Friday, 12 July 2013

Sir Roger Gale supports calls to increase awareness of skin cancer caused by sun exposure

MPs this week met with cancer charities and clinical experts in the House of Commons to discuss a new initiative to help increase the prevention and early detection of skin conditions, including cancer, caused by long-term sun exposure. The new awareness initiative is being led by Skcin – the UK's only skin cancer specific charity with national status – working in partnership with LEO Pharma.

Approximately 13 million people or 24 per cent of the population in England and Wales are affected by some form of skin disease1. In fact, skin cancer is the now most common form of cancer in the UK2, with more cases diagnosed each year than breast and lung cancers combined2.

With skin cancer rates having quadrupled over the last 30 years2, addressing and preventing the cumulative effects of long-term sun exposure will be crucial if we are to avoid a skin cancer ‘time bomb’ in the years to come.  

In particular, measures to prevent the development of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and actinic keratosis (AK) – a pre-malignant skin condition caused by sun damage with the potential to develop into skin cancer – were discussed during the meeting and will be a key focus of the new campaign.

Anyone can have sun damaged skin. It is important to look out for ALL skin changes, not just in moles, that might be markers for skin cancer or an increased risk of getting skin cancer. Checking your skin regularly means any potential problems are more likely to be found and treated at an early stage.  For further information on how to check your skin go to: 

Pledging their support for the new campaign, Sir Roger said: “Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer, but also one of the most preventable. As we head into the summer months, this timely new initiative will help raise awareness with the public to ensure that they take simple, yet crucial measures, to help minimise skin damage caused by over-exposure to the sun.”

Joergen Damsbo Andersen, Regional Vice President of LEO Pharma said: “LEO Pharma is delighted to be working in partnership with Skcin to launch this new initiative to help increase the prevention and early detection of skin diseases related to long term sun exposure. We are committed to providing total care solutions to people living with skin conditions, and this new awareness initiative is another step towards helping people to achieve healthy skin.”


  1. Well done Sir Roger and research on cancer from aviation fuel needed. Volunteers in East Kent?

    1. In a word, 21:06, none.

    2. Maybe Gale needs a second knighthood to get the hint and resign? Arise Sir Sir Roger Gale and get knotted. 30 years of failure.

    3. I wouldn't call 30 years of winning votes in elections a "failure".

    4. Of course not although a donkey with a blue rosette could get elected in Pensionerville Thanet North. And there is 30 years of failure in Margate, TDC etc.

    5. How can one turn an article about concerns over sun exposure causing skin cancer into something about aviation fuel and then the usual attack one expects from 11:47 on pensioners. Perhaps you can explain how come you have so much time for blogging during normal working hours if you are not a pensioner yourself.

    6. The issue was cancer whether from the sun or aviation fuel. Sir Sir Roger speaks up on one but not the other - in fact usually praising Infratil and the pollution breaches. Nobody's attacked pensioners only his record of 30 years of failure in Thanet. By default 30 years makes him a pensioner unless he'd started early as an MP. And Thanet North is full of pensioners isn't it? I work in the public sector so it's easy to do nothing during the day. How about yourself?

    7. The issue is sun exposure causing cancer, not aviation fuel, breast, prostate or any others of the many cancers and/or causes. It is just you that has to swing everything round to your pet hate of Manston. You were the one who referred to Pensionerville Thanet North as though somehow that makes the electorate there Tory. Don't Lib/Dems or Labour supporters grow old, 13:40?

      You work in the public sector yet do not know the difference between a civil servant and a local government officer. Pull the other one.

    8. Unfortunately, Adolf, the discussion was on cancer both skin cancer and cancer from aviation fuel. If you have anything interesting to say on that then do so. Or are you pretending that aviation fuel doesn't cause cancer?

      Your tedious attempts to draw a distinction between civil servants and local government officers is laughable but go on amuse us, what exactly- do you think - is the difference? Your other points are even more incoherent.

    9. Look at the heading, peasant, SIR ROGER SUPPORTS CALLS TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF SKIN CANCER CAUSED BY SUN EXPOSURE, no mention of aviation fuel. I am not pretending aviation fuel doesn't cause cancer anymore than I am pretending smoking doesn't. It is just not the subject of this article.

      For your further education, civil servants work for the government departments whereas local government officers work for councils. They even have different unions and pension schemes. What, incidentally, are the other points that are incoherent, other than your Adolph dig?

      By the way, I really hope you enjoy BA's lovely big new A380 Super Jumbo at Manston. May you get to see and hear a lot of it, but better cover up with a full NBC suit. Don't want you splashed with AVTAG do we.

    10. You're tedious and stupid Adolf but let's take your points in order. You can read, albeit you're rude, so can recite the headline of this blogpost. However the discussion had moved on to discuss skin cancer and aviation fuel cancer. Now you agree that both cause cancer. You're adding nothign but pedantry to the discussion.

