I'm gonna go and get a tan, eat raw eggs and red meat while smoking a pack of Marlboros.

And not forgetting that 24-hour binge drinking helps to stop alcoholism and prevents cirrhosis of the liver.

Nanny Phoney knows best.

Julian - That was funny!

Every time I read something like this I am reminded of Woody Allen's "Sleeper".

Hornswaggle is hornswaggle, even if the purveyer has an MD or PhD after his or her name. These phony "health bulletins" about this or that have become a standing joke.

Speaking of health, read Havel's open letter to the EU about the Cuba policy. There are all sorts of cancers, and the worst are not physical ailments at all.

I've heard that sunscreen hinders your skin's ability to make vitamin D, the vitamin that helps you to absorb calcium better. And calcium is supposed to prevent and maybe even cure cancers when properly absorbed, according to scientist Robert Barefoot. He recommends two hours of sunlight a day, while wearing no glasses or contact lenses. He says that sunlight entering the natural eye causes a chemical to produce in the brain which prevents certain types of depression. So I guess we should all lie out in the sun afterall!

I never use sunblock, but I don't smoke, either. We can listen to what everyone tells us, but we should still use our common sense. My common sense tells me that it is good for me to go out in the sun (unless it is too hot: my common sense tells me it is not so good for me). But somehow taking a piece of paper with all kinds of crap rolled into it, lighting it, putting it in my mouth and inhaling just does not make sense at all. Maybe it's just me.

Another health warning which flatly contradicts previous health warnings. "Red wine is bad for you." "Red wine is good for you." "Milk is bad for you." "Milk is good for you." "Fish is bad for you." "Fish is good for you." My advice, FWIW: ignore them all, eat, drink and do what you want (in moderate moderation), and rely on common sense.

He recommends two hours of sunlight a day, while wearing no glasses or contact lenses.

These conflicting health warnings are more the fault of journalists than doctors, and to be honest the public's continuing regard for doctors as demi-gods doesn't help matters.

Here's some conflicting science:

"Research shows thin bits of wood break more easily than thick bits of wood"

"Research shows thin trees survive storms better than thick trees"

Oh my God!! The scientists are lying to us!! Shock horror!!

Look, get over it. Medicine is complex. VERY complex. The article acurately reported the results of one study. Not all studies are the same. Not all experiments are designed in similar ways, and some findings are more significant than others.

If the complexity of science bothers you, then just do what you are told by your doctor, but stop whinging that them thar experts don't know nuthin' cos they change their minds one day to the next. The experts know lots of things. They know for instance that there is evidence that sunlight causes cancer, but also there is evidence that sunlight cures cancer.

J writes:

"These conflicting health warnings are more the fault of journalists than doctors, and to be honest the public's continuing regard for doctors as demi-gods doesn't help matters."

A religious devotion which was invented, nurtured and promoted by the white coated wonders, themselves.

Blaming journalists for this won't wash. The problem stems from doctors who like to pontificate from positions of relative ignorance, lecturing, hectoring and, increasingly, trying to instigate legislation (fat taxes, restrictions on food supplements etc) based on what are, so often, their own prejudices, as opposed to hard scientific facts.

J, you put it very precisely: "They know for instance that there is evidence that sunlight causes cancer, but also there is evidence that sunlight cures cancer." This is a long way from saying that "they know that sunlight causes cancer, but also that sunlight cures cancer. In other words, the evidence is purely circumstantial, which is to say that they really don't know one way or the other.

This is a long way from saying that "they know that sunlight causes cancer, but also that sunlight cures cancer. In other words, the evidence is purely circumstantial, which is to say that they really don't know one way or the other.

The data is a little more indicative than that though. Compare the incidence of skin cancers in Northern Europeans living in South Africa or Australia with the control populations living in Northern Europe and see the results.

Sure there's a lot more to it than that, but I don't need all the research to tell me that staying out in the sun long enough to get _radiation_ burns is going to do my skin anymore long term good than smoking does for my lungs.

Like lots of things, common sense is required.

I thought only second-hand smoke is good for you.

Seriously, as a general rule, a small amount of nearly anything is good for you and a large amount of nearly anything is bad for you.

All things in moderation.

It is neither surprising to learn that moderate exposure to the sun is healthy, nor that excessive exposure for people with low melanin (mainly caucasians) is harmful.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Sunscreen allows for the skin to absorb more radiation without burning. But burning alone isn't a consensus choice as the cancer-causing factor: exposure time is another (and in my mind, more likely) suspect. A sunburn hurts like hell, but it tells you to get under the shade. Nature had this thing figured out well before medicine.

Of course, that isn't to say that everything that feels good is good for you, but it generally works the other way.

yes, all things in moderation.

however, one should note that excessive sun exposure is harmful for anyone as the word excessive implies.

excessive drinking of water will make you sick.

excessive exercise will cause injuries.

maybe you meant to say something else.