Roman "I know global warming is occuring, but I am unsure of who's causing it. I live in Alaska, and so I am witnessing shit get warm, fast." I guess you are not living at Cold Bay, where temperature has decreased 0,6º C in just 23 years, according to NOAA and GISS temperature data. <center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/chart/coldbay3.gif"></center> Or not in Cordova, Alaska, where it went down -1.3º C from 1910 to 2000. <center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/chart/cordova3.gif"></center> <b>Source:</b> GISS database at. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/station_data/
I find a lot on the web that questions the motives of the research and advice given by the ACS. Appears that the study that was done by the ACS on cancer rates and deaths (early this month) only covered the United States and only found the decreased rates amongst whites and actually reported higher incidence and death rates among minorities. Which other institutions say what? Edufer: "You’d be amazed to know all the things you were not aware off!" Edufer, please, Bruce Ames is providing his opinion. It would not be correct to assume he has a monopoly on what is to be known especially since many researchers do not agree. I must admit, when you first pointed this out to me in another thread, I sure did find it amazing that he should be going against the grain to such an extreme extent. I just went over to PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ and entered "skin cancer UV" in the search field. Appears there are a number of studies, recent and old, that find direct relation between exposure and melanoma using direct studies on animals, not petri dishes of microorganisms as is the Ames test.
Mr. Chips: <b>“Yes, I find you to be stark raving mad, Edufer, unable to consider any data that is in opposition to your beloved theory.”</b> And what about you? You have such a tunnel vision, that have acknowledged you won’t ever read articles I have written and published in some websites (in our site or in another ones). Mr. Chips: <b>Tell me something, is your belief that the ozone hole does not exist your opinion or a </b>fact? Not my belief, but <b>a scientific fact</b> that there is <b>no ozone hole</b>. There is just a decrease in ozone levels during September and part of October each year, in altitudes between 16 and 25 km. If variances of known chemicals in the atmosphere is enough to declare a “hole”, then in Antarctica there are a “NOx hole”, a “Freon-11 hole” (as shown by Crista-Spas satellite), and a “water vapor hole”. We should do something about these holes. See it: <center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/vortex-1.jpg" width=500></center>
Mr. Chips: "Appears there are a number of studies, recent and old, that find direct relation between exposure and melanoma using direct studies on animals," Good. Could you point to me some of them? I would like to analyze them at our University in Córdoba. Then we'll see the value of such "direct relations".
Heck, go do some searching. I don't know how many times I have wondered why someone posts a question in a forum before going and doing some searching because you can find much to begin to formulate an answer. Some cancer rates for some people have decreased. Some cancer rates for some people have increased. Breast cancer rates appear to be increasing. The less clothes idea seems to make sense to me but I don't entirely discount the possibility of more cancers due to less ozone. It is interesting that the ACS found that incidence of lung cancer decreased amongst women when in fact their own studies show that past rapid increase of the rates have leveled off. I guess one could call that a decrease but seems kind of misleading to me if the incidence is actually the same as previous sample studies rather than less.
I just told you how to find them. Only the abstracts are available via PubMed but you could try their full text retrieval at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pmc and of course once you got a researcher's name and study title you should be able to find more in depth data via a google search. Oh, lets see, I entered "skin cancer uv" at PubMed Central, the second link above and got 114 leads. Many of these appear to be reports of direct animal and plant tissue exposure to the forms of UV. I don't seem to see any that tend to support your idea that this radiation does not induce cancer, if I understand you correctly.
Edufer: "Not my belief, but a scientific fact that there is no ozone hole." If a fact is disputed by people and organizations that claim a nonbiased and scientific standing, does that make it possible that the fact may actually be a strongly held opinion? Sure some organizations are deeply biased but, if most do not agree, shouldn't one have some wonder as to why they disagree with majority opinion? Technically, I find good science to incorporate the general understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and actually be presented as opinions of varying confidence factors. When confidence factors are high, we generally agree to call them facts which is why humanity has had to learn things anew from time to time as mistakes have been made. We're human, sometimes our supposed facts, from what we know and are capable of knowing, are found out later to be no more than strong opinions that were held in error. This does, has and is happening. Do you entirely deny any possibility that you are mistaken with this idea that there be no ozone hole? Anybody out there, go do your own searching. Do not depend entirely on the third or even more removed citations (and lack of citations) you come across in a public forum. These forums often cater to those who spin, who have an agenda. The most vociferous is not always or maybe even rarely the presentation of the most salient.
