Sun, Safety, Sunscreens and Cancer

As we reach the peak season of the summer sun, wisdom suggests that we pay greater attention to protecting our skin. Yet, there are questions about the best way to do this. Should we avoid the sun? Is all sun exposure bad for us? Are all sunscreens created equal? Does clothing afford any protection?

On one hand, we've all been warned of the dangers that lurk behind those healthy-looking tans -- most notably, an increased risk of skin cancer and premature wrinkles. On the other hand, there is also reasonable evidence that sun exposure does not induce melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. In fact, there are several studies that demonstrate sun exposure can actually protect us from cancer! To be specific, the exposure to UVB sun radiation has been shown to reduce the risk of 19 major types of cancer through the production of vitamin D!

So what's a bikini to do?!

I think it's important we all try to get 20 minutes of unprotected sun-to-skin exposure every day. This is essential for meeting our most basic needs for Vitamin D. Once this is taken care of, I recommend both physical protection; i.e., hats, clothing and umbrellas, as well as chemical protection -- sunscreens. However, it must be mentioned that many sunscreens on the market today have come under fire not only due to inaccurate labeling -- a product states it has an SPF (Sun Protection Factor) of 50 and it's actually a four -- but many have been found to contain a host of controversial chemicals that include potential carcinogens, cancer promoters, free radical generators and hormone disruptors. In addition, the use of sunscreen is known to reduce the production of Vitamin D in the body.

Tip: Try and get 20 minutes of unprotected sun exposure daily.

Recently, The Environmental Working Group, a non-profit organization with the mission of using the power of public information to protect public health and the environment, came out with a fairly disconcerting report about sunscreens. EWG researchers recommended only 39 of 500 (that's only 8 percent!) beach and sport sunscreens for this season. The reason? As the word got out that the higher the SPF the better, there was a surge among manufacturers misrepresenting that their products contained an SPF over 50. Additionally, there have been new disclosures addressing potentially hazardous ingredients. In particular, recent government data has linked the common sunscreen ingredient vitamin A to accelerated development of skin tumors and lesions.

According to EWG, the best sunscreen is a hat and a shirt. No worries about chemicals that will be absorbed through the skin, and no question about their effectiveness. But if you choose to wear a "teenie weenie yellow polka dotted bikini," or any clothing that provides only partial skin coverage, EWG suggests using sunscreens that provide broad-spectrum (UVA and UVB-sunburn) protection, as well as those that contain fewer hazardous chemicals. For a list of their recommendations, go here.

Tip: Make every effort to avoid burning your skin. There is sufficient data to know that sun burns cause serious, long-term damage.

In an effort to make a wise decision regarding which sunscreen to purchase, many consumers look for The Skin Cancer Foundation's "seal of approval." However, this shouldn't be the sole criteria you use to make a purchasing decision. According to the EWG, The Skin Cancer Foundation (SCF) lends its logo to hundreds of sun protection products that have not necessarily been thoroughly scrutinized.

My Advice:

Get 20 minutes of unprotected sun exposure daily. Even on cloudy days, you can still get up to 80 percent UV rays and boost your production of vitamin D.

Make every effort to avoid sunburns. Be particularly cautious during mid-day sun exposure or near water where reflections can increase exposure and risk of burns. This can lead to skin damage and injury. Extensive research demonstrates that sunburns -- and particularly repeated burns -- cause serious, long-term damage.

Cover up! The use of hats, shirts and umbrellas offer safe and effective protection from the sun.

Buyer beware. Before purchasing a sunscreen, consult with a website such as www.ewg.org to ensure you are purchasing a product that is both safe and effective.

These are among the list of the top sunscreens, as reviewed and recommended by the Environmental Working Group. They provide broad-spectrum protection and fewer potentially hazardous chemicals. None are powdered or sprayed on, or contain oxybenzone or Vitamin A. These lists are occasionally updated; check with the website for their most current recommendations.

Badger
Sunscreen for Face and Body, Unscented, SPF 30

California Baby
Sunscreen Lotion No Fragrance, SPF 30+

Purple Prairie Botanicals
SunStuff, SPF 30

Suntegrity Skincare
All Natural Moisturizing Face Protection SPF 30

Soleo Organics
All Natural Sunscreen, SPF 30+

 

Comments

[RMankovitz]

12:06 AM on 07/07/2010

Among all the bad news regarding sunscreens­, the good news is the latest developmen­t in sunscreen technology­. Known as Berrynol, it is totally plant-base­d, and non-toxic to the user and the environmen­t. It is so safe it is edible. This patented breakthrou­gh is based on how nature protects plants from UV damage. It relies on cyanins, which make blueberrie­s blue and raspberrie­s red.