      Your civil servant/LGO whinge. it seems to be the one piece of information you know. Except it's wrong. I was referring to civil servants in the broadest sense as public sector workers. And you're wrong in the definition (of your own making) as LGO's are funded by DCLG thus making them civil servants by your own criteria. You make no reference to quango workers which can work for councils and be funded by central Government depts.

      Your trade union point is irrelevant as that's down to the individual workers themselves - as indeed should be their pensions.

      And your petty whining on the matter is irrelevant to this discussion on cancer.

      As I said, you're an idiot.

      I can't be bothered with your other points.

      And in terms of pollution and cancer form an A380 what an unpleasant little character you are - the aviation fuel is far more likely to affect children or the elderly. Your references to NBC etc simply mark you out as an ex-RAF Manstoner stuck in the past.

      Do be quiet unless you have something relevant or interesting to contribute to the discussion.

    11. What's happened to KIACC and the air monitoring and Environment Agency and water monitoring with TDC? Have they just given up in favour of cover up?

    12. The biggest killers are worry and stress, so chill out people. Thanet is beautiful and so are it's people, so let's just count our blessings and appreciate it. : ) x

    13. Fair point Peter but you're wrong the biggest killer is cancer. And aviation fuel smog on a hot day like today is especially lethal: asthma etc etc.

      And of course this should be completely preventable at Manston with proper monitoring and the overflights. Unfortunately TDC and Infratil decided to ignore these without alerting the public...

    14. Anon 17:02, some 30% of the UK population die of cancer leaving 70% to die of other causes. With an aging population cancer fatalities will increase as people reach ages where cancers are more likely to develop. Asthma is not a cancer, so why you introduced that escapes me, and smog from motor vehicle exhausts is much more likely to aggravate that than the odd aircraft movement.

      Peter, also has a very valid point about stress which is a major killer of people pre-retirement, more so in fact than cancer for younger age groups. Although you accuse others of not offering anything relevant, which makes you sound like a Simon Cowell devotee, it is you that tries to swing every thread onto Manston, monitors and your allegations of the airport being a major cause of cancer. That gets pretty damn boring for everybody else.

    15. I think you're making up the point about stress killing pre-retirees 18:58 what evidence do you have? Similarly the 30% cancer rate sounds unlikely - but do prove me wrong. I never said asthma was cancer, you did, I only referred to it as being a key factor in aviation fuel smog on hot days like today.

      Your attempts to downplay Manston's occasional aircraft movement are weak given they're invariably low-level illegal flights or the 6:30am one - if you support the airport and its breaches and safety problems then at least address those. Otherwise you sound like an elderly ex-airport worker who can't bring themselves to admit Manston is a disaster.

      If it's so boring you seem keen to pop up to downplay the cancer etc. your grandkids may not thank you but Charles Buchanan will although no doubt he's sending his CV off to all and sundry.

    16. Debate is impossible with you, 19:08, and your comment is full of assumption based on nothing. Why does everyone who disagrees with you have to elderly, an airport worker or ex RAF. On cancer death rates just check the national statistics for yourself on line.

    17. Ah, so you actually have no cancer statistics of your own 19:31, you were just making them up. How strange - why do that?

      Your grandkids won't thank you but Charles Buchanan will won't he, if he's still working there?

      Some people (many) agree with me and some (few) don't. Those that don't invariably seem to be elderly ex-RAF or airport workers: Adolf above is an almost perfect example. I'd possibly add stupid into your group description. After all who'd want to breathe polluted air?

    18. Evidently you do, 19:42, otherwise you would move away and leave us all in peace. How does one have cancer statistics of ones own, fool, when national statistics are well researched and available on line?

    19. No 08:32 we were waiting on 19:31 and their various cancer statistics they've cited, to be provided. Do keep up. Amusingly, the seem to have made it all up. And why are you so keen to excuse polluted air and cancer?

    20. You get sillier, I was 19:31 as well as 8:31, and I have answered your question about availability of statistics. Perhaps it is you that should keep up.

  2. 15:49, you moved onto aviation fuel, nobody else, and sorry to disappoint you, but I was in the army, not RAF.

  3. 18:44 so we're agreed on the other points for cancer and your ludicrous civil service quibbling Adolf. And you're petty nitpicking again on the Army or RAF, which reinforces the fact you know nothing about the civil service. Nobody cares which service if any you were in. The discussion is on cancer you silly little man.

    1. You referred to me as an ex RAF Manstoner stuck in the past simply because I made reference to an NBC suit. I was simply pointing out that I was not RAF, but you have to throw it back that nobody cares. Well, frankly, judging by the lack of support you get around the blogs and the numbers who challenge your claims, I do not think too many people care about you, obnoxious bore that you are.

