I read the section on more healthy suntanning, and
I think there is more truth to this, how do I know? My Grandfather is 93 never had any cancers, he is still healthy, he was a farmer, out in the sun his whole life he never used sunscreen.
Then there is my husbands grandfather he is 95 and guess what, He was a mailman his whole life and never used sunscreen. He too never had any cancers, and is doing okay. Could there be some truth in skin bios suntanning ref? In my opinion, I think so. Not saying we should'nt use
sunscreen, but choosing the right kind is important.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SkinBiologyWebmaster,

Just food for thought, but there are always going to be people who seem to thrive no matter what they do. Most of us have known a senior citizen or two who drank like a fish and smoked to boot and was healthy as could be. These people need to breed more as they obviously have good genes, lol!

On the other hand, I've been to countries where sun is a way of life and I don't know whether or not they have cancers, but they sure LOOK awful--all wrinkly, sun damaged skin. And these people are darker to begin with, so they have even more protection than some of us fair-skinned persons.

Unfortunately, no theory will fit everyone or every population.

I agree some sunlight is healthy, but I think the moderate amount I get walking into buildings and whatnot is good enough and probably equals 20 minutes/day. I don't wear sunscreen in the house (except on my face b/c of melasma), so there is even more UVA exposure. Yes, your house is flooded with UVA as it goes right through windows.

Don't know if any of this makes sense!
Kathleen

More food for thought...it is my feeling that our skin is far more vunerable today than in the times of our grandparents, and even our parents. Just the other day, it was in the news about a new report from Cambridge University on the depletion of the ozone levels. Here's a few quotes from an April 27th article from Salon.com:

quote:

The protective ozone layer over the Arctic has thinned this winter to the lowest levels since records began, alarming scientists who believed it had begun to improve. The increased loss of ozone allows more harmful ultraviolet light to reach the Earth's surface, making children and outdoor enthusiasts such as skiers more vulnerable to skin cancer -- a disease that is already dramatically increasing.

and ...

quote:

Cambridge University scientists said Tuesday that, in late March, when ozone depletion was at its worst, Arctic air masses drifted over the U.K. and the rest of Europe as far south as northern Italy, creating significantly higher doses of ultraviolet radiation and sunburn risk.

This study focused on the U.K., but this is clearly a worldwide issue. Not to be a downer, but it's not very encouraging. I really miss the days of soaking up the sun and not worrying about it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Skin Biology,

Hmmm, maybe I should wear the sunscreen in the house!

My grandmother was a twin - she died two months ago at the age of 93. She lived her whole life in New York - her twin lived most of her life in Florida. Her twin died in her late 60's - early 70's - and looked about 95 years old when she died. She was a smoker (I'm not sure if she drank) but she basked in the sun and the difference in her skin compared to my grandmother's (at the same age) was unbelievable.

My grandmother smoked until she was 80, and drank quite a bit - but totally stayed out of the sun. Her skin was beautiful - up until she died.

Now the question is - why didn't I inherit her skin?!!!!!

Laura

Hi Lauragal,

I understand totally what you mean.
When I was 15 I met a cousin from florida for the first time. I was shocked! She had lived in Florida her entire life and was a sunbather and as a teen had worked as a life guard at a pool. She was only 30 but her skin looked like old dry shoe leather.

It was a dramatic lesson on what the sun can do to our skin.

Susan

Susan,

I know people my own age (42) who have gone to tanning salons for the past 15 years. They're skin also looks like leather. My daughter (age 23) occasionaly goes to the tanning salon and I constantly tell her she'll be sorry in 10 to 15 years from now. I work with a guy who tans every day and his skin is horrible looking. I don't understand how they don't see it??

Laura

By the way, I must admit that I grew up going on my father's boat a lot, and taking in a lot of sun. I don't see any skin damage yet, but I am now taking really good care of my skin and make sure I use sunscreen whenever I'm in the sun.

I don't avoid the sun, but just take precautions when I know I'll be exposed for a significant amount of time.

Laura

Lauragal,

I, too, often wonder how they think dry leathery skin looks good. It makes no sense to me but i guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

I have a few friends who are in their 60's. They were tanning and in the sun constantly when they were young. That was long before there was any discussion of skin cancer, premature ageing etc.
Unfortunately, they have been paying for their behavior for years now. They have had to have repeated skin cancers removed from their face.
About every six months a new one pops up.

