Brennywaffle (-1):
UV light penetrates cells and generates Oxygen radicals which go and fuck up DNA.
Your cells see that its DNA is fucked so it kills itself instead of splitting. And when many cells do that at once you get a sunburn.
Sunburns are your bodies defence against skin CANCER caused by THE SUN
Well gosh. Now it’s just your word vs what I said.
So now it’s your turn to prove that the Sun causes cancer by refuting my first point that the Sun hasn’t been proven to cause cancer in and of itself.
Oh and don’t let them do the ivermectin “proof” either, where they give 80,000mg of it and use that as proof that it’s “toxic”. Yeah, so is pure oxygen or drinking 250 gallons of water in a day, liars.
Below is a list of studies and authoritative sources that establish a link between sun exposure (specifically ultraviolet (UV) radiation) and skin cancer. These studies provide evidence through epidemiological data, experimental research, and reviews of UV radiation’s role in causing skin cancers, including melanoma, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Each entry includes a brief description of the study’s findings and, where possible, a direct link or citation to access the study. All sources are drawn from the provided web results or are well-established references in the field.
Studies Linking Sun Exposure to Skin Cancer
Armstrong BK, Kricker A. (2001). “The epidemiology of UV induced skin cancer.” Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B, 63(1-3):8-18. DOI: 10.1016/s1011-1344(01)00198-1.
• Description: This review compiles epidemiological evidence showing that UV radiation from the sun is a primary cause of skin cancer, including melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers (BCC and SCC). It discusses how UV exposure leads to DNA damage, which can initiate carcinogenesis, and highlights higher skin cancer incidence in regions with greater UV exposure (e.g., Australia).
• Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1011-1344(01)00198-1
• Citation:
Kricker A, Armstrong BK, English DR, Heenan PJ. (1995). “A dose-response curve for sun exposure and basal cell carcinoma.” International Journal of Cancer, 60(4):482-488. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.2910600410.
• Description: This case-control study demonstrates a dose-response relationship between sun exposure and basal cell carcinoma, showing that higher cumulative UV exposure increases BCC risk. It provides direct evidence linking sun exposure to non-melanoma skin cancer.
• Link: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.2910600410
• Citation:
English DR, Armstrong BK, Kricker A, Winter MG, Heenan PJ, Randell PL. (1998). “Case-control study of sun exposure and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin.” International Journal of Cancer, 77(3):347-353. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19980729)77:3<347::AID-IJC4>3.0.CO;2-O.
• Description: This study finds that chronic sun exposure, particularly occupational exposure, significantly increases the risk of squamous cell carcinoma. It emphasizes the role of cumulative UV exposure in SCC development.
• Link: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19980729)77:3<347::AID-IJC4>3.0.CO;2-O
• Citation:
Gallagher RP, Hill GB, Bajdik CD, et al. (1995). “Sunlight exposure, pigmentary factors, and risk of nonmelanocytic skin cancer. I. Basal cell carcinoma.” Archives of Dermatology, 131(2):157-163. DOI: 10.1001/archderm.1995.01690140039006.
• Description: This study links recreational and occupational sun exposure to an increased risk of basal cell carcinoma, particularly in individuals with sun-sensitive skin. It provides evidence of UV radiation’s role in BCC through detailed exposure assessments.
• Link: https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.1995.01690140039006
• Citation:
Holman CD, Armstrong BK. (1984). “Cutaneous malignant melanoma and indicators of total accumulated exposure to the sun: an analysis separating histogenetic types.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 73(1):75-82. PMID: 6588215.
• Description: This study establishes a connection between total accumulated sun exposure and cutaneous malignant melanoma, showing that UV exposure contributes to melanoma risk across different histogenetic types.
• Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6588215/
• Citation:
Whiteman DC, Whiteman CA, Green AC. (2001). “Childhood sun exposure as a risk factor for melanoma: a systematic review of epidemiologic studies.” Cancer Causes & Control, 12(1):69-82. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008980919848.
• Description: This systematic review finds that childhood sun exposure, particularly severe sunburns, significantly increases the risk of melanoma later in life. It underscores the long-term impact of early UV exposure.
• Link: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008980919848
• Citation:
Gilchrest BA, Eller MS, Geller AC, Yaar M. (1999). “The pathogenesis of melanoma induced by ultraviolet radiation.” New England Journal of Medicine, 340(17):1341-1348. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199904293401707.
• Description: This article explains the biological mechanisms by which UV radiation induces melanoma, focusing on DNA damage and mutations in genes like p53. It provides a detailed look at how UV exposure initiates carcinogenesis.
• Link: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199904293401707
• Citation:
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (2012). “Radiation: Volume 100D – A Review of Human Carcinogens.”
