WaterfowlForum.Net

Posted: **Thu May 21, 2015 7:57 pm**

Enjoy that youth you'll age soon enough believe me

Posted: **Thu May 21, 2015 8:25 pm**

There's a kid that works with me who's 24 but look like he's my age. I look older for being 17.

Posted: **Thu May 21, 2015 9:55 pm**

I'll be 50 in December so enjoy life while you can the real world will come calling sooner than you think

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2015 8:20 am**

I turned 51 (10) days ago:

Never stop cardio and weight training

Poor diet and alcohol in excess kill your testosterone production. You need it for a lot of other things besides the obvious.

Wear sunscreen

Pray and read the bible but don't make a big deal about it Its between you and God.

Never go to bed mad at your spouse.

Pay your bills every day.

Wear sunscreen.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2015 8:39 am**

Cox Cypress wrote:I turned 51 (10) days ago:

Never stop cardio and weight training

Poor diet and alcohol in excess kill your testosterone production. You need it for a lot of other things besides the obvious.

Wear sunscreen

Pray and read the bible but don't make a big deal about it Its between you and God.

Never go to bed mad at your spouse.

Pay your bills every day.

Wear sunscreen.

Good advice.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2015 10:16 am**

Sunscreen is something I should probably pay more attention to.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2015 10:26 am**

But don't because I always tan and never burn.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2015 4:16 pm**

R. Chapman wrote:But don't because I always tan and never burn.

Tan doesn't protect against cancer

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2015 4:17 pm**

Cox Cypress wrote:I turned 51 (10) days ago:

Never stop cardio and weight training

Poor diet and alcohol in excess kill your testosterone production. You need it for a lot of other things besides the obvious.

Wear sunscreen

Pray and read the bible but don't make a big deal about it Its between you and God.

Never go to bed mad at your spouse.

Pay your bills every day.

Wear sunscreen.

Excellent advice. Wear Long sleeves as much as possible.

Posted: **Fri Jun 05, 2015 9:33 pm**

IMG_2319.JPG

nope, that is not home made

Posted: **Fri Jun 05, 2015 9:50 pm**

simplepeddler wrote:
IMG_2319.JPG

nope, that is not home made

Looks like a good time either way!

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2015 10:24 pm**

Bad17 wrote:
R. Chapman wrote:But don't because I always tan and never burn.

Tan doesn't protect against cancer

Actually I'm pretty sure people that are naturally tan or black have a greater natural resistance to sun cancer. Otherwise there would be no evolutionary advantage to it.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2015 11:18 pm**

Woody wrote:
Bad17 wrote:
R. Chapman wrote:But don't because I always tan and never burn.

Tan doesn't protect against cancer

Actually I'm pretty sure people that are naturally tan or black have a greater natural resistance to sun cancer. Otherwise there would be no evolutionary advantage to it.

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2015 10:50 pm**

Here's my face and my name is Mitch

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:10 am**

DukMan wrote:Here's my face and my name is Mitch

Welcome aboard Mitch!

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:43 am**

Woody wrote:
Bad17 wrote:
R. Chapman wrote:But don't because I always tan and never burn.

Tan doesn't protect against cancer

Actually I'm pretty sure people that are naturally tan or black have a greater natural resistance to sun cancer. Otherwise there would be no evolutionary advantage to it.

I don't believe evolution has much to say about cancer. Cancer is mostly a disease of old age. People didn't live long enough to get cancer over most of evolutionary history. And it is all about who has the most kids that have kids. By the time you were getting cancer, your kids were having kids so just like heart disease or so many other issues of aging, evolution just doesn't have much to say.

I believe it is about Vitamin D. People that moved north didn't get enough of it, so the lighter skinned people had a greater advantage. The exception are the people like the Eskimos that have a very high fish diet where they get Vitamin D.

Having a dark complexion probably help to not get eaten, but humans had advanced to the point where that was not much of an issue by the time they moved north.

As far as tan protecting against cancer, I don't believe that it does. U-V induced cancers are outside of my area, but my guess is that not getting burned is probably the most important then especially as a kid. You have clearly overwhelmed the system and its ability to repair the damage. However, I would suspect that a ton of sun even with no burn is going to exceed the body's ability to repair all the damage. Burning is probably the worst, but I can't imagine that there is not a limit even if you tan. Some sun seems good, but a lot just seems too risky. It will probably be decades before you find out, so why not play it safe, especially with your kids.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:51 am**

SpinnerMan wrote:
Woody wrote:
Bad17 wrote:
R. Chapman wrote:But don't because I always tan and never burn.