Cancer's complicated. I discussed this issue at length today, and there are lot of factors. Carcinogens have been demonstrated to cause cancer, as has UV, radiation, viruses, stress, the age at which one becomes pregnant as well as age and exposure to these environemental sources and genetic preponderance to cancer. The number of sicknesses described as cancer have been increasing, so in the next generation, cancer rates should level off, correct? There are localized changes in temprature, certainly. Perhaps the same explanation explains the melting above the Arctic circle. Weather prediction, in any kind of absolute sense, is inherently flawed. It is much too chaotic predict a weather pattern for any specific place. A few examples of glaciers growing, or Cold Bay getting colder does not disprove global climate change. Village elders north of the Arctic circle, as well as in the interior, are saying that winter is not winter anymore; they're too mild. The polar icecap is also melting– boats can safely traverse it early and later in the year. The US Navy believes that if current trends continue, a northern navy patrol may be required to protect America from Communism. Or whatever the terrorists want to throw at us. I'll try to find the article that addressed this issue. Some permafrost isn't permanent anymore in the entire Arctic circle, including Russia and Scandavia. The number of bugs have also increased in northern places, due to earlier, wetter summers. In Finland this week mosquitos reached such great numbers that people thoght it was smoke from a fire. Denying climate change is foolish. There are too many indicators that it is occuring. I'm just wondering if it is happening at a very quick rate, fast enough to be concerned about. We are due for a mass extinction. Only time will tell.
Mr. Chips: <b>“Appears there are a number of studies, recent and old, that find direct relation between exposure and melanoma using direct studies on animals, not petri dishes of microorganisms as is the Ames test.”</b> I've wasted more than two hours searching in PubMed (under “skin cancer UV” keywords as you suggested) for the “direct relation” between exposure and melanoma. The overwhelming majority of studies related to melanomas didn't mention UV, but genetic factors, chemical, etc. but I found this study that sheds some light onto the subject:<dir><b>Animal models of melanoma: an HGF/SF transgenic mouse model may facilitate experimental access to UV initiating events.</b> Noonan FP, Dudek J, Merlino G, De Fabo EC. Laboratory of Photobiology and Photoimmunology, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health and Health Services, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. drmfpn@gwumc.edu Cutaneous malignant melanoma, the most lethal of the skin cancers, known for its intractability to current therapies, continues to increase in incidence, providing a significant public health challenge. There is a consensus that skin cancer is initiated by sunlight exposure. For non-melanoma skin cancer there is substantial evidence that chronic exposure to the ultraviolet B radiation (UVB) (280-320 nm) portion of the sunlight spectrum is responsible. Experimentally, UVB is mutagenic and chronic UVB exposure can cause non-melanoma skin cancer in laboratory animals. Non-melanoma tumors in animals and in humans show characteristic UVB signature lesions in the tumor suppressor p53 and/or in the patched (PTCH) gene. An action spectrum or wavelength dependence for squamous cell carcinoma in the mouse shows a major peak of efficacy in the UVB. <b>For malignant melanoma, however, the situation is unclear and the critical direct target(s) of sunlight in initiating melanoma and even the wavelengths responsible are as yet unidentified.</b> This lack of information is in major part a result of a paucity of animal models for melanoma which recapitulate the role of sunlight in initiating this disease. The epidemiology of melanoma differs significantly from non-melanoma skin cancer. Intense sporadic sunlight exposure in childhood, probably exacerbated by additional adult exposure, <b>is associated</b> with elevated melanoma risk. Melanoma is also a disease of <b>gene-environment interactions with underlying genetic factors playing a significant role.</b> These major differences indicate that <b>extrapolation from information for non-melanoma skin cancer to melanoma is unlikely to be useful.</b></dir> Then, an example of studies found in PubMed:<dir>Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2004 Mar 15;195(3):298-308. <b>Toxic effects of ultraviolet radiation on the skin.</b> Matsumura Y, Ananthaswamy HN. Department of Dermatology, Kansai Medical University, Osaka 570-8507, Japan. matsumy@takii.kmu.ac.jp Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation present in sunlight is an environmental human carcinogen. The toxic effects of UV from natural sunlight and therapeutic artificial lamps are a major concern for human health. The major acute effects of UV irradiation on normal human skin comprise sunburn inflammation (erythema), tanning, and local or systemic immunosuppression. At the molecular level, UV irradiation causes DNA damage such as cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and (6-4) photoproducts, which are usually repaired by nucleotide excision repair (NER). Chronic exposure to UV irradiation leads to photoaging, immunosuppression, and ultimately photocarcinogenesis. Photocarcinogenesis involves the accumulation of genetic changes, as well as immune system modulation, and ultimately leads to the development of skin cancers. In the clinic, artificial lamps emitting UVB (280-320 nm) and UVA (320-400 nm) radiation in combination with chemical drugs are used in the therapy of many skin diseases including psoriasis and vitiligo. Although such therapy is beneficial, it is accompanied with undesirable side effects. Thus, UV radiation is like two sides of the same coin--on one side, it has detrimental effects, and on the other side, it has beneficial effects.