Next time I speak with them I'll be sharing about skinbio's products.

I work with a lot of young women and it's so frustrating to me to see so many of these women totally oblivious to the damage the sun and tanning beds are doing to them and that they will be paying for it in years to come.

I dont' have to worry about them having problems from using chemical sunscreens. Most of them never use sun screens at all.

Susan

quote:

I work with a lot of young women and it's so frustrating to me to see so many of these women totally oblivious to the damage the sun and tanning beds are doing to them and that they will be paying for it in years to come.

Just mind boggling isn't it?! I'm so glad I've learned to accept my "fish-belly white" body!

My father was in the navy as a young man and was in tropical areas, often without a shirt. He had to have many superficial skin cancer lesions removed, and so far, so good. His skin is a lot darker than mine, so you can bet I'm still searching for the perfect sunscreen.

quote:

I'm still searching for the perfect sunscreen.

Me too. There have been some really good posts on sunscreens, but I'm still debating on which to go with. What do you use now Sophie?

Lilu

I've been using COTZ but I'm almost out, and I think I'll try the Vichy or maybe the Anthelios-probably the Vichy because of the price. It's very easy to tell that I've had sun damage-the areas that got the most sun are blotchy, wrinkly, and have a lot of moles, compared to the areas that were covered up. I was in Spain last summer and I was amazed by all the bare-breasted women. I wasn't objecting on moral grounds-it was the thought of leathery, sun- damaged skin THERE that amazed me.

Sophie,

I'm not amazed any more by the terrible looking skin of those who don't protect with good sunscreens, but I definitely know what you mean!

I think the Vichy looks GREAT for the price!! I know my own chest (not my breasts ) was not looking too hot from what I'm sure is sun damage. And I don't even lay out! But those t-shirt is the summer will get you!

Luckily, my chest is 100% better looking with Exfol and Super CP Serum, but I use Anthelios on it now, too. I will save Anthelios for my face as soon as my Vichy comes in.

Kathleen

I was leaning towards the Vichy as well. Ahthelios is just too costly for me now. I don't want to feel I need to use it super sparingly, as that would defeat the purpose.

BTW, know of any good sellers of the Vichy? Yeah, I can do a search... just being lazy. Hey, if ya'll have already found a good vendor, I may as well benefit, right?

I wanted to post what could be causing the skin cancers rather than the sun itself.

For decades, irresponsible cosmetic companies and a small group of very vocal, publicity-seeking dermatologists have strongly advocated that chemical sunscreens should be heavily applied before any exposure to sunlight, even on young children. They insisted that such sunscreen use would prevent skin cancer and protect your health. This was despite of a lack of any adequate safety testing of these chemicals. (It should be emphasized that most dermatologists are much more cautious and careful.)

On the other hand, over the past decade, many scientists studying cancer have come to virtually the opposite conclusion; that is, the use of sunscreen chemicals may be increasing the incidence of cancer and that sunlight exposure may actually decrease human cancer rates and improve your health.

It now appears that many heavily-used chemical sunscreens may actually increase cancers by virtue of their free radical generating properties. And more insidiously, many commonly used sunscreen chemicals have strong estrogenic actions that may cause serious problems in sexual development and adult sexual function, and may further increase cancer risks.

It is not that these compounds were ever viewed as benign substances. Organic chemists have been long aware of the dangers of compounds in chemical sunscreens. Such chemicals are widely used to start free radical reactions during chemical synthesis. These chemicals are the dangerous types that one carefully keeps away from your skin while working in a laboratory. To use them, you mix them into a combination of other chemicals, then flash the mixture with an ultraviolet light. The ultraviolet absorbing chemicals then generate copious amounts of free radicals that initiated the desired chemical reactions.

Despite the medical establishment's near unanimity on the issue of sunlight exposure, on other health issues in the past, serious errors been promoted to the public.

1. In 1927, 12,745 physicians endorsed smoking Lucky Strike cigarettes as a healthful activity. In the 1940s and 1950s, thousands of prominent surgeons were used in national cigarette advertisements to reassure the public about the safety of cigarette smoking.