    2. I'm sorry Adolf but you're back again with even less to say. Yes I did refer to you as an ex-RAF Manstoner and, wow, it turns out you're completely different ie Army. Crikey. Tell us at length your career why don't you.

      We had agreed on the cancer and your idiotic civil servant waffle and still you insist on quibbling about your former career or childish insults. The discussion is on cancer you silly little man.

    3. Debate over as too ridiculous to continue, however, since you seem to enjoy blogging, why cut dead those that do entertain you with your silly little man comments. Whether I am silly or not is for others to judge, but little I am most definitely not. You, on the other hand, are a total wanker.

    4. I will second that, 20:00.

    5. But Adolf, there was no debate. We simply realised that you were talking bullplop with your LGO etc and couldn't provide any basis as to why cancer and asthma shouldn't be considered at Manston. Now you're resorting to insults again because you've been proven a silly little man. You can't expect to be taken seriously on that basis just like this weird Farnie Bernard character.

    6. For someone who cannot string a sentence together without an insult, 9:41, just a bit hypocritical to accuse others. Do you not think describing a fellow blogger as a silly little man is insulting? Then I am supposed to be weird. What about you who goes on the whole time about the polluted air and water, asthma and cancer, plane crashes and burning yet still you live here. If you believe your own doom ridden predictions then you must be some kind of nutter for staying. What about your grandchildren or don't they matter?

  4. I'm sure the daily clouds of black burnt fuel drifting East from the fire services training ground and gradually dropping onto Ramsgate and Broadstairs residents is a cancerous risk

    1. And I am equally sure it isn't, Arlington Resident! Apart from anything else, your suggestion reverses the normally prevailing wind direction and were there a cancer risk, someone much more qualified than you to make such an observation would have done so by now. The fire school has been there for decades.
      Keep trying in your various guises to knock Manston, whether it be fire cover after 5pm, or polluted aquifers, or raining kerosene and now the MOD Fire School practice fires. You are but a joke.

  5. Something Roger Gale does NOT support is a*** s*x (any comment, JW?)...

    Internet Pornography – Prime Minister`s “useful first step”

    During the lifetime of the previous Conservative administration
    I found little difficulty in persuading Virginia Bottomley,
    then the responsible Secretary of State, to proscribe the “Red
    Hot Dutch” television channel. Precisely the same arguments
    were deployed, by an identical “liberal intelligentsia” to
    those that are being marshalled today against the Prime
    Minister`s initiative designed to give greater parental control
    over access to hard core pornography on the internet.

    Then, we were told that it “is technically very difficult to
    prevent satellite broadcasts from other EU or overseas states”
    as if this was an excuse and a recipe for inaction and an
    affront to “freedom of individual choice”.

    Today the Guardian-reading pundits of the BBC and Channel Four
    are busy railing against the common sense that says that
    children and teenagers have a right to normal childhood and
    adolescence without being bombarded with the “normality” of
    loveless sex and saying that “it is impossible and wrong to try
    to censor the `freedom` of the internet”.

    It is broadly accepted, even by the professional libertarians,
    that “child abuse is not acceptable” without, apparently,
    recognising that the abuse of children takes place not only on
    the screen but also in the minds of those who have access to
    the material – which may only involve `consenting adults` -
    that leads young minds to believe that sodomy, for example, is
    “what people do”.

    I recall, back in the “Red Hot Dutch” days, a Porn film
    director telling me that he preferred to make films on the
    continent because “British girls don`t like anal sex”. Today,
    how many young women, and men, have demands made of them “if
    you care about me” because their sexual partner has been
    watching hard core pornography on the internet and believes
    that this is how “love” has to be made?

    I frankly do not care, in this context, how many adult
    “liberties” we trample all over if we are able to protect our
    children or, in my case, our grandchildren, from exposure to
    what now appear to be accepted as `adult practices` until at
    the very least they are mature enough, and over the age of
    consent, and able to exercise judgement for themselves. Neither
    do I care too much about the untaxed profits of internet
    providers and search engines.

    My only concern, reading between the lines of the Prime
    Minister`s statement, is that it concentrates on physical child
    abuse rather than going the whole hog and recognising that
    exposure to explicit sex, or violence, or a combination of
    both, can poison young minds whether or not children are
    actually depicted in the scenes taking place before their eyes.

    We need to move further and faster. In the UK outlets such as
    mainline stations, Starbucks and other youth-populated arenas
    may now be filtering free Wi-Fi availability to prevent young
    people from accessing sites barred at home. But throughout
    mainland Europe is this also the case? Of course not! If we
    are to exercise any effective transfrontier control over a
    trade in exploitation that is worth billions then this is one
    area that a bit of communitaire co-operation might benefit
    from. But that, of course, would hit some well money-laundered
    profits in the groin!


Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive and anonymous derogatory comments about real people will be deleted. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.