Tanning?

Makeuptalk.com forums

Help Support Makeuptalk.com forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Originally Posted by glamslam Ok, my opinion definetly goes against what's being taught nowadays...but I am really wary of anything pharmaceutical, including sunscreens. The drug companies exsist to make money, their main concern is not your health. Why do you suppose, that dozens and dozens of new and improved sunscreens come out each year, more and more people are using them, yet people are still getting cancer at alarming rates? Same with all the so-called medicines and drugs. Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent to advertise these drugs...heck, they even have 30 minute infomercials now! Hello? An infomercial for a prescription drug? We as a country are getting sicker and sicker despite all these "wonderful" remedies. Sunscreen/sunblock is full of chemicals that you are putting onto the largest organ of your body, it absorbs in and is introduced into your system instantly. We need to get back to common sense and simple, natural cures. I say, your body seems to be taking care of itself just fine with it's natural abilities, if you can get a tan that fast and not burn.
Ok, I'm sure someone has an issue with what I said...please don't be too brutal!
icon_smile.gif
It's just my opinion...

You're not alone in your opinions!!! I feel the same way about drug companies and I believe the govt is behind all of it...
 
Anyone ever hear this saying before

"the higher the SPF you use, the longer your tan will last"

My aunt told me that years ago but i just laughed it off thinking she was trying to scare me in to using a higher SPF cream than 25. But one summer i did & no word of a lie but my tan lasted much longer than it usually does here in Ireland. I know it might have been coincidental but i'm just curious to know if anyone else heard this before!

 
since yesterday the news has finally been reporting that sunscreens may be more harmful than good since like i have been saying all along that they block the uv that is KEY in your body producing vitamin D. that you cannot get any other way. and that vitamin D is elemental in protecting from some cancers (prostate, breast, colon and YES even some skin cancers). I first saw this on Fox news channel yesterday and my local WGN news this morning. I am loving this being reported on the news maybe some people will actually listen and not be such sunaphobes when in actuality the sun is better for them than they think.

 
and that being said if they are out in the sun they need to be very very careful and not overexpose themselves especially if they have no sunscreen on theyneed to be cautious of how their skin is and how fast they can burn. and do it moderately.

 
Originally Posted by Anya1976 since yesterday the news has finally been reporting that sunscreens may be more harmful than good since like i have been saying all along that they block the uv that is KEY in your body producing vitamin D. that you cannot get any other way. and that vitamin D is elemental in protecting from some cancers (prostate, breast, colon and YES even some skin cancers). I first saw this on Fox news channel yesterday and my local WGN news this morning. I am loving this being reported on the news maybe some people will actually listen and not be such sunaphobes when in actuality the sun is better for them than they think. I think you always gotta be a little careful about such news. sounds like they´re clearly overestimating the power of vitamins. yes, vitamin D can´t be produced by the body itself, but there is only little insolation (right word?) needed for the body to produce Vitamin D-if this wasn´t the case, then the rates of cancer types Vit D is supposed to "prevent" would be higher in regions with only little sun (lets say Norway for example), which is not proven I believe.Vitamin D alone can´t prevent anything!!! and saying sunscreens can be "harmful" is actually pretty dangerous I believe. just try lying out in the sun for hours without it and see what happens
icon_eek.gif


 
I don't buy my sun screens in US unless they start paying more attention to health reasons not money making reasons. Sorry about being harsh, I love it here but certain things need definite revaluation... I buy mine from Europe and only certain brands.

 
no one should be in the sun for hours without it. i never said that and moderation is the key. people need to learn how to be in the sun safely without letting themselves burn. if people can only be in the sun for 10 mins without burning then 10 mins a day until their skin gets a bit of a tan and has more protection from the sun then they should only be in the sun for 10 mins a day. and they do say that places where people are indoors more often have more cases of cancers. places in the world where people spend most of their time outdoors have lower instances of cancer.

the USA where people are indoors in offices most of the time have higher cancer rates.

but you do have to realize that studies done outside the USA have different results since in europe there are not the strict guidlines for tanning salons that we have. we end up with different results here since we have different guidlines for everything.

