Talk:Ultraviolet light and cancer

This article is hopeless. Is it any more than a WP:POVFORK of ozone depletion? Its built around one dodgy Sepp page reporting ancient research. I've at least corrected that bit, but its still hopelessly out of date.

William M. Connolley 11:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posted 11 November 2006 by 87.226.70.233

There is a common misconception that if you get a 'tan' instead of getting 'sunburnt' when going to the beach etc that you are immune to getting skin cancer and Melanomas. This, however, is wrong.

<Discussion> RE:There is a common misconception that if you get a 'tan' instead of sunburn, you are immune to getting skin cancer. This, however, is wrong.

I am representing the standpoint of naturists (nudists). Similarly as all the lands over the World, Naturists are the ultimate most exposed folks between all humans to UV rays. Yet WHY then they has the most smallest rate for melanomas and basoteliomas?? Under my count those 2000 people we as organisation know, coming frequently at our nude beaches, every year dies, someone - from car accidents, from eldness, deep-in body cancers or other factors. But in the 50 years term NONE had been died from skin cancers!! It means the statement about straight correlation between UV dosage and skin cancer AT LEAST in nudists is plainly wrong. Why? I agree, that it is not well explained. But for me is clear that not only dosage is important but the intensity of rays FLOW too. The small UV flow may be easily stopped by melanin - natural antioxidant detoxifying body and killing cancer while in the `chemical tray`. Just `Radiochemical BIGEST HALF law` says the ALL radiation effects are induced not by a shoot of ionizating particle into target - our case DNA, but to that chemical what is over 50% into mixture, and alive cells has such a water clearly even over 80% around an every cell core. There in a water happens RADIOLYSE similarly as electrolyse or hemolyse at other physical-chemical processes, generating an O- and H+ free radicals, what are those agents making an deaathly `chemical hit` to DNA. Therefore such capable free radical swallower as melanin plus in advance it`s dark colour shade effect makes skin SENSITIVITY to UV until 100~fold more resistant (at least on my personal skin, what may burn at 10 minutes ar early spring but may be risk-free insolated week long so soon as at midsummer when darkened). My suggestions (hypothesis) : the cancer rate may be induced only

1) when skin is untrained so white that the natural defence mechanism is fallen asleep 
2) when UV rays FLOW is so giant (as made by tanning bed lamps) that daily dose is cached just in 15 or `quick` type lamps into 5 minutes - then free radical defence mechanism is heavily overloaded, just it has limited number of `soldiers` against UV. 
3) when people are using a textiles covering a parts of flesh, and its clear that any textile bit moves on a flesh so that small `white stripe` areas becomes exposed to overdoses what are safe only for well taned skin - but on small skin patches may be gotten up to 100~fold overexposure.

Hope doctors ought to hear-in the naturist association opinion, otherhow their statements in some certain cases may contradict to the experimental experience. Posted by ngo LNA vice-chairman

Before I jumped into the ways that cancer is connected to UV radiation I wanted to give background knowledge of what UV light is and its different forms. For people to really understand the dangers of Ultraviolet rays they first need to know what UV light consists of and how it works.Mainly because UV light is not the same as light that can be seen by people it has much more energy and heat. While reasearching UV radiation I came across 3 different types of Ultraviolet light that I was not aware of. I knew about UVB light but was not aware of UVA or UVC radiation. Ercannan (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the background information on the different types of skin cancer because as I was researching UV radiation's effects on the skin I found out that people's beliefs that UV rays cause melanoma may not be true. The more commonly found skin cancers, in direct relation to UVA and UVB radiation, are Squamous Cell and Basal Cell Cancer. New research surfaces every year on this topic so it is very hard to keep track of what is still true and what has been proven to be wrong. But before getting into how these rays can cause cancer I wanted to inform every one on the different kinds of skin caner so when I mention them later in the article there will be no confusion or assumptions that UV light strictly causes melanoma.Ercannan (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harmful effects on Skin

There is not much in the way of information on the topic of cancer being connected to UV radiation. Which is why this web page has been left blank for so may years. Even though there is not much information that doesn't mean UV radiation causing cancer is a myth. For years scientists have been studying and developing new theories on this topic but, information is discovered and changed so quickly it is hard to keep track of what is true and what is false anymore.Ercannan (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment

With all the talk about ways to get skin caner from all the UV radiation surrounding us I felt it was necessary to provide information on how to protect ourselves from these harmful rays. UV rays are always going to be around and will always be harmful but, that doesn't mean people need to spend the rest of their lives indoors hiding. There are simple precautions that can be made to protect your skin from damage due to UV radiation.Ercannan (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the material in the thinly sourced and low-quality Ultraviolet light and cancer article is better developed and referenced in the article Health effects of sun exposure and also Ultraviolet#Skin damage. By contrast, virtually all of Ultraviolet light and cancer was written during a few days in 2006 and 2012 (by a pair of editors who never worked on a Wikipedia article before or since). I would strongly encourage merging any worthwhile material into Health effects of sun exposure and then re-directing to that article. Other opinions or objections? —Patrug (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]