really don't know one way or another because of a lack of data.	mikebartnz (21)
593517	2007-09-24 13:27:00	Seems that there's quite a few people in denial. Ozone hole - nah that just some crap invented by scientists to justify their grants. Cutting down the rain forest, sure there's plenty more of that left, and we need palm oil more than rain forest. Pollution - there's nothing wrong with my air (or water), it's just a little smelly and the sky's a little bit gray. Global warming - well it's early days, give it some time before we can really be sure, say a couple hundred more years of monitoring. Those polar bears were getting too lazy walking everywhere anyway - the swim will do them some good.... :rolleyes: I think we give mankind the benefit of the doubt too much. When you venture outside of little isolated NZ you start to see some pretty major ecological cock-ups!	Andy1 (8755)
593518	2007-09-24 13:33:00	Not sure how many new Zealanders voted no, but 30 - 40 years ago you didn’t need sunblock, you could spend all summer out in the sun. What happens now? There was none if at all awareness of the damage the sun's UV rays can cause back then.	qazwsxokmijn (102)
593519	2007-09-24 18:02:00	Yea right, that's why a lot of older people I know are all getting melanoma removed from their ears, faces, arms etc . It's because they all used to spend hours outside in the sun when they were younger and didn't even know what sunblock was . Oh . . wrong on so many levels! This sun-skin cancer link myth is mostly just that: a myth! Melanomas occur many times where the sun doesn't ever shine! Places below the belt and inside folds and creases of skin and nether areas are also common, and if your oncologist isn't looking there, then get another doctor! Pubic melanomas also occur, and unless you are a nudist, there is not much of a sun-skin-saturation corollary to support the idea of the sun as the worst or only mitigating problem maker . Actually, skin cancer requires non-oblique angles of intense solar radiation over an extended period of time to generate . If there are people with melanomas under their chins, sides of the face or behind their ears it ain't from sunshine unless they have stayed in a position to allow that area total and unrelenting sunshine for years and years on it . Bald men or women, standing perpendicular to the ground, wearing no hat and doing so for years MIGHT generate a skin problem . . . . but it likely isn't melanoma . I cite Dr Dean Edell and his tirade about voodoo "medicine" and the anecdotal occurrence of skin cancers and how they are NOT totally caused by the sun . Actinic keratosis IS more likely . Actually, there is a corollary to the sun and skin cancers . . . but it's not the current trend of using sunblockers that's helping . . rather they are hindering the supposed protection they are designed to give . This . . . . of course . . . assumes everyone is equal and on the same level of genetic standards, which does not exist in the human range of genetic design and proclivities . Some people, for example, can smoke two packs of cigarettes a day, drink sewage water with their booze, doesn't take vitamins (another myth) and never see a doctor and yet lives to 112 years old, while another dies at 40 after just an occasional or even second-hand smoke . There seems to be no standard in human lifespans or sensitivities . Even "broad spectrum" sunscreen potions cannot protect against UV rays . These UVA and UVB rays are most damaging to the skin (keratosis, sunburns, vascular eruptions, etc . Common blockers cannot deliver long time efficacy . Even in the tube, the chemicals lose potency before they are even used . Most of these chemicals also break down in the sun, not to mention the effects of water, sweat and body oils and salts . There are however several chemicals that work better than others, and for longer periods of time . They are: oxybenzone, avobenzone, and parsol 1789 . These block BOTH UVA & UVB sources of light . L'Oreal has produced a new product called: "Anthelios SX" which is a total UV ray blocker . So far these products are only available in Europe . Originally the trend has been to block UVB rays, as doctors thought these were the most or only damaging rays to need blocking . Not so! They now concede that UVB & UVAs need to be controlled but to do so in specified values . So far there is no benchmark for these values of UVA to set a standard for blocking . Many dermatologists promote sensible sun exposure until the better bench marks are decided, after all, sun is a powerful source of vitamin D, and at 30 minutes a day several times a week it is all the body needs to maintain its store of the vitamin . The vitamin D can only be assumed through sun-on-skin saturation, and over a dedicated area of skin that will vary from person to person . The adequate minimum seems to be about one square foot needed . Vitamin D promotes bone formation and mineralization, and there is growing evidence that it powers the immune system's ability to fight cancer cells . So there you have the paradox .	SurferJoe46 (51)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25