See this link to a discussion paper by the attorney generals.

Internet Photos Discussion Paper
At a meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) in August 2003, Ministers agreed that all State and Territory officers would work in consultation to develop options for reform to address the issue of unauthorised publication of photographs being made available on websites, including ancillary privacy issues associated with the practice.
follow this link and scoll down to find the paper (in pdf foramt)
http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/agdhome.nsf/Page/RWP25F051AAA46D11B1CA256F9A007C0DE2

"IMHO if someone is stupid enough to "sunbake" then let them.

However, if they want me to subsidise their subsequent treatment, in a public hospital or via Medicare, for their resultant skin cancer - then FORGET IT ! (It's just like smoking really - just a different trigger and organ).

"Sunbaking" is a dangerous activity. It is voluntary exposure to harmful radiation. A "tan" is the body's attempt to mitigate the radiation's effect on the skin."

It's not a case of 'one size fits all', 11uvatar. The cancer information organisations had more credibility when they published charts showing how different skin types had different tolerance levels and susceptibility to sun damage, rather than try and scare us all along the lines of "9 minutes of sun and that's your lot!"

I am English born Caucasian [been here 44 years] with inherited olive skin from both sides of the family. My second wife was similar. I used to have regular skin checks with the same skin specialist. At 66, he told me that it was quite amazing, but my skin showed no signs of sun damage. I have practically lived in the sun most of my life. Another skin specialist who checked me about 3 years ago [at 69] told me I had no problems, but I could go back and see him in a couple of years "if I felt like it". You don't know me, so do I take your opinion or that of health professionals who know me and my health history?

cont

My second wife and I:
Never smoked or used drugs.
Light drinkers.
Never overweight.
Very physically active.
Healthy diet and sensible, knowledgeable use of supplements.

Downside:
For much of our lives were virtually forced to share others' smoke from family, friends and workplace, business and social situations. In addition, I was forced to share living-space smoke when I was in the Royal Navy and working on mine and building sites in NW WA.

In addition, my wife grew up near the combined UK nuclear establishments of Windscale/Sellafield. Check them out on Wikipedia for leaks, discrepancies etc. Just food for thought.

"For those who dislike bather strap marks but don't want to be topless on a public beach - a very simple tip:

Bikini or bather top straps can be dropped down whilst sunbaking without revealing one's "woofies"!"

Obviously doesn't work, Dickie, when it comes to having an even skin tone. But it does increase the likelihood of burning for those who don't know where they're protected and where they're not!

Rex

I'm in agreement with most of what you said. However, this topic is to do with women who go topless on the beach and Kelley Burton's objections to these women being photographed.

Perhaps you could start your own thread on the ignominious Sellarfield. I've done some research on this reactor and would be interested to hear your views.

"Woofies" !?! Sounds like a breakfast cereal... I don't think I should go there ;)

Here's a link to some gorgeous Aussie tits, occasionally seen in public places and backyards, apparently: http://birdsinbackyards.net/finder/display.cfm?id=159

Thanks CJ (and Banjo for suggesting it)

Those tits are simply beautiful. I saw a pair in my neighbours back yard on the weekend and wished I had my camera with me.

By the time I yelled out to the missus " Can you grab the camera, there's a great pair of tits next door that I want to take a picture of - they were gone.

PS. Have you got any idea how much roses cost these days?