gee... what's happening to me?

[[email protected]]

I started noticing something strange... my skin seems to be changing
color.Sort of... BROWN! What is this strange phenomenon?

[Joe Canuck]

wrote:

> I started noticing something strange... my skin seems to be changing
> color.Sort of... BROWN! What is this strange phenomenon?

Getting a late start?

[lokey]

> wrote in message
...
>I started noticing something strange... my skin seems to be changing
> color.Sort of... BROWN! What is this strange phenomenon?

I have been developing the same skin condition. It's really odd. It seems
to stop mid-bicep and mid-quads. The nose seems particularly susceptible as
well.

I suspect it's cycling related.

--
'We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.'
-led zeppelin

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
writes:
> I started noticing something strange... my skin seems to be changing
> color.Sort of... BROWN! What is this strange phenomenon?

Heh :-) As you restore your vitamin D you might
find yourself becoming even more cheerful, too.
That's how it works for me, anyway -- both body and
mind seem to like the stuff. I dunno about the
soul. Mine couldn't care less about vitamins.
But then my soul thinks a muffin is a failed cupcake,
and needs at least icing -- preferably the same stuff
they slather on Cinnabons.

I recently read an article on how sunscreen drastically
reduces the body's ability to use sunshine to make
vitamin D. So I guess there's a bit of a balancing act
to solar exposure.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[catzz66]

Not meaning to be a party pooper, since I am a hot weather guy myself,
I'd recommend being aware of skin cancer and to protect your skin
accordingly.

[AustinMN]

catzz66 wrote:
> Not meaning to be a party pooper, since I am a hot weather guy myself,
> I'd recommend being aware of skin cancer and to protect your skin
> accordingly.

Do you have any evidence that sunscreen actually reduces incidence of
skin cancer? I've never seen any (but I seem to recall seeing the
opposite).

Vitamin D has been shown to reduce incidence of skin cancer...the
vitamin D you get from sun exposure.

We're not talking sunburn here, which is a bad thing (TM).

Austin

[Maggie]

AustinMN wrote:
>
> We're not talking sunburn here, which is a bad thing (TM).
>
> Austin


Suncreen is your friend.....

I used to obsessively tan every summer. Had sun poisoning one year in
Florida... .....now that I am older I do not want to end up looking
like a wrinkled leather backpack. I've cut down on the tanning, and
find that sunscreen in now my friend. Just a little color is fine for
me.

At a certain point tanning becomes your enemy, not your friend. Plus
so many of my friends are starting to develop skin cancer from years of
tanning. It is a little scary in my opinion. I obsessed over the
perfect tan when I was young. Now I would rather look younger than I
am..(which I do :-) ...so bring on the sunscreen when outdoors..biking
or whatever.....I'd rather put a little bronzer on that look like
leather shoes.

Maggie

No more pain
No more strain
Now I'm sane
But I'll rather be in love again

[Bill Sornson]

catzz66 wrote:

> Not meaning to be a party pooper, since I am a hot weather guy myself...

OK, I really need glasses. I read that as "since I am a hot wealthy guy
myself"...

Just projecting myself -- yeah, THAT must be it... BS (maybe this time)

[catzz66]

AustinMN wrote:
>
> Do you have any evidence that sunscreen actually reduces incidence of
> skin cancer? I've never seen any (but I seem to recall seeing the
> opposite).
>
> Vitamin D has been shown to reduce incidence of skin cancer...the
> vitamin D you get from sun exposure.
>
> We're not talking sunburn here, which is a bad thing (TM).
>
> Austin
>

The articles I've read say that sunscreen blocks UV radiation which
leads to the development of skin cancer. Maybe someone has some better
links to the subject, but here is a general discussion, no studies.

http://www.cancercrusaders.org/articles.html

[gds]

AustinMN wrote:
> catzz66 wrote:
> > Not meaning to be a party pooper, since I am a hot weather guy myself,
> > I'd recommend being aware of skin cancer and to protect your skin
> > accordingly.
>
> Do you have any evidence that sunscreen actually reduces incidence of
> skin cancer? I've never seen any (but I seem to recall seeing the
> opposite).
>
> Vitamin D has been shown to reduce incidence of skin cancer...the
> vitamin D you get from sun exposure.
>
> We're not talking sunburn here, which is a bad thing (TM).
>
> Austin

I've read reports that are a bit different from what you are
suggesting. First, there is some research that now shows that extant
melanomas are less virulent when exposed to sunlight. That finding does
not address how the melanoma forms (incidence) in the first place.
Second, while studies are showing that there are vitamin D (and
probably other) benefits from sunlight that the amount of exposure to
gain these benefits is quite modest- under a half hour a day as I
remember.
And to your last point- clearly sunscreen and/or protective clothing
reduces sunburns as well as UV exposure and thus skin cancer. One
problem wiht some of the studies may well be that most folks do not
apply sufficient sunscreen to gt the full benefit. It requires quite a
bit of sunscree, ~ 2 teaspoons for just the head and face for full
protection.

It's interesting to note that around the world almost all folks that
live and work outdoors in high sunshine,high UV environments utilize
clothing that covers almost all the body. Functionaly cowboys and
construction workers in Arizona dress the same as arabs.

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
catzz66 > writes:

> Not meaning to be a party pooper, since I am a hot weather guy myself,
> I'd recommend being aware of skin cancer and to protect your skin
> accordingly.

Here's that article I was talking about:
http://www.shared-vision.com/2005/sv1806/wh_lead1806.html

"Vitamin D is a key nutrient that the body needs to fight a
variety of diseases such as diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis,
high blood pressure, and some forms of cancers. And
experts say a surprising number of people lack vitamin D.
So, generally speaking (and there are always exceptions)
we do need some sun without sunscreen.The question is,
how much?"