 
Originally Posted by Laura Anyone ever hear this saying before
"the higher the SPF you use, the longer your tan will last"

My aunt told me that years ago but i just laughed it off thinking she was trying to scare me in to using a higher SPF cream than 25. But one summer i did & no word of a lie but my tan lasted much longer than it usually does here in Ireland. I know it might have been coincidental but i'm just curious to know if anyone else heard this before!

your tan only lasts as long as you are getting exposure. and if you stop going into the sun it's only going to last until your skin sheds itself. moisturizing prolongs it since that helps your skin not shed as quickly but no i have never heard that.
 
Originally Posted by Anya1976 no one should be in the sun for hours without it. i never said that and moderation is the key. people need to learn how to be in the sun safely without letting themselves burn. if people can only be in the sun for 10 mins without burning then 10 mins a day until their skin gets a bit of a tan and has more protection from the sun then they should only be in the sun for 10 mins a day. and they do say that places where people are indoors more often have more cases of cancers. places in the world where people spend most of their time outdoors have lower instances of cancer.the USA where people are indoors in offices most of the time have higher cancer rates.

but you do have to realize that studies done outside the USA have different results since in europe there are not the strict guidlines for tanning salons that we have. we end up with different results here since we have different guidlines for everything.

I completely agree about the tanning salon guidelines. I have only been to a few salons here in Austria. there are some really good ones, but the small ones have pretty old beds sometimes and I´ve never wanted to go there.
but I don´t think it´s the fact that in the US people are more indoors is what causes the high cancer rates (if you´re talking about the influence of the sun). Americans are known to have the unhealthiest lifestyles out of all industrialized countries.

 
Originally Posted by Arielle I completely agree about the tanning salon guidelines. I have only been to a few salons here in Austria. there are some really good ones, but the small ones have pretty old beds sometimes and I´ve never wanted to go there.
but I don´t think it´s the fact that in the US people are more indoors is what causes the high cancer rates (if you´re talking about the influence of the sun). Americans are known to have the unhealthiest lifestyles out of all industrialized countries.

no one is disputing that but if what they are saying about the vit d deficency is true it could be a major reason why americans do get more cancers. the fear of being in the sun that is so instilled in our heads by every sunscreen company in the country.
 
here is an interesting thing i found about vitamin d deficiency

Quote:
<table cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td class="mTdContentHead"> Lack of Light Causes High Blood Pressure?<!-- #EndEditable -->
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="mTdContentBody"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="mTdContentBody"><!-- #BeginEditable "Body" --> Around the world, the farther one gets from the equator, the more likely you are to find people with high blood pressure. Lack of exposure to ultraviolet light may actually contribute to the rise in blood pressure in higher latitudes, according to a new theory from an Alabama researcher. And the theory may explain why blacks in the U.S. and Europe have a greater risk of high blood pressure than whites in those countries or blacks who live in Africa.

Sunlight plays an important role in the synthesis of vitamin D. The farther away from the equator, the less ultraviolet exposure and the less vitamin D that is synthesized in the body. And those with greater amounts of pigment in the skin -- such as blacks -- require six times the amount of ultraviolet B (UVB) light to produce the same amount of vitamin D found in lighter-skinned people. While 20% to 30% of UVB radiation is transmitted through white skin, only 5% is transmitted through deeply pigmented skin.

Such observations are not limited to people of African origin, studies of Pakistani and Indian children living in the United States suggest that their capacity to produce vitamin D is the same as whites, but like blacks, they require longer exposure to UV light because of increased skin melanin content.

This is yet another compelling piece of information which clearly refutes the recommendations most of us receive to avoid any sun exposure. We all need sunlight to stay healthy. One should never get sunburned and probably limit exposure during the peak hour of the day. However an hour a day of sunshine is important to maintain optimal health. It is most likely the increased risk of melanoma is due to exposure to the chlorine in the drinking water, not just increased sun exposure.

Hypertension (1997;30:150-156)

</td></tr></tbody> </table>

http://www.mercola.com/1997/archive/...d_pressure.htm
 
this one isn't about cancer but other problems that can be caused by vit d deficiency in babies

Quote:
<table cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td class="mTdContentHead"> Vitamin D Is Not A Vitamin But A Steroid Hormone Precursor<!-- #EndEditable -->
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="mTdContentBody"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="mTdContentBody"><!-- #BeginEditable "Body" --> Rickets appears to be on the rise, particularly in African-Americans children, according to a new report. Rickets is a disorder most commonly caused by vitamin D deficiency that results in soft, malformed bones, and muscle weakness.

