Today's Non-News: Sunbeds cause cancer, study

(DailyMail photo)

Um...duh!

Decades after this became common knowledge, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evidently thought it necessary to conduct a study looking into whether or not frying oneself in a sunbed can cause cancer.

Sunbeds pose a similar cancer risk as cigarettes and asbestos, and tanning machines should be moved to "the highest cancer risk category" and be labeled as "carcinogenic to humans," concluded the groudbreaking study by the IARC, which previously had classified sunbeds as being a "probable" cause of cancer.

According to the study's findings, the risk of melanoma--the most deadly form of skin cancer--is 75% higher in people who started using sunbeds regularly before the age of 30, CNN reported. The IARC also concluded that there's a link between melanoma of the eye and the use of sunbeds.

Predictably, the UK's Sunbed Association maintains there's no proven link between using sunbeds and cancer. What else are they supposed to say?

"We would dispute the IARC classification that sunbeds are "carcinogenic to humans," the organization wrote on its website. "The relationship between UV exposure and an increased risk of developing skin cancer is only likely to arise where over-exposure and burning in particular has taken place."

Um...let's see. People go into tanning booths to get tanned, that is, to expose themselves to UV radiation that leads to changes in skin pigmentation and, more often than not, burning of the skin. That's the purpose of a sunbed, which would not work unless one is over-exposed to UV rays while using it. Right?

The World Health Organization estimates that some 60,000 people worldwide die each year from skin cancer, with 48,000 of these due to melanoma, and 90% of the cancers are caused by ultraviolet light from the sun, CNN reported.

Sources: CNN
Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved

Today's Non-News: trucking & texting don't mix

Um...duh!

Someone thought it would be money well spent to do a study on how dangerous texting is while driving, concluding its dangerous because people look at their phones while texting vs the road.

Are you kidding me?

A study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute showed that truckers who text while driving are 23 times more likely to crash or get into a near-wreck than an undistracted driver, while car drivers face the greatest danger when dialing their cell phones.

I might be way off here, but isn't a car easier to control than an 8,000 lb 18-wheel truck?

When dialing, the chance of an accident for a truck driver is 5.9 times more likely vs 2.8 times more likely for a car driver, the study found. If a trucker reaches for an electronic device, the crash risk is 6.7 times as high, while the risk for a car driver is 1.4 times as high. Truckers only fared better while talking or listening on a cell phone, with the increased risk one time more likely compared with 1.3 times for a car driver.

...blah, blah...yada, yada, yada...

Here's the thing: what difference does it make if it's 5.9 or 2.8 or 6.7 times more likely to have an accident while fucking around with a cellphone?

The point is that the likelihood of having an accident is higher when we're dialing, texting or doing anything else that takes our eyes off the road.

See how I just did that without a study?

____________________________________________

Following is an excerpt from the CNN report on the subject:

"Text messaging, as you can imagine, if you're engaged in a text message it draws your eyes away from the forward roadway," Rich Hanowski, director of the transportation institute's Center for Truck and Bus Safety, told CNN Tuesday. The study was based on research from 2004 to 2007, he said.

"From the study that we did, we found that it was almost five seconds out of a six-second window that we were looking at that the driver's eyes were off the forward roadway, so that's a tremendous amount of time driving at highway speeds and a lot of opportunity in that period of time to get into trouble."

In 4.6 seconds at 55 mph, a driver could travel the length of a football field.

With regards to texting, Hanowski said "it's really kind of a no-brainer" (exactly my point). "And I should point out we're scientists, we're not legislators, but when you see these kind of findings with regard to this level of risk, texting certainly should be banned. There's just no question; there's no redeeming factors associated with why a driver would be able to text and drive."

Source: CNN
Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved