For young children, a family history of frequent, sun-splashed vacations is associated with more nevi, and nevi counts are a reliable indicator of lifetime skin cancer risk.

In fact for kids under the age of 7 each waterside vacation bumps the small nevi count by 5%, according to Lori Crane and colleagues at the University of Colorado.

In 2005, Crane and colleagues examined 681 children that were born in 1998 and lived continuously in Colorado. They also interviewed parents each year between 2003 and 2005 regarding vacations, sun exposure, and the use of sun block and hats.

The scientists classified vacations as waterside or not after asking about recreational activities like boating, surfing and water skiing.

They also accounted for climate and time of the year when vacations took place. Hawaii vacations counted as waterside no matter when they took place for example, but coastal North Carolina getaways counted as waterside only during summer.

No word on whether demerits were given to sun seekers venturing to Boston, by the way. 

Their findings appear in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

“Parents should be aware of the effect that vacations may have on their children’s risk for developing melanoma as adults and they should be cautious about selection of vacation locations,” wrote the scientists.

Interestingly, use of sunscreens and hats did not impact risk of developing small nevi, nor did eye color. And neither vacation length nor total estimated UV exposure predicted nevus counts; it was just the number of vacations.

Crane’s team suggested a threshold phenomenon could explain these observations. According to this hypothesis, radiation necessary to trigger nevus formation is obtained early during the vacation and additional exposure has no impact.

Boys were found to be at greater risk for sun-driven nevi development. They accumulated19% more by age 7 than girls. And Hispanic ethnicity reduced the risk of nevi by 35% versus Caucasians.

The presence of facial freckles and a positive sunburn history were also associated with more nevi.

Nine years ago, US food makers asked the FDA to let them radiate food to destroy insects, parasites and pathogenic bacteria like E. coli and salmonella before it hit the shelves.

The Feds did nothing until 3 years ago, just after spinach laced with E. coli killed 3 and sickened 200. That’s when they permitted the irradiation of spinach and lettuce, only. 

Of course no one’s gotten around to doing that yet, but whatever.

The FDA does allow meat irradiation, but alas no one does that either.

In fact pretty much the only food getting zapped these days are spices and random imported products like Indian mangoes, according to the New York Times.

Meanwhile, a chorus of food experts are shouting to anyone who’ll listen that widespread pre-market food irradiation would greatly reduce the incidence of food poisoning in this country. 

Which might be a good thing since the CDC estimates there are 76 million incidents of food-borne illness per year in the US, resulting in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths like the ones traced to a Georgia facility owned by the now bankrupt Peanut Corporation of America.

Not to mention the government has long since gone on record saying food irradiation is safe, the technology has been available since Pearl Harbor, and there are irradiation centers already in place all over the US. They are currently used to sterilize medical supplies.

So what’s up?

Not much, really. Food producers think the benefits wouldn’t be worth the cost increases that would, of course, have to be passed on to consumers.

Some consumer groups don’t want widespread irradiation because it would hide a multitude of food industry sins, which is the moral equivalent of saying “just to prove what a lousy trapeze artist you are, we’re going to remove the safety nets.”

And the occasional wacko can still get some to believe that irradiated food turns people into tadpoles.

“We have ways to prevent illness and death that aren’t being used,” Christine Bruhn, director of UC Davis’ Center for Consumer Research sighed to the Times.

As birthrates in tropical countries drop and economic forces trigger migration toward cities, a funny thing is happening to the enormous swaths of farmland left behind.

They’re transforming back to what they were in the first place, tropical rain forests. 

And we’re not talking about a parcel of land the size of Granny’s Victory Garden, either.

In fact a recent report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates there are 2.1 billion acres of so-called “secondary” rain forest growing in the tropics right now.

That’s as big as the whole United States.

The pace of reforestation is phenomenal. Trees over 100 feet tall spring up within 15 years after land is abandoned, and in another 5 years a true rain-forest canopy forms once again.

According to the New York Times, for each acre of rain forest cut down today, 50 or so acres of secondary forest are growing on land that had recently been logged, farmed or damaged by natural disaster.

The unexpected development has actually triggered debate whether efforts to preserve first-growth rain forests are worth it or even necessary.

The good news is that secondary rain forests are avid carbon sinks just like their first-growth brethren. They will be an enormous help in blunting the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide that continues to be released in prodigious amounts as a byproduct of burning fossil fuels and biomass.

The bad news is that secondary rainforests are probably not going to save the jaguars, tapirs and thousands of bird and invertebrate species that are headed for extinction due to the wonton destruction of primeval rainforests.

The animals have no way to access the new growth.

As many as 50% of all rain forest species remain threatened despite these heartening developments.