  • Researchers reviewed medical records of 30 babies diagnosed with nutritional rickets between 1990 and 1999 at two medical centers in North Carolina.
  • All of the children were African-American, aged 5 months to 25 months, and all were breast-fed but did not receive vitamin D supplements.
  • Over half of the patients were seen in 1998 and the first half of 1999, giving the researchers the impression that the incidence has risen sharply.
At the time of diagnosis, most of the infants were growth retarded in both height and weight with nearly one-third being severely growth retarded. Many of the infants also had bow legs and bone fractures, common problems with untreated vitamin D deficiency.

  • Vitamin D comes from two sources: food and sunlight. Some of the best food sources are liver, egg yolks, and fish.
  • Researchers suggest that there are several possible causes for the rise of infant rickets:
  • The increasing proportion of women who breast-feed their babies. Although experts encourage Breastfeeding, the vitamin D content of breast milk depends on the mother having adequate levels of the vitamin.
  • Pediatricians may not be adequately prescribing vitamin supplements for infants, especially to those who are breast-fed.
  • Dark-skinned people are more prone to vitamin D deficiencies because dark skin requires more sunlight to manufacture vitamin D, but the researchers stress that rickets is completely preventable.
"We support Breastfeeding as the ideal nutrition for babies and children but recommend supplementation of all dark-skinned, breast-fed infants and children with 400 IU of vitamin D per day, starting at least by 2 months of age," the researchers conclude.
Many Breastfeeding advocates are justifiably defensive of any perceived defamation of Breastfeeding, and therefore disagree with the assertion that vitamin D supplementation is required in a breastfed baby. However addressing this issue, accompanying editorial states:

A second objection may actually derive from our very appropriate advocacy for human milk as a "perfect food." For some, the need for supplementation may imply nutritional inadequacy. As emphasized above, however, calciferol (vitamin D) is in no sense a nutrient, but rather the precursor of a steroid hormone that is not naturally present in any infant food. Classifying the antirachitic substance in cod liver oil as a vitamin was an unfortunate historical error that has become too ingrained to correct.

If one views calciferol in this light, then it is not necessary to consider human milk "deficient." Instead, the provision of supplemental calciferol can be looked on as ensuring an adequate substrate for a hormone whose normal production has been adversely affected by the realities of modern living conditions. Human milk is, indeed, the "perfect food" for infants. Unfortunately, neither it nor any unsupplemented food or formula can prevent climate, latitude, smog, economic factors, or religious practices from coming between infants and sunshine.
Journal of Pediatrics August 2000; 137: 153-157.
<hr> Dr. Mercola's Comment:

This is an important article for me as it completely updated my view about vitamin D. I had always wondered why this was the ONLY vitamin that breast fed babies need (only if they are not regularly exposed to sunshine). The answer is that Vitamin D is NOT a vitamin but a steroid hormone precursor that is NOT naturally present in food. This explains why the most perfect food on the planet for humans, human breast milk, is "deficient" in vitamin D.

Vitamin D is one of the only supplements that a breast-fed baby will need, but this is only if the baby is not exposed to sunshine. The darker the skin of the baby the more sun exposure will be required for the baby to generate enough vitamin D. Even if the child does not develop rickets, less than optimal bone development and other problems will occur without adequate vitamin D. Typically parents are so concerned about calcium for proper bone growth and health, but in most cases the vitamin D is far more important.

Certain drugs have also been shown to interfere with vitamin D absorption and metabolism, including cholestyramine (Questran), Dilantin, and phenobarbital.

Additionally, because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, any drug or substance that interferes with fat absorption may cause problems, as may a low-fat diet.

A much less common type of rickets is caused by phosphate depletion and was reported on previously in the newsletter.

