Hello Beauty Brains community, it’s answer day! A couple hundred of you answered, but 82% of you couldn’t identify the Beauty Science from the BS. Read the explanations to see how you did.
1. Rich people are more prone to skin cancer. TRUE. 41% of you thought this one was 
fake but the latest research suggests that it’s true. According to a 12 year review of scientific studies published in the British Journal of Dermatology, people living in more affluent areas are more likely to get skin cancer than people living in disadvantaged areas. Unfortunately, no explanation was given. Perhaps they just go to the doctor more often.
2. Prolonged use of muscle pain cream can kill you. TRUE. 29% of you thought this one 
was BS but unfortunately, it is true. The headline links to the tragic story of a 17-year old track star who died after being exposed to too much methyl salicylate (the active ingredient in most muscle pain relievers). Apparently, she applied the stuff constantly throughout the day and did so for a long time. Take heed of the warnings that are on these products. This is a drug after all.
3. You can become addicted to tanning. TRUE. 13% of you thought this was the fake but 
indeed it is true. Longtime readers of the Beauty Brains may have remembered seeing this one back in May of 2006. According to the research, tanning can release endorphins in your body which makes you feel really good.
4. Your skin is home to over 182 species of mites. FALSE! Only 18% of the Brains 
community were able to figure out that this was the fake. While you have demodex mites that live on you hair and skin, there aren’t 182 species. There are no more than 10. This headline was a modification of another science news story about 182 species of bacteria living on your skin. It sounds dirty but some of them are useful.
Thanks to everyone who participated. Stay tuned as we’ll be posting another poll shortly.
Loading ...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Re rich people and skin cancer — are they actually more prone to skin cancer or are they just more likely to be diagnosed with it? Your thought that perhaps they go to the doctor more frequently would suggest the latter.
Also, not having read the study, I wonder how they are defining “affluent areas.” I wonder what the size of the area is? For instance, would they be comparing the populations in Beverly Hills and Watts? Or are they looking at much larger areas, even by country or continent? If they are comparing very small areas, then perhaps the results are due to the stereotypical leisurely lifestyle in the sun or tanning salon vs. working inside all day. Or if it’s larger, say industrial countries or regions (affluent?) vs. agricultural ones (poorer?), then the results would be more surprising, since one would think that those who spend time outside in agricultural labor would be naturally more at risk for skin cancer just because of length of exposure. I think they’ll need more studies for this to really mean anything — well, anything other than WEAR SUNCREEN (whether you’re affluent or not!)!!
About the rich people and skin cancer, I can only guess that since they are rich they take more vacations. They have more free time than the average person?
These were eye-openers. I agree with “V.” I couldn’t figure out why rich people were more prone to skin cancer, but that response makes more sense.
I never heard of muscle cream before. Is it similar to steroids, except absorbed through the skin?
I would imagine that rich people get more skin cancer because they generally have more leisure time and more money. So more leisure time to spend in the sun (vacation or otherwise) or going tanning and more money to spend on high priced tanning equipment. I would also guess that those working in agriculture wear clothing and hats to protect themselves more from the sun since they are outside quite a bit.
According to some people, tanning has always had a affluent vs. poor aspect to it. Being tan didn’t become a good thing until Coco Chanel came back from a cruise with a tan. Before, being tan was associated with the “common laborer” who worked outside and therefore got tan. With the onset of the industrial revolution, the “common laborer” started working in factories and therefore became more pale. At the same time, the more affluent started taking more tropical vacations. And then it switched: being tan was considered a characteristic of the affluent, while being pale was associated with the less well-off who tended to work indoors. Hence, more people wanted to be tan.
Not sure how well this theory applies to real life/history, but it seems to make sense.