'Tween 12 and 20 by Dr. Robert Wallace

I'll take LW2 first:

Unlike the tanning issue, which Dr. Wallace and I don't necessarily agree (I think in moderation, tanning can be good, whereas he has written, in essence, "that there is no such thing as a safe tan"), we are in complete agreement there is no such thing as a safe cigarette.

The thing I'd like to know now is there's this new-fangled technology called the e-cigarette (or electronic cigarette), that electronic inhaler that resembles a traditional cigarette, except that this device vaporizes a liquid solution into an aerosol mist, simulating the act of tobacco smoking.

I realize it wasn't discussed today, but sometime, I hope someone writes in and asks this question, because I'd be very interested to know what Dr. Wallace and others have to say. I realize there are comparably few studies done on e-cigarettes because of their recent introduction, but if you ask me, I'm very leery about this type of cigarette.

LW1: Well, you got that off your chest now, what with the "I can't wait until we have a female president" remark?
For those who wonder where I sometimes get some of my "wild" ideas about kids sometimes, what the LW describes about these immature boys in today's letter is one such place. And my own experiences as well.

Yes, when I was in junior high – and this is from the male perspective – I've seen plenty of those boys goofing around, making stupid jokes and basically acting obnoxious (particularly those who are loud and annoying and irritating), trying to act and look cool but only looking like immature jerks, so on and so forth. I even observed this when I got older and observed what was now the younger junior high students.

That said, that is a very limited perspective on junior high-aged boys ... and it appears that this perspective has passed on down to you. It sounds as if that those boys you describe are the ones you're around the most on a daily basis, whether through your own doing or because you have no other choice (i.e., you're in their class).

I'd like to know: How many boys are there in your class? How many of them are truly the way you describe, and is there a way you can avoid these few obnoxious, immature punks when you don't have to be around them? I say few because even in seventh grade, I am sure there are many more boys who are more mature than that. (And yes, I did figure that out.)

What I think you're starting to find out – and you also will from the "more mature boys" (i.e. those who don't act like pint-sized cavemen, what with the bushy hair and cracking voices thinking its cool) – is that nobody is perfect, particularly at 12 and 13 and 14 years old. Even when you get older, into your late teens and adulthood, you'll find that any man you find will have his quirks and shortcomings ... so you're going to need to make concessions to find the one that resembles your values and wants the closest. I think those women who realize that turn that into the lifelong marriages.

As for your desire to have a boyfriend now ("I'd like to have a boyfriend, but I guess I'll just have to wait until I'm in high school"), perhaps you've got a good idea there. I don't mean for that to sound mean, but it seems that you're not ready for a boyfriend, even if there are more boys who are "good" vs. the tiny minority of boys you've picked up your impression of the opposite sex about. But if you truly want one, there's plenty of ideas, and Dr. Wallace has a few to start with.

I see this as a situation where you need to "be patient" and let time take its course. You will find a boyfriend, and if it's in high school that you get one, so be it. It won't be the end of the world, but you'll be a lot happier.

As far as having a female president – it's getting more likely, I admit, what with Hillary Clinton having made a few successful test runs. She may well be our first yet ... but then she'd be 70 by the time she's elected, if she's elected in 2016. I'm sure there's plenty of others who'll be likely candidates in three years, however.

But the election of a female president isn't going to change these obnoxious jerks overnight. There is no magic wand to change the natural maturation process of young teenagers or the fact that some people – including the boys you describe – will probably always be just plain immature idiots. (Same with a lot of things – the election of a black man as president hasn't seemed to improve race relations, IMO; nor will electing a homosexual president magically change everyone's view of same-sex relationships. But that's going a bit off track.) Let nature take its course and if you aren't ready for a boyfriend – which as I said it appears you are not, even though you say you want one – then wait.

LW3: What Dr. Wallace said.

