# Is being tan bad???



## sweetieberlin (Mar 30, 2007)

We go out in the morning or late afternoon.. usually every day if its nice..

ds wears a hat, but I havent used sunscreen yet this year.. I usually dont unless we will be out during the strong sun hours, or unless ds is minimumly clothed like at the beach...

I noticed yesterday that ds is already tan, I thought his hands were dirty, tried to wash them, and then realised his hands are brown from being tan!!

is it ok to get tan.?? should he have sunscreen on everyday??

what are your thoughts on this..

btw, the sunscreen we do use is natural..


----------



## Sadystar (May 7, 2007)

I don´t think so, it´s bad to burn sure, that increases the risk of melanoma in adulthood. But your skin needs sunlight to produce vitamin D no?. Think about the terrible effects lack of sunlight has had on those poor austrian cellar children.

I´m in the south of spain and I put an organic spf25 on my daughter everyday first thing in the morning, now that the spring is definitely here. Despite this she´s still sunkissed.

I think situations that are not instinctively human.....like lying in the strong sun for hours on end is what causes problems. We did afterall evolve as outdoors creatures, and its only relatively recently we´ve found a taste for cloting.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

There are signs up at DD daycare and DS kindergarden saying to remember sunscreen. I laughed at them and told them they were nuts! Put chemicals on my kids skin, for what? The 3 hours, twice a week when it isn't raining or overcast, and the sun is actually out, though at a low angle, so direct sun is minimal at best. I actually flat out said NO to the teacher. I also said I was from GA, and that if they took a field trip to Georgia or Florida, that I would be very happy to provide sunscreen SPH 53 or whatever, but in Northern Denmark, they needed the sun. You can get Vitamin D deficiency here, as sunlight is what helps convert the D vitamin so your body can use it. By July, my kids get a light to medium tan, but that's it.

I'd say depends on your child's skin and location.


----------



## veganf (Dec 12, 2005)

Being tan is fine, if it is done gradually with no burning and is not excessive. I always start out the season with the boys being allowed outside before 10:30am or after 3pm, that way I don't have to worry about sunscreen and they get a slow tan. Obviously if we're out all day at the beach or something then I'll break out the sunscreen. If I end up with a freckled redhead (not impossible with my husband's heritage) then I'll have to change my plan obviously.


----------



## whateverdidiwants (Jan 2, 2003)

I disagree - there is no such thing as a "safe" tan - a tan is actually visual proof of damage to your skin.


----------



## CawMama (Nov 4, 2005)

We were talking about this the other day. I'm one of those fortunate enough to never burn, so I just don't think about sun protection (unless I'm going to be out with no shade for several hours).

I'm curious about whether or not my mom used sunscreen on me....I'm going to ask her (but I understand the sun is a bit more damaging these days than it was 30+ years ago).


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

It's hard for me to see getting a tan as unhealthy. Spending time outdoors and getting tanned is what humans evolved to do - it's our natural state. I'm suspicious of the idea that it's healthier to cover yourself with artificial sun protection at all times. It reminds me of the idea that it's healthier to circumcise boys, or to use margarine instead of butter.

I do put sunscreen on myself and my kids at times when I think we're likely to burn otherwise, like in the spring when we're first starting to wear shorts and t-shirts and we're out in the middle of the day. But my goal every summer is for us to gradually develop enough of a tan that we don't normally need any sunscreen to be outside.


----------



## madskye (Feb 20, 2006)

Well,

My mom had a melanoma and a 10% chance of survival when I was 5 years old. (She lived!)

I've had about 15 moles removed over the course of the last 30 years, and a few have come back irregular but nothing serious. I feel like I am ticking time bomb for melanoma, and I get checked every year.

So for me and my family, sunscreen is a must. My mom and I are both fair with light hair. She has blue eyes and I have brown eyes. I have over 40 moles/freckles on my body. My husband is of Spanish descent, and our little girl is not quite as fair as my side of the family, she has never had a burn and I sunscreen her lightly but thoroughly when we go to the beach, and supply a bottle to daycare each summer.

I think a lot depends on your family history and genes, but really anyone can get skin cancer so better safe than sorry.


----------



## Cavegirl (Aug 7, 2006)

A slight amount of tanning is good for you, yes.
Here are two very interesting articles about the benefits of the sun, including using the sun for cancer PREVENTION.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...px?PageIndex=2

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-sunlight.aspx


----------



## aidansmama (Jun 5, 2006)

Any kind of tan is bad for you. I am in esthetics so I am asked these questions a lot. Any time your skin is turning a color from the sun that is sun damage. All that sun damage will eventually surface be it in hyperpigmentation or melanoma. I would put sunscreen on him anytime he is in the sun.


----------



## pigpokey (Feb 23, 2006)

I am not sure everyone is aware that sun prevents cancer also?

If sunning the skin produces endorphins, it would make sense to suspect that it may have a benefit.


----------



## SundayCrepes (Feb 15, 2008)

Yes, tanning is a sign of skin damage.

Here is an excerpt from: http://www.healthandage.com/Home/!gc=30!gid7=993

"Contrary to some people's beliefs, suntan is not a protective measure against skin cancer. In fact, tanning is evidence of the same damage occurring in skin cells that causes sunburn. Tanning also is associated with irreversible skin damage (such as early aging).

The chance of developing skin cancer is related to lifetime exposure to UV radiation...

Because the chance of developing skin cancer is related to lifetime exposure to UV radiation, protection should start in childhood to prevent skin cancer later in life."


----------



## Ofwait (Feb 16, 2008)

I really don't think it is bad. It is how we are evolved, the tan is to protect our skin from the sun. Its not normal to lay out and intentionally bake our selves either, but normal work or play out side? you will tan gradually and that is fine.

I grew up in southern GA, and we used to go spend all day on the beach with SPF 15! if we could find it, mostly it was 5 because that is what they carried.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Historically humans have been in the sun and been tanned. I don't see how the natural set up could be that harmful in the big picture.

We avoid burns. We avoid over-use of chemical products. We don't avoid tanning.

-Angela


----------



## Alyantavid (Sep 10, 2004)

I do use sunscreen on my boys. They're very fair just like me and I don't want them burned. Any tan they get through the sunscreen doesn't bother me a bit. I've been badly burned several times and I don't want them to suffer through that.


----------



## dex_millie (Oct 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Historically humans have been in the sun and been tanned. I don't see how the natural set up could be that harmful in the big picture.

We avoid burns. We avoid over-use of chemical products. We don't avoid tanning.

-Angela









:

I find people get a little paranoid of 'natural sun' getting on their body. I am not saying go and sun bath all day everyday, we should take measures not over expose our children or ourselves to the sun, but 'sunscreen'(as we know it) in my opinion is not the answer. I do put shea butter on DS and limit the amount of direct sun he gets. Anywaz here is a link beneath about some sunscreen and how it can also lead to cancer, not only because of the chemicals but it gives us a false sense that we can still longer in the sun. It doesn't protect against the cancer part..

http://owen.curezone.com/lifestyle/sunscreensls.html


----------



## Masel (Apr 14, 2008)

If one is going to bring evolution into this consider: We didn't evolve to outlive our reproductive lives but that's the norm now. Skin didn't need to survive 75 years and now we'd rather like it if it would. Not to mention the change in the ozone layer which is far too recent for any of us to adapt to.

My DD and I get enough incidental sun to get all the vitamin D we need. I still put sunblock on both of us. I find melanoma much much more scary than the chemicals in sunblock. There have been too many incicents of skin cancer in my family. DD is adopted but her ancestery is more northern than mine.


----------



## hipmummy (May 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Historically humans have been in the sun and been tanned. I don't see how the natural set up could be that harmful in the big picture.

We avoid burns. We avoid over-use of chemical products. We don't avoid tanning.

-Angela

Historically yes, Life expectancy No. People are living two and three times the ages the did before all of the skin cancer awareness. People lived much healthier and simple lives too. Plus they did not have a hole in the ozone layer which we do now. I always was a very tan child, but in the early as a teen in the late eighties early nineties all I did was burn. I have had a few moles removed. One was the begining of a basal cell carcinoma. Ds is very fair, his paternal grandfather died of melanoma. We do not sun from 10-2/3 and we use a mineral sunscreen and spf clothing. It is too bad our earth has become so endangered. I would love some sun freedom.


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

We use hats, sun block, and tightly woven clothing when we will be in the sun year round (winter sun causes the same damage, though people don't often think of it). We get enough casual sun exposure to ensure vitamin d and to prevent conditions like SAD. But a tan is just damaged skin... is it serious? Maybe yes, maybe no. The problem IMO is that you wont know for years how your child will react to a history of sun damage. Some children will spend years tanned from head to toe and die happy in their beds at the age of 90 with no problems whatsoever. Others will spend a few years tanned as children and be dealing with moles and more serious sun damage as young adults. It's not a gamble I want to take for myself or my littles.

In terms of the history of tanning...the environment we live in now is not the environment the human species evolved to deal with, our life expectancies are longer, our bodies must deal with more and more chemical interference, etc. Plus I keep in mind that the image of the "healthy tan" was an invention of the fashion and beauty industries. For generations tanned skin was seen as the "mark" of the lower class individual who wasn't able to avoid sun exposure. Then in the 1920s it started to shift as the wealthy folk started going on vacations and returning tanned. The tan became a status symbol, showing that you had the time/money to do nothing but lay on a beach.

Personally I like the way a tan looks... but I know that's due to a lifetime of media conditioning. I know intellectually that a tan is simply skin damaged by solar radiation and that this damage can have serious long term impact on my health. But at the same time it's hard for me to turn off the inner voice that tells me tans are "healthy" or "pretty" or "yummy" or whatever. But I do. Just like I avoid other things that I know aren't good for me or my little ones despite the life long media conditioning telling me that X, Y, or Z are fine, safe, sexy, healthy, etc.

Tanning is natural, but that doesn't mean it's healthy.


----------



## nancy926 (Mar 10, 2003)

Light skin is a recent evolutionary development, in the whole scheme of things. It evolved in northern climates, where year-round intense sun exposure wasn't going to happen. as other posters have noted, there's more harmful radiation getting to the earth now than there was 100,000 years ago, and we are living 70-80 years instead of 30, so we can now see the cumulative effects of repeated sunburns.

About 90% of a person's risk for skin cancer is due to sun exposure in the first 18 years of life. So this is one area where parents can have some control over a disease their children could get decades later. Not complete control, of course, but some.


----------



## AidansMommy1012 (Jan 9, 2006)

I have breast cancer in my family, which is one of those cancers that doesn't just up the risk of getting breast cancer, it ups the risk of getting other types as well. One of those is melanoma. In addition, we're a family of fair-skinned, blond, German/Scandinavian peeps. So we wear sunscreen year-round. It's just not something I'm willing to screw around with.


----------



## pigpokey (Feb 23, 2006)

There is evolving evidence that vitamin D prevents colon cancer deaths, pre-eclampsia, type 1 diabetes, and perhaps other problems, and you benefit in this way from more vitamin D than people typically get in their diet. I heavily suspect that most of the people keeping their children completely white (should they be of all European descent and this be possible) are not feeding cod liver oil frequently and regularly blood-testing vitamin D levels. Moderate sunning takes the guesswork out of it. If you find an older baby and child care manual, from your mother's or grandmother's day, it will likely contain instructions about sunning.

Popular opinion on these matters changes over time. I believe it's wisest to take a conservative approach and take some sunning during pregnancy, childhood and beyond, but NOT burn. Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun. Sunscreen at 3:30 -- no. That is my approach with my family.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pigpokey* 
There is evolving evidence that vitamin D prevents colon cancer deaths, pre-eclampsia, type 1 diabetes, and perhaps other problems, and you benefit in this way from more vitamin D than people typically get in their diet. I heavily suspect that most of the people keeping their children completely white (should they be of all European descent and this be possible) are not feeding cod liver oil frequently and regularly blood-testing vitamin D levels. Moderate sunning takes the guesswork out of it. If you find an older baby and child care manual, from your mother's or grandmother's day, it will likely contain instructions about sunning.

Popular opinion on these matters changes over time. I believe it's wisest to take a conservative approach and take some sunning during pregnancy, childhood and beyond, but NOT burn. Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun. Sunscreen at 3:30 -- no. That is my approach with my family.









:

I expect in the next few years the sun-hysteria will be found to be misplaced.

Burning= bad. All day in direct sun with no protection= absurd. An hour or hour and a half here and there in dappled sunlight is normal and *I* think needed.

Personally I feel a LOT better when I get some sun. Has nothing to do with what I look like. Just has to do with what makes my body feel healthy.

-Angela


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

I tan despite the use of sunscreen.


----------



## Unconventional1 (Apr 3, 2006)

We do not use sunscreen, but we avoid the peak hours (the sun here in CO is very intense and it is easy to burn in the afternoon). Personally, if I do not get sun I have a variety of skin problems including acne, dry skin, etc. So I see direct benefit of getting some sun on a weekly basis.

I think the key is to have some common sense as to when and where to get sun. When DS was a babe last year we used a piece of light weight, white cloth to keep excessive rays off of him when we visited CO (we were living in Iowa). Incidentally, I never even tanned in Iowa, but I do here in CO.

When I lived a conventional lifestyle I tanned as a child, but as an adult I burned (even with sunscreen) anytime I was out for more than an hour. Now that we are chemical free (food, home, and personal care products) and I have detoxed, I do not burn, even after about three hours of intense mid-day Colorado (Boulder specifically which is even higher altitude than Denver) sun. My sis was with me one time (still pretty conventional) and she was burning with sunscreen in about an hour. I tanned nicely (just a light golden color) and it was gone in about two days. She was burnt looking for a week.

So I also think your health status has a lot to do with how your skin is able to cope with the sun's rays as well.


----------



## Unconventional1 (Apr 3, 2006)

Also, there are new studies finding that breast cancer and vitamin D deficiency may be related.


----------



## Minerva (Jul 7, 2005)

I use some organic sunscreen on myself. Hazards of being a very 'light-skinned black', if you'll excuse the expression -- my skin thinks it has more pigment than it does, and I burn fast. The husband and toddler don't use sunscreen unless we're out all day. He's darker than I am, and she's darker than either of us despite the blonde hair.

Some protective tanning is good for the skin, IMO.


