1,800 companies left California in a year — with most bound for Texas

[Boiler 46,122]

Well Ginger has been around as long as I can remember, and I know it can have a negative tinge to it, I have never used it.

 

Well certainly from a  Uk perspective having a tan suggested that you could afford an overseas holiday when most could not, things change and we go back to more historical time when it meant you were not working out in the fields.

 

I can think of some real horror stories on burning etc.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 hours ago, laylalex said:

I am a little more gingery than that. But yes, it's not the full on redhead look. More Amy Adams than Christina Hendricks. 

 

I only really started using the term ginger when all of these British people started filling up my life, though I do distinctly remember people starting to say it in the late 90s. 

 

People who think tanning is a marker of health and vitality need their heads examined. Sun is good for you, tanning is not! I have been a devotee of sunscreen since I was a girl -- my mother always kept my sister and me slathered in the stuff. Not a single line as I face down 35 and intend to keep it that way as long as possible. 

 

Given the connection between lack of sunlight and depression (along with a host of other mental health issues), and the obvious association between sunlight and tan, it looks like tanning is a marker of health and vitality. No head examination needed.

Edited January 1, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,300]

I don't know, I'd rather trust my mom who's a doctor on this one but suit yourself. Sun exposure good with protection, tanning bad. No skin cancer for me.  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

https://time.com/4888327/why-sunlight-is-so-good-for-you/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908269/

https://www.tricitymed.org/2018/08/5-ways-the-sun-impacts-your-mental-and-physical-health/

 

Ironically, no/little sunlight increases risk of depression, mood problems in general (including symptoms of ADD/ADHD, irritability, etc.), immune disorders, osteoporosis (things that affect you daily, and are almost guaranteed without other methods of intervention), specific cancers, cancers in general, heart disease, and so on. Increasing the odds of other health problems all to avoid the chance of one specific cancer. Sounds like the irrationality of my germaphobe/hypochondriac buddies.

 

Doesn't take much sun per day to get a tan (coincidentally, the same amount of sun one needs per day to get sufficient Vitamin D intake), doesn't mean you must go without protection, the main impediments are geography/weather, and biology (genetics).

 

Love me some tan. 😎

Edited January 1, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

I don't know, I'd rather trust my mom who's a doctor on this one but suit yourself. Sun exposure good with protection, tanning bad. No skin cancer for me.  

Too bad your mom hasn't been alive long enough to have learned what the chemicals in sunblock do to your insides.  It is just now coming out that most of said chemicals are either not safe, or at least their safety has not been proven.  I'll take natural over chemical anyway.  If I want to limit sun exposure, I will wear clothing.

[Neonred 3,647]

Talk about sun, it was a beautiful sunny day here today.  Upper 70's with a water temp of 77.  Took some friends out in the boat.  Saw a manatee in the canal behind the house.  Guess I should have worn sunscreen but I was pretty well covered up with clothing.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

14 minutes ago, Neonred said:

Talk about sun, it was a beautiful sunny day here today.  Upper 70's with a water temp of 77.  Took some friends out in the boat.  Saw a manatee in the canal behind the house.  Guess I should have worn sunscreen but I was pretty well covered up with clothing.

Sunny ways, my friend, sunny ways.

 

[laylalex 7,300]

I'm amazed that everyone is ignoring what I have said now multiple times:

 

Sun is good for us but we need to prevent tans (and burns, obviously). Sunblock helps -- clothing, including hats, is better than chemicals, but sunscreen is still considered safe by the FDA and the American Academy of Dermatologists, and is an important part of keeping safe in the sun. There's some good advice here: https://www.aad.org/sun-protection/is-sunscreen-safe

 

Again: I never said we shouldn't be getting sunlight -- I said the opposite. Sun protection is important however, and a tan is not healthy. A tan is not healthy! https://www.skincancer.org/risk-factors/tanning/

 

[Ban Hammer 13,554]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

I'm amazed that everyone is ignoring what I have said now multiple times:

 

 

we're just getting you prepared for marriage.

[laylalex 7,300]

Just now, Ban Hammer said:

we're just getting you prepared for marriage.

