The CO2 you're using is not safe...

[Homercidal]

Is this thing still going? Sheesh.

 

[D_Ranged_Eskimo]

Is this thing still going? Sheesh.

It looks like it's become more of a punching bag than anything else!

 

[day_trippr]

 

[DieterVonBrauhaus]

LOL, freaking love it..beatin the dead horse. Can someone please delete this thread

 

[D_Ranged_Eskimo]

I'm crying laughing in my office looking at this!!!!

 

[DieterVonBrauhaus]

I'm crying laughing in my office looking at this!!!!

Me too

 

[DieterVonBrauhaus]

um sorry me too

 

[bigbeergeek]

Actually, sunscreen has never been proven to prevent skin cancer (or any other cancer for that matter), but the vitamin D that it inhibits CAN prevent many forms of cancer. Many scientists now say that sunscreen might actually increase skin cancer rates (melanoma in particular since it has a strong tie to vitamin D levels).

But, back topic of how bad a few grams of CO2 is for me.....

I'm enjoying the sunscreen conversation more than the dead horse image -- which is quite funny.

Sure, you'll deny your body vitamin D if you coated all exposed surfaced of your body with sunscreen at all times. I'm not advocating this, I don't think anyone is.

Vitamin D is in everything: fish, milk, breakfast cereal, vitamin supplements... I don't think we need any more fear-mongering on this thread.

Hell, don't wear sunscreen if you don't want to. UV radiation is a very established way to make cells mutate, damage DNA, and create cancer cells. I'll wear it when I'm gonna be out in the sun for periods of time. Sunburns suck, too.

 

[sudsmcgee]

I'm enjoying the sunscreen conversation more than the dead horse image -- which is quite funny.

Sure, you'll deny your body vitamin D if you coated all exposed surfaced of your body with sunscreen at all times. I'm not advocating this, I don't think anyone is.

Vitamin D is in everything: fish, milk, breakfast cereal, vitamin supplements... I don't think we need any more fear-mongering on this thread.

Hell, don't wear sunscreen if you don't want to. UV radiation is a very established way to make cells mutate, damage DNA, and create cancer cells. I'll wear it when I'm gonna be out in the sun for periods of time. Sunburns suck, too.

Fact: the human body can easily make 10,000 IU of vitamin D in 10-20 minutes of full body sun exposure.

Fact: the typical human diet provides less than 600 IU of vitamin d daily.

Fact: the vast majority of Americans are vitamin D deficient.

Fact: outside of supplements, humans cannot get enough vitamin d in the absence of sun exposure.

 

[KevinM]

in other words, when's the last time you read an obituary for death-by-CO2?

A few weeks ago, from a McDonalds bathroom actually, and unfortunately.

In any case, there's more rules and scientific acknowledgement about the wielding/food/medical co2 being safe then there is being unsafe at this time. Now should there be evidence that the tanks are not purged, hydrostaticly tested, and change gas types more often than I change my underwear, then I'll be concerned.

 

[BrewKnurd]

Fact: the human body can easily make 10,000 IU of vitamin D in 10-20 minutes of full body sun exposure.

Fact: the typical human diet provides less than 600 IU of vitamin d daily.

Fact: the vast majority of Americans are vitamin D deficient.

Fact: outside of supplements, humans cannot get enough vitamin d in the absence of sun exposure.

Fact: these facts do prove or even suggest that anyone should avoid sunscreen entirely.

 

[BrewKnurd]

Actually, sunscreen has never been proven to prevent skin cancer (or any other cancer for that matter), but the vitamin D that it inhibits CAN prevent many forms of cancer. Many scientists now say that sunscreen might actually increase skin cancer rates (melanoma in particular since it has a strong tie to vitamin D levels).

But, back topic of how bad a few grams of CO2 is for me.....

Oh, and yes, there are studies showing that sunscreen reduces skin cancer. http://www.skincancer.org/daily-sunscreen-use-cuts-melanoma-risk-in-half-study-finds.html

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/12/2546.short

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673698121682

 

[sudsmcgee]

No, but the incidence of vitamin d deficiency is indirectly proportional to sunscreen use. That is fact.

 

[BrewKnurd]

No, but the incidence of vitamin d deficiency is indirectly proportional to sunscreen use. That is fact.

And its a bad idea to drink sunscreen. That is also fact.

 

[sudsmcgee]

Oh, and yes, there are studies showing that sunscreen reduces skin cancer. http://www.skincancer.org/daily-sunscreen-use-cuts-melanoma-risk-in-half-study-finds.html

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/12/2546.short



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673698121682

Funny, 'cause then there's articles like this


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/411226.stm

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/05/24/study-many-sunscreens-may-be-accelerating-cancer/

 

[acuenca]

Holy Jesus... Don't wear sunscreen and CO2 used in home brew kegging is carcinogenic?? Definitely two facts I did NOT learn in medical school... that and the insanely high incidence of Vit D deficiency....cause the last time I saw someone with rickets was....?????

 

[sudsmcgee]

The bottom line is that we need to limit our exposure to the suns UV rays to prevent skin cancer. The longer you stay in the sun beyond the level that results in reddening of the skin, the greater the risk of skin cancer. This is true regardless of whether or not you use suncreen.

Sun exposure below the threshold resulting in skin reddening is safe and helps contribute to vitamin D production. Vitamin D has been shown to reduce the risk of multiple cancers.

 

[motobrewer]

....cause the last time I saw someone with rickets was....?????

best post ever.

argument, over.

 

[sudsmcgee]

Holy Jesus... Don't wear sunscreen and CO2 used in home brew kegging is carcinogenic?? Definitely two facts I did NOT learn in medical school... that and the insanely high incidence of Vit D deficiency....cause the last time I saw someone with rickets was....?????

Ummm, you might want to go back to school....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21678784

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19580464

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19255005

 

[SwampassJ]

I'm pretty sure the SPF-30 I put on is doing less harm than the 8 hours of sun I get a day. Oh **** I just grew dramatic trolling melanoma.

 

[sudsmcgee]

best post ever.

argument, over.

Really....

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/412104

Rickets Reemerging in United States

Print This Print This




New York (MedscapeWire) Aug 18 — Two articles in the August issue of the Journal of Pediatrics draw attention to an emerging epidemic of a crippling childhood disorder that was nearly eliminated in the early part of the 20th century.

The condition, nutritional rickets, usually results from a dietary deficiency of vitamin D. This impairs the body's ability to absorb calcium from the diet, resulting in poor bone development. If rickets occurs in infancy or early childhood, the weak bones can become severely deformed, occasionally resulting in the need for major surgery.

Most individuals produce their own vitamin D when their skin is exposed to sunlight. Other sources of vitamin D include foods to which the vitamin is added in processing, such as milk, and most vitamin preparations. At the beginning of the 20th century, nutritional rickets was a common disease, particularly among infants in urban areas of the United States. With the advent of routine vitamin D supplements, however, the problem virtually disappeared by mid-century.

The study and the editorial accompanying it conclude that the reemergence of rickets is due to an increase in breast-feeding in infants who do not receive supplemental vitamins.

"To understand vitamin D deficient rickets today, one need only consider the population of infants affected," says Thomas R. Welch, MD, director of nephrology and hypertension at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and coauthor of the editorial. "The Healthy People 2000 initiative has set a target of 75% of American infants breast-feeding for at least 6 months. Unless this is accompanied by the provision of vitamin D supplementation to replace that currently derived from formula, an epidemic of rickets seems inevitable."

The editorial accompanies a study of rickets in infants in North Carolina. The study, conducted at Wake Forest University and the University of North Carolina, described 30 children in whom nutritional rickets was diagnosed over a 10-year period. All infants were African-American and breast-fed without supplemental vitamin D. The researchers, led by Shelly Kreiter, MD, of Wake Forest University, suggested that the lack of vitamin D in the diet, combined with deficient production of the vitamin because of their heavily pigmented skin, predisposed these infants to rickets.

Using data from physician surveys and the North Carolina Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, the researchers noticed that the new cases of rickets occurred as the incidence of breast-feeding in the area increased. They also noted that local pediatricians frequently neglected to recommend vitamin D supplements for breast-fed babies.

But the increase in nutritional rickets is not confined geographically. In the accompanying editorial, the authors point out that cases of rickets are increasing throughout the United States.

Dr. Welch, an associate editor of the Journal of Pediatrics, says that Cincinnati Children's Hospital has treated several infants recently with nutritional rickets, including at least one who required admission to the pediatric intensive care unit. All those treated at Cincinnati Children's have been dark-skinned, breast-fed infants not receiving vitamin D.

In a 1997 position paper, the American Academy of Pediatrics stopped short of recommending routine vitamin D supplements for nursing infants, even though most standard textbooks of infant nutrition clearly do so, according to Dr. Welch. In addition, he says, some "how to" manuals for nursing mothers go even further, suggesting that any supplemental vitamins are unnecessary. The authors of both articles stress that human milk is clearly the most optimal food for infants.

While the North Carolina researchers stress the importance of supplements for dark-skinned infants, the Cincinnati and Syracuse physicians broaden the advice to include all infants who are exclusively breast-fed.

It's ironic, Dr. Welch says, that "in an era of expensive, high-tech medicine, a serious disease is reappearing because of neglect of a decades-old intervention that costs pennies a day, is completely safe, and 100% effective."

J Pediatr. 2000;137:143-145,153-1

 

[BrewKnurd]

Funny, 'cause then there's articles like this


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/411226.stm

So did you read enough of this article to see that the main point was that people who wore sunscreen then stayed out in the sun FAR LONGER? I mean, the author of the study, in that article, says that the problem isn't the sunscreen, its that people then assume they can just stay outside all damn day, going beyond the protection provided by the sunscreen. This study is not a study on the efficacy of sunscreen, its a study on peoples behavior and the resulting consequences.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/05/24/study-many-sunscreens-may-be-accelerating-cancer/

The study referenced here didn't even test sunscreen in any way. It just showed that a cream (just a cream) with vitamin a led to faster growths of tumors than a cream with no vitamin a.

 

[sudsmcgee]

How about this http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;122/5/1142.pdf

Look, this is what I do for a living and I can back up my facts all damn day (unlike the OP and his CO2 rant).

 

[motobrewer]

Really....

my name is suds mcgee and i like to post medical journals written a DECADE ago

indeed.

 

[acuenca]

Seriously though... the point I'm trying to make is that most people get enough sun light during their trips outside to make the Vit D that you need, cause as you said all it takes is 10-20 minutes of sun. You do not have to be stark naked to glean the benefits... Though if you choose to do that... well that's up to you. IF you're north of the Mason-Dixon and/or have significant cloud cover for parts of the year, then taking supplements will carry you through...

BUT Advocating that you shouldn't wear sunscreen if you're fair skinned in significant direct sun or while outside for extended periods of time is just not right...The Lancet study above is a good reference and if you really need others I can provide...Unless you want to continue to make the wallets of my dermatology colleagues fat, then by all means...

 

[motobrewer]

Look, this is what I do for a living and I can back up my facts all damn day (unlike the OP and his CO2 rant).

you do what for a living? google "rickets"?

how much does that gig pay?

 

[SwampassJ]

The study and the editorial accompanying it conclude that the reemergence of rickets is due to an increase in breast-feeding in infants who do not receive supplemental vitamins.

Damn them babies and not getting enough sun. Freaking vampire children.

 

[sudsmcgee]

indeed.

Ha, if you bothered to look yourself you'd see that there are dozens of recent studies that support what I'm saying. But hey, believe what you want. I'll continue to believe what I know.

 

[Yuri_Rage]

We've reached the bottom of this downhill slide.