[2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :?: :idea: :| (o~o) :geek: :[] :geek2: :][>:=~+:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by DonRetrasado » Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:39 am

I think if you tan more easily than you burn than you're generally less likely to develop skin cancers. Of course the connection isn't fully proven yet.

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Sahan » Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:54 pm

I was going to bring up the tan thing, but consequently forgot. Not healthy at all.

I realise there's a good chance I'm going to develop skin cancer actually. Without trying to draw the race card here, I never really paid much attention to the colour of my skin, but my mother is actually very pale for a Sri Lankan, and occasionally gets mistaken for being East-European or Spanish by strangers. In all my baby photos up until I was about 5, I was too, but then I started spending a lot of time outdoors. My tan line at my ankles is so contrasting it scares me a little. Long story short, I'look like a typical Sri Lankan wiht my complexion, but the reality is I've just developed a really dark tan since I moved to Australia.

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Apocalyptus » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:33 am

Nah. At least now I know I'm tough, with all the deadly animals and deadly sun rays and everything. You Canadians are just soft.

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by DonRetrasado » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:13 am

You should've picked Canadia instead.

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Apocalyptus » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:53 am

You can go in the sun before 9am or after 6pm to get your vitamin D, and it won't tend to give you a noticeable tan.
In Australia we have a huge incidence of skin cancer, so we're conditioned from an early age to be pretty careful about excessive unprotected sun exposure.
I guess it's whitey's fault for taking over a country obviously more suited to more dark skinned types.

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by DonRetrasado » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:49 am

Well, no tan at all would mean that you're not getting any vitamin D (unless you're taking supplements), or you don't tan very easily or at all in which case you're more susceptible to sunburn and (possibly) skin damage/cancers.

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Apocalyptus » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:12 am

Nathanyel wrote:Don't worry, it's not just the US.
Every caucasian seems to think: "Having a tan in summer is healthy and prevents sunburn - great, let's fry our hides in a solarium all year!" (ok that's not the only reason, but the first you might hear when you ask them about it)

But... no tan is healthy, as such. It's a sign that your skin has been damaged and is trying to protect itself from further damage.

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Edminster » Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:24 am

Loraxxe wrote:It's more a matter of societal standards than TV. Our presidents have been clean-shaven since Wilson, and the couple of faces before (the rest of the 20th century) were limited to mustaches. You may be thinking of Nixon's notoriously bad appearance in the TV debates, owing to a 5-o'clock shadow. That's never been considered presidential.

Interestingly, the people who heard the debate on the radio thought that Nixon utterly destroyed Kennedy.

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by smiley_cow » Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:18 am

Nixon's poor showing during the TV debates against Kennedy was about a lot more than just his five o'clock shadow. He had also just gotten back from the hospital and wasn't entirely recovered. Not to mention the fact that Kennedy had put a lot of work into his appearance and Nixon didn't. All these things were at play here.

Similarly facial hair isn't the only thing that's changed since television, but that's besides the point. And I'm sure that fashion and the times play a part in it too, but the fact remains that the reason politicians don't have facial hair today is for purely PR reasons. And you'll notice the minority of modern politicians, and almost no major ones do.

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Loraxxe » Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:58 am

It's more a matter of societal standards than TV. Our presidents have been clean-shaven since Wilson, and the couple of faces before (the rest of the 20th century) were limited to mustaches. You may be thinking of Nixon's notoriously bad appearance in the TV debates, owing to a 5-o'clock shadow. That's never been considered presidential.

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by smiley_cow » Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:25 am

You know the fact that you guys can only name leaders pre-television era is only proving my point.

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Durandal_1707 » Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:48 am

Holy shit, I did not know that image was that big. It didn't look that large on Google Image Search.

Could someone please replace it with this one?

Image

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Durandal_1707 » Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:47 am

John wrote:
Justusme wrote:http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/first-family/masthead_image/16al_header_sm.jpg?1250877868


Taft would have been a better example.

I'm British and I'd elect that charming fellow.

Rutherford B. Hayes.

(image stolen by ants)

Biggest beard of any US president. Not known for much else. :P

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by EL » Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:03 am

hide yo gays! hide yo wife!

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by John » Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:00 pm

Justusme wrote:http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/first-family/masthead_image/16al_header_sm.jpg?1250877868


Taft would have been a better example.

I'm British and I'd elect that charming fellow.

Top

cron