----------



## Juvysen (Apr 25, 2007)

Quote:

Now that we are chemical free (food, home, and personal care products) and I have detoxed, I do not burn, even after about three hours of intense mid-day Colorado (Boulder specifically which is even higher altitude than Denver) sun. My sis was with me one time (still pretty conventional) and she was burning with sunscreen in about an hour. I tanned nicely (just a light golden color) and it was gone in about two days. She was burnt looking for a week.
that's really interesting.

We don't use sunscreen unless we're out mid-day or for long periods. If we're only going out for a couple hours late or early in the day, I don't worry about it.


----------



## nighten (Oct 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whateverdidiwants* 
I disagree - there is no such thing as a "safe" tan - a tan is actually visual proof of damage to your skin.

Amen, sister. Any tan at all represents DAMAGE. Tans are not "healthy" -- they are the skin reacting to unhealthy damage. Burns are more unhealthy but tans in and of themselves also can lead to skin cancer. Burning increases the chances but even without never being burned, your skin is still harmed from enough exposure to cause a tan.

You can get very healthy amounts of vitamin D from sun exposure when wearing sunscreen.

And you can use mineral block sunscreens that are not chemical-based. As well as wearing sunblocking clothing.

My child is very fair (as am I). She does not go out in the sun without sunscreen and/or a hat and sleeves. We play outside all the time and she loves it (as do I) but I see no reason why I should allow her skin to become damaged and increase her chances of skin cancer later on simply because having a tan might "look" healthy to some people. Because it isn't. Not at all.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nighten* 
You can get very healthy amounts of vitamin D from sun exposure when wearing sunscreen.

Absolutely not true. Everything I've read says you do NOT get enough vitamin D when wearing sunscreen.

-Angela


----------



## maplesugar (May 24, 2005)

I agree with the people that say tanning is good, healthy, and natural. Certainly it is not healthy to burn, but we all need sun on our skin sometimes, without chemicals to block it. I guess the danger perhaps lies in the people with Northern european heritage who would historically live in a place with very little sun. Maybe they should be careful.

But for those of us with hard to burn skin, I just don't see the danger of a tan. My 85 year old granny has worked in her garden all her life sans screen and she has lovely skin! Anecdotal evidence, I know...


----------



## spughy (Jun 28, 2005)

Angela's right, you don't get enough Vit D (or more accurately, you don't *make* enough vit D) when you wear sunscreen.

My DD has golden-coloured skin to start with thanks to her partly Chinese ancestry, so I only put sunscreen on her if we're going to be out for a long time in intense sun. For myself, I am a little more liberal with the goo, as I am of 100% English ancestry, and my first 18 years were spent in the Yukon so my skin doesn't know what to do with the sunlight here. In short, I burn like toast. I also take CLO to compensate, but I figger body-made Vit D is probably better, so I let DD get that when she can.

It's all about balancing harm vs benefit, and let's face it, with the ethical standards the medical establishment has to deal with, there aren't going to be any clinical trials settling this anytime soon. So go with what's comfortable for you, don't burn, and enjoy the sun. Stressing about it *certainly* won't do you any good!

ETA: I am also much more of a fan of protective clothing than chemical sunscreen. But sometimes, you just wanna FEEL the sun. Moderation, kids. It's all the rage.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Once upon a time not so long ago people were convinced that low fat everything was awesome, butter was cyanide, and if you ate egg yolks you might as well check into a hospital by the end of breakfast.

I wear as little sunscreen on myself and my children as I can get away with.

As to how I feel about the "damage" concept. Exfoliating is damage too. "Damage" can be misleading.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

So... basically we have no idea?









I tend to agree with the hypothesis that a burn is bad but a tan is fine, and that we need vitamin D.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I use to be afraid of the sun and put sunscreen on me and my older two kids all the time. Then I really thought about it and read up on it some and realized that Vit. D is our friend and chemical suncreens are not.

Burning is bad light tanning is fine and most likely healthy imo.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

IME, a tan helps prevent sunburn. I absolutely believe that burning is bad (after all, it *hurts*, which is one way the body tells us it is *bad*). But I can't really accept that a gradual tan, which helps prevent burns, is bad for all people.

My kids are half greek, and have olive skin. They tan rather than burning, unless the sun is intense. We use clothing and hats for sun protection usually, with sunscreen for swimming and midday exposure. When we lived in FL, otoh, we used sunscreen just to go to the playground for the first part of the summer. By the second part of the summer, dd was always tan enough (despite liberal use of sunscreen) to forgo the sunscreen at the playground. We always, always, always used it at the beach during the summer, though. The FL sun is not to be underestimated!


----------



## aidansmama (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Absolutely not true. Everything I've read says you do NOT get enough vitamin D when wearing sunscreen.

-Angela

Actually, it is true. This is what I do. What do you think the brown spots of hyperpigmention people get are? Even when you do not burn there is still microscopic evidence of skin damage and that damage is cumulative.
UVA rays do even more damage to the dermis. With time it will reduce the healthy collagen formation and increases damaged elastin fibers. UVB rays have the strongest correlation to skin cancer and damage the DNA of the epidermal cells. Everyone should be wearing a broad band spectrum sunscreen daily.


----------



## rockycrop (Jul 31, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 

As to how I feel about the "damage" concept. Exfoliating is damage too. "Damage" can be misleading.


I agree. Doesn't eating food damage our teeth? Building muscle, getting callouses, etc., etc. I'm all for being aware of overhead sunlight and being out for too long, but dang...I think to live in our bodies IS to damage them.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aidansmama* 
Actually, it is true. This is what I do. What do you think the brown spots of hyperpigmention people get are? Even when you do not burn there is still microscopic evidence of skin damage and that damage is cumulative.
UVA rays do even more damage to the dermis. With time it will reduce the healthy collagen formation and increases damaged elastin fibers. UVB rays have the strongest correlation to skin cancer and damage the DNA of the epidermal cells. Everyone should be wearing a broad band spectrum sunscreen daily.

I disagree. But do you have evidence that one gets enough vitamin D with sunscreen? That was my dispute. Everything I've read says otherwise.

-Angela


----------



## twogreencars (Oct 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllisonR* 
I also said I was from GA

I didn't know you're from Georgia


----------



## Kapat (Apr 28, 2008)

My kids wear sunscreen, DS and DD have olive skin and DD2 and DS2 have much much much lighter skin (my babes have the whole mediterranean package becuase of me). I rather use sunscreen as a rule to go to the beach only not everyday, the sun in ********* is not so bad.

But we do use sunscreen at times, and i don't think tanning is bad.


----------



## meggles (Mar 9, 2004)

I wish I didn't have to worry so much about dd in the sun, but I do. She is very fair, with blonde hair and blue eyes, like her papa. My dh tends to be pink. I'm more olive-y and I rarely burn. I think I'm going to get dd an spf jumpsuit to play in this summer. I'm all for getting sun and vitamin d and all that, but my girl burns incredibly easily!


----------



## aidansmama (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I disagree. But do you have evidence that one gets enough vitamin D with sunscreen? That was my dispute. Everything I've read says otherwise.