Tan doesn't protect against cancer

Actually I'm pretty sure people that are naturally tan or black have a greater natural resistance to sun cancer. Otherwise there would be no evolutionary advantage to it.

I don't believe evolution has much to say about cancer. Cancer is mostly a disease of old age. People didn't live long enough to get cancer over most of evolutionary history. And it is all about who has the most kids that have kids. By the time you were getting cancer, your kids were having kids so just like heart disease or so many other issues of aging, evolution just doesn't have much to say.

I believe it is about Vitamin D. People that moved north didn't get enough of it, so the lighter skinned people had a greater advantage. The exception are the people like the Eskimos that have a very high fish diet where they get Vitamin D.

Having a dark complexion probably help to not get eaten, but humans had advanced to the point where that was not much of an issue by the time they moved north.

As far as tan protecting against cancer, I don't believe that it does. U-V induced cancers are outside of my area, but my guess is that not getting burned is probably the most important then especially as a kid. You have clearly overwhelmed the system and its ability to repair the damage. However, I would suspect that a ton of sun even with no burn is going to exceed the body's ability to repair all the damage. Burning is probably the worst, but I can't imagine that there is not a limit even if you tan. Some sun seems good, but a lot just seems too risky. It will probably be decades before you find out, so why not play it safe, especially with your kids.

I'm prety sure skin cancer is not a desease of the old.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:39 am**

Woody wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Woody wrote:
Bad17 wrote:
R. Chapman wrote:But don't because I always tan and never burn.

Tan doesn't protect against cancer

Actually I'm pretty sure people that are naturally tan or black have a greater natural resistance to sun cancer. Otherwise there would be no evolutionary advantage to it.

I don't believe evolution has much to say about cancer. Cancer is mostly a disease of old age. People didn't live long enough to get cancer over most of evolutionary history. And it is all about who has the most kids that have kids. By the time you were getting cancer, your kids were having kids so just like heart disease or so many other issues of aging, evolution just doesn't have much to say.

I believe it is about Vitamin D. People that moved north didn't get enough of it, so the lighter skinned people had a greater advantage. The exception are the people like the Eskimos that have a very high fish diet where they get Vitamin D.

Having a dark complexion probably help to not get eaten, but humans had advanced to the point where that was not much of an issue by the time they moved north.

As far as tan protecting against cancer, I don't believe that it does. U-V induced cancers are outside of my area, but my guess is that not getting burned is probably the most important then especially as a kid. You have clearly overwhelmed the system and its ability to repair the damage. However, I would suspect that a ton of sun even with no burn is going to exceed the body's ability to repair all the damage. Burning is probably the worst, but I can't imagine that there is not a limit even if you tan. Some sun seems good, but a lot just seems too risky. It will probably be decades before you find out, so why not play it safe, especially with your kids.

I'm prety sure skin cancer is not a desease of the old.

Your odds of getting most cancers increase very substantially with age. It's only when you start entering middle age (aka fucking old during evolutionary history) that most cancers start to be a significant risk.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/age#heading-Zero

I believe this is probably a fairly representative curve for most cancers.

It increases with age.

But why does it start to decline? Because you don't get cancer if you are dead. :shock:

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2015 1:02 pm**

Looks like the problem starts around child bearing age.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2015 2:50 pm**

Woody wrote:Looks like the problem starts around child bearing age.

You are talking about evolution. When did child bearing years begin during the evolutionary period?

Well before 15. (Not going to search for how young girls can get pregnant, that might not produce the results I'm looking for

)

When was it over?

Probably by 30 since life expectancy was so short, so roughly 13 out 14 melanomas if that curve is representative of the risk during the evolutionary don't even really have any potential for evolutionary impact. For all cancers, there is about a 1% chance of getting cancer by age 30, again assuming that is representative. It could be low (not a lot of tobacco addicts during evolutionary times) or higher (certainly not the modern benefits either).

How many babies were NOT born or died because their mother or father died because people got cancer and died? Very few.

It would take a large genetic advantage to drive the genes from the gene pool by geometric progression.

However, skin cancer may have had some impact on evolution. Interesting how many have about twice the risk. We are genetically inferior.