</dir> Where you can see “melanoma” is not mentioned as a result of UV radiation exposure. The next study (below) talked about melanoma and RR (risk ratios), but as you see there are too many uncertainties and no direct relationship. As this no epidemiological study, it has not too much validity because it has not “screened out” all factors that could induce melanomas. BTW, dermatologists don't have very clear what might induce melanomas. They keep searching, but no definitive study has yet established a recognized factor. What puzzle researchers is that melanoma frequently occur in places that have ever been exposed to any kind of radiation (UV, or X-rays, or whatever), as in the soles of our feet, inside the mouth, armpits, or buttocks.<dir><b>Cutaneous melanoma: hints from occupational risks by anatomic site in Swedish men.</b> Perez-Gomez B, Pollan M, Gustavsson P, Plato N, Aragones N, Lopez-Abente G. Cancer and Environmental Epidemiology Area, National Centre for Epidemiology, Carlos III Institute of Health, Madrid, Spain. bperez@isciii.es AIMS: To improve knowledge of the epidemiology of melanoma by comparing occupational risks of cutaneous melanoma (CM) by anatomic site in Swedish workers. … For each location, occupational risk ratios (RRs) were extracted from Poisson regression models adjusted by age, period, town size, and geographical area. … Risk patterns for different locations were compared. <b>RESULTS:</b> High RRs for different sites were found among workers exposed to UV sources (dentists, physiotherapists, and lithographers), and sun exposed workers (harbour masters, and lighthouse/related work). Risk excesses were seen in fur tailors, tanners/fur dressers, patternmakers/cutters, electrical fitters/wiremen, telephone/telegraph installers/repairmen, and some glass/pottery/tile workers. Results for lower and upper limbs were significantly correlated but somewhat independent of those <b>found in thorax, the most frequent location</b> … Specific risk excesses were found for rolling mill workers in head/neck, for chimney sweeps in upper limbs, and <b>for aircraft pilots/navigators/flight engineers in lower limbs. CONCLUSIONS:</b> High RRs in the trunk among occupations with UV exposure from <b>artificial sources <font color=#ff0000>suggest</font> an effect not restricted to exposed sites</b>. An unusual distribution of cases and RRs in chimney sweeps, rolling-mill, or glass/pottery/tile workers <font color=#ff0000><b>suggests</b></font> local effects of exposures.</dir>To "suggest" is prove of nothing. To "associate" is to prove nothing. And then there is this strange study that goes “against the grain”: it finds UV is beneficial! <b>A moderately low phosphate intake may provide health benefits analogous to those conferred by UV light - a further advantage of vegan diets.</b> McCarty MF. Pantox Laboratories, San Diego, CA 92109, USA. mccarty@pantox.com Although exposure to ultraviolet light is often viewed as pathogenic owing to its role in the genesis of skin cancer and skin aging, there is growing epidemiological evidence that such exposure may decrease risk for a number of more serious cancers, may have a favorable impact on blood pressure and vascular health, and may help to prevent certain autoimmune disorders - in addition to its well-known influence on bone density. Most likely, these health benefits are reflective of improved vitamin D status. Increased synthesis or intake of vitamin D can be expected to down-regulate parathyroid hormone (PTH), and to increase autocrine synthesis of its active metabolite calcitriol in certain tissues; these effects, in turn, may impact cancer risk, vascular health, immune regulation, and bone density through a variety of mechanisms. Presumably, a truly adequate supplemental intake of vitamin D - manyfold higher than the grossly inadequate current RDA - could replicate the benefits of optimal UV exposure, without however damaging the skin.</dir <b>Conclusion: There is no consensus at all over the genesis of melanoma.</b> Some people try to link melanomas with UV, some others say there is no evidence for that claim. We'll have to wait until definitive solid evidence proves that UV radiation is to blame for melanoma – or not. Now you make some research and find those studies that prove without doubt that UV radiation is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for melanomas. Do your homework!
Mr. Chips: "Do you entirely deny any possibility that you are mistaken with this idea that there be no ozone hole?" I do. As dozens of thousands of serious scientists do. <b>No hole</b>. there is not an homogenoeus atmosphere, so there are no holes. There are millions of minuscule and tiny "holes" (another way of describing a <b>"reduction in concentrations"</b>) at different heights, and different latitudes and longitudes, all over Earth's atmosphere. If you cannot get that scientific fact into your head, then there is no hope to keep this discussion going.