-Angela


I agree with you that it is hard to get enough vitamin D for many people. However, it is just not worth the tradeoff of getting melanoma. Perhaps people should take a supplement.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aidansmama* 
I agree with you that it is hard to get enough vitamin D for many people. However, it is just not worth the tradeoff of getting melanoma. Perhaps people should take a supplement.

Artificial supplements are not as good as the way we're DESIGNED to get vitamin D.

I don't buy the scare tactics on any sun exposure. I think it's much more related to burns than simple exposure. I've yet to read anything to convince me otherwise.

-Angela


----------



## sweetieberlin (Mar 30, 2007)

wow!!

I didnt realise this thread would get so many replies...

I have to say, that getting vit. d from a pill, doesnt even compare to getting it from the sun.. like Angela said, the way the body was designed to get vit. d is from the sun.. then getting sun is important..

after reading all the posts, and links, (thank you!!!) I have come to the conclusion that sun is good in moderation.. burn- is bad.. like a pp said.. a burn is painful, the body is telling you there is damage...

when I am out in the sun a short time, I feel good, there are people who have seasonal depression, from not enough sun.. the sun is useful to the body,

I also have a hard time buying into the sun hysteria... again, I agree with previous poster, who mentioned low fat, etc.. and add its the same thing with sugar...

what I am coming to see, is that somehow a lot of the world is somehow believing natural is bad- (sugar, butter, fat, sun, etc) and artificial is good/ok- (artificial sweetners, artificial foods, chemicals, etc)

ok, so after reading the posts, Im going to continue doing what we are doing.. out in the morning, with hat, inside during high sun, outside after 3, natural sunscreen if out to beach or for long periods during the strong hours..

thank you all very much for your thoughts and opinions on this.. you gave me a lot to think about!!


----------



## Collinsky (Jul 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
It's hard for me to see getting a tan as unhealthy. Spending time outdoors and getting tanned is what humans evolved to do - it's our natural state. I'm suspicious of the idea that it's healthier to cover yourself with artificial sun protection at all times. It reminds me of the idea that it's healthier to circumcise boys, or to use margarine instead of butter.

I do put sunscreen on myself and my kids at times when I think we're likely to burn otherwise, like in the spring when we're first starting to wear shorts and t-shirts and we're out in the middle of the day. But my goal every summer is for us to gradually develop enough of a tan that we don't normally need any sunscreen to be outside.









:
I use sunscreen if we're going to be at the beach at high noon, especially on a baby. I don't want them to get burnt, mostly because its so uncomfortable. My Dd2 was quite bald until she was 18 mos old, so I made sure she had a hat or sunscreen on her head. But other than my children's comfort, I don't worry about it.

I don't "lay out" and don't think that's desirable, but if my kids are running around in the sunshine and get a little brown, that's fine by me. Chemicals altering bodily processes aren't on my list of "must haves."


----------



## Collinsky (Jul 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Absolutely not true. Everything I've read says you do NOT get enough vitamin D when wearing sunscreen.

-Angela

In recent years there have been recorded cases of rickets in the UK due to vegan diet (so the kids weren't getting Vit D from fortified milk) combined with use of sunblock when outdoors. That's not to say that vegan diet or sunblock are inherently unhealthy, it was the combination and nothing to provide the essential nutrient... but it does illustrate that you definitely don't get the Vit D you need with sunblock on.


----------



## ilikethedesert (Feb 4, 2004)

I wonder if using a 15 sunblock is any better than a 30? With a 15, my kids still get a tan but don't burn. Also- with hats going off and on at will, they DO get SOME straight sun on them. Do you think this is enough for the vitamin D they need?

Something feels wrong to me about using sunblock all the time. In the mornings and evening we don't, but I did put some on their faces at the park yesterday. I'm glad to see this thread!


----------



## aidansmama (Jun 5, 2006)

I never said to use sunscreen at ALL times. If you are going to be outside for awhile you should use it. You can get vitamin d when you are outside for short periods-going to and from your car and such.
I would never intentionally tan my two year old. I have seen first hand the damage UVA and UVB rays do. I am not going to raise my two years chances of getting sun damage.


----------



## sweetieberlin (Mar 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aidansmama* 
I never said to use sunscreen at ALL times. If you are going to be outside for awhile you should use it. You can get vitamin d when you are outside for short periods-going to and from your car and such.
I would never intentionally tan my two year old. I have seen first hand the damage UVA and UVB rays do. I am not going to raise my two years chances of getting sun damage.

actually you cant get enough vit. d, from going to and from the car and such... someone posted an interesting link, on the first page, it talked about why there were so many poeple vit. def. in sunny climates..

and I dont think anyone on here is going to put tanning accelerator on their 1 or 2 or even 10 year old, and have them lying down on a beach towel getting a tan..

me being the op, wanted to know if it was ok that my toddler is getting a bit of color from the sun... It is in no way intentional, like I want him to look tan.. but I do want him to have sun exposure and get vit. d, the natural way..


----------



## nancy926 (Mar 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Historically humans have been in the sun and been tanned.

I think it's much more complicated than that. Many humans are dark-skinned, not tan, and for a long time, all humans were dark skinned. Light skin arose at least twice in human evolution and of course experts dont' agree why it spread. One theory is that in northern climates, it helped survival because light skin absorbs more vitamin D. In fact, the farther you go away from the equator, the more likely you are to find lighter-skinned people -- because they don't get as much direct sun, so they "need" lighter skin to get enough vit D.

In light-skinned people, tanning actually inhibits folate production and has been linked with fetal neural tube defects. Dark skin basically "blocks out" the sun and prevents folate deficiency.

I don't think a basic level of sun exposure is bad. But tanning does indicate damage to the skin. Some people can sustain that kind of damage without a problem. Others can't. As someone with a family history of skin cancer and more than one red-headed relative, I use sunscreen if I'll be outside for more than 20-30 minutes, and I make sure my kids do, too.


----------



## bottomsup (Jul 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nancy926* 
I think it's much more complicated than that. Many humans are dark-skinned, not tan, and for a long time, all humans were dark skinned. Light skin arose at least twice in human evolution and of course experts dont' agree why it spread. One theory is that in northern climates, it helped survival because light skin absorbs more vitamin D. In fact, the farther you go away from the equator, the more likely you are to find lighter-skinned people -- because they don't get as much direct sun, so they "need" lighter skin to get enough vit D.

In light-skinned people, tanning actually inhibits folate production and has been linked with fetal neural tube defects. Dark skin basically "blocks out" the sun and prevents folate deficiency.

I don't think a basic level of sun exposure is bad. But tanning does indicate damage to the skin. Some people can sustain that kind of damage without a problem. Others can't. As someone with a family history of skin cancer and more than one red-headed relative, I use sunscreen if I'll be outside for more than 20-30 minutes, and I make sure my kids do, too.

Agreed. Very well put. In addition, all the talk of "evolution" and "design." Early ancestors did not really live long enough to worry about dying of skin cancer. And they didn't have the environmental factors in play we do now--depleted ozone etc.

Get a little sun here and there. It's good for you. But 1. A tan does not provide any protection. At all. And 2. A child's skin is so much more sensitive, and I am not going to risk "tanning" my son. If he wants to fry himself when he is older, so be it. But for now, chemical free sunscreen and big hats.

