The Big News, In Reverse UV Addiction

[Dayle Record]

The big news of the day, seems to be that tanning beds have addictive properties. Clients choose tanning beds that have some UV light to offer, because it gives them an "addictive", sense of well being.

The real news is this. Due to scares regarding skin cancers, and due to the fact that most of us work indoors; depression, and osteoporosis, is epidemic in our society. We are cautioned to avoid UV, to wear sunglasses constantly, to wear UV protection on our skin whenever out doors, (and now mosquito repellent too.)

The fact is we have an organic clock that responds to the solar position, and sunlight on the face and skin places us is space time, and also tells us on a very fundamental level, that we are alive. The light tells us that it is the day, that we may hunt, and see our predators, and families. We have receptors deep within the brain that sense the light of day. No where in the long time scheme of nature, do humans live out of the light.

Women are being cautioned to not nurse their infants, because we are indoors so much, that we are deficient in Vitamin D.

So the backwards big news of the day, is not that tanning beds are addictive, but that we as a society are being sickened by an absense of sunlight in general. This is a case of where we have trashed the planetary UV protection, and in defending ourselves from the results of choices we didn't make, we end up losing part of our birthright; being, that joy of simply, joyously, walking in the light of our world.

 

[Irol]

I have a hard time understanding how/when the sun , giver of life, became the big bad guy that should be avoided at all costs. Did we not evolve in the sun? Does our skin not have a mechanism devoted entirely to the process of absorbing uv light? And then another that converts the "vit d" from uvb into a hormone, not completely in the skin , but also the kidneys and liver?
i have read some studies suggesting vitd could actually reduce the risk for breast, prostate, and colon cancer. ( april 2002 edition of Occupational and Environmental Medicine) Only to then have sun exposure compared to smoking by The Surgeon General ! Who , by the way, is a dermatologist only "acting" as SG.

I should disclose that I am a huge Vitamin d advocate, and have heard many doctors speak on the topic.
I cannot wrap my brain around how an educated /medical professional could pass on such a dangerous message as no uv exposure.

I know speculation isn't allowed, but it my belief that sunshine is not only natural but intended.

 

[Evo]

So the backwards big news of the day, is not that tanning beds are addictive, but that we as a society are being sickened by an absense of sunlight in general. This is a case of where we have trashed the planetary UV protection, and in defending ourselves from the results of choices we didn't make, we end up losing part of our birthright; being, that joy of simply, joyously, walking in the light of our world.

Please post the sources of your information, personal speculation is not allowed. Thank you.

You must remember that our ancient ancestors had relatively short life spans compared to modern humans, so over exposure, related cancers, may have caused early death or not yet had time to become the problem it is for humans today. In colder climates, humans wore coverings, and I'm sure they didn't lay outside sunbathing, they would most likely have been under some shelter from the direct sun when possible. The earliest evidence of clothing we've found dates back ~170,000 years.

http://news.discovery.com/human/humans-first-wore-clothing-170000-years-ago.htm

 

[Evo]

I have a hard time understanding how/when the sun , giver of life, became the big bad guy that should be avoided at all costs. Did we not evolve in the sun? Does our skin not have a mechanism devoted entirely to the process of absorbing uv light? And then another that converts the "vit d" from uvb into a hormone, not completely in the skin , but also the kidneys and liver?
i have read some studies suggesting vitd could actually reduce the risk for breast, prostate, and colon cancer. ( april 2002 edition of Occupational and Environmental Medicine) Only to then have sun exposure compared to smoking by The Surgeon General ! Who , by the way, is a dermatologist only "acting" as SG.

I should disclose that I am a huge Vitamin d advocate, and have heard many doctors speak on the topic.
I cannot wrap my brain around how an educated /medical professional could pass on such a dangerous message as no uv exposure.

I know speculation isn't allowed, but it my belief that sunshine is not only natural but intended.

Vitamin D supplements can be harmful, even deadly.

Health Risks from Excessive Vitamin D
Vitamin D toxicity can cause non-specific symptoms such as anorexia, weight loss, polyuria, and heart arrhythmias. More seriously, it can also raise blood levels of calcium which leads to vascular and tissue calcification, with subsequent damage to the heart, blood vessels, and kidneys [1]. The use of supplements of both calcium (1,000 mg/day) and vitamin D (400 IU) by postmenopausal women was associated with a 17% increase in the risk of kidney stones over 7 years in the Women's Health Initiative [67]. A serum 25(OH)D concentration consistently >500 nmol/L (>200 ng/mL) is considered to be potentially toxic [5].

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/#h8