But isn’t the link between sunbathing and cancer common
sense? Well yes, it is, but not necessarily right.
In 1975, faced with 30 years of increasing rates of skin cancer,
the State Government of Queensland in Australia followed the medical
establishment common sense link between sunbathing and skin cancer,
and embarked on a massive campaign to raise their citizens’
awareness of the dangers. At first it appeared to be hugely successful.
People quickly accepted that exposure to the sun could give them
skin cancer. High-factor sun screens were slapped onto every inch
of skin whenever they left the house. If children were even allowed
outside they were dressed in long-armed T-shirts, long trousers,
socks and hats. The sun screen on their hands and faces was renewed
every hour.
click here
to read more articles about lifestyle
Sunbathing and sun tans became unfashionable. Pasty white was
the new bronze, but there was a problem. Someone noticed that
the rate of malignant melanoma, the most serious, often fatal,
skin cancer, had not fallen but doubled during the ten years since
the campaign began, and that the rate in children had risen to
its highest ever, 30 cases per million, seven times that in Europe.
Furthermore, rickets had made a big come back, as had all the
other illnesses linked to vitamin D deficiency, including breast
and prostate cancers, multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes.
Revised and re-issued in 1988, Australia's Cancer Council's ‘Sun
Smart’ guidelines urged Australians to show a little skin
as described above, but with no effect. Most Aussies are still
paranoid about the sun. Even so, nearly all of the sunbathers
you see on Bondi Beach are still foreign tourists.
Vitamin D
Adequate levels of vitamin D are essential to many body functions,
which is why vitamin D deficiency has been linked to so many illnesses,
from osteomalacia (rickets) and high blood pressure to colon,
breast, prostate and ovarian cancer, multiple sclerosis and type
1 diabetes. It can be acquired through food or a food supplement,
but the best way is by exposing your skin and eyes to direct sunlight,
at least during the summer months.
click here
to read more articles about lifestyle
From late Spring to early Autumn, in sunny Cyprus or San Francisco,
for instance, 30 minutes exposure of the face and arms is sufficient
to produce enough vitamin D for several days. In countries further
north or south of the 30° latitude lines, where the angle
of sunlight is more oblique, at least 45 minutes is required.
From mid Autumn to mid Spring, as the angle of sunlight becomes
more oblique, more exposure is needed. In countries within 30°
of the equator 45 minutes to an hour is necessary. In countries
further from the equator, no amount of exposure can generate sufficient
vitamin D. Maximising vitamin D-rich foods,* or taking a vitamin
D supplement is necessary. Two thirds of Britons fail to do this
and are vitamin D-deficient by the end of their cold, grey winter.
N.B. The exposure to the ultraviolet rays in sunlight must be
direct, not through glass. This means venturing outside, not taking
the car for a stroll, and not wearing sunglasses.
How much vitamin D do I need?
The UK Department of Health’s recommended dietary allowance
(RDA) is five micrograms or 200 international units (i.u.) a day.
The human body thinks it needs much more. Given enough ultraviolet
light on the skin and eyes, it produces 500 micrograms a day for
itself. Even more amazingly, it keeps the level of new vitamin
D at 500 micrograms. Any excess produced is destroyed! No-one
yet knows why, but zoologists do know that Nature never designs
such complex systems without good reason. Why is there such a
big difference? RDAs were first set during World War II by the
US National Academy of Sciences as guidelines for keeping soldiers
alive. The body is interested in achieving the best possible health.
click here
to read more articles about lifestyle
Sun screens
When there is a sudden unexpected epidemic of some illness, particularly
of a new illness, scientists quite rightly look for changes in
lifestyle which have developed over the same period. Sometimes
the link they make is spot on. Sometimes another equally plausible
link is missed. Here, the huge rise in sunbathing and the two
week bronzing blitz abroad were the common sense links.
It looks like no-one in the scientific establishment, and certainly
no scientist employed by cosmetics manufacturers, ever chose to
note that the use of sun lotions and sun screens had also soared.
Could it be not only sun screens’ ultraviolet light-blocking
ability, but also the many chemicals they contain, that are the
main problems?
The skin is the body’s largest organ. It absorbs up to
60% of anything spread on it. Most sun lotions and sun screens
contain chemicals which are thought to increase the risk of cancer.
These include:
psoralen Now restricted to one part
per billion in sun screens following the finding that fair skinned
people who used sun screens containing psoralen ran a fourfold
risk of melanoma
para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA) Damages
DNA, increasing the risk of skin cancer
titanium dioxide Thought to be cancer-causing,
and now used in its more toxic nanoparticle form
six other UVB screening chemical compounds
which all made cancer cells grow rapidly in laboratory tests
What to do?
The UK Department of Health recommends against sun screens because
many only protect against burning, not against skin cancer, and
people think that they can stay in the sun longer. Green Health
Watch agrees, but also because of the dangerous chemicals most
sun screens contain. In our view, they should only be used when
absolutely essential. This goes especially for children, whose
smaller body sizes and weights make any toxic chemicals their
skin absorbs even more damaging.
click here
to read more articles about lifestyle
(7343)
Clare Kitchen. Daily Mail