Honestly, unless you are dark skinned and live so far outside the equator or never go in the sun, Vitamin D deficiency is a non-issue. Go outside, play, but wear sunscreen if you are going to be in direct sun for more than 10 minutes or so. At least put it on your babes--it's like not wearing seatbelts. If you do not want to wear them fine. Parents should not assume that risk for their children. Ditto for sunscreen.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aidansmama* 
I would never intentionally tan my two year old. I have seen first hand the damage UVA and UVB rays do. I am not going to raise my two years chances of getting sun damage.

I don't see anyone here saying they're "intentionally" tanning their two year olds. Simply that they're not afraid of it and it's not something to be scared of. No one is saying- go on little mary- 20 more minutes, we want to get a shade darker today!

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bottomsup* 
But 1. A tan does not provide any protection. At all.

If you want to argue that a tan provides no protection against what you call damage, fine. But fact of the matter is that a tan DOES provide protection against burning.

Quote:

Honestly, unless you are dark skinned and live so far outside the equator or never go in the sun, Vitamin D deficiency is a non-issue. Go outside, play, but wear sunscreen if you are going to be in direct sun for more than 10 minutes or so. At least put it on your babes--it's like not wearing seatbelts. If you do not want to wear them fine. Parents should not assume that risk for their children. Ditto for sunscreen.
Not fair. Not true. Vitamin D deficiency is enough of a problem that drs. are trying to push vit. D supplements on ALL breastfed babies. It is a REAL problem that is REALLY being seen. There is also research that shows that we actually need quite a bit MORE vitamin D than just what's needed to prevent rickets (basically that's what the RDA is based on in this case)

SO- in your opinion it's abusive to NOT put sunscreen on babies. In MY opinion it's abusive to always have babies slathered from head to toe and never allow any sun exposure at all. I think it will be shown that sun exposure is very much needed for good health in the long run.

-Angela


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

I think it's a very tough call. On the one hand, the body absorbs vit D best through sunlight. Our ped actually suggested that we not overdo the sunblock--she thinks that there are tons of kids walking around now with low-level vit D deficiency and, since the widespread and consistent use of sunscreen is so new, that we don't fully understand yet what the results of that deficiency might be.

On the other hand, I think it's dangerous to dismiss the danger of sun exposure b/c it's "natural" (b/c it isn't--not over so many years, with a depleted ozone layer) or because one is just tanning, not burning.

Just a bit of anecdotal evidence. I am extremely fair-skinned. I burn in 10 minutes, and I grew up in the Southwest. I got a few bad burns, but my parents made me use sunscreen most of the time. Dh, OTOH, has very olive skin. He's never had a sunburn in his life. He grew up in the Northeast, where the weather does not permit year-round outdoor activity, as it did where I grew up, and where sun exposure is less intense. He wore sunblock some of the time, but his parents didn't worry so, so much--after all, he had dark skin and never burned. Now...guess which one of us has had several pre-melanomas removed? Hint: It's not me. As others have said, tanning is a sign of sun damage, not health.

We try to find a happy medium. We put hats on dd, use long pants/sleeves as much as she'll tolerate, and try to do our trips to the park early in the morning or later in the afternoon, avoiding peak sun hours. We do use sunblock on hands and face if we're out midday between May-October and definitely if we go to the beach or something (which we rarely do).


----------



## springbabes (Aug 23, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Masel* 
If one is going to bring evolution into this consider: We didn't evolve to outlive our reproductive lives but that's the norm now. Skin didn't need to survive 75 years and now we'd rather like it if it would.

This simply cannot be true or else women would not go through menopause. Obviously humans were out-living their reproductive years or menopause wouldn't be so hard-coded in our DNA.

Anyway, I vote for healthy tans. There are more types of cancer caused by vit. D deficiency than are caused by sun-damage. Cancer rates are higher in Northern latitudes than Southern.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

I think you should use sunscreen daily. (But, I totally understand that some days, things are crazy and it just doesn't happen. Do the best you can.) Being tan isn't bad per se, but you want to protect your kids from sun damage and especially sun burns. Way to go on wearing the hat!


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

I'm convinced by the research and recommendations to avoid the amount of sun exposure that would cause you to tan. I'm mindful of the ingredients in anything I put on my skin the same as I am mindful of the ingredients in the food I eat, and I consider several of the available sunscreens to be safe. I don't find all ingredients in sunscreen lotion necessary to avoid. So we wear sunscreen and are sure we don't get tan.

I'm confident that I get plenty of vitamin D from sun and food...CLO is an excellent food source.


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

I don't wear sunscreen. Neither does DS. I've read quite a bit about vit D recently, and am convinced that the vast, vast, vast majority of people in northern latitudes are Vit-d defiecent. Besides that acording to the CSIP, most sunscreen only blocks the 'good' rays that make you make vit d, and not the bad ones that do most of the damage. So by using sunscreen your blocking out the good and letting all the bad stuff pass right on through.

Tanning may not be the best thing for your skin, but its not entirely bad - if it was, nobody would have survived until now. True, light skin is a "recent" evolutionary thing, but its not *THAT* recent, we survived for hundreds, thousands, of years with light skin just fine without sunscreen.


----------



## pigpokey (Feb 23, 2006)

The crone is absolutely a valid reproductive strategy. Grandmothers are not idle. Given that eggs apparently have a shelf life, at some point it makes more sense to invest mainly in your grandchildren's survival than in your own.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...my21_graph.jpg
This is the incidence of Down Syndrome with maternal age. Not the steep rise before menopause.


----------



## Ofwait (Feb 16, 2008)

How can you be sure you don't get tan?
I am not terribly pale, and niether are my kids, but we use sun screen most of the time and still have tans. I am not talking spf 15 either usually 30 or 50 and hats, we all have color and its only May. Nap time is also peak sun time, nobody lays put either, just normal playtime and garden time in the back yard.


----------



## springbabes (Aug 23, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pigpokey* 
The crone is absolutely a valid reproductive strategy. Grandmothers are not idle. Given that eggs apparently have a shelf life, at some point it makes more sense to invest mainly in your grandchildren's survival than in your own.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...my21_graph.jpg
This is the incidence of Down Syndrome with maternal age. Not the steep rise before menopause.

Oh, I wasn't saying that menopause wasn't important, just that evolution wouldn't have invested in it if early humans weren't living past the reproductive years.


----------



## Magali (Jun 8, 2007)

I love the sun. I felt so much healthier when I lived on the beach and was in the sun all day long. I plan on limiting ds's sun exposure so he doesn't burn, and using sunscreen if absolutely necessary, but I can't wait for us to get our tans this summer.


----------



## dawncayden (Jan 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Unconventional1* 
We do not use sunscreen, but we avoid the peak hours (the sun here in CO is very intense and it is easy to burn in the afternoon). Personally, if I do not get sun I have a variety of skin problems including acne, dry skin, etc. So I see direct benefit of getting some sun on a weekly basis.

I think the key is to have some common sense as to when and where to get sun. When DS was a babe last year we used a piece of light weight, white cloth to keep excessive rays off of him when we visited CO (we were living in Iowa). Incidentally, I never even tanned in Iowa, but I do here in CO.

When I lived a conventional lifestyle I tanned as a child, but as an adult I burned (even with sunscreen) anytime I was out for more than an hour. Now that we are chemical free (food, home, and personal care products) and I have detoxed, I do not burn, even after about three hours of intense mid-day Colorado (Boulder specifically which is even higher altitude than Denver) sun. My sis was with me one time (still pretty conventional) and she was burning with sunscreen in about an hour. I tanned nicely (just a light golden color) and it was gone in about two days. She was burnt looking for a week.

So I also think your health status has a lot to do with how your skin is able to cope with the sun's rays as well.

I find this very interesting and knew a woman who was very into just using Coconut Oil for her and her family and would spend countless hours in the sun and never burn and hardly even tan. She told me it all had to do with what we put into our bodies. If we ate non organic, used chemicals, and ate trans fats etc we would burn no matter what. So no amount of sunscreen would help. If we detoxed our bodies, and those chemicals weren't leeching out of our pores, we would not burn and sunscreen is not needed.

In our family, we use vit D in the winter, stop that when it gets warmer, use hats and UV shirts, umbrella's at the beach, and we ONLY use sunscreen if we will be in direct sunlight for an extended amount of time.
I find since I have stopped using sunscreen, I have really become sun-smart, I never used to think about times of day when the sun is at its hottest. I never thought about wearing a shirt instead of sunscreen.
I never burn now, but when I used to use sunscreen I still used to burn.

I'm curious about the evolution talk on here. Someone said that the ozone layer happened so fast that we didn't have time to evolve ourselves to be ok with it. What if we are evolving right now, and excessive sunscreen use is confusing things? We also stay inside so much that maybe that also isn't helping us evolve. We are an amazing species, its hard to imagine all the hurdles we have overcome to only have the ozone layer matter distroy us.
I'm just spewing out thoughts here


----------



## Magali (Jun 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Artificial supplements are not as good as the way we're DESIGNED to get vitamin D.

I don't buy the scare tactics on any sun exposure. I think it's much more related to burns than simple exposure. I've yet to read anything to convince me otherwise.

-Angela

This.


----------



## mytwogirls (Jan 3, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whateverdidiwants* 
I disagree - there is no such thing as a "safe" tan - a tan is actually visual proof of damage to your skin.

That is so true! My dermatologist told me the exact same thing...after he removed a spot that was developing into skin caner. NO tan is safe...it is skin damage. Period. *HOWEVER* *I have very very fair skin and I think a lot of it has to do with your skin* Different tones are different to the sun I believe so you just have to watch it and be careful. Burning is BAD and tan is not good depending on your skin tone.


----------



## mytwogirls (Jan 3, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I don't see anyone here saying they're "intentionally" tanning their two year olds. Simply that they're not afraid of it and it's not something to be scared of. No one is saying- go on little mary- 20 more minutes, we want to get a shade darker today!

-Angela

You crack me up! You also have a VERY good point!


----------



## Magali (Jun 8, 2007)

But skin darkening in the sun is natural....preventing it with chemicals is not.


----------



## nighten (Oct 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
If you want to argue that a tan provides no protection against what you call damage, fine. But fact of the matter is that a tan DOES provide protection against burning.

Not fair. Not true. Vitamin D deficiency is enough of a problem that drs. are trying to push vit. D supplements on ALL breastfed babies. It is a REAL problem that is REALLY being seen. There is also research that shows that we actually need quite a bit MORE vitamin D than just what's needed to prevent rickets (basically that's what the RDA is based on in this case)

SO- in your opinion it's abusive to NOT put sunscreen on babies. In MY opinion it's abusive to always have babies slathered from head to toe and never allow any sun exposure at all. I think it will be shown that sun exposure is very much needed for good health in the long run.

-Angela

A tan provides protection against burning but that's only because the skin has already reacted to the damage and is basically trying to prevent worse damage from occurring.

Fifteen minutes at least three times a week, of exposure to the sun (not through a window) is a generally accepted guideline to follow for optimum vitamin D production. And it doesn't have to be 15 minutes all in one shot either. You can add up the minutes of exposure you get from things like walking to the mailbox. Or walking through a parking lot to get to your car.

For those type outings we don't use sunscreen. But when we are playing outside, in the sun (and even on cloudy days for that matter), even for a limited amount of time we do. So for us, using sunscreen for these times does NOT inhibit the vitamin D production from sun exposure, because we don't live in a cave every other second of the day. You can still get adequate and healthy amounts of vitamin D production, even if you are diligent with sunscreen usage.

That's your choice if you don't want to buy what you're calling "scare tactics on sun exposure" but perhaps you've not lost a loved one to skin cancer. Or seen the terrible effects of it. Am I being an alarmist for breastfeeding my child beyond 24 months? My mother had breast cancer and there is research to support extended breastfeeding can reduce my chances of developing the type of cancer she had. Should I ignore the research as "scare tactics" in that case just because I'm vain and want my boobs to look nice? I fail to see the difference, as both activities are protecting me and my child and ensuring our health. And assuming a tan is healthy because it looks healthy or feels healthy does not mean it is.

I know you're not suggesting people purposefully encourage their children to tan, but I am truly surprised at the general dismissive attitude still prevalent regarding how vital sunscreen is.

It's obviously a personal choice, but to me it is FAR better to err on the side of caution when it comes to preventing cancer, especially if it runs in your family, than to shrug off scientific facts that have proven sun exposure, even in the form of a tan, can directly contribute to skin cancer.


----------



## nighten (Oct 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Magali* 
But skin darkening in the sun is natural....preventing it with chemicals is not.

Perhaps it used to be. But that was back when our atmosphere afforded more protection from the harmful rays, I'd imagine.

And you can use mineral blocks, not chemicals, or clothing to protect from sun exposure.


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mytwogirls* 
That is so true! My dermatologist told me the exact same thing...after he removed a spot that was developing into skin caner. NO tan is safe...it is skin damage. Period. *HOWEVER* *I have very very fair skin and I think a lot of it has to do with your skin* Different tones are different to the sun I believe so you just have to watch it and be careful. Burning is BAD and tan is not good depending on your skin tone.

To reiterate...my VERY olive skinned dh, who has never had a sunburn in his life, has had THREE pre-melanomas removed at age 30. I have extremely pale skin and grew up in the Southwestern US and I have minimal sun damage. Darker skin is not a magical protector (not that you were saying that).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Magali* 
But skin darkening in the sun is natural....preventing it with chemicals is not.

There are plenty of things that are "natural" that are extremely harmful. The depletion of the ozone layer means that the amount of UV radiation absorbed by the skin has increased exponentially over the last 100 years or so--there's nothing natural about that, either, but, unless you're going back in time and getting your sun exposure in the 19th century, there's no way to expose your body to sunlight in the way human beings were "designed" to. And there are plenty of non-chemical ways to avoid excessive sun exposure.

As I said before, I do not think the sun is evil, and I think some sun exposure is healthy. But when your partner has had three pre-cancerous moles, it's hard not to wonder how "healthy" that healthy tan is.