• Description: This IARC monograph concludes that solar UV radiation is a proven human carcinogen, causing cutaneous malignant melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers. It synthesizes evidence from numerous studies showing that UV exposure from the sun damages DNA, leading to skin cancer.
• Link: https://publications.iarc.fr/123
• Citation:
Strickland PT, Vitasa BC, West SK, Rosenthal FS, Emmett EA, Taylor HR. (1989). “Quantitative carcinogenesis in man: solar ultraviolet B dose dependence of skin cancer in Maryland watermen.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 81(24):1910-1913. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/81.24.1910.
• Description: This study demonstrates a dose-dependent relationship between UVB exposure and non-melanoma skin cancer in Maryland watermen, showing higher cancer rates in those with greater occupational sun exposure.
• Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/81.24.1910
• Citation:
Rosso S, Zanetti R, Martinez C, et al. (1996). “The multicentre south European study ‘Helios’. II: Different sun exposure patterns in the aetiology of basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas of the skin.” British Journal of Cancer, 73(11):1447-1454. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1996.275.
• Description: This study compares sun exposure patterns and finds that intermittent exposure is strongly linked to basal cell carcinoma, while chronic exposure is more associated with squamous cell carcinoma. It highlights distinct UV-related pathways for different skin cancers.
• Link: https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1996.275
Additional Notes
• Mechanistic Evidence: Many of these studies emphasize that UV radiation causes skin cancer by damaging DNA in skin cells, leading to mutations (e.g., in the p53 gene) that initiate carcinogenesis. This is supported by experimental studies showing UV-induced DNA damage in both human and animal models.
• Consensus from Health Organizations: The World Health Organization (WHO), American Cancer Society, and Cancer Research UK consistently state that UV radiation from the sun is the primary cause of skin cancer, with over 80-90% of cases attributed to UV exposure.
• Limitations: Some studies note that while the link between UV exposure and skin cancer is strong, factors like skin type, genetic predisposition, and measurement errors in exposure assessment can complicate findings.
• Counterclaims: Social media posts claiming sun exposure does not cause skin cancer (e.g., attributing it to diet) have been debunked by Reuters, citing the overwhelming evidence for UV radiation’s role. No credible studies support diet as a primary cause.
This is interesting because my skin says otherwise.
Literally grew up on the beach in Huntington Beach - no sunscreen
I’ve lived in Arizona for 25 years now, and did home repairs having to work in the summertime - no sunscreen
Live in Kauai part time - I literally live in the water - no sunscreen
I have perfectly healthy skin, and no skin cancer.
It’s almost as if the people who were doing all these studies about skin cancer, are the same people who are doing studies on regular cancer, I’ve never solved any problem.
Literally, ivermectin and fenbendazole cure cancer. But that’s not what makes money, so the studies will continue.
That’s kinda been my point with those two pro-sorcery shills. Not only are they not addressing any counterexamples or explaining their case, but the best they’re doing is throwing me 10 cases off AI to parse through myself, compare methodologies, punch holes in, learn the biochemistry BS behind it.
I better donate to the pink ribbon society and take some preventative chemo now! Drink more fluoride and mercury, they’re good for you!
Replication is a key part of proving a hypothesis. You are being so dense.
One study and you’re done? Are you serious? You don’t think it’s a good idea for other scientists to conduct the same experiment you did in different settings to see if the outcome is the same? You’ve actually got me laughing at how stupid you are being.
Again, I asked for proof, not for a bunch of citations for me to go dig through myself. I could have made the same 30 second search and got the same results as you.
You’re laughing, I’m laughing too, as you don’t seem to understand what “proof” means. Plenty of fools laugh at others as if the other is the fool.
I don’t need a bunch of people repeating the same crap, and as the person making the positive claim, you still haven’t answered my request,
Sunburns are a defensive response which the body does itself.
The skin cells detect that theyve been damaged by the sun, so when it comes time to divide they instead kill themselves. This is to prevent the spread of its broken DNA and is a natural defense against cancer.
And every mammal can get sunburns, so its a trait that evolved long ago. The sweat of hippo's is actually brown and is a sunscreen. Large sun exposure over generations caused this all to evolve. This indirectly confirms that the sun kills and that sunburns prevent sun-based genetic illness.
The planets been exposed to this level of light forever, so life's adjusted, but if the sun cranked up out of nowhere (or the ozone depletes) it'd cause a mass extinction.
Well gosh. Now it’s just your word vs what I said.
Here are my positive claims:
So now it’s your turn to prove that the Sun causes cancer by refuting my first point that the Sun hasn’t been proven to cause cancer in and of itself.
Oh and don’t let them do the ivermectin “proof” either, where they give 80,000mg of it and use that as proof that it’s “toxic”. Yeah, so is pure oxygen or drinking 250 gallons of water in a day, liars.
