[btilly]

If the story is true, then I question her ethics.

As http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/cosmetics/cosmetics_p... (among many other sources) points out, we do not have good regulation of the cosmetics industry. Which is kind of scary, because the cosmetics industry is deliberately seeking biologically active stuff, and smearing it all over people. Stuff that, in her case, does things like change your natural skin color.

What else does it do? We don't really know. We do know that a lot of these substances can cause cancer. We know that cosmetics mimic biologically active stuff in our body that could do other things. We know it has not been studied.

The last point is important. As http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/a... makes clear, the situation right now is, "The jury is out, we don't have data." But I'd be firmly on the side of, "When you're deliberately trying to get the body to interact with biologically active stuff, it is just a question of time until you succeed..disastrously."

[raverbashing]

I really don't know what's worse, cosmetic companies putting whatever they want or this exaggeration of risks

Among that list of "dangerous substances" we have: talc, silica (sand).

Exaggerated alarmism and "think of the children" mentality. I'm sure there's some people that die after consuming Vitamin C supplements, but that doesn't mean it is 'dangerous'.

Do you know what else is carcinogenic? Sunscreen. Of course, standing in the sun without it is more carcinogenic.

Living is the leading cause of cancer. Of course, not smoking, not standing in the sun too much and keeping away from radioactive sources help.

[jackalope]

I baked like a lobster once after spending too much time on a boat without any sunscreen. I was extremely concerned about the cancer risk and was surprised to come across this in the wikipedia article on sunburn:

...if sunscreen penetrates into the skin, it promotes indirect DNA damage, which causes the most lethal form of skin cancer, malignant melanoma. This form of skin cancer is rare, but it causes 75% of all skin cancer-related deaths.

So, while the sunburn you get without wearing sunscreen technically causes more cancer, it is of the mild and nonfatal kind. Now I'm left with one more dilemma added to good vs. bad cholesterol, omega-3 vs. omega-6, natural vs. alkali-processed cocoa, etc.

[raverbashing]

Having your skin burned by sun rays (with a certain frequency) is worse than using sunscreen. And it is certainly not only 'mild cancer'

Constantly damaging a tissue (mechanical, chemical, radioactive damage) is a trigger for cancer

Not to mention the Ozone layer hole (in the southern hemisphere)

[beagle3]

And yet, athletes who constantly subject their body to mechanical damage, have a much lower incidence of cancer than the general population. Yes, there are a lot of confounding factors and it is hard to tell what causes what.

But there is also a lot of evidence for hormesis - the idea that small amounts of bad stuff is good for you; a small amounts of alcohol daily is better than no alcohol at all, and better than exactly same cumulative amount consumed weekly. And I assume the same thing goes for sun, and mechanical damage, although I'm not familiar with the literature.

[raverbashing]

The hormesis idea is nice, but it doesn't work if the damage is too much.

So I suppose a moderate dose of sunbathing is beneficial (and not only because of Vitamin D)

There are some cases where cancer is believed to be caused by repeated damage to a tissue, example (search for 'hot beverages') http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/type...

[guard-of-terra]

Even in the same age range? I imagine most athletes are in ages 16-35, where getting cancer is pretty rare (save for some inherited ones) and should be equal for all occupations and lifestyles.

[beagle3]

I'm not intimately familiar with the data, but results hold among multiple studies that, controlled for age, lifestyle, occupation, and just about any other parameter anyone ever controls for, athletes have lower rates of cancer, and professional athletes have significantly lower rates of cancer (although, that makes "occupation" a variable you can't control for, and it's hard to isolate many other factors, because e.g. those people almost never smoke, and almost always eat healthy. But as much as can be controlled, it seems like sport confers an advantage against cancer, despite subjecting a lot of tissues to repeating and continuous damage).

Statistics is confusing though.

It's possible that people who are less likely to get cancer (for whatever reason) are more likely to be better at sports, thus more likely to be pro athletes; and with the right base rates, it might mean that pro athletes are more likely to not get cancer BECAUSE people who are less likely to get cancer are often athletes. No study that I'm aware of ever tried that angle, and I'm not sure anyone ever collected the right data to try.