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

Someone brought up evolution, and the ability to adapt... so this is a bit off topic but applicable to the discussion. *Warning! Science content ahead!*









Here's the deal... evolution is a negative system. It essentially works by "killing off" whatever isn't adapted, allowing the individuals who ARE adapted to the new environment the space to breed. The classic example are the light/dark moths...prior to industrial pollution the grey moths blended in with the tree bark and the birds ate the visible black moths. As a result most of the moths in the area were grey since black moths got killed before they could reproduce. (think "bummer of a birthmark" for those who know the Far Side) When the environment became soot polluted the dark colored moths survived while the birds ate the now very visible grey moths and the black moth population exploded. You need that sort of direct negative pressure on a population for evolution to do it's thing.

In this case, skin cancer often doesn't show up until after an individual has reproduced, doesn't affect reproduction, and even when it does pose a problem modern medical science works hard to keep a person alive and healthy so that they can continue to reproduce... so evolution doesn't really have a "say" in it at this point. Sunblock is _nothing_ compared to the impact of modern medicine and fertility treatments on "traditional evolution".

Even if we assume (for the sake of the arguement) that increased solar radiation disrupts fertility/reproductive ability in certain individuals and if we assumed (again for the sake of arguement) that people suffering from radiation related infertility would be denied reproductive technology/medical treatment then it would _still_ take generations for humanity to evolve simply because it takes humans decades to reproduce and the speed of evolution depends on the amount of negative pressure applied and how quickly the population reproduces generationally.

So there it is... humanity evolves slllloooooowly. Environmental conditions that do not disrupt reproductive success don't really factor into evolution. Modern medical technology has removed many of the features that let evolution do it's thing.

*Science Content Over*

The real question is... how does a rapidly changing environment impact the individual in the moment? Since in general we're all interested in the health of immediate individuals (us, our families, our friends) rather than whether or not our 20 times removed ancestor has the innate ability to digest some of the toxins we are so happily pumping into the water/earth/air.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nighten* 
It's obviously a personal choice, but to me it is FAR better to err on the side of caution when it comes to preventing cancer, especially if it runs in your family, than to shrug off scientific facts that have proven sun exposure, even in the form of a tan, can directly contribute to skin cancer.

But there is also research showing that increased amounts of vitamin D FROM SUN reduces the chance of many kinds of cancer. Have you read that research?

-Angela


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Magali* 























I love the sun. I felt so much healthier when I lived on the beach and was in the sun all day long. I plan on limiting ds's sun exposure so he doesn't burn, and using sunscreen if absolutely necessary, but I can't wait for us to get our tans this summer.









:

I feel better and look better with a tan myself and I do sunbath without sun block. I worry a bit about cancer since I have delt with it in the past but I need to be brown to look and feel my best.

The kids will get brown as the summer goes on and that is fine with me. It is to hot here to even think about wearing long sleeves in the summer *shudder* Wearing as little as possible is the only way to keep cool.


----------



## spughy (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wombatclay* 
Someone brought up evolution, and the ability to adapt... so this is a bit off topic but applicable to the discussion. *Warning! Science content ahead!*









Here's the deal... evolution is a negative system. It essentially works by "killing off" whatever isn't adapted, allowing the individuals who ARE adapted to the new environment the space to breed. ...

In this case, skin cancer often doesn't show up until after an individual has reproduced, doesn't affect reproduction, and even when it does pose a problem modern medical science works hard to keep a person alive and healthy so that they can continue to reproduce... so evolution doesn't really have a "say" in it at this point. Sunblock is _nothing_ compared to the impact of modern medicine and fertility treatments on "traditional evolution".

Even if we assume (for the sake of the arguement) that increased solar radiation disrupts fertility/reproductive ability in certain individuals and if we assumed (again for the sake of arguement) that people suffering from radiation related infertility would be denied reproductive technology/medical treatment then it would _still_ take generations for humanity to evolve simply because it takes humans decades to reproduce and the speed of evolution depends on the amount of negative pressure applied and how quickly the population reproduces generationally.

So there it is... humanity evolves slllloooooowly. Environmental conditions that do not disrupt reproductive success don't really factor into evolution. Modern medical technology has removed many of the features that let evolution do it's thing.



First, thanks for posting that, I cringe when anyone brings up evolution. But I gotta ask, how do you think the concept of epigenetics might apply here?


----------



## spughy (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
But there is also research showing that increased amounts of vitamin D FROM SUN reduces the chance of many kinds of cancer. Have you read that research?

-Angela

That's a really good point. One aspect of LIFE we lose track of is that most everything just cannot be slotted into "good" and "bad" categories. Or even "healthful" and "unhealthful". Y'know? Like spinach. Good fibre, lotsa vitamins, but hey, there's oxalic acid in it...ooo. What to do??? Sun exposure is probably the same, very good for you in small doses, massive salads made out of it every day, not so much. Common sense might have some sway here. One would hope. Maybe?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *spughy* 
That's a really good point. One aspect of LIFE we lose track of is that most everything just cannot be slotted into "good" and "bad" categories. Or even "healthful" and "unhealthful". Y'know? Like spinach. Good fibre, lotsa vitamins, but hey, there's oxalic acid in it...ooo. What to do??? Sun exposure is probably the same, very good for you in small doses, massive salads made out of it every day, not so much. Common sense might have some sway here. One would hope. Maybe?









Back to my philosophy of life- moderation in all things. No avoiding the sun or ALWAYS covering up. And no pushing the 2 yr olds outside to lay on towels while covered in oil until they reach the right shade









-Angela


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

Quote:

But I gotta ask, how do you think the concept of epigenetics might apply here?








Hard to say... I think most research in humans looks at an increase of negative side effects in offspring through this mechanism? So perhaps it would increase the negative pressure, but probably not to the point that reproductive abnormalities would outpace technological innovations. But it may be the sort of thing that plays into why some people burn, some tan, some do neither.

But I'm not a scientist! Just a reference librarian who has had to "explain" evolution to more than one undergrad.


----------



## sacredjourney (Aug 24, 2006)

I think the possible harmful effects of sunscreen have to be considered as well. If you research the negatives, you will come across the link between sunscreen and cancer.

I make sure dd isn't outside in direct sunlight for long amounts of time. I make sure she has a hat on and usually light, covering clothing. If dd was to be in the sun for a long period of time, I would put sunscreen on her. I think you should only use it when really necessary.


----------



## nighten (Oct 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
But there is also research showing that increased amounts of vitamin D FROM SUN reduces the chance of many kinds of cancer. Have you read that research?

-Angela

Please point out to me where in either of my posts I made any mention of vitamin D that wasn't produced from sun exposure.

I don't appreciate being basically told I'm propagating "scare tactics" when the choices I've made are absolutely what is healthiest for my child. And protecting her from getting tanned or burned is absolutely healthier for her.

I never once said a word about relying on alternative sources for vitamin D production.

I don't carry an umbrella when I walk to the mailbox. I don't slather on sunscreen when I'm walking to my car. But I do make a concerted effort to ensure that my child is well protected from enough sun exposure that would otherwise CAUSE A TAN. Which was the point of this thread, I thought.


----------



## greeny (Apr 27, 2007)

Quote:

I find melanoma much much more scary than the chemicals in sunblock.


----------



## bottomsup (Jul 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nighten* 
Please point out to me where in either of my posts I made any mention of vitamin D that wasn't produced from sun exposure.

I don't appreciate being basically told I'm propagating "scare tactics" when the choices I've made are absolutely what is healthiest for my child. And protecting her from getting tanned or burned is absolutely healthier for her.