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2015 8:23 am**

Age isn't a sole factor in determining cancer risk. One could also surmise that it's not the age of the person's cells biologically that set them up for cancer but their exposure to known carcinogens over time. Example if a caveman could survive until the age of 80 how can you say he was likely to develop cancer? His exposure to polycarbons, heavy metals, and other cancer causing agents would have been far.. far.. lower than that of our own.

Chemicals which were not meant for human consumption are in your food, your water, and your air, and even your ducks (ie. PCB's). I believe that it's not age that predisposes you to cancer but your exposure to carcinogens over time...

Fun FACT: Monsanto leading asshole's of the agro-chemical business. Monsanto has single handedly given us DDT, Agent Orange, and PCB's all known cancer causing agents. You may be less thrilled to know they also make Round-Up which is leaching into out water and being found in our beef and plants as well as Aspartame everyone's favorite artificial sweetener.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2015 9:04 am**

DukMan wrote:Age isn't a sole factor in determining cancer risk.

Of course it's not the sole factor. It's the dominant factor.

DukMan wrote:One could also surmise that it's not the age of the person's cells biologically that set them up for cancer but their exposure to known carcinogens over time.

Over time, would be age. The more time on this earth, the more you are exposed to carcinogens, known or unknown.

DukMan wrote:His exposure to polycarbons, heavy metals, and other cancer causing agents would have been far.. far.. lower than that of our own.

He probably had zero exposure to tobacco. You skipped right over the largest known cause of cancer. Also another big contributor to cancer is obesity, which a fat caveman was called dinner.

There exposure to radiation would have been higher.

BTW, it is not just the cavemen that would have been evolving in an environment high in damage at a cellular level. That would apply to the entire biologic history from the very first organism.

DukMan wrote:Chemicals

Water, protein, ... Everything is a chemical. Organically grown tobacco is not healthy. You have to be a lot more specific because there is no way to say all of this are good and all of this are bad.

DukMan wrote:Monsanto has single handedly given us DDT

which saved MILLIONS of lives and idiots banned which resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths.

DukMan wrote:Agent Orange

which saved how many America lives. We were in a fucking war. The enemy was hiding in the fucking jungle and killing us. Even if you believe that the cause of everything they claim and not the fact that living in a jungle under horrible conditions while under horrible stress doesn't cause all kinds of horrible problems as well. How much harm would have come to the soldiers and marines living in the jungle under those conditions? How many more would have died if not for the use of the defoliant 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D? BTW, the argument is not that they are the problem, but that they were contaminated with TCDD a dioxin which has happened in other cases and done a lot of harm. Monsanto didn't want to kill anyone because it is very bad for business. To compare the health impacts of soldiers in war to the general population of civilians back home is just bad and silly science. We know war is hell and that has health impacts all by itself. That's why there are ALWAYS "unexplained" problems later in life. That should be expected given the hell they go through, but that doesn't appeal to the desire for a boogeyman.

DukMan wrote:all known cancer causing agents

That is simply not true. Sorry. 2-4, D is not. I don't believe 2,4,5-T is a known carcinogen either. Even polychlorinated biphenyls, a group of chemicals, I don't believe is a known carcinogen. I believe they are suspected, but not known.

DukMan wrote:You may be less thrilled to know they also make Round-Up which is leaching into out water and being found in our beef and plants

As our ability to detect even lower and lower concentrations, we will eventually find everything everywhere. I've never known why this surprises people. If we can measure 1 molecule in 1,000,000,000, does that really prove a risk? It's actually not that hard to calculated what the concentration should be. Everything goes everywhere at very low concentrations. Other than radioisotopes, we didn't use to have the ability to detect at the extremely low levels predicted. Now we can measure at often thousands or even millions of times lower concentrations, but what does that really mean? Probably as close to nothing as you can imagine since your exposure to other things in other ways overwhelms these truly trace concentrations.

You know what else damages your DNA? Having a temperature above absolute zero. Natural vibration of the molecules has an energy distribution that results in a lot of DNA damage. The natural DNA damage rate is pretty scary.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2016 12:02 pm**

Technology causes cancer with some natural factors like sunshine along with eating too many green beans and brussel sprouts. :clap:

12243328_161069687579234_2958484772654638815_n.jpg

That little prick is me and the yellow dog is my dog. :lol:

Posted: **Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:09 pm**

aunt betty wrote:Technology causes cancer with some natural factors like sunshine lol:

I would say all the chemicals in sunblock are worse than sunshine.

WaterfowlForum.Net

Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name

Re: Face to a name