This is so sad... - Page 3 - e-cigarette-forum.com • The place for electronic cigarette reviews, news and chat

Lady Python · 07-12-2008, 12:09 PM

It's been well documented for some time that there is a risk of melanoma by using sun beds, particularly among fair-skinned people.

I've used a sun-bed once and that was over 20 years ago. I didn't like it so never bothered with one again.

However, here's something to throw into the melting pot.

Women are more likely to use a sunscreen than men.

I'm not so sure that slapping a whole load of chemicals on your skin is a good idea.

Whenever I've used sunscreen, doesn't matter what brand I use, my skin breaks out in what looks like patches of eczema and the itch drives me mad.

Years ago, people didn't use sunscreen and skin cancer rates, even in hotter countries than the UK were far lower, even almost non-existant.

Coincidence? Perhaps but let us not forget that the sunscreen industry is a multi £££$$$ concern, backed by big pharma.

I'm very fair-skinned - typical red hair (or at least it used to be

) so I burn easily. What I do is spend only a few minutes in the sun then head for the shade. If I'm gardening, I leave it until the cool of the evening. By doing it this way, I gradually end up with a slight tan but no burning

jamie · 07-12-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Python

Women are more likely to use a sunscreen than men.

I'm not so sure that slapping a whole load of chemicals on your skin is a good idea.

Good, and scary, point. It sounds like it's probably true, from my anecdotal experience, however I'd been bitten by such thinking before. Have you read anything more official about this, such as it being included in any study? I'd be interested in further info. It's also true that tanning salons are pretty much full of women, sunscreen or no.

TropicalBob · 07-12-2008, 02:35 PM

This much is known: Chemicals we put on the outside of our bodies move through our skin to the inside of our bodies. That notion didn't exist when I was growing up. We thought skin was a one-way street; it let sweat out and nothing in.

Now we have transdermal delivery of many things via skin patches, from our beloved nicotine to birth control chemicals.

If transdermal works for medicines, though, what about the chemicals in deodorant, or shampoo, or makeup, or mosquito repellant, or sun tan lotion? Yep, those chemicals move into your body. Aluminum spin-offs were a big scare for awhile, in anti-perspirants and some dandruff shampoos. Users could get early Alzheimer's, we learned.

You can find horror stories on the Web about shampoo, which you rub into your scalp a mere fraction of any inch from your brain and its rich blood network! (I use only Ivory soap for this.)

And let me tell you that many Floridians won't use anything but coconut oil tanning lotions and Avon Skin-So-Soft for an insect repellant. We have no desire to soak up pesticides through our skin while keeping a mosquito away.

It's a whole other story, but sun blocking lotions are preventing some people from producing enough Vitamin D, made by our body following UV exposure. This is true particularly for growing children. They'll pay later for the present stupidity of avoiding all UV exposure. Our bodies need sun exposure in proportion to our ancestral evolution. Dark skin needs the most; light skin and blue eyes, the least. But no one thrives on none.

Lady Python, your concern is valid. Just extend it! And be an organic as you can -- while still sucking a Dow Chemical product with unknown consequences into your lungs, of course. I'll do the same.

DeviLFisH · 07-14-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbah

Guys, i came across this article from a forum in singapore
as i'd yet to have 15 posts in this forum ..
can some kind soul please help me out?

i26(dot)tinypic(dot)com/3480so2(dot)jpg

i'd placed my order from janty online and have yet to receive them..
guess things got held up by the custom here T_T

gee now they come out this news

1st time offenders caught with duty-unpaid cigarettes face S$500 fine per packet
By Margaret Perry, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 July 2008 2120 hrs
SINGAPORE: First-time offenders caught in possession of contraband cigarettes will have to pay a fine of S$500 per packet, starting July 15.

In a press statement released on Monday, Singapore Customs said the composition sum, which was initially implemented in hotspots such as Geylang and Yew Tee in Oct 2007, will now be extended across the island.

Up till now, the fine for offenders caught in other areas ranges from S$200 to S$500.

Singapore Customs said tougher enforcement has been effective in deterring cigarette smugglers.

Its officers seized 36 per cent less contraband cigarettes in the first half of this year compared to 2007.

The number of sellers caught also fell by 34 per cent, while 17 per cent fewer buyers were nabbed.

The agency attributed the reduction in quantity seized and offenders caught to stepped-up enforcement and checks at both inland and checkpoint areas.

This has curtailed demand, resulting in a weakened supply of contraband cigarettes.

Customs officers have also been targeting syndicates involved in transporting, storing and supplying duty-unpaid cigarettes.

655 people were charged in Court for these offences in the first six months of this year. - CNA/vm

make me feel more worry also wonder mine e cigarette will held up or not

next scare to smoke in public also

nowadays sg is dam strict on cigarettes stuffs or things related to cigarettes.

how about ur?did u recieved already?

