Comments on: Getting back in the swing of it all http://rogerbourland.com/blog/2008/09/17/getting-back-in-the-swing-of-it-all/ Roger Bourland writes about music and life Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:04:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Brad Wood http://rogerbourland.com/blog/2008/09/17/getting-back-in-the-swing-of-it-all/#comment-87727 Brad Wood Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:14:29 +0000 http://rogerbourland.com/blog/2008/09/17/getting-back-in-the-swing-of-it-all/#comment-87727 ...and then as if on cue, comes this news item (change out the dashes for dots, etc., as I attempt to circumvent this site's spam filter): H T T P colon slash slash health_yahoo.com/news/healthday/notanisasafetan_html …and then as if on cue, comes this news item (change out the dashes for dots, etc., as I attempt to circumvent this site’s spam filter):

H T T P colon slash slash health_yahoo.com/news/healthday/notanisasafetan_html

]]> By: Brad Wood http://rogerbourland.com/blog/2008/09/17/getting-back-in-the-swing-of-it-all/#comment-87714 Brad Wood Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:19:12 +0000 http://rogerbourland.com/blog/2008/09/17/getting-back-in-the-swing-of-it-all/#comment-87714 I used to avoid the sun assiduously, but fairly recently I decided that a little exposure was better than none. Even at that, the conventionally unconventional wisdom continues to shift: it used to be suggested that a fairly large air mass (low altitude sun) would be better than a small one---the filtering of the shortest wavelength ultraviolet being more effective. Now the latest word from some is that a little (10-15 minutes or so) full-body exposure with the sun near the zenith is best, as the vitamin D production is mostly from the short wavelengths, as they are absorbed close to the surface, and the DNA damage occurs from the deeper-penetrating not-so-short wavelength UV, which presumably is the more potentially carcinogenic. It's worth noting that most malignant melanomas appear on parts of the body that receive little or no UV radiation. In any event, one person's (ABA) fear that even a single ultraviolet photon would spark a malignancy seems fairly ill-founded. One can, in any case, supplement with oral vitamin D3. For most people (again according to recent not-too-flaky sources) its toxicity has been greatly overrated. However, there may be other benefits to solar exposure that are not yet well-understood, beyond mere vitamin D production. I used to avoid the sun assiduously, but fairly recently I decided that a little exposure was better than none. Even at that, the conventionally unconventional wisdom continues to shift: it used to be suggested that a fairly large air mass (low altitude sun) would be better than a small one—the filtering of the shortest wavelength ultraviolet being more effective.

Now the latest word from some is that a little (10-15 minutes or so) full-body exposure with the sun near the zenith is best, as the vitamin D production is mostly from the short wavelengths, as they are absorbed close to the surface, and the DNA damage occurs from the deeper-penetrating not-so-short wavelength UV, which presumably is the more potentially carcinogenic.

It’s worth noting that most malignant melanomas appear on parts of the body that receive little or no UV radiation.

In any event, one person’s (ABA) fear that even a single ultraviolet photon would spark a malignancy seems fairly ill-founded.

One can, in any case, supplement with oral vitamin D3. For most people (again according to recent not-too-flaky sources) its toxicity has been greatly overrated.

However, there may be other benefits to solar exposure that are not yet well-understood, beyond mere vitamin D production.

]]>