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Jim Smith]

"AustinMN" > writes:

> catzz66 wrote:
>> Not meaning to be a party pooper, since I am a hot weather guy myself,
>> I'd recommend being aware of skin cancer and to protect your skin
>> accordingly.
>
> Do you have any evidence that sunscreen actually reduces incidence of
> skin cancer? I've never seen any (but I seem to recall seeing the
> opposite).
>
> Vitamin D has been shown to reduce incidence of skin cancer...the
> vitamin D you get from sun exposure.
>
> We're not talking sunburn here, which is a bad thing (TM).

You raise an interesting point. Skin cancer is usually divided into
two groups: melanoma, and everything else. Melanoma is the one most
people are interested in because it is the one which will kill you. I
am not aware of any studies which directly look at sunscreen use and
development of melanoma, but there are a few which have looked at
sunscreen use in children and the number of a type of lesion
considered a risk factor for melanoma. None of them have shown a
reduced risk attributable to sunscreen, and some have shown that
sunscreen use increases risk, possibly because people who use
sunscreen spend more time in the sun. Studies have shown that
covering up or staying out of the sun reduces risk. I don't know that
anyone has shown if sunscreen has an effect on the development of the
"Arizona trailer park queen look" that Maggie alludes to either. This
seems to be another example of things not being as straightforward as
they first seem. It would appear that common sense is overrated.

A couple of references:

1: Bauer J, Buttner P, Wiecker TS, Luther H, Garbe C.
Effect of sunscreen and clothing on the number of melanocytic nevi in 1,812
German children attending day care.
Am J Epidemiol. 2005 Apr 1;161(7):620-7.
PMID: 15781951 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2: Gallagher RP, Rivers JK, Lee TK, Bajdik CD, McLean DI, Coldman AJ.
Broad-spectrum sunscreen use and the development of new nevi in white children:
A randomized controlled trial.
JAMA. 2000 Jun 14;283(22):2955-60.
PMID: 10865273 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3: Autier P, Dore JF, Cattaruzza MS, Renard F, Luther H, Gentiloni-Silverj F,
Zantedeschi E, Mezzetti M, Monjaud I, Andry M, Osborn JF, Grivegnee AR.
Sunscreen use, wearing clothes, and number of nevi in 6- to 7-year-old European
children. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Melanoma
Cooperative Group.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 Dec 16;90(24):1873-80.
PMID: 9862624 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Alex Colvin]

>>I started noticing something strange... my skin seems to be changing
>> color.Sort of... BROWN! What is this strange phenomenon?

> I have been developing the same skin condition. It's really odd. It seems
>to stop mid-bicep and mid-quads. The nose seems particularly susceptible as
>well.

you in New England too?
They say it's some sort of radiation effect. We'll see, if this
Fimblwinter ever ends.
--
mac the naïf

[catzz66]

Tom Keats wrote:
>
> Here's that article I was talking about:
> http://www.shared-vision.com/2005/sv1806/wh_lead1806.html
>
> "Vitamin D is a key nutrient that the body needs to fight a
> variety of diseases such as diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis,
> high blood pressure, and some forms of cancers. And
> experts say a surprising number of people lack vitamin D.
> So, generally speaking (and there are always exceptions)
> we do need some sun without sunscreen.The question is,
> how much?"
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Tom. This is the first time I have seen that reference. I
wonder if there are other alternatives to getting vitamin D than from
exposure to UV rays. For what it's worth, the articles I read seem to
say that sunscreens don't block out *all* the UV rays anyway, but the
higher the SPF rating, the more UV rays they block.

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
catzz66 > writes:

> Thanks, Tom. This is the first time I have seen that reference. I
> wonder if there are other alternatives to getting vitamin D than from
> exposure to UV rays.

Milk generally comes with vitamin D added. But I've
heard /opinions/ to the effect that this isn't really
a very good delivery system since other things
(co-enzymes maybe?) are needed to metabolize the
vitamin D that is added to milk. I haven't really
looked into this very much, and I'm no nutritional
expert. And I don't drink milk anyway (can't stand
the stuff,) except in a little splash in my coffee
or tea. Cod liver oil is reputed to be rich in
Vitamin D, and I believe some cruciferous vegetables
also provide some amount of vitamin D.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Leo Lichtman]

"Tom Keats" wrote: (clip)we do need some sun without sunscreen.The question
is, how much?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have seen discussions on TV recently about various statistical studies,
which show that the benefits of sun exposure outweigh the risk of skin
cancer. Vitamin D reduces the risk of other cancers, more than it increases
the risk of dangerous skin cancer. One of the studies, which is very
convincing, is geographic. Populations in areas with lots of sunlight do
better.

[gds]

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> I have seen discussions on TV recently about various statistical studies,
> which show that the benefits of sun exposure outweigh the risk of skin
> cancer. Vitamin D reduces the risk of other cancers, more than it increases
> the risk of dangerous skin cancer. One of the studies, which is very
> convincing, is geographic. Populations in areas with lots of sunlight do
> better.

Again, those studies have looked at sun exposure in a very narrow and
short window. 30 minutes of exposure is not the same thing as 6 or even
12 hours. There is a reason why desert dwellers all over the planet for
thousands of years have adopted native dress that covers the entire
body. To me an effective sunscreen is simply the modern equivalent of
that clothing habit.

[catzz66]

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Tom Keats" wrote: (clip)we do need some sun without sunscreen.The question
> is, how much?"
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I have seen discussions on TV recently about various statistical studies,
> which show that the benefits of sun exposure outweigh the risk of skin
> cancer. Vitamin D reduces the risk of other cancers, more than it increases
> the risk of dangerous skin cancer. One of the studies, which is very
> convincing, is geographic. Populations in areas with lots of sunlight do
> better.
>
>

I would appreciate any links you might run across. I was operated on
15+ years ago for basal cell carcinoma, so I would not personally want
to do anything that would encourage more occurances of that, but it's
good to have all the info.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:31:54 -0500, catzz66
> wrote:

>Not meaning to be a party pooper, since I am a hot weather guy myself,
>I'd recommend being aware of skin cancer and to protect your skin
>accordingly.