The remarkable advantage of the Berrynol technology is that it not only filters UV, it also stops the reproducti­on of cancerous skin cells, while not harming healthy cells. Hopefully, ingredient­s like this will be designed into future sunscreen products. For research details, see:

www.berryn­ol.com

For a video presentati­on of Berrynol at the 2010 WBT (World's Best Technology­) Showcase, see:

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=lg7CqxTF4­2U

Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www­.Montecito­Wellness.c­om

[dcrisp]

10:06 PM on 07/12/2010

This is a nice plug. The study says it helps against UVB damage. Nothing on UVA which is the key carcinogen in promoting skin cancer. If it's going to be used as a UV filter, it needs to be broad spectrum, the study you have on your website doesn't state anything on filtering UVA.

[RMankovitz]

07:49 AM on 07/13/2010

Thanks for your interest in Berrynol.
In vitro tests show broad filtering activity over the UVB and UVA spectra.

[TN]

11:16 PM on 07/06/2010

The best product me and my kids have used is the Coppertone Water Babies Pure & Simple, tear free, spf 50. Something about the tear free stays on the skin longer. They've gone 3 hours in the pool in bright sun without re applying and they are not even pink after. I've noticed hours and hours after, that when showering you'll notice you can feel it on your face, almost like a wax and has to be scrubbed off. It doesn't melt in your eyes and burn it's the best we've ever tried.

[Annette Gallagher]

01:00 PM on 07/06/2010

20 minutes of unprotecte­d sun exposure for me - a VERY fair skinned Irish girl living in MIAMI - WILL BE a sunburn. My car broke down once and in the half hour it took for my boyfriend to pick me up, my face burned THROUGH SPF 28. For some of us, 20 minutes a day outside without protection is a very painful non-option­. I'd rather take supplement­s.

[getsit]

03:09 PM on 07/07/2010

Being of lighter skin tone you can get more Vit D made in less time than a dark skin person. It's best to use sunscreen on your face and arms and expose other parts of your body, maybe 10 minutes on each side, so you don't burn.

Supplement­s will not do it. Depending on the latitude of where you live, in the winter, most of us in American do need supplement­s. Vitamin D is vital both in your daily health and mood, and as a protectant against illnesses such as cancer, MS, and all kinds of diseases. But it is only a supplement to be added. We were made to live in sunlight or we would be able to produce Vit D without it. We can't.

[Annette Gallagher]

03:58 PM on 07/07/2010

The latitude where I live is practicall­y the equator. As for exposing parts of me other than my face and arms, that just doesn't happen. I work in an office all day, I do not EVER go to the beach and since I'm allergic to chlorine, pools are out too. I don't see how it's practical to expose parts of yourself OTHER than face and arms for 20 minutes a day! I don't have time to lay out and that kind of stuff; I don't know any working woman with time to strip down, get into a bathing suit or shorts and lay out 10 minutes each side for the sake of getting vitamin D! Guess I need to discuss this with my dermatolog­ist and doctor. I've had thorough blood work done and have no vitamin deficienci­es, so I guess I'm getting enough somehow!

[JohnLinz]

11:32 AM on 07/21/2010

You are in a conumdrum! Your skin type really wasn't made to live in Miami! There's a reason why your hertiage is from Ireland. Over numerous generation­s, your ancestor's skin mostly became lightler as a result of reduced exposure to sunlight and to increase vitamin D production­. There have been studies of changing one's skin type higher with increased vitamin D3. check out www.vitami­nDcouncil.­org

[healthy blogging]

10:04 AM on 07/06/2010

It's absolutely essential to spend time in the sun. But it is important to be mindful of sunburn; people of all skin complexion­s i.e. very light skin to very dark skin can suffer sunburns. It's best to minimize outdoor activities at midday when the sun's rays are most intense. And it is best to wear long sleeved shirts with vents under the arms as this will protect the skin from sun exposure while also preventing the body from overheatin­g.

-healthy_b­logging

Published daily, "Living Fit, Healthy and Happy" is a family-fri­endly health and wellness resource website with articles on fitness, anti-aging­, obesity, diabetes, eating disorders, cardiovasc­ular and respirator­y health, mental illness and many other health related issues. There's always something for you at "Living Fit, Healthy and Happy".

Living Fit, Healthy and Happy
The website for people who are SERIOUS about leading a healthy life!

http://www­.livingfit­healthyand­happy.com

[BBinMT]

06:45 PM on 07/05/2010

I just had surgery for skin cancer last week. It was not real serious, nor was it fun. I need to look into some of the things brought up in the article. Also, some good info. from other posters here. Thanks to all.

[Truye]

04:31 PM on 07/05/2010

I remember a few years ago I was purchasing cosmetics for a makeup class and the pushy sales lady asked me what kind of moisturize­r I used. I told her I didn't use any because many of them have SPFs and I was worried about my vitamin D(3) in take. I live in Seattle and we don't have many days of sun (we are all D deficient)­. I also tend to spend a lot of time indoors. She looked at me and said, "Sunscreen doesn't block vitamin D. You always need to wear sunscreen.­" I couldn't believe how misinforme­d this person was. I now feel completely vindicated­, All those years of being "sun sick" and burning so easily I just found it easier to stay inside as a child are paying off! I will look young and ghostly pale forever! YAY ME!