Related Articles:

</td></tr></tbody> </table> http://www.mercola.com/2000/aug/27/v..._d_rickets.htm
 
Quote:
<table cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td class="mTdContentHead"> Sunlight Exposure Beneficial In Multiple Sclerosis <!-- #EndEditable -->
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="mTdContentBody"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="mTdContentBody"><!-- #BeginEditable "Body" --> In a recently published exploratory study, mortality from multiple sclerosis (MS) was found to be reduced by exposure to sunlight. Depending on the degree of sunlight exposure, the risk of death from MS was reduced by up to 76%. No theory on the precise mechanism of action in this reduction was proposed by the authors.

Occup Environ Med 2000;57:418-421

<hr> Dr. Mercola's Comment: The commonly spread word is that sunlight is not good for us and will only cause cancer. We are encouraged to slap on sunscreens to protect ourselves. Well, it is important to know that there are contrary views. One clearly needs to exercise caution with the sun and avoid ever getting sunburnt, but this is relatively easy to do. This study confirms one of the central issues that sunlight is actually healthy for us. Lack of sunlight has also been associated with high blood pressure. It seems as though there are both benefits and risks to sunlight exposure.

However, someone with MS is probably much less concerned with the risks of skin cancer than the risks of the MS and therefore the benefits of the sunlight would be much greater. One strong possibility for the benefit with MS patients could be the increased vitamin D levels in those with the greater exposure to sunlight.

</td></tr></tbody> </table>

http://www.mercola.com/2000/may/28/sunlight_m_s.htm
 
woah, you did some good research, Angela!!!

as always, there is a good and a bad side to everything. too much sun can lead to skin cancer, too little sun can cause problems too. I`m really curious about the hopefully upcoming studies on the Vit D issue.

 
Quote:
Vitamin D Deficiency Called Major Health Risk
By Rob Stein

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, May 21, 2004; Page A01

Many Americans, particularly African Americans, may be suffering from unrecognized deficiencies of a key nutrient -- vitamin D -- that increase the risk of bone problems and perhaps a host of other diseases, a growing number of scientists say.

Pediatricians scattered around the country have been surprised to see children suffering from rickets, a bone disorder caused by vitamin D deficiency that had been largely relegated to a bygone era. A few doctors have come across adults who were disabled by severe muscle weakness and pain, sometimes for years, until they were treated for undiagnosed vitamin D deficiency. And recent studies suggest low vitamin D may be putting the elderly at higher risk for the bone-thinning disease osteoporosis and life-threatening falls and fractures.

But beyond bone and muscle problems, some evidence suggests a dearth of vitamin D may be associated with an array of more serious illnesses, including many forms of cancer, high blood pressure, depression, and immune-system disorders such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes.

In response, many scientists have begun pushing to sharply boost the official recommendations for how much vitamin D everyone should get daily, either by taking supplements, by eating more food that contains the nutrient or from the sun -- a major source of vitamin D.

Suggestions that people get more sun exposure, however, have sparked an unusually intense, and sometimes bitter, debate. Skin cancer experts are alarmed that people will disregard warnings about unprotected sun exposure, making them more vulnerable to what is the most common malignancy.

The debate is complicated by the many uncertainties about vitamin D. Because the nutrient's apparently widespread functions in the body are just now being recognized, little research has been done to try to answer some of the most basic questions, such as how much is needed for optimal health.

"It's a nutrient that's been around for a long time, but it's relatively recently that there's been a lot of evidence emerging that indicates there's more to vitamin D than we thought," said Daniel Raiten of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, who organized a recent conference at the National Institutes of Health to identify the most urgent priorities for more research.

Skin produces vitamin D when hit by ultraviolet light in sunlight. The amount depends on where people live, skin pigment, age and other factors. African Americans and other dark-skinned people, and anyone living in northern latitudes, make far less than some other groups.

With people spending more time indoors, covering up and slathering on sunblock when they are outside, and smog obscuring the sun on many days, the amount of vitamin D people create naturally is probably very low, many scientists say.

"Imagine you're a space alien looking down on Earth. You have these humans who evolved in the Horn of Africa, as nudists living around the equator. They would have been getting lots of vitamin D through their skin. Then they suddenly . . . move north and put on lots of clothes and block out most of their capacity to make vitamin D," said Reinhold Vieth, a University of Toronto vitamin D researcher. "For me it's a no-brainer. We're not getting enough."