Oh, i DO! I slather on the stuff liberally.I use spf 60 on my face,
especially. I got some free samples of this amazing sunscreen from my
doctor, it's 60 spf but isn't all thick and pasty. It's like lotion. I
took the tube with me and reapplied it. However I stlll got a bit red
on the cheeks. It was very warm yesterday.

The stuff is called ANTIHELIOS and i think it's probably expensive to
buy, but I might invest anyways. I always use a very high SPF on my
face.

It's just that I tan really fast. I was as pasty as prisoner since
the month of may was so miserable.All it takes for me is one or two
rides in the sun and I'm tanned. I think toaster strudel takes longer
than I do.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 09:14:26 -0700, (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>In article >,
> catzz66 > writes:
>
>> Thanks, Tom. This is the first time I have seen that reference. I
>> wonder if there are other alternatives to getting vitamin D than from
>> exposure to UV rays.
>
>Milk generally comes with vitamin D added. But I've
>heard /opinions/ to the effect that this isn't really
>a very good delivery system since other things
>(co-enzymes maybe?) are needed to metabolize the
>vitamin D that is added to milk. I haven't really
>looked into this very much, and I'm no nutritional
>expert. And I don't drink milk anyway (can't stand
>the stuff,) except in a little splash in my coffee
>or tea. Cod liver oil is reputed to be rich in
>Vitamin D, and I believe some cruciferous vegetables
>also provide some amount of vitamin D.
>

There's also bone density. Getting some vitamin D from sun is
important for bone density, especially for us ladies.

I take vitamin D supplements during the winter months. It also helps
you feel better, since Vitamin D is good for sleep.

[Maggie]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> catzz66 wrote:
>
> > Not meaning to be a party pooper, since I am a hot weather guy myself...
>
> OK, I really need glasses. I read that as "since I am a hot wealthy guy
> myself"...
>
> Just projecting myself -- yeah, THAT must be it... BS (maybe this time)


Can I have his number?

Maggie

[Roger Zoul]

wrote:
:> I started noticing something strange... my skin seems to be changing
:> color.Sort of... BROWN! What is this strange phenomenon?

My skin is becoming brownER.

[Leo Lichtman]

"catzz66" wrote: I would appreciate any links you might run across. I was
operated on 15+ years ago for basal cell carcinoma, so I would not
personally want to do anything that would encourage more occurances of
that, but it's good to have all the info.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050521/D8A7MPFG0.html

[Bill Baka]

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Tom Keats" wrote: (clip)we do need some sun without sunscreen.The question
> is, how much?"
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I have seen discussions on TV recently about various statistical studies,
> which show that the benefits of sun exposure outweigh the risk of skin
> cancer. Vitamin D reduces the risk of other cancers, more than it increases
> the risk of dangerous skin cancer. One of the studies, which is very
> convincing, is geographic. Populations in areas with lots of sunlight do
> better.
>
>
One of the things you never see mentioned is that you should always wear
UV/blue blocker sun glasses to protect your eyes. My dad was an outdoor
nut after retiring to Arkansas ans wound up with cataracts in both eyes.
Another bad side effect is that after 50 (40 in some) your ability to
focus starts to go and it looks like this is also UV related hardening
of the lens. Now I am looking for some sunglasses that have
tint/polarization/UV blocking all in one. I can ride with a bit of
sunburn but not if I can't see.
Bill Baka

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:34:34 -0400,
>,
wrote:

>It's just that I tan really fast. I was as pasty as prisoner since
>the month of may was so miserable.All it takes for me is one or two
>rides in the sun and I'm tanned. I think toaster strudel takes longer
>than I do.

It's because you guys pop right out of the freezer and into the oven.
You're browned before you're cooked.
Here were defrosted and soaked before getting baked.
--
zk

[[email protected]]

catzz66 wrote:
> Not meaning to be a party pooper, since I am a hot weather guy myself,
> I'd recommend being aware of skin cancer and to protect your skin
> accordingly.

There's a notion I've always had difficulty with.

How is it that we're on this planet, and have (AFAIK) always been on
this planet, but we're supposed to need artificial protection from this
planet's sun?

Whether you believe in mindless evolution, or instantaneous creation,
or some combination of the two, it seems hard to account for.

It's like saying "Air is bad for you. Use an oxygen bottle."

- Frank Krygowski

[lokey]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> catzz66 wrote:
>> Not meaning to be a party pooper, since I am a hot weather guy myself,
>> I'd recommend being aware of skin cancer and to protect your skin
>> accordingly.
>
> There's a notion I've always had difficulty with.
>
> How is it that we're on this planet, and have (AFAIK) always been on
> this planet, but we're supposed to need artificial protection from this
> planet's sun?
>
> Whether you believe in mindless evolution, or instantaneous creation,
> or some combination of the two, it seems hard to account for.
>
> It's like saying "Air is bad for you. Use an oxygen bottle."

I've been saying that - thanks to autos - for a while.

:(

The thing about evolution is it doesn't much care for you after you've done
your reproductive duty. The cancers mostly won't kill you until much later.

Also consider us as a species shedding body hair over millennia. Pretty
neat UV protection when you think about it.

I saw in an issue of National Geographic a photo of a 70-something Aussie
who had spent decades as a lifeguard. He had something like 100 excisions
for cancerous cells.

--
'Nobody here gets out alive' -jim morrison

[AustinMN]

gds wrote:
>
>
> Leo Lichtman wrote:
>> I have seen discussions on TV recently about various statistical studies,
>> which show that the benefits of sun exposure outweigh the risk of skin
>> cancer. Vitamin D reduces the risk of other cancers, more than it
>> increases
>> the risk of dangerous skin cancer. One of the studies, which is very
>> convincing, is geographic. Populations in areas with lots of sunlight do
>> better.
>
> Again, those studies have looked at sun exposure in a very narrow and
> short window. 30 minutes of exposure is not the same thing as 6 or even
> 12 hours. There is a reason why desert dwellers all over the planet for
> thousands of years have adopted native dress that covers the entire
> body. To me an effective sunscreen is simply the modern equivalent of
> that clothing habit.