I do not come to the same conclusion concerning the reports you posted, copying the abstracts here as well as other reports there. To make it a bit more obvious, I narrowed the search at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pmc to "melanoma uv" with 120 results. Appears that the large majority of those recent research reports more specifically deny the validity of your contention that uv exposure does not induce melanoma cancer. I don't think that any amount of evidence can dissuade you as you deny the possibility of human fallibility on your part concerning whether or not the ozone hole(s as one is now found to form over the Arctic starting only recently) exists. Your stance appears as the unilateral and unequivocal position of a zealot where no amount of counter evidence, whether major opinion or not, can be valid as you already know the "fact." I see that PubMed does not put any copyright of their own on the materials they present but do state that such rights belong to the authors and publishers who have submitted the material to them. I believe it is quite possible you have not contacted these parties concerning reproducing the content entire of the abstracts. Maybe if they are contacted, they will comply but this approach does not speak well of your desire to adhere to sound communication protocol to the extent that copyright laws may be transgressed by yourself. This is alarming as your posts contain many pictures and quotes. You also have a web site that presents whole treatises and abstracts complete. I see very little notice or statements associated with those reports concerning their copyrights. Does being in Argentina exempt you from these copyrights? I think sciforums is taking a risk, giving you free reign here. I believe why you post so much other information rather than refer to in in your own words and provide citation so others can go see them for themselves without any possibility of copyright infringement is because your ploy, in lieu of what you believe to be the facts, is to obfuscate, to fill up the thread with so much time and distance between and among posts it becomes more difficult and taxing, especially for those who are into sound information handling policy, keeping posts brief and to the point because they have a life to live, other projects that mean something to them. This venue is where you can thrive, Edufer, a public forum that due to shear volume alone can not effectively demand adherence to common courtesy and sound communication protocol to the extent of allowing possible copyright infringements. Only in such an anarchy can you possibly go on and on with the clouding of issues and the selective continual rehashing of the garbage you pass off as science.
Ten Seconds Response: <b>Yeah, sure, whatever.</b> Thirty Seconds Response: We are a no-profit foundation – do no make money with our activity – we are against <b>“copyright science”</b>, as we think science belongs to mankind. If someone feels we are infringing their rights, they can sue me for the amount they want. Most studies published in our website were sent by the scientists themselves, with permission for publishing. Other websites have granted us permission for reprinting their material – but the quotes from “green websites” don’t have permission - <b>as if we cared for such a thing</b>. They haven’t asked my permission for representing me, or my family, or my people, for “saving the planet”, banning useful chemicals, or killing millions of poor people in the Third World, or stopping development in my country and keeping our people in poverty. I thought you greens were against GMO corporations because they have patents and copyrights on their research. You burn and destroy their crop fields, their labs, attack researchers and their families – but are worried because I do not mention “copyrights”. I have seen hypocrites, but you really beat the mark in the Guinness book, Chippy dear. There are many studies linking UV to melanoma, but there are much more studies that have not found that correlation. As I said before: <font color=#ff0000><b>“linking, suggesting, associating, pointing to, etc”</b></font> does not mean <font color=#ff0000><b>“prove, evidence, definite relation”</b></font>. Think whatever you want, but I can see that insisting on your position is being more antiscientific than I could ever be. Remember Voltaire’s saying: <font color=#ff0000><b>“Ignorance affirms or denies wholeheartedly. Science doubts.”</b></font> And, as Kurt Vonnegut used to say <font color=#0000cc><b>“Go and take a flying f… to the moon!”</b></font> You bored me, Chippy dear.
Will you guys ever stop? Mr.Chips, it seems to me that he is posting exactly who wrote the ariticle's and where to even find them. Its a part of the reports. Not to mention, the fricken authors wouldnt have PUBLISHED their material if they didnt want other people reading and using it in their research and arguments. Furthermore, you again, have written 3 paragraphs explaining what could be said in one sentence. Now that is your choice, but seriously, you attack Edufer and not his material. Edufer, quit going down to his level. It seems he antagonizes you and you lash back as expected. Furthermore, practically every school child knows Ultraviolet radition is a mutagen. It CAN cause mutations. If you dont think this is true, then go lay in a tanning bed for 2 hours at lets use you a guinea pig. I guarantee you will end up with skin cancer sometime in your life as a result of the extreme burn recieved.