Milk and a few other foods are fortified with vitamin D, and it occurs naturally in a few others, such as fatty fish, but most people get very little through their diets.

"All along the northern United States, where we have long winters, a lot of snow, not much sunshine all winter, there is endemic vitamin D deficiency," said Paresh Dandona of the State University of New York at Buffalo, who treated six patients disabled by misdiagnosed vitamin D deficiencies.

A number of studies have found what could be disturbingly low levels of vitamin D in many populations, including children, the elderly and women. One federal study of women nationwide found that perhaps nearly half of African American women of childbearing age may be vitamin D deficient.

It remains unclear whether vitamin D deficiencies are becoming more common because people are shunning the sun and making other lifestyle changes or whether it is a long-standing problem that is only now being recognized.

The first clue came from rickets. Milk was fortified with vitamin D in the 1930s to eliminate the disorder, which can cause bowlegs and other bone malformations. But during the 1990s, doctors in several cities reported unusual numbers of cases, primarily in babies being breast-fed and mostly among African American children. Formula is fortified with vitamin D, but breast milk contains little, especially among women with dark skin.

In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics last spring instructed pediatricians to prescribe that all children, especially breast-fed babies, take vitamin D supplements through adolescence.

While it is clear that low vitamin D levels can lead to rickets in children, muscle problems in older people and probably brittle bones in the elderly, the link to other serious illnesses remains far more tentative. But many specialists say the case has steadily been getting stronger.

Vitamin D appears to interact with virtually every tissue in the body. Moreover, the incidence of certain diseases seems to vary depending on sun exposure and vitamin D levels.

For example, many cancers, most notably breast, colon and prostate cancer, seem to increase the farther you get from the equator, where exposure to ultraviolet light from the sun is greatest.

"The highest rate of prostate cancer is among African Americans, followed by countries in northern Europe. How are blacks like Scandinavians? They don't look alike, but in some important ways they have to be alike," said Gary G. Schwartz, a cancer researcher at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. "One way that they are alike is both groups have very low levels of vitamin D."

While there could be many other explanations, the idea that vitamin D may help prevent malignancies has been buttressed by animal and laboratory studies indicating it can act as a brake on cell growth, preventing the uncontrolled cell division that is cancer.

Similarly, vitamin D appears to damp down the immune system, and researchers have also found associations among sun exposure, vitamin D levels and the incidence of "autoimmune diseases" such as multiple sclerosis, lupus and diabetes, in which the immune system attacks the body.

Some studies suggest vitamin D can reduce blood pressure, which would cut the risk for heart disease and strokes -- the nation's leading causes of death. Others suggest that low vitamin D levels may contribute to depression and other psychiatric conditions.

"It's a major health problem," said Michael F. Holick, a Boston University scientist who is the most prominent proponent of the role of vitamin D in health. "Everybody has always associated vitamin D deficiency with rickets in children, and after childhood you don't have to worry. There's nothing further from the truth."

Holick and others argue that instead of the 200 to 600 international units a day that current recommendations suggest, most people should be getting at least 1,000 units a day. In a controversial new book, "The UV Advantage," Holick recommends exposing the hands, face, arms and legs to the sun for five to 15 minutes a day a few days a week, which he says would be enough to generate that amount without increasing the risk for skin cancer. Many people are not getting even that amount of sun exposure on a regular basis, Holick and others say.

"There's no question that chronic, excessive exposure to sunlight and sunburning incidents markedly increases your risk for skin cancer. But there's little evidence out there that if you practice safe sun exposure, it would increase your risk for skin cancer or wrinkling," Holick said.

But dermatologists and skin cancer experts argue that those recommendations are irresponsible and have little firm scientific support.

"Dr. Holick says vitamin D is a cure-all magic pill. If everyone took vitamin D, there would be no more cancer. But there's no evidence that is true," said James Spencer, vice chairman of dermatology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

"Ultraviolet light contained in sunlight causes skin cancer and wrinkles. That's beyond dispute," Spencer said. "We already have an epidemic of skin cancer in this country."