Bobaloo, more good posts. One of my co-workers used the e-cigarette to kick her habit and it worked for her. I also will agree with you that daily sun exposure is healthy. It makes our bodies manufacture Vit D, which is terribly deficient in our american diets. Moderate and responsible sunning is a good thing. I point to a very popular physician, Dr. Mercola, who even has the gall to advocate safe tanning bed for people who live in northern climes.

Bobaloo and Danielle, you do both realize that 30 minutes a day is all that is needed to get the recommended dosage of Vitamin D from the sun, yes? And that 30 minutes a day is not sufficient for most people to tan?

Dr. Wallace did not originate "there's no such thing as a safe tan." You might also want to check out skin cancer rates and how they jumped after fashion decreed that a tan looked "healthy". Most people who want a tan do NOT do so "in moderation" -- which would be 30 minutes a day -- but want the darker bronze.

Really, before you go spouting about you "think" that "tanning is safe in moderation," you both should check with people who've studied the issue and who have an opinion that's borne out by research, as opposed to uninformed belief.

Heh. How kind of Dr. Mercola to advocate "a safe tanning bed" (as if such a thing existed!) -- and he sells it right on his website for just $2997, with free shipping!" along with a whole bunch of other stuff.

From the 2/12 issue of Chicago magazine about Mercola: “The information he's putting out to the public is extremely misleading and potentially very dangerous,” opines Dr. Stephen Barrett, who runs the medical watchdog site Quackwatch.org. “He exaggerates the risks and potential dangers of legitimate science-based medical care, and he promotes a lot of unsubstantiated ideas and sells [certain] products with claims that are misleading.”

Some of the articles on Mercola's site, Barrett and others say, seem to be as much about selling the wide array of products offered there—from Melatonin Sleep Support Spray ($21.94 for three 0.85-ounce bottles) to Organic Sea Buckthorn Anti-Aging Serum ($22 for one ounce)—as about trying to inform. (Your tampon “may be a ticking time bomb,” he tells site visitors—but you can buy his “worry-free” organic cotton tampons for the discounted price of $7.99 for 16.) Steven Salzberg, a prominent biologist, professor, and researcher at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, calls Mercola “the 21st-century equivalent of a snake-oil salesman.”
*****************************

Re: hedgehog (#4)

My statement -- "Unlike the tanning issue, which Dr. Wallace and I don't necessarily agree (I think in moderation, tanning can be good, whereas he has written, in essence, "that there is no such thing as a safe tan"), we are in complete agreement there is no such thing as a safe cigarette."

First, whoever said I had the idea that there is no such thing as a safe tan ORIGINATED with Dr. Wallace? I just said today I disagree with his statements, which I'll admit he has made based on his study of the issue. So let's put that one to bed.

Second, I don't know who Danielle is referring to, to be honest, whether it's a guy who's a legit doctor who has done his own reliable research or some salesman using the "doctor" title to give himself credibility. (Danielle -- anyone can. I can, you can, hedgehog can ... a duck can ... anyone can. Beware if it's not coming from a reliable source.)

Third, I wrote my opinion thinking I'd start a discussion about this newfound trend called e-cigarettes, since it's pretty much a no-brainer about the dangers of "regular" (for lack of a better term) cigarettes, even the ones supposed to be "safer." I did want to talk about something that I thought we'd have some common ground, even if it's not specifically suggested in today's LW2.

FWIW hedgehog -- that doctor that Danielle is referring to ... as I said, I don't know who he is, but I will trust you on your assessment of him. (I kind of dismissed him in the first place, to be honest.)

OK, Bobaloo -- you've got me by the ears.

Why would you choose to disagree with the opinion of someone who has either studied the issue or sought out reputable sources of information on the issue, if you have not done any research beyond what you're intuiting? That just blows me away -- as a newspaperman, I'd think you'd know that while everyone can have an opinion, there are some that are worth more than others.

Because that's what "Dr. Wallace didn't originate the saying" meant. It meant he was taking it from dermatologists and their research. You say that you understand he did base his opinion on something other than his intuition... so I'm not sure why you think Dr. Wallace, and by extension, the experts who helped him form his opinion,are wrong.

