Maximus Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 With summer nearly upon us sunscreen sales will no doubt be on the rise but how much good does sunscreen really do? The obvious main benefit of a 'good' sunscreen is that it helps prevent sunbun by absorbing and/or reflecting the majority of UV radiation, we have had the message rammed into our heads for decades but how much attention is paid to the drawbacks of sunscreen? Virtually none. Not only do they make us more likely to stay out in the sun longer than we should but they also supress the skin's natural defenses against sun damage, are not completely effective at blocking out damaging UV light and they cancel out the beneficial effects of UVB rays which are required for vitamin D production. There are studies that have discovered a growing epidemic of vitamin D deficiency in developed nations due to a lack of UVB exposure, this is linked to a plethora of health problems as it weakens the immune system. Ironically Vitamin D is also one of the body's natural defences against against cancer. There are a large amount of ingredients in various sunscreens that have not undergone long term testing some of which are now suspected of being carcinogens despite the fact they are supposed to protect against cancer. In fact studies have illustrated a correlation between a rise in sunscreen use (through aggresive public health campaigns) and a rise in skin cancer rates! So maybe the best method to avoid skin cancer is to use common sense (if it still exists) rather than simply rely on sunblock (the long term safety and benefits of which are still rather sketchy)? UV Sunscreen Controversy Vitamin D Skin Biology http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/82/4/614 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Gosh. Are you the Daily Mail's health correspondent? We've all got to die of something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I once fell asleep in Portugal during a heat wave. Next thing I know I'm in the apartment spewing and can hardly see a thing. Think I'll take my chances with the sun screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Jambo 60 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 With summer nearly upon us sunscreen sales will no doubt be on the rise but how much good does sunscreen really do? The obvious main benefit of a 'good' sunscreen is that it helps prevent sunbun by absorbing and/or reflecting the majority of UV radiation, we have had the message rammed into our heads for decades but how much attention is paid to the drawbacks of sunscreen? Virtually none. Not only do they make us more likely to stay out in the sun longer than we should but they also supress the skin's natural defenses against sun damage, are not completely effective at blocking out damaging UV light and they cancel out the beneficial effects of UVB rays which are required for vitamin D production. There are studies that have discovered a growing epidemic of vitamin D deficiency in developed nations due to a lack of UVB exposure, this is linked to a plethora of health problems as it weakens the immune system. Ironically Vitamin D is also one of the body's natural defences against against cancer. There are a large amount of ingredients in various sunscreens that have not undergone long term testing some of which are now suspected of being carcinogens despite the fact they are supposed to protect against cancer. In fact studies have illustrated a correlation between a rise in sunscreen use (through aggresive public health campaigns) and a rise in skin cancer rates! So maybe the best method to avoid skin cancer is to use common sense (if it still exists) rather than simply rely on sunblock (the long term safety and benefits of which are still rather sketchy)? UV Sunscreen Controversy Vitamin D Skin Biology http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/82/4/614 You talk some pash mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavsy Van Gaverson Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Never, ever fall asleep pished in a rubber ring, in a swimming pool in Ayia Napa. It burns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incompetnce Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 You talk some pash mate. QFT. I've responded in threads you've done before and until I see more than one proper scientific article i'm going to be a sceptic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Jambo 60 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QFT. I've responded in threads you've done before and until I see more than one proper scientific article i'm going to be a sceptic. OH dear a jambo from the lovely IRELAND. TBH mate one of my best mates lives in Galway . What with the scientific bull ,take it you have a NVQ of being a plonker. Dougstar. And THE NORTH HAS 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted March 17, 2009 Author Share Posted March 17, 2009 You talk some pash mate.maha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incompetnce Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 OH dear a jambo from the lovely IRELAND.TBH mate one of my best mates lives in Galway . What with the scientific bull ,take it you have a NVQ of being a plonker. Dougstar. And THE NORTH HAS 5 I was actually referring to Maximus about the scientific article bit but whatever. Enjoy your continued trolling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QFT. I've responded in threads you've done before and until I see more than one proper scientific article i'm going to be a sceptic. Eating sunscreen is bad for you. FACT. END OFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted March 17, 2009 Author Share Posted March 17, 2009 QFT. I've responded in threads you've done before and until I see more than one proper scientific article i'm going to be a sceptic. Well look at it the other way. Where is the convincing evidence that sunscreen offers protection against the deadliest form of skin cancer, malignant melanomas? rates of which have actually doubled in the last 20 years. What about the fact that many of the ingredients remain untested for long term safety, does that not make you a little sceptical? Obviously frying yourself for hours in the mid-day sun ain't good for you, in any case, wearing sunscreen or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Obviously frying yourself for hours in the mid-day sun ain't good for you, in any case, wearing sunscreen or not. No, it ain't. Someone I know who is a dermatologist reckons that a lot of people are getting skin cancer because they've spent too much time in the sun with sunscreen on. It offers some protection, but it still doesn't mean that you can spend hours out in the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bordeaux 03 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 There was a bit on Watchdog a year or two ago and said one of the main reasons people get sunburnt is because they don't know how to apply sun screen properly. Using a UV light they took a group of people and watched them applying it, the majority applied it in patches even though they thought they were covering the whole of the body. The key is to basically put about x3 as much on as you would normally would, and taking your time to cover all areas and this will give you sufficient protection for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Well look at it the other way. Where is the convincing evidence that sunscreen offers protection against the deadliest form of skin cancer, malignant melanomas? rates of which have actually doubled in the last 20 years. Taking us back to 1988-89; a time when Mrs Thatcher was making us all more wealthy and bringing about increased international travel to holiday destinations in the sun. I have absolutely no figures to back this up but I reckon that the amount of foreign sunshine holidays in the