Thanks, Tristan for your advice. About UV being a mutagen that’s Ok, No one denies UV radiation produces skin tumors in animals, called basal cell and squamous cell tumors. These tumors are benign, although squamous can develop into malignant if not taken care off. But melanoma is malignant right from the onset. If there is a relation between UV-B, UV-A exposure and melanoma, dermatologists have not yet found it, nor the etiology of melanoma. They simply don’t know the mechanism by which melanocytes start multiplying out of control. As I pointed out before, melanomas appears in areas of the body that are no usually exposed to the Sun or UV rays (if of artificial origin), as buttocks, soles of the feet, interior of the mouth, armpits, etc. Furthermore, people with dark skin (lots of melanin) are protected from UV radiation - am I right? That’s why basal and squamous cell tumors are rarely found in dark skinned people. But melanoma is <b>as frequent in dark skinned people as it is in fair skinned</b> – suggesting UV radiation is not the cause of the melanoma, because melanin would have protected the skin and prevented the formation of the melanoma. This is common knowledge in the field, so I don’t see why all the fuss because I said UV relation with melanoma has not been yet proved.
At the PubMed Central site I see numerous studies that claim elucidation of the exact mechanism by which melanoma can and does result from UV exposure. The mechanism, BTW, appears to explain why some 50% occur where the skin is not normally exposed to the sun because the precursor substances are metabolites that can and do migrate to other places in the body. On the web in general I come accross analysis of melanoma cases stating that fair haired people are more at risk than darker skinned people. I'm listening to a NPR recorded broadcast on the subject and the researcher states that a early history of inordinate sun exposure is strongly related "statistically significant" with melanoma cases. She claims that the incidence among colored people is fifteen times less than the incidence among fair skinned people. Sure there is genetic predispostion but genes do not appear to be the cause but only a mediating factor. Except for PubMed above I think I'll just refrain from posting the links to this other data. Go do your own searching. The very few people looking at this thread and the impossibility of getting Edufer to consider anything that challenges his claims makes the effort pretty worthless. I will continue to follow my set of standards to avoid copyright infringement publically. That is my choice. It does not mean I agree or disagree with the general policy of copyrights only that it is so easy to get around them by judicious use of links that I consider it simple enough to play it safe.
Dwayne, until you can share some relatively irrefutable evidence that the gravity of other stars and star systems is a major factor of ozone concentrations, I find it quite hard to believe. I also suspect that the gravity influences of solar system objects has little real time effect. Gravity's effects are geometrically less over arithmetic distances. The closeness of our Earth, moon and our local star, quite overwhelm other sources. I do believe that science has come to some rather detailed means for analyzing the ozone layer and figuring out what is happening there. We already have a pretty good idea of how it is depleted. We are learning more fast as it is research that is getting much support due to its recognized importance. I find it possible that ozone concentrations near the surface of the earth are quite different from those at the stratospheric ozone level, as well as less homogenous. Can you please explain more of what you mean by "vacuum barriers?" Hmmm, radionuclides from nuclear tests depleted ozone, have to see if I can corraborate that. Got any references you can suggest? Did I miss something? What do you feel is leading to a gravity increase? Maybe accumulation from meteors? Is this a significant amount? What would be the source of such gravity increase? What kind of percentage increase over the fields in which we now live? Magnetic pole reversal might well be something humanity will need to address relatively soon as far as I can tell though the data I see talks about perhaps in a thousand years but I haven't really sought too much and if you could provide some references that would be great. That ole saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is pretty wise in my eyes. You are making claims here that are hard to swallow without some replete references to hard core observations and experimentation. You also share some things that I find valid from my own understanding and consider your general stance concerning ozone depleting substances as reasonable.
perhaps it helps to mention that DDLR lives in a parrallel universe. Ocasionally it meets with ours, then the result is these type of discussions.
Thank You Edufer, I want to thank you for confirming what I had suspected for a long time about CFC's and there relation to ozone depletion. I am currently studying to get EPA (puke) certified for class 1,2&3 refrigerants. What a racket. $150.00 US.And they locked up us Italians for a lot less. On the positive side,I am greatful to learn what the test has to offer however as it is teaching me a lot about azeotropes, isomers, fractionation etc. It's always cool to get stretched in areas of the unknown. The cool part is I think I'm actually getting it!!!! Please continue to write in detail, and let no comments about the length of your input stop you. I'm greatful you took the time to explain it!!!!
If the ozone hole gets smaller, could that increase the green house effect? Could the smaller hole warm up the polar region?
Hello all There is also "polar wind" in the equation when considering ozone holes at the poles. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