Oh, I am used to that. VERY used to that. It also works both ways.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

23 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I'm amazed that everyone is ignoring what I have said now multiple times:

 

Sun is good for us but we need to prevent tans (and burns, obviously). Sunblock helps -- clothing, including hats, is better than chemicals, but sunscreen is still considered safe by the FDA and the American Academy of Dermatologists, and is an important part of keeping safe in the sun. There's some good advice here: https://www.aad.org/sun-protection/is-sunscreen-safe

 

Again: I never said we shouldn't be getting sunlight -- I said the opposite. Sun protection is important however, and a tan is not healthy. A tan is not healthy! https://www.skincancer.org/risk-factors/tanning/

 

I’m sorry, did you say something?  😝

I’m not convinced they are safe.  I haven’t used them for many years, and my skin is just fine.  I guess we will know whenever the first one to go from non-natural causes passes.  

https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/the-trouble-with-sunscreen-chemicals/

[laylalex 7,300]

I read that EWG article a while back, and essentially it says there has been some new research that says that perhaps not all sunscreen ingredients are safe, but the EWG is not exactly unproblematic as an organization. The AAD (I posted a link to their article above) says that the EWG research on sunscreens is misleading in parts and just wrong in others. And since the EWG is a lobbying organization with a particular axe to grind, I tend to trust a professional medical association above them. That's not to say that more investigation isn't needed, it's just that the EWG (who have been accused in the past of junk science) maybe aren't the best source here.

 

I care about people making smart choices to lessen their risk of cancer.  I can't make you wear sunscreen, even though you should.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

38 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I read that EWG article a while back, and essentially it says there has been some new research that says that perhaps not all sunscreen ingredients are safe, but the EWG is not exactly unproblematic as an organization. The AAD (I posted a link to their article above) says that the EWG research on sunscreens is misleading in parts and just wrong in others. And since the EWG is a lobbying organization with a particular axe to grind, I tend to trust a professional medical association above them. That's not to say that more investigation isn't needed, it's just that the EWG (who have been accused in the past of junk science) maybe aren't the best source here.

 

I care about people making smart choices to lessen their risk of cancer.  I can't make you wear sunscreen, even though you should.  

Fair enough.  I know nada of EWG nor AAD (it used to be ADD back in the day, IIRC).

 

I don't wear sunscreen, because one day we will learn that it causes cancer (or worse).  I mean, just ask yourself... HOW does it block the sun?  What do the absorbed chemicals do once they get inside you, where the sun never shines?

 

No thank you.  I learned long ago that medications being pushed on us are not often healthy.  That's why I refused to give my kids the live polio vaccine.   I was later vindicated.

 

If I'm in a situation where the sun needs blocking, shade or long sleeves and a hat does the trick for me.  Long sleeved shirts won't likely cause cancer in our lifetimes.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Fair enough.  I know nada of EWG nor AAD (it used to be ADD back in the day, IIRC).

 

I don't wear sunscreen, because one day we will learn that it causes cancer (or worse).  I mean, just ask yourself... HOW does it block the sun?  What do the absorbed chemicals do once they get inside you, where the sun never shines?

 

No thank you.  I learned long ago that medications being pushed on us are not often healthy.  That's why I refused to give my kids the live polio vaccine.   I was later vindicated.

 

If I'm in a situation where the sun needs blocking, shade or long sleeves and a hat does the trick for me.  Long sleeved shirts won't likely cause cancer in our lifetimes.

I did do the vaccines for my kids, that's a different beast altogether, but there's a number of problems with sunscreens:

 

1. Dangers of chemicals absorbing into the skin. Just trusting the FDA is funny.

2. False sense of security being out in the sun longer.

 

Well said. The idea that getting a tan, which one gets from a mere 15 minutes of sunlight, is unhealthy, is pure FUD -- FUD I'm sure the sunscreen industry loves. Sunlight is quite healthy. There are ways where the sun might be unhealthier for specific people, but that part of the discussion isn't being had, it's basically paranoia spreading, and masquerading as health advice.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I did do the vaccines for my kids, that's a different beast altogether, but there's a number of problems with sunscreens:

 

1. Dangers of chemicals absorbing into the skin. Just trusting the FDA is funny.

2. False sense of security being out in the sun longer.

 

Well said. The idea that getting a tan, which one gets from a mere 15 minutes of sunlight, is unhealthy, is pure FUD -- FUD I'm sure the sunscreen industry loves. Sunlight is quite healthy. There are ways where the sun might be unhealthier for specific people, but that part of the discussion isn't being had, it's basically paranoia spreading, and masquerading as health advice.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I vaccinated my kids.  But by the time 1997 rolled around, the live polio vaccine (OPV) was shown to cause more cases of polio than it potentially prevented.  So I refused it for my son.  The doctors and nurses (mostly nurses) pushed SO HARD to try to force me to vaccinate him, even threatened me with "he won't be allowed to attend public school without it".

 

Imagine my joy when in 2000, I faced one nurse in particular (who had been downright rude and pushy about it) in the hospital as live on national news, the OPV was being recalled and the IPV was now the standard for immunization of children.

 

Also, having avoided at least two medicines the army tried to force on us years ago, only to find out years later they have caused various crippling illnesses... I am NOT a fan of believing what the FDA nor the government tells us about drugs or chemicals.  Maybe it's just me.