Barbara Gilchrest, who chairs the dermatology department at the Boston University School of Medicine, said she asked Holick to resign his position in her department in February because of his views and because he receives some funding from the tanning-parlor industry. "He has, in my opinion, an enormous conflict of interest that he refuses to acknowledge," Gilchrest said.

Holick, who kept his other academic positions at the university, acknowledges he receives funding from the tanning industry, but he says it is a small portion of his budget and comes with no strings attached. "The dermatologists get a lot of money from the sunscreen industry and no one ever questions them about that," he said.

Many experts who believe vitamin D deficiencies play an important role in a range of diseases say people can get enough safely by taking vitamin D supplements, sidestepping the contentious sunlight debate.

"There's a lot of emotion in this fight, which is unfortunate," said Hector F. DeLuca, who studies vitamin D at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "This is a very important issue. We really need to address two important questions: Are we getting enough vitamin D? I believe we are not. The other one is: What's the best way to get it? That's a matter of debate."

Others, meanwhile, say much more research is needed to figure out how much vitamin D people need and the best way to get it.

"We're a long way from making any definitive statement that Group X has a serious problem," NIH's Raiten said. "The evidence seems to imply that we need to look at it carefully, but I don't think we're in a position of being able to make any specific recommendations."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May20.html
 
Originally Posted by Arielle woah, you did some good research, Angela!!!
as always, there is a good and a bad side to everything. too much sun can lead to skin cancer, too little sun can cause problems too. I`m really curious about the hopefully upcoming studies on the Vit D issue.

i tan so i like to have as much information as i can about it.i am not about to hide and feel shame because i tan. i know there are risks to everything but the sun also has MANY benefits. I tan in moderation. i dont let myself get overexposed. I take care of my skin.
i mean hell if you drink water in excess you can drown your cells. there is an upside and a downside to everything.

 
another good resource!! I already knew some of the stuff in the article, but that Vit D-issue hasn´t been presented here in Europe. at least I haven´t heard about it yet.

it just bothers me a little that there is always such a big hype around this kind of news. when there was first evidence that too much sun exposure can lead to skin cancer everybody started to be really scared. some people even claim not to leave the house without SPF 60 (!!!!). and now there´s this fear that we´re all not getting enough Vit D b/c we stay out of the sun.

it seems like every week there is a new medical evidence about what causes diseases or what prevents diseases. I am generally a little suspicious about those kind of hypes UNTIL it is proven to be true by several studies by uninfluenced sources.

 
Originally Posted by Arielle another good resource!! I already knew some of the stuff in the article, but that Vit D-issue hasn´t been presented here in Europe. at least I haven´t heard about it yet.
it just bothers me a little that there is always such a big hype around this kind of news. when there was first evidence that too much sun exposure can lead to skin cancer everybody started to be really scared. some people even claim not to leave the house without SPF 60 (!!!!). and now there´s this fear that we´re all not getting enough Vit D b/c we stay out of the sun.

it seems like every week there is a new medical evidence about what causes diseases or what prevents diseases. I am generally a little suspicious about those kind of hypes UNTIL it is proven to be true by several studies by uninfluenced sources.

i think this has been around for longer than most people are aware of. they just like to not report it because the sunscreen companies have their fingers in everything. and like to hand out money for people to say that sunscreen is the miracle product.
 
Originally Posted by Anya1976 since yesterday the news has finally been reporting that sunscreens may be more harmful than good since like i have been saying all along that they block the uv that is KEY in your body producing vitamin D. that you cannot get any other way. and that vitamin D is elemental in protecting from some cancers (prostate, breast, colon and YES even some skin cancers). I first saw this on Fox news channel yesterday and my local WGN news this morning. I am loving this being reported on the news maybe some people will actually listen and not be such sunaphobes when in actuality the sun is better for them than they think. Oh my gosh, I have been hearing and reading all about this suddenly too! It was mentioned several times on the radio as I drove to work, then it was in the newspaper. Big surprise...NOT!
 
Originally Posted by glamslam Oh my gosh, I have been hearing and reading all about this suddenly too! It was mentioned several times on the radio as I drove to work, then it was in the newspaper. Big surprise...NOT! well i am sure it's a suprise to those who have been hiding in a house with light blocking drapes and only go out at night lol
 
Back
Top