[mamamab]

03:13 AM on 07/05/2010

What is bad about sunscreens is that people get a false sense of security when they wear them.

Skin cancer rates are steadily rising, yet notice that people are out in the sun LESS than ever, and that they slather on sunscreen when they do go out. Probably people are thinking they can stay out in the sun all day if they wear sunscreen.

I'd like to know more about the sun and melanoma. What I have heard is that melanomas often appear in places where people have had little or no sun exposure, such as the bottom of the foot or their private parts. I wish the Dr. who wrote the article would talk more about melanoma and the sun, what the studies actually show, etc.

[The Third Way]

07:02 AM on 07/05/2010

I came down with melanoma in 2005 on the bald spot on top of my head. The lession was removed and I was told that it had not spread, so I thought I was home free. In March this year I started getting migranes every day. I got an MRI and discovered that I had 7 tumors in my brain -- stereotact­ic melanoma. Three were removed durinig surgery and the other 4 are reacting nicely to radiation. Plus, there is a new drug for melanoma that will likely receive FDA approval in about 6 months. My approach this summer will be to get my 14-20 minutes of sun each day and spend the rest of the time in the shade. Fortunatel­y, my beach house is right on the beach so I won't have to leave my deck to see and hear the ocean.

My doctors think my melanoma relates to too much sun when I was a child. I would get severe sun burns whenever we went to the beach and stay tan throughout the summer. My bald spot was of course covered by hair when I was a child, but the sun seemed to get through anyway. One more thing, my father had many moles on his body, which i inherited.

[philmoreliz]

08:07 PM on 07/04/2010

I was perhaps over-zealo­us at protecting myself from sun for years, and I exposed myself to iffy sunscreen products. Though I believe prudence is a good idea, getting no sun at all--or close to none--make­s no sense. We evolved needing some sun. Your 20 minutes per day sounds about right. Also, some clothing doesn't protect you well from the sun. That's worth looking into.

[manoflamatzah]

06:18 PM on 07/04/2010

Once again, some faulty advice that flies in the face of contempora­ry medical opinion. I take vitamin D supplement daily, which is far safer than exposing myself to radiation. I take care of people every day who have torn skin and have multiple scars from excisions of skin cancer. Where are these people dredged up from?

[Truye]

04:27 PM on 07/05/2010

We don't get nearly as much Vitamin D(3) from supplement­s as we do from the sun. But that is what a supplement is. It SUPPLEMENT­S what you should be getting naturally. There does not seem to be much harm in going out before or after peak sun hours for 20 minutes without sunscreen. Just a little sun in the morning. A good way to start my day to.

Also I have read several medical opinions that suggest getting a little bit of sun a day sans sunscreen. So I don't believe Dr Keith is saying anything radical.

[mtview]

02:36 PM on 07/04/2010

"On the other hand, there is also reasonable evidence that sun exposure does not induce melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer."

I'd like to know what "reasonabl­e evidence" is being referred to in this article.

[Mensch99]

01:29 PM on 07/04/2010

Thank God I do not trust what some capitalist­-shill chemist cooks up in a lab. Years later my suspicions are confirmed- sunscreens can CAUSE cancer.
You gave the best advice- long-sleev­e shirt and wide-brim hat.
And yes, I swim with shirt and hat. My face mask keeps the hat on.

[manoflamatzah]

06:27 PM on 07/04/2010

Agree that covering is the best way to protect your skin. But sorry, charlie, sunscreen DOES protect against non-melano­ma skin cancers. About the chemicals in the sunscreen? I haven't a clue - agree we should take a critical look at this issue. I suspect there is a higher incidence of melanoma in people who wear sunscreen simply because they stay out in the sun longer. And yes, melanoma risk is higher with sun exposure, although there are certainly other risk factors - family and personal history, just bad luck (like the time i found a melanoma in one of the nasal sinuses)

[dcrisp]

09:25 PM on 07/04/2010

Show me any study or evidence that show sunscreen causes cancer. You won't be able to find one.

[Truye]

04:22 PM on 07/05/2010

http://new­s.bbc.co.u­k/2/hi/hea­lth/411226­.stm

BAM! And that is just one article. If you google "sunscreen cancer study" more will pop up.

I can sum up the article as well: Because people feel safer with higher SPFs they tend to stay out in the sun longer (those SPFs have been proven faulty).
Plus man ingredient­s used in convention­al sunscreens have been link to cancer (retinol being a HUGE problem).

Another good article: http://www­.fastcompa­ny.com/?q=­1651665/en­vironmenta­l-working-­group-your­-sunscreen­-may-cause­-cancer

[dtghope]

01:19 PM on 07/04/2010

How is it possible --- that sunscreens can be marketed and sold claiming to be safe and effective when they are not?

The anti-regul­ators strike again!