This is my point...sun exposure is one thing, sun burn something else
entirely. Six to twelve hours of continuous sun, especially for those not
accustomed, will result in sunburn even with most sunscreens.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

[Zoot Katz]

6 Jun 2005 19:34:04 -0700,
. com>,
wrote:

>How is it that we're on this planet, and have (AFAIK) always been on
>this planet, but we're supposed to need artificial protection from this
>planet's sun?

The atmosphere has changed since I was kid. I swear the sun appears to
be a different colour now. It's whiter. Not as yellow.
--
zk

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Zoot Katz > writes:
> 6 Jun 2005 19:34:04 -0700,
> . com>,
> wrote:
>
>>How is it that we're on this planet, and have (AFAIK) always been on
>>this planet, but we're supposed to need artificial protection from this
>>planet's sun?
>
> The atmosphere has changed since I was kid. I swear the sun appears to
> be a different colour now. It's whiter. Not as yellow.

And the sun's heat seems to have more of a biting intensity
to it now, too. Diminished ozone layer?


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Jim Smith]

Zoot Katz > writes:

> 6 Jun 2005 19:34:04 -0700,
> . com>,
> wrote:
>
>>How is it that we're on this planet, and have (AFAIK) always been on
>>this planet, but we're supposed to need artificial protection from this
>>planet's sun?
>
> The atmosphere has changed since I was kid. I swear the sun appears to
> be a different colour now. It's whiter. Not as yellow.

Mama always told me not to look into the sights of the sun.

[catzz66]

wrote:
>
> catzz66 wrote:
>
>>Not meaning to be a party pooper, since I am a hot weather guy myself,
>>I'd recommend being aware of skin cancer and to protect your skin
>>accordingly.
>
>
> There's a notion I've always had difficulty with.
>
> How is it that we're on this planet, and have (AFAIK) always been on
> this planet, but we're supposed to need artificial protection from this
> planet's sun?
>
> Whether you believe in mindless evolution, or instantaneous creation,
> or some combination of the two, it seems hard to account for.
>
> It's like saying "Air is bad for you. Use an oxygen bottle."
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>


Frank, I think we seem to be destined to be on opposite sides of most
issues, but the whole thing reminds me of a George Carlin joke:
"Scientists have determined that human saliva causes stomach cancer, but
only if taken in small quantities over long periods of time."

[AustinMN]

> And the sun's heat seems to have more of a biting intensity
> to it now, too. Diminished ozone layer?

Naw, not ozone - it's because of the reduced particulate pollution
since the 1970's.

Austin (who actually remembers how the same things that are supposed to
cause global warming now were supposed to cause global winter back in
the 1970's)

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:43:23 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:34:34 -0400,
>,
>wrote:
>
>>It's just that I tan really fast. I was as pasty as prisoner since
>>the month of may was so miserable.All it takes for me is one or two
>>rides in the sun and I'm tanned. I think toaster strudel takes longer
>>than I do.
>
>It's because you guys pop right out of the freezer and into the oven.
>You're browned before you're cooked.
>Here were defrosted and soaked before getting baked.

Hahah... and I'm also hot and tasty!

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:30:47 -0400, wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:43:23 -0700, Zoot Katz >
>wrote:
>
>>Mon, 06 Jun, , wrote:
>>
>>>It's just that I tan really fast. I was as pasty as prisoner since
>>>the month of may was so miserable.All it takes for me is one or two
>>>rides in the sun and I'm tanned. I think toaster strudel takes longer
>>>than I do.
>>
>>It's because you guys pop right out of the freezer and into the oven.
>>You're browned before you're cooked.
>>Here were defrosted and soaked before getting baked.
>
>Hahah... and I'm also hot and tasty!

I'm more flakey and unctuous, kinda like baklava. Sweet but nuts.
Serve chilled. Good with coffee.
--
zk

[Trailgalore]

"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
> :> I started noticing something strange... my skin seems to be changing
> :> color.Sort of... BROWN! What is this strange phenomenon?

It's reverse Michael Jacksonitis

[Bill Baka]

lokey wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>
>>catzz66 wrote:
>>
>>>Not meaning to be a party pooper, since I am a hot weather guy myself,
>>>I'd recommend being aware of skin cancer and to protect your skin
>>>accordingly.
>>
>>There's a notion I've always had difficulty with.
>>
>>How is it that we're on this planet, and have (AFAIK) always been on
>>this planet, but we're supposed to need artificial protection from this
>>planet's sun?
>>
>>Whether you believe in mindless evolution, or instantaneous creation,
>>or some combination of the two, it seems hard to account for.
>>
>>It's like saying "Air is bad for you. Use an oxygen bottle."
>
>
> I've been saying that - thanks to autos - for a while.
>
> :(
>
> The thing about evolution is it doesn't much care for you after you've done
> your reproductive duty. The cancers mostly won't kill you until much later.
>
> Also consider us as a species shedding body hair over millennia. Pretty
> neat UV protection when you think about it.
>
> I saw in an issue of National Geographic a photo of a 70-something Aussie
> who had spent decades as a lifeguard. He had something like 100 excisions
> for cancerous cells.
>
One of the things that nobody gets about evolution is that before
civilization, about 5,000 years ago, if even that much, 35-40 was
considered a long lifetime. Nature set men up to live to the end of the
reproductive cycle and not much more. In the animal kingdom if you can't
have children to maintain your species, you usefulness is pretty well
done. Back then people were having children at 15, and by 30 the were
pretty much raised, so time to make room for the next generation. It was
only when villages, towns, and cities sprung up that it became a good
thing to support the 'elders' so they could pass on their wisdom. Why do
you think nobody under 35 has any age related diseases??
Nature is still adjusting to our new medical and social structure.
People never worried about skin cancer because they didn't live long
enough to worry about it.
Bill Baka

[Leo Lichtman]

"lokey" wrote: (clip) The thing about evolution is it doesn't much care for
you after you've done your reproductive duty. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's a little more involved than that. I'll cite a simple example: In a
society where grandparents help in the rearing of children, the parents have
more time to work, to create wealth, do research, and, in general,
contribute to a healthier society. Thus, what happens in their lives after
their reproductive years still matters to the survival and development of
everyone.