same period has much more than doubled which might indicate that the application of sunscreen or other safety precautions has actually improved. Add in factors such as the age of sunseekers - the Club 18-30 mentality of falling asleep, pished, in a rubber ring in Ayia Nappa (ouch, ouch, ouch!!!); the influx of Australians to the UK etc. and you get a far more complex picture of where your doubling of melanomas comes from. Statistics taken in a vacuum are more dangerous than the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brow Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Taking us back to 1988-89; a time when Mrs Thatcher was making us all more wealthy and bringing about increased international travel to holiday destinations in the sun. I have absolutely no figures to back this up but I reckon that the amount of foreign sunshine holidays in the same period has much more than doubled which might indicate that the application of sunscreen or other safety precautions has actually improved. Add in factors such as the age of sunseekers - the Club 18-30 mentality of falling asleep, pished, in a rubber ring in Ayia Nappa (ouch, ouch, ouch!!!); the influx of Australians to the UK etc. and you get a far more complex picture of where your doubling of melanomas comes from. Statistics taken in a vacuum are more dangerous than the sun. Ssssssshhhhhhh. Dont talk sense. Sunscreen IS bad for us, the sun is bad for us, carrots, wine, salmon, all bad i say! God forbid people read things and actually had a think about it for themselves rather than trusting everything they see written down! I think you're spot on about the rise in melanomas, I mind when I was wee (mid-late 80s) hardly anybody went abroad, now its the norm. My wee bro is 14 and has been abroad with the folks twice this year already and its only freakin march. Im off to hide in my nuclear bunker until the world explodes. Theres just too much danger out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 You don't need sunscreen if you wear a tinfoil hat. FACT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I'll stick to my factor 15 and take my chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letsalllaughathobos Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 get the old baby oil on and get cooking baby. superb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted March 17, 2009 Author Share Posted March 17, 2009 No, it ain't. Someone I know who is a dermatologist reckons that a lot of people are getting skin cancer because they've spent too much time in the sun with sunscreen on. It offers some protection, but it still doesn't mean that you can spend hours out in the sun.That is a big part of the problem, complacency or a lack of common sense. The awareness campaigns also say you should apply it before you go into the sun, well that completely removes the main, essential, benefit of sun exposure for your health. You need at least a little (10-15 minutes) direct exposure to sunlight to induce Vitamin D production. That was one of the main points I was making in the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted March 17, 2009 Author Share Posted March 17, 2009 Taking us back to 1988-89; a time when Mrs Thatcher was making us all more wealthy and bringing about increased international travel to holiday destinations in the sun. I have absolutely no figures to back this up but I reckon that the amount of foreign sunshine holidays in the same period has much more than doubled which might indicate that the application of sunscreen or other safety precautions has actually improved. Add in factors such as the age of sunseekers - the Club 18-30 mentality of falling asleep, pished, in a rubber ring in Ayia Nappa (ouch, ouch, ouch!!!); the influx of Australians to the UK etc. and you get a far more complex picture of where your doubling of melanomas comes from. Statistics taken in a vacuum are more dangerous than the sun. It was not (specifically) the UK I was talking about though. The rates have roughly doubled in Australia and the US, despite being two of the biggest consumers of sunscreen and having the most widespread and aggressive skin cancer awareness campaigns. Ozone/climate change can't explain that away because there have not been dramatic changes during that time period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seashell Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I read somewhere a while back that opened bottles of suntan lotion/ screen can lose effectiveness i.e. if you have had the bottle since last year it can have up to half the protection factor it says on the bottle ie a ten would end up a five and I'm sure this goes down the older the bottle. I don't know if this was manufacturers trying to get us to buy it every year but most potions and lotions have a use by on them as in use within 12 months of opening bottle etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I read somewhere a while back that opened bottles of suntan lotion/ screen can lose effectiveness i.e. if you have had the bottle since last year it can have up to half the protection factor it says on the bottle ie a ten would end up a five and I'm sure this goes down the older the bottle. I don't know if this was manufacturers trying to get us to buy it every year but most potions and lotions have a use by on them as in use within 12 months of opening bottle etc. That'll be it. Almost as cunning as the "...rinse and repeat" from the shampoo manufacturers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE! Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death. Dihydrogen monoxide: ? is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain. ? contributes to the "greenhouse effect." ? may cause severe burns. ? contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape. ? accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals. ? may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes. ? has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients. Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions! Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California. Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used: ? as an industrial solvent and coolant. ? in nuclear power plants. ? in the production of styrofoam. ? as a fire ******ant. ? in many forms of cruel animal research. ? in the distribution of pesticides. ? as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical. Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer! The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldar Hadzimehmedovic Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 This sounds like I'm being a wide ****, but I'm not, honestly. Genuine question - are skin cancer rates higher in countries like Australia, Zimbabwe, Brazil etc than Norway, Canada, Russia etc.? 'Cause if they're not, is the whole thing not just a crock of Tom Kite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wibble Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 A thread about sunscreen on a Scottish forum :biglaugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daydream Believer Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 That is a big part of the problem, complacency or a lack of common sense. The awareness campaigns also say you should apply it before you go into the sun, well that completely removes the main, essential, benefit of sun exposure for your health. You need at least a little (10-15 minutes) direct exposure to sunlight to induce Vitamin D production. That was one of the main points I was making in the OP. So you're saying that it's important to apply sunscreen sensibly? In that case I totally agree If you're saying don't wear sunscreen then I dissagree. In fact what are you saying? Wear it, or don't wear it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
64,104
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.