Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Is Sunlight Bad For You?

The thing that is very disturbing about this so-called health jihad against tanning and the advisement against all exposure to the sun, is the fact that life evolved in the presence of sunlight -- and is unimaginable and impossible without it. That is obviously so in plants, but maybe less obviously so in animals -- but just as necessary for healthy growth and functioning.

The absence of light, is well implicated in Seasonal Affective Disorders, which is triggered by low levels of this essential nutrient, to say nothing of a whole generation entering their retirement years with osteoporosis, depression, arthritis, diabetes and other Vitamin D-deficient conditions. It would be hard to imagine life being possible without this vital nutritional (energy) input -- in the development of the human eye and brain as its primary and essential stimulant, as well as all the other developmental processes of light.

So that people should deprive their eyes and skin (surface areas) at all costs -- seems like over-the-top pseudo-medical (commercial) propaganda -- because millions of years of evolution have occurred without the use of these proper sun-shielding glasses, cosmetics and apparel. That's why these miners caught in cave-ins emerge from those deprivations in often critical conditions that take them a while to recover -- and those living at the depths of the oceans, have evolved to such bizarre forms.

Certainly one can't be serious in thinking that the natural and preferred sources of sunshine (Vitamin D), is Vitamin D-fortified milk and vitamin supplements -- rather than as nature intended and provided for conveniently, but of course, there's not so much profit in charging for the sunlight. And now it is claimed that any exposure at all, causes cancer -- and should be avoided at all costs, seems rather contradictory to billions of years of evolution and intelligence.

Of course there can be overexposure to the sun, but none at all, doesn't make any sense.


At May 23, 2011 2:33 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

This post was originally a response to a proposal to ban the use of tanning beds by teens -- for whatever reason. Apparently, a few abuse it.

However, what is well known, as you point out, is that sunlight diminishes greatly at these latitudes during the winter months, and people are often impacted to the extent that many exhibit the dysfunctions known as Seasonal Affective Disorders -- from not only the deficiency of Vitamin D but also the lack of light stimulus -- which are very obvious in plants because they die or are stunted by the insufficiency of light.

This has given rise to the very valid light therapies -- by which anyone can simulate the optimal light intensities and exposures year round -- so the body doesn't shut down as the seasons dictate -- disastrously in plant life, but almost as effectively and dramatically in animal life also. Many actually go into hibernation or migrate thousands of miles. Many of the (retired) Pacific NW residents, spend the winter months in the SW for this reason, or places like the tropics, because they've noticed that they tend to get depressed or deranged otherwise.

A small part of it, is for cosmetic reasons often associated with people who maintain their tans year around because of it. But that is the obvious and superficial effect of something much more fundamental and profound as a base functioning level in people that will trigger the more obvious impacts of unhealthy conditions that they just get "used" to -- such as overeating, weight gain, depression, deranged behaviors -- because the brain doesn't receive the proper range and intensities of light -- which is entirely overlooked by most medical practitioners, but have been addressed by state-of-the-art lightning, such as the tanning booth lights, Ott reading lights, and most prolifically and profitably by indoor horticulturalists.

But fewer are aware that they can benefit directly from superior lighting by optimizing their personal environments.

This is fairly typical for the traditionalists who will not avail themselves to the latest technologies that make life possible to much greater capacities that were thought possible before -- given the limitations of what they thought were "nature" and "natural," which have been greatly expanded in the last century, and particularly the last several decades.

It is most symbolized by the adoption of the computer by the younger generations but less enthusiastically by the older generations -- that become their greatest handicap to remaining "young," and open to all the latest great new ideas and innovations -- but insisting that we have to legislate against such changes to the natural order of things, including suboptimal functioning, health and well-being -- as the "normal."


Post a Comment

<< Home