I always assume that every characteristic that develops over time must have
SOME survival value. Now, will someone help me figure out what music has to
do with survival?

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Leo Lichtman" > writes:

> Now, will someone help me figure out what music has to
> do with survival?

I think it helps keep the wits sharp, for one thing.
Maybe Pythagoras had some ideas about that? It might
be interesting to Google around about that.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:09:00 GMT, "Trailgalore" >
wrote:

>
>"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
...
>> wrote:
>> :> I started noticing something strange... my skin seems to be changing
>> :> color.Sort of... BROWN! What is this strange phenomenon?
>
>It's reverse Michael Jacksonitis
>
lol, yeah, that's what i said to a friend.

[[email protected]]

Leo Lichtman wrote:
>
>
> I always assume that every characteristic that develops over time must have
> SOME survival value. Now, will someone help me figure out what music has to
> do with survival?

I don't think we're all about survival. I think human beings are much
more than evolutionary machines.

I think music is an excellent example of that. Even if social music
(like traditional music I play) is some sort of community bonding
agent, I don't think that sufficiently explains the rapture a person
can experience from, say, a wonderful symphony work.

Another trait whose survival value baffles me: So many people find
desolate landscapes to be very beautiful. I'm talking about landscapes
that you could never survive in for long, let along beget progeny.

What's the survival value of loving desert scenery? Or wanting to
climb Everest?

Again, I think human beings are much more than evolutionary machines.

- Frank Krygowski

[Bob]

wrote:

> Another trait whose survival value baffles me: So many people find
> desolate landscapes to be very beautiful. I'm talking about landscapes
> that you could never survive in for long, let along beget progeny.
>
> What's the survival value of loving desert scenery? Or wanting to
> climb Everest?
>
> Again, I think human beings are much more than evolutionary machines.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Even these might be evolutionary survival traits but on a species
instead of an individual level. Rather like lemming or wildebeest
migratory behavior, maybe the irrational choice thins the herd. Just a
thought.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Bob]

wrote:
> I started noticing something strange... my skin seems to be changing
> color.Sort of... BROWN! What is this strange phenomenon?

Michael Jackson's melanin is migrating.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Bill Baka]

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "lokey" wrote: (clip) The thing about evolution is it doesn't much care for
> you after you've done your reproductive duty. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It's a little more involved than that. I'll cite a simple example: In a
> society where grandparents help in the rearing of children, the parents have
> more time to work, to create wealth, do research, and, in general,
> contribute to a healthier society. Thus, what happens in their lives after
> their reproductive years still matters to the survival and development of
> everyone.
>
> I always assume that every characteristic that develops over time must have
> SOME survival value. Now, will someone help me figure out what music has to
> do with survival?
>
>
You forgot to mention the reverse evolution this is causing. The
educated and hopefully smart will limit their kids to maybe 2 or 3.
The useless welfare class has as many kids as they want raises and the
resulting glut of poorly raised and educated kids will grow up and
spread their gene pool more than the people supporting them
Do the math.
Bill Baka

[lokey]

"Leo Lichtman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "lokey" wrote: (clip) The thing about evolution is it doesn't much care
> for you after you've done your reproductive duty. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It's a little more involved than that.

Yes, of course. Hence my use of the qualifier 'much' and the phrase
'reproductive _duty_'.

Salmon and frogs do fine just dropping their fertilized eggs and leaving
them to defend for themselves from day one. Others like mammals actually
nurture their young.

Think of my use of 'reproductive duty' as not just reproducing but
_successfully_ reproducing.

> Now, will someone help me figure out what music has to do with survival?

Development of communications skills for cooperation and group bonding of
unrelated tribe members so that each individual is more successful as part
of a larger group?

--
'We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet
of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe.
That makes us something very special' -steven hawking

[Jim Smith]

"Leo Lichtman" > writes:


> Now, will someone help me figure out what music has to do with
> survival?

Norman M. Weinberger, a neurobiologist at UC Irvine has been thinking
about this sort of stuff for a while. He has got lots of stuff to
read up on the web at:

http://www.musica.uci.edu/mrn/subjidx980901.html

No answers, of course, but fascinating stuff.

[Jim Smith]

Bill Baka > writes:

> Leo Lichtman wrote:
>> "lokey" wrote: (clip) The thing about evolution is it doesn't much
>> care for you after you've done your reproductive duty. (clip)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> It's a little more involved than that. I'll cite a simple example:
>> In a society where grandparents help in the rearing of children, the
>> parents have more time to work, to create wealth, do research, and,
>> in general, contribute to a healthier society. Thus, what happens
>> in their lives after their reproductive years still matters to the
>> survival and development of everyone.
>> I always assume that every characteristic that develops over time
>> must have SOME survival value. Now, will someone help me figure out
>> what music has to do with survival?
> You forgot to mention the reverse evolution this is causing. The
> educated and hopefully smart will limit their kids to maybe 2 or 3.
> The useless welfare class has as many kids as they want raises and the
> resulting glut of poorly raised and educated kids will grow up and
> spread their gene pool more than the people supporting them
> Do the math.

One fault in this line of thinking is that it assumes that people are
wealthy because they are "smart." It is far mor likely that nurture
is the driving force for success.

[Dennis Ferguson]

wrote:
> catzz66 wrote:
>> Not meaning to be a party pooper, since I am a hot weather guy myself,
>> I'd recommend being aware of skin cancer and to protect your skin
>> accordingly.
>
> There's a notion I've always had difficulty with.
>
> How is it that we're on this planet, and have (AFAIK) always been on
> this planet, but we're supposed to need artificial protection from this
> planet's sun?