2. In the 1950's, lobotomies were promoted for mental disorders and produced near-totally dysfunctional people.

3. In the 1960's and 1970's, diets high in omega-6 polyunsaturated fats and partially hydrogenated fatty acids such as safflower oil and margarine were recommended to reduce heart disease. However, long term studies found that, while such diets decreased heart disease, they increased the total death rate and the cancer rate and produced accelerated aging.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Skin Biology,

Lilu,

You read Salon.com? My husband recently had a letter printed there so he was all geeked, lol.

It's kind of a strange checkout system as it lists all the prices, but all the sunscreens come up as $19.95 regardless of the stated price! (It actually works to your benefit, lol!)

They are pretty decent but are out of the Spray right now.

There are others, but they are mostly in Europe as well, I believe and not as cheap as the first I listed.

Sometimes you can find good deals on Ebay. I like the new formulas b/c they don't have parabens.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilu:
BTW, know of any good sellers of the Vichy? Yeah, I can do a search... just being lazy. Hey, if ya'll have already found a good vendor, I may as well benefit, right?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SkinBiologyWebmaster,

Luverskin,

Debbie NIR made some good posts about diet and internal and external antioxidants possibly playing a huge role in how our skin reacts to the sun. She made some very good points and also pointed out that no one has ever studied how those who take such precautions fare with
UV exposure.

However, another point was brought up that even if we don't get skin cancer, most people (even throughout the ages when people didn't seem to be getting skin cancer--perhaps due to their better diets) simply did not LOOK good from all that UV exposure! I do not want to look wrinkly and sun damaged and that's enough reason for me to wear sunscreen.

So I am torn. I think a moderate approach is best--great diet, lots of antioxidants, both internal and external, and a moderate sunscreen for extended exposure. Pure titanium is the best, although you'll look like a ghost.

For my FACE though, I am not taking any chances--I am wearing the best darn sunscreen I can get!! I doubt the amount of systemic reaction from sunscreen worn only on your face will cause cancer.

Also, I don't think the chemicals themselves in the sunscreesn are causing the cancer. There are other scientific views on why cancers have sprung up among sunscreen users, the most logical one being that until VERY recently, most sunscreens had awful UVA protection. Yet people thought they were protected and stayed out in the sun longer than normal b/c the high UVB protection stopped them from burning.

Well, UBA is scientifically proven to weaken your immune system. So these people can be more prone to cancers, and not just skin cancer.

Plus, the people using the most sunscreen are in countries like Australia where they were using these awful sunscreens that didn't protect from UVA, but they get major doses of it. So you have people who are predisposed to getting UVA damage and immune damage from the UVA exposure who just also happen to be using ineffective sunscreens. It is hard to say that the sunscreen chemicals caused the cancers or the major UVA exposure in an ozone depleted area caused it.

Now Australia requires UVA sunscreens to block 90% of UVA rays. I wonder what the cancer statistics will be in 20 years? It will be interesting anyway.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Skin Biology,

Deb,

I'm actually still very interested in learning all I can about sunscreen and sun exposure. It's true I got a lot of new info recently that I shared here, but I realize there's another viewpoint.

Yes, I do have to use sunscreen on my face, but I am not sure now what to do about the rest of my body. I was all convinced that the new sunscreens were the way to go, but what you say in your post makes sense, too.

The only thing I did think of regarding sunlight and lower cancer involves some research I read about vitamin D. Apparently Vitamin D has a larger role in health than previously thought and it's suspected that huge sunscreen users don't get enough of it. Somehow, that was supposed to be linked to cancers. Have you heard of this??

I guess I am wondering whether the newer sunscreens can HURT you, at least if you still get your moderate 20 minutes a day of pure exposure. The new filters are not estrogenic and the molecules have been made larger so that they do not absorb deep into the skin and release free radicals there. I believe it is true that the amount of free radicals generated by UV exposure to the skin is greater than the amount of free radicals generated by the new sunscreens. In either case, topical antioxidants seems highly prudent!

I agree that our diet may be the largest contributing factor. I would be very interested in the studies you talked about elsewhere invovling populations who get high sun exposure being quite healthy. Do you know how they looked, though? I ask this in sincerity. I am glad to know that my diet and supplements will prevent cancers, but I still don't want to end up looking sun damaged!


Sorry so long!
Kathleen

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Skin Biology,