Recently, a new study has been released which promotes sunshine as a panacea to cancer.
I don't know anyone who can avoid the sun completely. We all realize sunshine is responsible for life on earth, just as essential as water is to life. Statistical science is right up there with global warming science in terms of accuracy.
Cancer is caused by cells that go awry. Living cells go awry when a sufficiently high number of their molecules and atoms have been stripped of neutrons and moderating particles by high frequency ionizing radiation (or some other chemical source) This creates an imbalance and the electrons and protons which are normally balanced often fall into an imbalance relationship.
As a result these cells lose their intelligence and try to achieve balance anyway they can - assaulting the cells around them for atomic material. In living tissue this is called cancer. This creates a chain reaction of imbalance and the cancer spreads.
Vitamins such as D, C etcetera play certain roles in the feeding of cells and helping them maintain a certain chemical equilibrium. Like global warming one has to observe far more than just one factor when it comes to the results. What other influences did these groups share? What were the types of cancer and were any of these folks in anything resembling a "control group?" Or did they just look at the almanac and base their paper on generic statistics?
Advocating more sunshine in places like Scandinavia is fine. Advocating more sunshine to Americans, especially anyone living outside of the pacific northwest and its constant cloud cover, is foolhardy at best and "Coco-Chanel level" stupid at worst.
All sunshine is not equal.
In places like the desert where cloud cover is almost nonexistent and water molecules in the air don't filter sunlight--such extra-exposure to higher frequency sunlight radiation equals premature aging, grey hair and cancer. Higher frequency radiation rapidly destroys the epidermis, reducing skin's ability to flex and wrinkles are the result. The hair follicles are ionized and lose the ability to transfer pigment into the growing hair shaft and growing coarse thicker strands or wispy strands. All due to imbalance.
The aging process is completely moderated. When our cells become more imbalanced...we age. Aging after maturity is determined by cellular equilibrium. As we grow cells multiply rapidly according to certain cyclic patterns encoded within the DNA. After maturity, the DNA acts a regulator of our aging. When the DNA is damaged in any particular cell it transfers incomplete data to its progeny, thus resulting in an imperfect reproduction of oneself as the cells regenerate.
Aging is the result of many generations of DNA data destruction.
In essence, a 90 year old's anatomy is an inferior replication of their same body at 25. It's the best the DNA data left can muster.
Out here I've been able to make some keen observations as to the weathering of skin, the graying of hair and other symptoms of excessive ionizing radiation exposure. Its fair to say that due to sun exposure alone one can age oneself an extra 20 years if one does not avoid the sun. At 30 one can look 50. At 50 one can look 70 and so on. The epidermis never fully recovers from cumulative ionizing radiation exposure and the DNA replicates with less data.
I've given any geneticists out there a treasure trove of material in this post. Namely how to prevent aging..or even to the creatively minded how to restore youth. In the future, the DNA of all newborns will be recorded and encoded. As they age they will get periodic "DNA treatments" which reconfigure data in their cells and patch or remove cells carrying damaged DNA strings. Unfortunately after a few thousand years this creates other problems...but that is a tale for another entry.
(note: This post is duplicated in part at another BBS location)