Below is a list of studies and authoritative sources that establish a link between sun exposure (specifically ultraviolet (UV) radiation) and skin cancer. These studies provide evidence through epidemiological data, experimental research, and reviews of UV radiation’s role in causing skin cancers, including melanoma, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Each entry includes a brief description of the study’s findings and, where possible, a direct link or citation to access the study. All sources are drawn from the provided web results or are well-established references in the field.
Studies Linking Sun Exposure to Skin Cancer
Additional Notes
• Mechanistic Evidence: Many of these studies emphasize that UV radiation causes skin cancer by damaging DNA in skin cells, leading to mutations (e.g., in the p53 gene) that initiate carcinogenesis. This is supported by experimental studies showing UV-induced DNA damage in both human and animal models. • Consensus from Health Organizations: The World Health Organization (WHO), American Cancer Society, and Cancer Research UK consistently state that UV radiation from the sun is the primary cause of skin cancer, with over 80-90% of cases attributed to UV exposure. • Limitations: Some studies note that while the link between UV exposure and skin cancer is strong, factors like skin type, genetic predisposition, and measurement errors in exposure assessment can complicate findings.
• Counterclaims: Social media posts claiming sun exposure does not cause skin cancer (e.g., attributing it to diet) have been debunked by Reuters, citing the overwhelming evidence for UV radiation’s role. No credible studies support diet as a primary cause.
Nice AI response. I’d better go dig hard and wear myself out trying to read all those now.
I did start reading up from the bottom. “Debooooonkeed” by Reuters. Who owns Reuters, again? Kek.
The above does NOT answer what I asked for. If I wanted a bunch of studies claiming they’ve proved it, I could have googled the same 10.
“Prove” does not mean “cite studies”. This is not what I asked for, and YES, I WILL be difficult about this.
Isn’t it strange how they have so many studies seeking to prove to claim the exact same thing?
You’d think they only needed to prove it once. Weird!
This is interesting because my skin says otherwise.
Literally grew up on the beach in Huntington Beach - no sunscreen
I’ve lived in Arizona for 25 years now, and did home repairs having to work in the summertime - no sunscreen
Live in Kauai part time - I literally live in the water - no sunscreen
I have perfectly healthy skin, and no skin cancer.
It’s almost as if the people who were doing all these studies about skin cancer, are the same people who are doing studies on regular cancer, I’ve never solved any problem.
Literally, ivermectin and fenbendazole cure cancer. But that’s not what makes money, so the studies will continue.
That’s kinda been my point with those two pro-sorcery shills. Not only are they not addressing any counterexamples or explaining their case, but the best they’re doing is throwing me 10 cases off AI to parse through myself, compare methodologies, punch holes in, learn the biochemistry BS behind it.
I better donate to the pink ribbon society and take some preventative chemo now! Drink more fluoride and mercury, they’re good for you!
Replication is a key part of proving a hypothesis. You are being so dense.
One study and you’re done? Are you serious? You don’t think it’s a good idea for other scientists to conduct the same experiment you did in different settings to see if the outcome is the same? You’ve actually got me laughing at how stupid you are being.
Nice deflection.
Again, I asked for proof, not for a bunch of citations for me to go dig through myself. I could have made the same 30 second search and got the same results as you.
You’re laughing, I’m laughing too, as you don’t seem to understand what “proof” means. Plenty of fools laugh at others as if the other is the fool.
I don’t need a bunch of people repeating the same crap, and as the person making the positive claim, you still haven’t answered my request,
You were on the website, look up UV rays.
Read its discussion about UV rays causing cancer, then realize the sun sprays UV everyday.
I’m fully aware of Science Priests claiming that “the sun causes cancer” for decades.
You’re the one making the positive claim. You back it up.
My claim is only that they haven’t proven it, because I’m not aware of them having definitively proven it.
Everyone should have been dying of skin cancer left and right for centuries, yet somehow “skin cancer” only shows up in the 20th century. Weird.
Meanwhile, I simply cover up when I go outside, with a good hat and a long shirt, and even after 6+ hours, not even a slight burn is present.
Sunburns are a defensive response which the body does itself.
The skin cells detect that theyve been damaged by the sun, so when it comes time to divide they instead kill themselves. This is to prevent the spread of its broken DNA and is a natural defense against cancer.
And every mammal can get sunburns, so its a trait that evolved long ago. The sweat of hippo's is actually brown and is a sunscreen. Large sun exposure over generations caused this all to evolve. This indirectly confirms that the sun kills and that sunburns prevent sun-based genetic illness.
The planets been exposed to this level of light forever, so life's adjusted, but if the sun cranked up out of nowhere (or the ozone depletes) it'd cause a mass extinction.