I wasn't familiar with the doctor Danielle cited either. I Googled him. There are those true believers who think Mercola is the good guy fighting Evil Big Medicine. I'd be a whole lot more inclined to believe he had my best interests at heart if he weren't also hoping to sell me safe tanning beds, safe tampons, etc.

I'm sorry; I don't know much about electronic cigarettes. I'm telling my kids to be suspicious. Cigarettes -- the tobacco kind -- were thought to be harmless for decades; my grandmother, an RN, was ADVISED by her doctor to take up smoking when she complained the secondhand smoke from her husband and their friends (these were doctors and nurses) made her eyes water and her throat scratchy. That was in the 1920s or 1930s. The government distributed smokes free to soldiersin WWII (graciously provided by those selfless tobacco companies thinking more of future profits than of helping the troops). It wasn't until the early 1960s that people learned how harmful smoking is.

Re: hedgehog

I think I'll trust my OWN doctor for starters. Perhaps he would have the same conclusion as the rest of the reliable sources. And yes, even though it may not seem like it, I am fully aware of the truth behind your comment "while everyone can have an opinion, there are some that are worth more than others."

I think we're on the same page for the e-cigs, tobacco cigs and Dr. Quack. From what you've written about him, I gather he's a salesman, not a true medical doctor. My own doctor is far more reliable than the one cited by Danielle for sure. (And yes, if I think it's important enough to ask about skin cancer risks with tanning, I will.)

As far as the doctor recommending the cigarettes to your grandmother -- y'know, it was actually kind of funny in the pre-1960s era when smoking was not only cool and acceptable, it was almost as if it was expected. I think there were newspaper/magazine ads that actually had doctors endorsing a particular brand of cigarettes ("4 out of 5 doctors recommend" (brand)).

And athletes too were among the many pop culture icons to pitch smokes -- Jesse Owens, the track star of the 1936 Olympic games, was but one; (I think) it was him who said that they (Chesterfields) cleared out his lungs better than the rival brands. And then he died of lung cancer at the young age of 66.

Your doctor's a great place to start. I do hope that, since you've mentioned you've had some very bad sunburns over the years, that you ask him about the early signs of melanoma that you should be vigilant for, and ask him his recommendations and whether there's any amount of safe tanning.

Seriously, Bobaloo, and I'm not trying to snark here. Medical recommendations on tanning and its safety have changed pretty dramatically over the last 20-30 years. Any of us who burned or tanned as kids really should know what the early warning signs of skin cancer are, and seek medical treatment if we spot them.

[Dr. Mercola is a licensed medical doctor; I didn't mean to imply that he isn't. However, some doctors' opinions are worth more than others, IMO, and like you, I'm highly skeptical of someone whose website seems to be mixing his medical advice with sales from which he profits. "]

I would be curious to see what Dr. Wallace would say about e-cigs. Maybe someone will write in.

Re: hedgehog (#11)

And it is funny about the suntan tips – I'm going off 20-year advice. I haven't been to the swimming pool in (seriously) 20 years, when I grew out of my "girl watching" phase as all teenaged boys/young men do.

I admit a part of me wants the teenaged boys/young adults (meaning, under 21) of the future to engage in the "girl watching." But also part of it is the attitudes that were formed before this new research came about. I remember doing a science class experiment in high school where different types of suntan lotion were tested. Don't remember too much from that lesson, I admit, except that there were some clearly better lotions.

I might just write in soon about the e-cigarettes, since this is going to be an issue that our kids are going to face in the near future, I'm guessing.

Just in case you're wondering about the "girl-watching" thing I said – it's relevant because invariably, it involves girls getting ... suntanned.

LOL, Bobaloo! I'm glad you grew out of it.

Today's young men, though, might be cheering on their girlfriends on the school swimming or diving team. Or running track or cross-country. (a lot of running events now are held the same days around here). Or playing intramural basketball.

It's a long way from my 9th grade social studies teacher, who informed us that no one would want to watch girls sweat in athletic competition. Fortunately.