[illuminate]

" I was extremely concerned about the cancer risk and was surprised to come across this in the wikipedia article on sunburn:"

This sounds like you're reading the article incorrectly perhaps? The sunscreen isn't causing DNA damage in and of itself, it prevents one form of severe harm and leaves others intact. Don't go in the sun unclothed if you want to avoid cancer.

"Now I'm left with one more dilemma"

It's not a dilemma. It's always a bad idea to get long exposures of sunlight if you can avoid it.

[hermaj]

How many serious scientists would be on the board of advisors for RUMi OM™ YOUR SOUL VACATION™ HOME:

http://www.rumiom.com/index.php/board-of-advoisors.html

This is a nonsense story designed to promote some kind of pseudoscience yoga resort.

[illuminate]

It's surprising how at face value these stories from MLM and other sham purveyors are taken.

[guard-of-terra]

So now you vote for stopping progress forever for the fears of safety?

I assume you understand this makes you undeserving of that safety.

[Tuna-Fish]

There's a difference between stopping progress forever and expecting companies to perform some kind of human safety tests before bringing products to market.

[guard-of-terra]

Do you have proof (or reasonable doubts) that the person described in an article doesn't?

[campusman]

I do....I know this person personally. She is duplicitous and ethically bankrupt. I have seen studies done years ago supposedly on some of the things she has developed and their efficacy but nothing in the last decade pretty much. The people commenting with skepticism on her credentials earlier in this thread are getting close to the mark with their assumptions. If you dig deeper on her a lot of claims fall apart. It sickens me she is getting all this exposure and publicity.

[btilly]

I vote for recognizing clear risks, and taking appropriate steps to mitigate them up front. If you're deliberately trying to put biologically active stuff into millions of people, it is just a question of time before the law of unintended consequences hits you. Your desire to sell more effective skin whitening creams does not, in my books, mean that you should ignore the possibility that your beautifier can make people sick. And if you're in doubt, I want you to err on the side of safety.

Of course if you're selling something that we have good evidence is both acceptably safe and makes people look better, then the more power to you. But that's not, by her admission, the position that she is probably in.

[guard-of-terra]

What makes you think she doesn't have good evidence that her product is both acceptably safe and makes people look better? I re-read that portion of TFA and nothing rang my bell.

[btilly]

Based on the article, she's a pioneer in using new biological pathways for a cosmetic effect. You don't get to be first if you're trying to study safety, and that industry as a whole does not pay much attention to safety.

Therefore I find it extremely likely that she has evidence of biological effect in your body's cells, and has not done research on unexpected possible side effects in the same cells that she's impacting.

[guard-of-terra]

Oh that's brilliant. If she is a pioneer then she is automatically pronounced guilty, and the people who come and share her work with much less risk are to get the benefits.

I see so much enterpreneur spirit in your comments on HN that I am speechless.

Is this your life choice as well? Looking for people who innovate, bash them over their mistakes and then steal their good results?

[pretoriusB]

>So now you vote for stopping progress forever for the fears of safety?

Why not?

Because you believe in "progress" as in an inherently good metaphysical entity?

I'd take safety and a better life for the vast majority of mankind over progress anyday.

[guard-of-terra]

The vast majority of mankind do not have safe and enjoyable life.

The reason for that is not enough progress. "Safe and better" isn't going to materialize out of thin air.

[pretoriusB]

>The vast majority of mankind do not have safe and enjoyable life.

My sentiments exactly.

>The reason for that is not enough progress.

No, the reason for that is not enough political action for solving that.

It's not like we don't have enough food, resources of technology to solve all of those problems. And it's not like any new technology is applied to solving them.

People are dying (by the millions) by problems that can be solved by 200 and 300 year old technology.

[guard-of-terra]

Will that political action consist of taking the wealth from people who embraced progress and giving it to people who ignored progress?

So they can keep on remaining in the cultural and intellectual stone age and be proud of it?