ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 12/12/2017 07:13 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  4.253 Visits   6 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
03/14/2010 07:10 PM ID: 83328 Permalink   

Scotland Has Found a Skin Cancer Cure

 

Skin cancer will be much easier to treat in the future thanks to a Light-emitting Ambulight PDT appliance which will be used like a plaster. Skin cancer is most common of all the cancers in England and numbers have doubled in the past 10 years.

Dundee’s medical professionals have claimed that this new method will not only have far quicker results but also will be far less painful to. The usual treatment is to apply a cream around seven hours before the relatively painful light treatment.

James Ferguson, lecturing dermatologist at Ninewells Hospital, said: "This new device can be taken away home with the patients. It is escaping from the hospital environment, making for a gentler approach to skin cancer treatment."

 
  Source: news.bbc.co.uk  
    WebReporter: captainJane Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  15 Comments
  
  Threatment is applied...  
 
and the patient can then go home.

The treatment was explained as "There was a nippy feeling but the pain threshold from nought to ten was only about a three and I have been told that the conventional method was about an eight."
 
  by: captainJane     03/14/2010 07:14 PM     
  Misleading?  
 
To me it sounds like the treatment already existed, and they just found an easier way to apply it, so if this treatment is a cure, they didn´t exactly find it, someone else did, they just improved it (or perhaps I am misreading).
 
  by: theavenger8     03/14/2010 07:44 PM     
  I am sorry...  
 
I do not know, this is the first I have heard of this!
 
  by: captainJane     03/15/2010 12:42 AM     
  Grammar Nazi here...  
 
"... far less painful to." Far less painful to what? To administer? To pay for? Or did you mean "... far less painful too" (aka also, as well, in addition)?

Sorry, I just had to point it out.
 
  by: opinionated   03/15/2010 05:18 AM     
  Thanks OP noted. :)  
 
It was my birthday had just had to quickly get this in amongst people unexpectedly turning up.

I had a scare last year with a nasty spot on my arm that was soooo painful thank God it was not what I feared; so this news excited me. I wonder how many years we will have to wait to actually receive this new treatment; they will say one thing but what we will get will be another thing all together.
 
  by: captainJane     03/15/2010 01:21 PM     
  Thinking out loud...  
 
as I try to work it out in my head! :)


The unusual light equipment used in our the hospitals in UK meant that patients spent some hours in receiving this treatment, that is after waiting three hours while the cream prepared the skin, then it would take another 20 minutes for the intense light therapy.
I can only assume as I really do not know, that this would blister the skin, something like being on a sun bed to long. With This new method the patient will probably apply this cream at home, then go along to the hospital for the plaster and light then wear it for three hours until the light switches itself off this photochemical reaction should then hopefully kill the cancer.

 
  by: captainJane     03/15/2010 01:48 PM     
  Thanks Jane  
 
Happy late birthday! I think this is great news! With my extremely light skin, I am at a great risk for skin cancer. I will continue to slather on the sunscreen though because I would much rather prevent it than have to treat it in any way!
 
  by: redheadedwonder   03/16/2010 02:25 AM     
  @ Wonder  
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...

Please read the link above, be careful what screens you use they can be ten times more harmful when in the sun; as some actually kill the cells.
 
  by: captainJane     03/16/2010 01:04 PM     
  Someone...  
 
of this site informed me of this information above and also I was warned about the self tanning creams. I have loads of these and I am afraid to use them.
 
  by: captainJane     03/16/2010 01:06 PM     
  hum...  
 
Thanks for sharing that link Jane. I have to wonder though if the fact that those who use sunscreen in the study were not already at great risk for skin cancer and that was why they use it in the first place. Of course I am not discrediting the research but with all of the fearmongering that circulates in our society, I am more prone to be skeptical. Especially since I would have to stay locked up in a dark corner of a basement without sunscreen! Give me 5 minutes in the sun without it and I will be a nice shade of pink!
 
  by: redheadedwonder   03/16/2010 02:37 PM     
  Some sun screen  
 
Are deadly. They have toxics that will create cancer and ten fold in the sun..

This was completed last years.

An analysis of 1,776 name-brand sunscreens* on the market in summer 2009, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that 3 out of 5 sunscreen products offer inadequate protection from the sun, or contain ingredients with significant safety concerns. Leading brands were the worst offenders: None of market leader Coppertone´s 45 sunscreen products met EWG´s criteria for safety and effectiveness, and only 2 of 160 products from Banana Boat and Neutrogena, the second- and third-largest manufacturers, are recommended by EWG.

Many products on the market present obvious safety and effectiveness concerns, including 1 of every 10 that does not protect from UVA radiation. This problem is aggravated by the fact that FDA has not finalized comprehensive sunscreen safety standards they began drafting 30 years ago. Overall we identified 129 products that offer very good sun protection with ingredients that present minimal health risks to users.

More Americans than ever are using sunscreen to protect from sunburn and guard against skin cancer. Top choices include products with high SPF ratings, and that are waterproof or that advertise "broad spectrum" protection. Most people trust that the claims on the bottle will ensure that the product truly protects their health and their families´. Nothing could be less certain.
 
  by: captainJane     03/18/2010 05:59 PM     
  Last comment...  
 
was @Wonder.
 
  by: captainJane     03/18/2010 05:59 PM     
  Jane  
 
It´s kinda scary, isn´t it? I mean it´s like a "damned if I do, damned if I don´t" situation.
 
  by: redheadedwonder   03/18/2010 06:34 PM     
  It is the same with diet..  
 
@Wonder.

So many things that are harmful to the body, contradicts the whole situation because you need those same foods to. Take a look at the other products I have used one of them for some years now, scary!

The best things for the fairer skin is little and often. We need the vitamin D for our bones, the sun or a lamp gives us that...


Products to beware of...
Just 28 of the 7,500 products we analysed have been fully assessed for safety by the cosmetic industry´s self-regulating panel, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review.

All other products — 99.6 percent of those examined — contain one or more ingredients never assessed for potential health impacts by the CIR. This panel, run and funded by the cosmetic industry´s trade association, is billed as the organization that "thoroughly reviews and assesses the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics" on behalf of the industry.
One of every 120 products on the market contains ingredients certified by government authorities as known or probable human carcinogens, including shampoos, lotions, make-up foundations, and lip balms manufactured by Almay, Neutrogena, Grecian Formula, and others. An astonishing one-third of all products contain one or more ingredients classified as possible human carcinogens.
Seventy-one hair dye products contain ingredients derived from carcinogenic coal tar. These products have all been granted a specific exemption from federal rules that deem products to be adulterated when they contain ingredients that can harm human health. Coal tar containing products include dyes made by Clairol, Revlon, L´Oreal, and others. Coal tar hair dyes are one of the few products for which FDA has issued consumer advice on the benefits of reducing use, in this case as a way to potentially "reduce the risk of cancer" (FDA 1993).
bullet Fifty-five percent of all products assessed contain “penetration enhancers,” ingredients that can increase a product´s penetration through the skin and into the bloodstream, increasing consumers´ exposures to other ingredients as well. We found 50 products containing penetration enhancers in combination with known or probable human carcinogens.
bullet Nearly 70 percent of all products contain ingredients that can be contaminated with impurities linked to cancer and other health problems.
 
  by: captainJane     03/18/2010 10:29 PM     
  @ Wonder  
 
Hope you get to read the above.

Thank you for that birthday wish! :)
 
  by: captainJane     03/19/2010 04:36 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2017 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com