Ludo · 07-14-2008, 04:44 PM

Devilfish,

chill lah! Customs in Singapore haven't even been briefed about e-cigarettes and there's no law against e-cigarettes.

You won't get caning for possession

DeviLFisH · 07-14-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruyan

Devilfish,

chill lah! Customs in Singapore haven't even been briefed about e-cigarettes and there's no law against e-cigarettes.

You won't get caning for possession

is not caning is hugh fine .....wondering
next recently didn;t they mention disapproving selling in singapore?since one person trying to sell in singapore.

TheEmperorOfIceCream · 07-14-2008, 05:03 PM

That was retail, as I recall (barbershop or something). If the e-cig was illegal to possess, I'm sure you'd know about it, given how strict your government is.

Emp

DeviLFisH · 07-14-2008, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEmperorOfIceCream

That was retail, as I recall (barbershop or something). If the e-cig was illegal to possess, I'm sure you'd know about it, given how strict your government is.

Emp

the retail shop is actually a health saloon provide suntanning and spa..

so far the news come out stated is they disapprove this stuff sell locally

but never mention possesing is illegal.

cross my fingers here.

TheEmperorOfIceCream · 07-14-2008, 05:38 PM

Yeah - that's a barber shop alright...

07-12-2008, 12:09 PM	#21
Lady Python Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 186	It's been well documented for some time that there is a risk of melanoma by using sun beds, particularly among fair-skinned people. I've used a sun-bed once and that was over 20 years ago. I didn't like it so never bothered with one again. However, here's something to throw into the melting pot. Women are more likely to use a sunscreen than men. I'm not so sure that slapping a whole load of chemicals on your skin is a good idea. Whenever I've used sunscreen, doesn't matter what brand I use, my skin breaks out in what looks like patches of eczema and the itch drives me mad. Years ago, people didn't use sunscreen and skin cancer rates, even in hotter countries than the UK were far lower, even almost non-existant. Coincidence? Perhaps but let us not forget that the sunscreen industry is a multi £££$$$ concern, backed by big pharma. I'm very fair-skinned - typical red hair (or at least it used to be) so I burn easily. What I do is spend only a few minutes in the sun then head for the shade. If I'm gardening, I leave it until the cool of the evening. By doing it this way, I gradually end up with a slight tan but no burning

07-14-2008, 04:44 PM	#25
Ludo Supplier Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: S.E.A Posts: 244	Devilfish, chill lah! Customs in Singapore haven't even been briefed about e-cigarettes and there's no law against e-cigarettes. You won't get caning for possession __________________ http://www.jantyshop.com - Original Manufacturer and Supplier

07-14-2008, 05:03 PM	#27
TheEmperorOfIceCream Super Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: London, UK Posts: 892	That was retail, as I recall (barbershop or something). If the e-cig was illegal to possess, I'm sure you'd know about it, given how strict your government is. Emp __________________ Forgotten but not gone...

07-14-2008, 05:38 PM	#29
TheEmperorOfIceCream Super Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: London, UK Posts: 892	Yeah - that's a barber shop alright... __________________ Forgotten but not gone...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-12-2008, 02:35 PM	#23
TropicalBob Super Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 2,411	This much is known: Chemicals we put on the outside of our bodies move through our skin to the inside of our bodies. That notion didn't exist when I was growing up. We thought skin was a one-way street; it let sweat out and nothing in. Now we have transdermal delivery of many things via skin patches, from our beloved nicotine to birth control chemicals. If transdermal works for medicines, though, what about the chemicals in deodorant, or shampoo, or makeup, or mosquito repellant, or sun tan lotion? Yep, those chemicals move into your body. Aluminum spin-offs were a big scare for awhile, in anti-perspirants and some dandruff shampoos. Users could get early Alzheimer's, we learned. You can find horror stories on the Web about shampoo, which you rub into your scalp a mere fraction of any inch from your brain and its rich blood network! (I use only Ivory soap for this.) And let me tell you that many Floridians won't use anything but coconut oil tanning lotions and Avon Skin-So-Soft for an insect repellant. We have no desire to soak up pesticides through our skin while keeping a mosquito away. It's a whole other story, but sun blocking lotions are preventing some people from producing enough Vitamin D, made by our body following UV exposure. This is true particularly for growing children. They'll pay later for the present stupidity of avoiding all UV exposure. Our bodies need sun exposure in proportion to our ancestral evolution. Dark skin needs the most; light skin and blue eyes, the least. But no one thrives on none. Lady Python, your concern is valid. Just extend it! And be an organic as you can -- while still sucking a Dow Chemical product with unknown consequences into your lungs, of course. I'll do the same.