Who is this "we", kemo sabe? Many people on this planet have a quite
modest risk of developing skin cancer when spending a lot of time in the
sun. It is only a subset of the world's population who might want to
worry about it more, particularly those whose ancestors spent a lot of
time in northern Europe.

> Whether you believe in mindless evolution, or instantaneous creation,
> or some combination of the two, it seems hard to account for.

I have no idea what creationists think, but evolutionary biologists
certainly don't believe that the sole pressure leading to evolution
of characteristics is to make an individual functionally better
equipped to survive in the natural environment. Just ask a male
peacock, whose enormous tail takes a lot of energy to grow and makes
it harder for him to fly away from the predators that want to eat him.
The fact that the lady peacocks admire a big tail, no matter how
inefficient it is to have one, is enough to make male peacocks
develop an enormous one despite the risk that entails. This is
"sexual selection", and is often the source of many of the bizarrely
non-functional attributes which species sometimes develop.

Most evolutionary biologists, including Darwin himself, attribute
much of the variation among humans to regional preferences leading
to sexual selection, rather than any natural adaptation (googling
this produced

http://tinyurl.com/btvvu

for example). Note that most regional variation among humans is
outside, where it is visible; we're a lot more uniform inside, where
variation can't be seen and where that which does exist tends to have
clear functional benefits in the regional environment our particular
ancestors lived in.

So it is certainly not the case that everything about you has developed
to make you optimally suited to the environment you find yourself in.
If the arbitrary preferences of your ancestors led to you having the
misfortune of inheriting skin which is less well adapted functionally,
being more prone to certain diseases and types of damage, you might
want to pay attention to that.

Dennis Ferguson

[lokey]

"AustinMN" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> And the sun's heat seems to have more of a biting intensity
>> to it now, too. Diminished ozone layer?

I've had that feeling too. But I suspect it's just memory tricks and aging.
No one is as young a they used to be.

A while back my doctor asked me if I burned a lot when I was young. I did.
I lived on the ocean and sending the kids to the beach was cheap daycare for
a working mom. I and my friends would burn and peel at the begining of the
summer and after that just tan. People didn't think about skin cancer in
1970's Nova Scotia. That was something that happened to movie stars in that
other world of California. According to my doctor that sort of burning at
that age is not good. Nothing so far [knock wood] but something to watch
says the Doc.

> Naw, not ozone - it's because of the reduced particulate pollution
> since the 1970's.

I don't think that would explain my experience. In the 70's I was in a low
pollution rural area - albeit rather wet - compared to the high pollution
area I live today.

[Peter Cole]

wrote:
>
> Leo Lichtman wrote:
>
>>
>>I always assume that every characteristic that develops over time must have
>>SOME survival value. Now, will someone help me figure out what music has to
>>do with survival?
>
>
> I don't think we're all about survival. I think human beings are much
> more than evolutionary machines.
>
> I think music is an excellent example of that. Even if social music
> (like traditional music I play) is some sort of community bonding
> agent, I don't think that sufficiently explains the rapture a person
> can experience from, say, a wonderful symphony work.
>
> Another trait whose survival value baffles me: So many people find
> desolate landscapes to be very beautiful. I'm talking about landscapes
> that you could never survive in for long, let along beget progeny.
>
> What's the survival value of loving desert scenery? Or wanting to
> climb Everest?
>
> Again, I think human beings are much more than evolutionary machines.
>

Once the machinery is in place, it wants to be used. My cat kills lots
of things he doesn't eat, he even kills things that have never been
alive. He seems to enjoy this immensely. A human equivalent might be
crossword puzzles or playing music. Passive experience, like listening
to music or admiring landscapes requires a lot of perceptual brainwork.
All that brain skill is/was very important to our species. We like to
use the machinery.

People are perverse. The only difference between work and play is an
arbitrary label. I think about stuff like that a lot when I'm doing
ultra-rides.

[Bill Baka]

Jim Smith wrote:
> Bill Baka > writes:
>
>
>>Leo Lichtman wrote:
>>
>>>"lokey" wrote: (clip) The thing about evolution is it doesn't much
>>>care for you after you've done your reproductive duty. (clip)
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>It's a little more involved than that. I'll cite a simple example:
>>>In a society where grandparents help in the rearing of children, the
>>>parents have more time to work, to create wealth, do research, and,
>>>in general, contribute to a healthier society. Thus, what happens
>>>in their lives after their reproductive years still matters to the
>>>survival and development of everyone.
>>>I always assume that every characteristic that develops over time
>>>must have SOME survival value. Now, will someone help me figure out
>>>what music has to do with survival?
>>
>>You forgot to mention the reverse evolution this is causing. The
>>educated and hopefully smart will limit their kids to maybe 2 or 3.
>>The useless welfare class has as many kids as they want raises and the
>>resulting glut of poorly raised and educated kids will grow up and
>>spread their gene pool more than the people supporting them
>>Do the math.
>
>
> One fault in this line of thinking is that it assumes that people are
> wealthy because they are "smart." It is far mor likely that nurture
> is the driving force for success.
>
I can speak from first hand experience if you want. Ten years ago I
worked at a big Hewlett-Packard facility in Santa Clara. Almost all of
the software programmers were East Indian with a few white guys in the
mix. On the engineering side it was Chinese, and since I am an engineer
I got into some very interesting staff meetings. Whenever the Chinese
got agitated to a certain level they would all stand up as if to fight
and start yelling obscenities at each other in Chinese. Since neither I
nor my boss speak Chinese we just sat there and looked blankly at each
other. Soon they all sat down and started back in English. Now for the
finale, every single janitor was Mexican and not a one could speak
English. The only mid level Spanish descent guy I knew worked in payroll.
Again, do the math.
Bill Baka

[Mike Latondresse]

"lokey" > wrote in
:

> I don't think that would explain my experience. In the 70's I was
> in a low
> pollution rural area - albeit rather wet - compared to the high
> pollution area I live today.
>
OK, so when did you move to TO.

