Oh dear it seems that Nanny's persistent warnings about the dangers of sun tanning are in fact bollocks.
Scientists at King's College London have found that healthy levels of vitamin D may help to slow the ageing process, and protect against age-related diseases.
Guess where we get a good dose of vitamin D from?
Yes, that's right, the sun.
In summer much of the vitamin D we need is created by a reaction in the skin powered by sunlight. In the darker winter months vitamin D comes largely from food such as cod liver oil and mackerel.
Among the most reliable measures of a person's age are telomeres, the lengths of genetic material that cap the free ends of DNA in a cell. With age, the telomeres shorten and the DNA becomes more unstable until eventually the cell dies. The study found that those with the highest vitamin levels had significantly longer telomeres - equivalent to five years of normal ageing - than those showing the lowest vitamin D scores.
Tim Spector, a co-author of the paper, said:
"Although it might sound absurd,
it's possible that the same sunshine
which may increase our risk of skin cancer
may also have a healthy effect on
the ageing process in general."
The day I start to follow the advice of Nanny and her doctors will be my last day on this planet.
I wonder what other advice Nanny has given us is in fact wrong?
Oh, wait a minute, most of it!
Ken said:
ReplyDelete"In summer much of the vitamin D we need is created by a reaction in the skin powered by sunlight."
........and the precursor is cholesterol, so sunbathing actually resduces cholesterol levels. Could be why sunbathing has been proven to reduce the incidence/severity of heart attacks.
Of course exposure to the sun is psychologically beneficial which in itself reduces ageing and susceptibility to illness. And bear in mind that the crippling, and appropriately acronymmed Seasonally Affected Disorder (SAD) costs us dear in terms of lost production and antidepressant drugs.
Despite the cold, if the sun stays out I'll be going down to the river for my customarary swim early this afternoon. Don't try this in winter folks, unless you're fully cold-acclimatised!
Pete
There is a lot of truth in the old saying " Everything in moderation." The problem with Nanny's researchers is that they must "find" something to justify their research grant. Imagine if Nanny gave these researchers money to investigate something and the results showed nothing....Nanny would be furious and certainly not continue to fund it. So in my view, the researchers find something, anything, that can justify carrying on with their Nanny funded research. Nanny can then issue a warning, on 'Elf n Safety grounds usually and if it it harmful to the planet, Nanny can tax it!!....Kerching...Everybody's happy, well except for the poor mugs that have to pay it, and then of course, there is the chance for one of Nanny's ministers to get on their moral high horse and lecture us phlebs, great isn't it? Now do my thoughts on how the UK works, qualify me for a PHD from one of Nanny's new universities? Ahh..I can see it now...Dr Tonk Phd.
ReplyDeleteTonk: You're not that far off the mark there. I have seen some extremely dubious research over the years that has been put out to the world at large simply to ensure that the researchers get their next grant.
ReplyDeleteWith the right techniques anything can be proved or disproved. My own favourite being that eating rice is fatal. Why ? Because it can be statistically proven that all the people that ate rice in 1657 are now dead.
As for the whole advice thing, I seem to remember that two weeks ago 'researchers' were trumpeting the fact that eating bacon gives you cancer. Two days ago I was reading 'research' that says that foods containing nitrites such as spinach prevent cancer. Guess what else contains nitrites and which was listed in the same research ? Yup! Bacon!
Wouldn't cod liver oil and mackerel qualify as 'fatty foods', and don't fatty foods also kill us (and give us cancer), according to Elfin Safety?
ReplyDeleteTonk and the kaptain are absolutely right of course when they talk about bullshit research. Does anyone else now remember that in the mid-1970s 'serious' scientific researchers had proved that the world was about to enter a new Ice-Age?
Their solution?
Cover both the Arctic and Antarctic ice with soot in order to melt the ice caps, raise the temperature and save the world from climate change. So serious were these people that they actually set up several agencies*
in order to expedite matters. It was only when lots of independent (i.e. unpaid by governments) scientists started to query the figures that the plug was - very quietly - pulled. A couple of years later, the self-same research agencies decided that the earth was actually getting warmer... and the silly bloody cycle started all over again* - except in reverse.
(*accompanied, naturally, by lots of 'kerchings').
Quite obviously, Nanny wants us all confined to the dimly lit recesses of various institutional structures as a means of thought control.
ReplyDeleteConsider the following:
People allow to roam free in the susnshine may experience that very un-Nanny-like emotion of mild, spontaneous happiness for no particular reason. Nanny does not approve of happiness, particularly for no particular reason. If we are to be happy, then Nanny MUST be the reason.
People allowed to wander out of doors may soon beging to appreciate that it is Mother Nature, rather than Aunt Nanny, that ultimately sustains (and I might add, reclaims) us all. Nanny doesn't like to be shown up.
Solar radiation is related to global warming, ergo, it is evil.
Solar radiation cannot be taxed (as of yet), ergo, it is subversive.
Exposure to solar radiation often makes people feel less need of mood elevating prescription drugs, and Nanny controls the disbursment of these drugs, which aid her in her campaign for the psychological enslavement of her global subjects.
A pleasant stroll on a sunlit afternoon may remind one of what things could be like before Nanny began intruding in every farking detail of one's life, and Nanny would really prefer that one not be reminded of this.
Nanny wants us to live in fear. Nanny fears hope.
Melanoma.
ReplyDeleteBasal cell carcinoma.
Squamous cell carcinoma.
cataracts.
Wrinkles.
chalazion.
etc.
cramerj said:
ReplyDelete"Melanoma.
Basal cell carcinoma.
Squamous cell carcinoma.
cataracts.
Wrinkles.
chalazion.
etc..."
Well. I know that Nanny is a devious, underhand, poisonous bitch,but
even I find it a little hard to believe that Nanny causes ALL of these! (Or are you saying that this is the latest list of ailments one can now develop during a stay in one of Nanny's NHS hospitals?)
Why is Nanny so confused as to want to keep us alive when 'the science' makes it clear that urgent mass extermination is required to reduce 'carbon footprints' and 'save the planet'?
ReplyDeletehello
ReplyDeleteanyone else made the connection between the nuffield report and exactly who it was that funded it? want to read about this look under the 'nuffield report into alcohol consumption in uk' on my blog
femalepoliticalandsocialcomment.blogspot.com
this is a form of underhand, devious, puritanical scottish presbyterian manipulation.
once he's succeeded in taxing us all into puritanical submission, we can start to expect the next onslaught, gamblign. within the next couple of years it will be report after report, media expose after media expose. all the usual: this is an epidemic, this is costing the tax payers this much. it's having a devastating effect on family life, blah, blah, blah. gambling - banned. next thing? pleasure, enjoyment, delight, laughter - all will be systematically outlawed. he'll not be happy until we've all obediently buckled under the weight of these 'reports'/manipulative assaults on our ability to enjoy free will. and become a far more palatable, pleasant and appropriate society:
presbyterian scotland, sometime during 1934.
bye.
(apologies if this has been sent twice, I think it didn’t go through the first time)
bye