A scientist with a bit experience can really come up with any kinds of proof for any kind of theory, as long as they leave out all the data that are inconvenient. For decades scientists have tried to convince us that the sun causes cancer and now they come with the next study, which shows that there is a link between cancer and high temperatures. Of course there is the tiny problem that people used to live outside and get loads of sun exposure, but no cancer. Since everyone moved inside and the use of sunscreen came into use the rates of (skin) cancer have increased dramatically.
“show significant DNA damage, which increases a person’s risk of illness.” Two big problems here. First of all, the researchers didn’t use test persons. They only used skin cells. Lose cells are a useless for cancer research, as cancer is a system disease. If the system is not there to stop the development of cancer, then you can make everything carcinogenic. And then dr. Calapre comes with a huge assumption: damaged DNA increases the risk for illness. Is there any proof for this? Sorry, there is none. Everything and anything is attributed to DNA nowadays, but there is a shocking lack of proof for this. DNA research is entirely based on assumptions.
“melanoma research group” People who work for a group with this name should know that melanoma usually occurs in areas of the body that are generally not exposed to the sun. So how do they manage to keep blaming sunshine for melanoma? This is what I mean with scientists ignoring all inconvenient facts.
“exposed to UV light,” Sorry, what kind of light? Did you put the samples in the sunshine? Or did you use some kind of artificial lamp to get the results you want? Don’t assume that you know exactly what sunlight is and that you can imitate it easily. If it’s not sunlight then your study is useless.
“we can at least protect the people who are working in those conditions where they are exposed to extreme heat.” Protect how exactly? I agree that working in extreme heat is not healthy, but I don’t see how it could cause cancer. Working outside when it’s 37 degrees is very hot and two degrees more is not likely to make any difference. The body really can handle such details. But medical scientists always assume that the human body has a very flawed design and needs a lot of adjustments.
“it appeared that those who worked or spent a large amount of time outdoors in warmer climates, were at higher risk of skin cancer.” That is the conclusion of the lab study. But dr. Calapre, have you actually checked if this matches reality? Do those who work outside in the sunshine get more skin cancers than office dwellers? And what about those who use sunscreens? Do they get more or less cancer? I suppose you didn’t check with reality, because you know that reality doesn’t match your study. Oops.
“My study is very preliminary” Yawn. These scientists are so predictable. They come with a completely useless study, that has just enough suggestion to justify further studies. And this way the scientists keep themselves in their well paid jobs forever. It never seems to bother them that they spend decades doing completely useless work, that nobody else will ever benefit from. It would make an interesting study to see what the psychological impact is of never having meaningful work to do. But I get side-tracked.
“DNA damage, which could actually predispose them to the development of tumours.” Could predispose? Can anyone explain to me what kind of information that gives? It’s shocking how routinely medical scientists (more even than scientists in general) use such vague terminology. They could just as well say that they haven’t found anything interesting and that they are just making guesses.
“So actually reduce the risk of, or potentially minimise, the effect of heat on them.” And how do you suggest that should be done? Move outside workers inside? That’s a bit hard when you are digging or building a house. Outside air-conditioners? That doesn’t sound very effective. Gigantic fans? Not very practical. Cold water sprinklers? Hard to implement. Sending people home during the hottest time of the day? That could work, but employers won’t be enthusiastic about it.
So we have a study that is based on bad work. The results are not more than “possibilities”. Everything that goes against the findings is ignored. Common sense is completely absent. And even if the study would be good and the results accurate, then it’s impossible to do anything with them. “The findings have been published in the latest edition of the journal Bio Med Central Dermatology.” And that’s why you should better not take medical journals seriously. If they publish this kind of rubbish, then they will publish anything. Which is probably exactly what they do.