[lokey]

"Mike Latondresse" > wrote in message
...
> "lokey" > wrote in
> :
>
>> I don't think that would explain my experience. In the 70's I was
>> in a low
>> pollution rural area - albeit rather wet - compared to the high
>> pollution area I live today.
>>
> OK, so when did you move to TO.

Ummm.... 1983 or so.

[[email protected]]

Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > How is it that we're on this planet, and have (AFAIK) always been on
> > this planet, but we're supposed to need artificial protection from this
> > planet's sun?
>
> Most evolutionary biologists, including Darwin himself, attribute
> much of the variation among humans to regional preferences leading
> to sexual selection, rather than any natural adaptation (googling
> this produced
>
> http://tinyurl.com/btvvu
>
> for example). Note that most regional variation among humans is
> outside, where it is visible; we're a lot more uniform inside, where
> variation can't be seen and where that which does exist tends to have
> clear functional benefits in the regional environment our particular
> ancestors lived in.
>
> So it is certainly not the case that everything about you has developed
> to make you optimally suited to the environment you find yourself in.
> If the arbitrary preferences of your ancestors led to you having the
> misfortune of inheriting skin which is less well adapted functionally,
> being more prone to certain diseases and types of damage, you might
> want to pay attention to that.

I think the best explanation of natural selection is that an organism
will develop whichever traits give its _genes_ the best chance of
survival. That's not necessarily the same as giving the organism itself
the best chance at survival. Think of mayflies, for example.

But that still does not, as far as I can see, explain most people's
attraction to certain artistic things, especially things (like complex
symphonies) that didn't exist until, oh, 200 years ago. Or things like
deserts, that are actively hostile to the survival of _anything_ human.

Regarding sunlight: In general, I feel that it's probably best to do
what our ancestors did for the past oh, 5000 to 50,000 years or so. As
it turns out, my ancestors lived only a little north of the latitude I
do, in a very similar climate. It's a little hard for me to believe
that in the hot summertime, when scything grain or chasing aurochs,
they didn't take their shirts off for many hours at a time! And I'm
pretty sure they had no SPF 40.

I do think the situation can be very different for, say, an Irishman
transported to northern Australia, though.

- Frank Krygowski

[Jim Smith]

Bill Baka > writes:

> I can speak from first hand experience if you want. Ten years ago I
> worked at a big Hewlett-Packard facility in Santa Clara. Almost all of
> the software programmers were East Indian with a few white guys in the
> mix. On the engineering side it was Chinese, and since I am an
> engineer I got into some very interesting staff meetings. Whenever the
> Chinese got agitated to a certain level they would all stand up as if
> to fight and start yelling obscenities at each other in Chinese. Since
> neither I nor my boss speak Chinese we just sat there and looked
> blankly at each other. Soon they all sat down and started back in
> English. Now for the finale, every single janitor was Mexican and not
> a one could speak English. The only mid level Spanish descent guy I
> knew worked in payroll.
> Again, do the math.

Sure, it may be a fact that all the janitors were Mexican, but this
has nothing to say about WHY they are mexican. In your previous post
you claimed a biological basis for this. Your story does not support
this.

[Bill Baka]

Jim Smith wrote:
> Bill Baka > writes:
>
>
>>I can speak from first hand experience if you want. Ten years ago I
>>worked at a big Hewlett-Packard facility in Santa Clara. Almost all of
>>the software programmers were East Indian with a few white guys in the
>>mix. On the engineering side it was Chinese, and since I am an
>>engineer I got into some very interesting staff meetings. Whenever the
>>Chinese got agitated to a certain level they would all stand up as if
>>to fight and start yelling obscenities at each other in Chinese. Since
>>neither I nor my boss speak Chinese we just sat there and looked
>>blankly at each other. Soon they all sat down and started back in
>>English. Now for the finale, every single janitor was Mexican and not
>>a one could speak English. The only mid level Spanish descent guy I
>>knew worked in payroll.
>>Again, do the math.
>
>
> Sure, it may be a fact that all the janitors were Mexican, but this
> has nothing to say about WHY they are mexican. In your previous post
> you claimed a biological basis for this. Your story does not support
> this.
>
Well, We certainly are off thread here, but the only biological basis at
work here is the attraction of welfare (way too many handouts) for the
sake of the children, Mexicans are almost 100% Catholic and reproduce
like crazy anyway. The children don't die off from malnutrition because
once they make it to this country and their mother is 8.5 months
pregnant they are born here as American citizens. The way our present
laws are written they can not be sent back, hence the glut of new
'citizen' who have no motivation to go to college and would rather join
a gang to fit in. OTOH, the Asians and Indians are highly motivated to
get the highest possible degree, even though I have know Ph D's who
weren't that bright but their families wanted to put them at the top and
paid for it. I know a lot of Chinese, American, and Indian Ph D's but
not a single Mexican I have ever met has had higher than a Masters in
business.
This is not made up, but comes from many years of working in a
professional environment. The last time I went to college the breakdown
was about the same, but with a reasonable amount of black/brown
African/Americans. No language barrier there, except people thought I
was a teacher and not a student.
Bill Baka

[Pat Lamb]

wrote:
>
> Regarding sunlight: In general, I feel that it's probably best to do
> what our ancestors did for the past oh, 5000 to 50,000 years or so. As
> it turns out, my ancestors lived only a little north of the latitude I
> do, in a very similar climate. It's a little hard for me to believe
> that in the hot summertime, when scything grain or chasing aurochs,
> they didn't take their shirts off for many hours at a time! And I'm
> pretty sure they had no SPF 40.

Well, perhaps. But weren't most of them dead before they got to be your
age?

Pat

[[email protected]]

Pat Lamb wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding sunlight: In general, I feel that it's probably best to do
> > what our ancestors did for the past oh, 5000 to 50,000 years or so. As
> > it turns out, my ancestors lived only a little north of the latitude I
> > do, in a very similar climate. It's a little hard for me to believe
> > that in the hot summertime, when scything grain or chasing aurochs,
> > they didn't take their shirts off for many hours at a time! And I'm
> > pretty sure they had no SPF 40.
>
> Well, perhaps. But weren't most of them dead before they got to be your
> age?

