Originally Posted by Madridboy

Maybe it's the false security of sun cream leading people to believe they are well protected enough to go swimming and sunbathing all day long after a quick squirt of cream. Blob of cream, sat in sun all day thinking you're not going to burn.....sounds like a scene from Benidorm.

Originally Posted by rugbymatt

I have no choice but to be outside, my job forces me to be there for 8 plus hours a day.... (It's hell I tell ya) and I use about a bottle every 2 weeks.

Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly

Tanning lotion more like.

Must cost you a fortune in all that rain, I bet it washes away as fast as you put it on.

Originally Posted by rugbymatt

What rain? Today was the first rain here in Norfolk for weeks.

Originally Posted by jimenato

Here too in Somerset. Been very nice for the last few days - warmer than southern Spain actually.

Originally Posted by two tubes of toothpaste

During the Second World War, hundreds of thousands of lily-white British lads were sent to fight in the desert and the Far East under the blazing sun. They weren't there for a fortnight, they were there for years. You can see photo's from those days of men in only shorts and boots operating the artillery. It is alleged that Churchill squandered the forces sun-cream money on Spitfires and the such like.

So after the war, there must have been a huge spike in the numbers of skin cancer victims amongst the troops. There wasn't one.

Skin cancers have only become known since the sixties when it was first fashionable to have a suntan and products came out to promote a tan.

I wonder if there has ever been a statistical analysis made between the amount of sun-cream sold at €10 a tube and the number of skin cancers which keep on rising ?

Originally Posted by jackytoo

Good points but also in the 50s and 60s they didn't have the ability to diagnosis like the present. Skin cancer as in a mole does not kill, it is the spread to organs like The liver etc that kills. Perhaps only the secondary cancer was named as the cause of death. What does surprise is that many who have skin cancer have not been in sunny areas or sunbathed.

Originally Posted by rugbymatt

Yes it does. A melanoma is just about as serious as you can get.

Originally Posted by jackytoo

Good points but also in the 50s and 60s they didn't have the ability to diagnosis like the present. Skin cancer as in a mole does not kill, it is the spread to organs like The liver etc that kills. Perhaps only the secondary cancer was named as the cause of death. What does surprise is that many who have skin cancer have not been in sunny areas or sunbathed.

Originally Posted by two tubes of toothpaste

During the Second World War, hundreds of thousands of lily-white British lads were sent to fight in the desert and the Far East under the blazing sun. They weren't there for a fortnight, they were there for years. You can see photo's from those days of men in only shorts and boots operating the artillery. It is alleged that Churchill squandered the forces sun-cream money on Spitfires and the such like.

So after the war, there must have been a huge spike in the numbers of skin cancer victims amongst the troops. There wasn't one.

Skin cancers have only become known since the sixties when it was first fashionable to have a suntan and products came out to promote a tan.

I wonder if there has ever been a statistical analysis made between the amount of sun-cream sold at €10 a tube and the number of skin cancers which keep on rising ?

Originally Posted by jackytoo

Good points but also in the 50s and 60s they didn't have the ability to diagnosis like the present. Skin cancer as in a mole does not kill, it is the spread to organs like The liver etc that kills. Perhaps only the secondary cancer was named as the cause of death. What does surprise is that many who have skin cancer have not been in sunny areas or sunbathed.