Positive UV exposure information

Bill · 05-30-2008, 07:24 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

Grant WB.
Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC), San Francisco, CA, USA. wbgrant@infionline.net
Evidence supporting the UVB/vitamin D/cancer theory continues to mount with little detraction, although there are some inconsistent results, such as some from Nordic countries, with respect to serum calcidiol levels. Also, studies designed and conducted before it was realized that dietary sources are largely inadequate to have a pronounced effect on cancer risk were largely unable to confirm a beneficial role for vitamin D in reducing the risk of cancer. The analysis of the economic burden of solar UVB irradiance and vitamin D deficiencies compared to excess solar UV irradiance for the United States yielded interesting findings. One was that the US economic burden due to vitamin D insufficiency from inadequate exposure to solar UVB irradiance, diet and supplements was estimated at $40 billion to $56 billion in 2004, whereas the economic burden for excess UV irradiance was estimated at $6 billion to $7 billion. These findings are probably still approximately correct, if not on the low side, with respect to vitamin D because of the additional benefits found recently, such as protection against infectious diseases.
PMID: 18348444 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Bill · 05-30-2008, 07:30 PM

So, if everyone were to get adequate UVB exposure in order to reduce the risk of internal cancers, cardiovascular disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes and all the other health problems associated with vitamin D deficiency, it would reduce the cost of caring for and treating these diseases somewhere from $40 to $56 Billion. The cost of treating the extra skin cancers that would result is between $6 and $7 Billion. If we assume the lowest benefit and the highest cost, that means we could save $33 BILLION by getting everyone to tan 3 or 4 times a week, for 5 to 20 minutes, depending on skin type, pigmentation, etc.

Papa · 05-30-2008, 08:51 PM

Wow! That's big news.

05-30-2008, 07:24 PM	# 1
Bill Administrator, ITA supporter Join Date: Jul-30-2007 Member No.: 3 Gender: Posts: 17,811 Rep Power: 306601	At What Cost? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum Grant WB. Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC), San Francisco, CA, USA. wbgrant@infionline.net Evidence supporting the UVB/vitamin D/cancer theory continues to mount with little detraction, although there are some inconsistent results, such as some from Nordic countries, with respect to serum calcidiol levels. Also, studies designed and conducted before it was realized that dietary sources are largely inadequate to have a pronounced effect on cancer risk were largely unable to confirm a beneficial role for vitamin D in reducing the risk of cancer. The analysis of the economic burden of solar UVB irradiance and vitamin D deficiencies compared to excess solar UV irradiance for the United States yielded interesting findings. One was that the US economic burden due to vitamin D insufficiency from inadequate exposure to solar UVB irradiance, diet and supplements was estimated at $40 billion to $56 billion in 2004, whereas the economic burden for excess UV irradiance was estimated at $6 billion to $7 billion. These findings are probably still approximately correct, if not on the low side, with respect to vitamin D because of the additional benefits found recently, such as protection against infectious diseases. PMID: 18348444 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] __________________ If people would just stop and use their f'n brains, the world would be a better place! -Navigatin1 Philosopher, salon owner Last edited by Bill; 09-27-2008 at 11:49 AM.

05-30-2008, 07:30 PM	# 2
Bill Administrator, ITA supporter Join Date: Jul-30-2007 Member No.: 3 Gender: Posts: 17,811 Rep Power: 306601	So, if everyone were to get adequate UVB exposure in order to reduce the risk of internal cancers, cardiovascular disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes and all the other health problems associated with vitamin D deficiency, it would reduce the cost of caring for and treating these diseases somewhere from $40 to $56 Billion. The cost of treating the extra skin cancers that would result is between $6 and $7 Billion. If we assume the lowest benefit and the highest cost, that means we could save $33 BILLION by getting everyone to tan 3 or 4 times a week, for 5 to 20 minutes, depending on skin type, pigmentation, etc. __________________ If people would just stop and use their f'n brains, the world would be a better place! -Navigatin1 Philosopher, salon owner

05-30-2008, 08:51 PM	# 3
Papa WWCJD? Join Date: Sep-10-2007 Location: My house! Member No.: 80 Gender: Posts: 3,577 Rep Power: 36445	Wow! That's big news. __________________ "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." ~Thomas Jefferson

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://uvtalk.com/forum/sun-science/8622-what-cost.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Untitled document	This thread	Refback	09-25-2008 11:13 PM