Seems to me there have always been "elders," people who lived to be
much older than my age. I think what it took was enough luck, etc, to
not die of infectious diseases. Germs, accidents, and childbirth were
probably the big killers, I think.

I guess what I'm saying is, I doubt many of them died from a lack of
sunscreen.

- Frank Krygowski

[Pat Lamb]

wrote:
>
> Pat Lamb wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Regarding sunlight: In general, I feel that it's probably best to do
>>>what our ancestors did for the past oh, 5000 to 50,000 years or so. As
>>>it turns out, my ancestors lived only a little north of the latitude I
>>>do, in a very similar climate. It's a little hard for me to believe
>>>that in the hot summertime, when scything grain or chasing aurochs,
>>>they didn't take their shirts off for many hours at a time! And I'm
>>>pretty sure they had no SPF 40.
>>
>>Well, perhaps. But weren't most of them dead before they got to be your
>>age?
>
>
> Seems to me there have always been "elders," people who lived to be
> much older than my age. I think what it took was enough luck, etc, to
> not die of infectious diseases. Germs, accidents, and childbirth were
> probably the big killers, I think.
>
> I guess what I'm saying is, I doubt many of them died from a lack of
> sunscreen.

Think I remember from a sermon that living to see your grandchildren was
unusual even as late as 2000 years ago, and the elders were in their
40s. I agree, few died from a lack of sunscreen. They didn't live long
enough for skin cancer to kill them.

Pat

[Jim Smith]

Pat Lamb > writes:

> wrote:
>> Pat Lamb wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>Regarding sunlight: In general, I feel that it's probably best to do
>>>>what our ancestors did for the past oh, 5000 to 50,000 years or so. As
>>>>it turns out, my ancestors lived only a little north of the latitude I
>>>>do, in a very similar climate. It's a little hard for me to believe
>>>>that in the hot summertime, when scything grain or chasing aurochs,
>>>>they didn't take their shirts off for many hours at a time! And I'm
>>>>pretty sure they had no SPF 40.
>>>
>>>Well, perhaps. But weren't most of them dead before they got to be your
>>>age?
>> Seems to me there have always been "elders," people who lived to be
>> much older than my age. I think what it took was enough luck, etc, to
>> not die of infectious diseases. Germs, accidents, and childbirth were
>> probably the big killers, I think.
>> I guess what I'm saying is, I doubt many of them died from a lack of
>> sunscreen.
>
> Think I remember from a sermon that living to see your grandchildren
> was unusual even as late as 2000 years ago, and the elders were in
> their 40s. I agree, few died from a lack of sunscreen. They didn't
> live long enough for skin cancer to kill them.

Nah, there really isn't any evidence for that. We really don't have
any idea how long people lived in prehistoric times. There is
evidence that 2000 years ago there were quite a few folks walking
around in there 50's, 60's and even older. One issue with the low
figures one hears is that they are mean ages rather than median. Lots
of people today make it to an advanced age without ever having a major
medical problem, or in spite of any medical care they may have
received. There is no reason to think they would have died any sooner
in earlier times.

This paper touches on some of these points:

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/Osteology/Hoppa.html

[Maggie]

Pat Lamb wrote:
>
I agree, few died from a lack of sunscreen. They didn't live long
> enough for skin cancer to kill them.
>
> Pat

My daughter just called me. Her friend (28) had skin cancer last year,
now they just found out that it spread to vital organs and there is
nothing they can do. They operated on her, and closed her back up. She
is only 27 years old. I'm in shock. Right at this moment there is not
much anyone could say to me that would make me encourage people to bake
in the sun. Most people think of skin cancer as something we do not
die from, that is far from the truth. It breaks my heart to think of
her right now, and to think of her parents.

Maggie.

[John_Kane]

Bill Baka wrote:
> Jim Smith wrote:
> > Bill Baka > writes:
> >
> >
> >>I can speak from first hand experience if you want. Ten years ago I
> >>worked at a big Hewlett-Packard facility in Santa Clara. Almost all of
> >>the software programmers were East Indian with a few white guys in the
> >>mix. On the engineering side it was Chinese, and since I am an
> >>engineer I got into some very interesting staff meetings. Whenever the
> >>Chinese got agitated to a certain level they would all stand up as if
> >>to fight and start yelling obscenities at each other in Chinese. Since
> >>neither I nor my boss speak Chinese we just sat there and looked
> >>blankly at each other. Soon they all sat down and started back in
> >>English. Now for the finale, every single janitor was Mexican and not
> >>a one could speak English. The only mid level Spanish descent guy I
> >>knew worked in payroll.
> >>Again, do the math.
> >
> >
> > Sure, it may be a fact that all the janitors were Mexican, but this
> > has nothing to say about WHY they are mexican. In your previous post
> > you claimed a biological basis for this. Your story does not support
> > this.
> >
> Well, We certainly are off thread here, but the only biological basis at
> work here is the attraction of welfare (way too many handouts) for the
> sake of the children, Mexicans are almost 100% Catholic and reproduce
> like crazy anyway.

Interesting observation.

>The children don't die off from malnutrition because
> once they make it to this country and their mother is 8.5 months
> pregnant they are born here as American citizens.

Give an attitude like this things must be really bad in Mexico if
moving to the USA is better.

> The way our present
> laws are written they can not be sent back, hence the glut of new
> 'citizen' who have no motivation to go to college and would rather join
> a gang to fit in. OTOH, the Asians and Indians are highly motivated to
> get the highest possible degree, even though I have know Ph D's who
> weren't that bright but their families wanted to put them at the top and
> paid for it. I know a lot of Chinese, American, and Indian Ph D's but
> not a single Mexican I have ever met has had higher than a Masters in
> business.

Well given the level of prejudice seen above I'm not surprised. I'm
sure the word is out not to work at THAT place..

>> Bill Baka