I never once said a word about relying on alternative sources for vitamin D production.

I don't carry an umbrella when I walk to the mailbox. I don't slather on sunscreen when I'm walking to my car. But I do make a concerted effort to ensure that my child is well protected from enough sun exposure that would otherwise CAUSE A TAN. Which was the point of this thread, I thought.

This and your last post make me want to marry you.

I love the sun, and I spend all summer out on the water on my boat. With an SPF 70 and/or SPF clothing. My son also wears a physical block and protective clothing when out for long periods of time. In act, light, loose fitting linen can be much cooler on the skin than a tank top. How many people who work outdoors all day, aside from lifeguards, do you see wearing shorts and t-shirts? People in the desert? Anyway, I am getting off topic a little...

Angela, actually, people have said that tanning makes them feel better, and it seems like they want to carry that over to their kids. Wasn't there a post about how somebody could not wait for her family to get their summer tans? And others....

No one here, it seems, is advocating hermiting out and wearing sunscreen 24/7/365. Though I do on my face. Everyday. Without fail.

Vitamin D is important. As is sun protection. Skin cancer is the most common type of cancer, with what, 1,000,000 cases a year, or something like that (will have to go pull the numbers). And not all of those people were baking under a sun lamp/tanning bed or running around on the beach without any SPF.

And for what it's worth, I will keep my tan to a minimum now, to ensure I do not have leather face when I am older! Vanity is a great motivator for me, too







And I am sure my son will appreciate that diligence, as well.
Meg


----------



## 1babysmom (May 22, 2006)

Oh man, if tanning is bad, my family would all be dead. We just tan SO easily- DD included (and she gets DARK fast, just like DH's family), sunscreen or not. And we rarely ever burn (except for my brother, who is the only pale skinned one of us all). We all have somewhat olive skin (not really dark, but not light) and dark hair and it just happens. I don't think a tan that makes you look totally unnatural and leathery is EVER EVER good...THAT is obviously damaging, just as much as a blistery red sunburn would seem, but we're not talking about THAT kind of tan, are we?

I'll cover us all in sunscreen if we'll be out hours and hours on end, or if we're going to be in the water or something, but otherwise I don't worry too much about it- and overall, being on a farm we are out a lot. I really do agree about the vitamin D- while I also agree that our atmostphere probably isn't as protected as before, I still don't think anything can replace the benefits of the sun. I feel SO much healthier when I get regular sunlight, and after seeing the effects of a lack of vitamin D in our family over the past 9 months while we temporarily lived in a dark little apartment where we couldn't go out much, I'll never take the sun for granted again!!!

Am I the only one who feels generally icky with sunscreen slathered on anyway? Like I said, we'll wear it if I think the situation warrants it, but yuck!


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nighten* 
Please point out to me where in either of my posts I made any mention of vitamin D that wasn't produced from sun exposure.

I don't appreciate being basically told I'm propagating "scare tactics" when the choices I've made are absolutely what is healthiest for my child. And protecting her from getting tanned or burned is absolutely healthier for her.

I never once said a word about relying on alternative sources for vitamin D production.

I don't carry an umbrella when I walk to the mailbox. I don't slather on sunscreen when I'm walking to my car. But I do make a concerted effort to ensure that my child is well protected from enough sun exposure that would otherwise CAUSE A TAN. Which was the point of this thread, I thought.


Fact of the matter is that it has NOT been proven to be what's healthiest. The latest research is showing it may not be that healthy at all.

-Angela


----------



## TonyaW (Dec 5, 2006)

Could it not be possible that one of the very things we put on our skin to protect us from the sun is possibly helping to create cancer?


----------



## bottomsup (Jul 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *1babysmom* 
Oh man, if tanning is bad, my family would all be dead. We just tan SO easily- DD included (and she gets DARK fast, just like DH's family), sunscreen or not. And we rarely ever burn (except for my brother, who is the only pale skinned one of us all). We all have somewhat olive skin (not really dark, but not light) and dark hair and it just happens. I don't think a tan that makes you look totally unnatural and leathery is EVER EVER good...THAT is obviously damaging, just as much as a blistery red sunburn would seem, but we're not talking about THAT kind of tan, are we?

I'll cover us all in sunscreen if we'll be out hours and hours on end, or if we're going to be in the water or something, but otherwise I don't worry too much about it- and overall, being on a farm we are out a lot. I really do agree about the vitamin D- while I also agree that our atmostphere probably isn't as protected as before, I still don't think anything can replace the benefits of the sun. I feel SO much healthier when I get regular sunlight, and after seeing the effects of a lack of vitamin D in our family over the past 9 months while we temporarily lived in a dark little apartment where we couldn't go out much, I'll never take the sun for granted again!!!

Am I the only one who feels generally icky with sunscreen slathered on anyway? Like I said, we'll wear it if I think the situation warrants it, but yuck!


You can get Vitamin D without over exposing yourself to the sun. You can enjoy the sun without soaking too many harmful UV rays.

Over time, continual tanning leads to "leather face." Or at least, early wrinkling, sun spots, etc. It looks good in the moment, and bites you later. Just like those doughnuts









It is absolutely healthiest to protect your child's skin from over exposure to the sun, even if some do not feel there is "proof." Skin cancer, most kinds, is caused by over, and sometimes just incidental, exposure, to the sun.

I can't imagine why people want to remain in the dark (so to speak) about the science and evidence here. It is almost as unfathomable as people who refuse to see that breast is best, that formula is just as good







: Just goes to show people pick and choose the science they want to believe.

AS far as chemical sunscreens causing cancer, fine. Don't use it. Use a physical block. Better yet, use UV protective clothing and sun common sense.

Sunlight is good for you. Yes. Too much is not.

1 out of every 5 people get skin cancer. Drill that into your heads. That is more than breast cancer. More than lung cancer. To a large extent, it is preventable.

I am sorry if any one thinks these numbers are scare tactics or some propaganda cooked up by some imaginary sun hating corporate industry shills.

My *toddler* will wear some form of SPF, because I will not assume unnecessary risks for him.


----------



## 1babysmom (May 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bottomsup* 
You can get Vitamin D without over exposing yourself to the sun. You can enjoy the sun without soaking too many harmful UV rays.

Over time, continual tanning leads to "leather face." Or at least, early wrinkling, sun spots, etc. It looks good in the moment, and bites you later. Just like those doughnuts









It is absolutely healthiest to protect your child's skin from over exposure to the sun, even if some do not feel there is "proof." Skin cancer, most kinds, is caused by over, and sometimes just incidental, exposure, to the sun.

I can't imagine why people want to remain in the dark (so to speak) about the science and evidence here. It is almost as unfathomable as people who refuse to see that breast is best, that formula is just as good







: Just goes to show people pick and choose the science they want to believe.

AS far as chemical sunscreens causing cancer, fine. Don't use it. Use a physical block. Better yet, use UV protective clothing and sun common sense.

Sunlight is good for you. Yes. Too much is not.

1 out of every 5 people get skin cancer. Drill that into your heads. That is more than breast cancer. More than lung cancer. To a large extent, it is preventable.

I am sorry if any one thinks these numbers are scare tactics or some propaganda cooked up by some imaginary sun hating corporate industry shills.

My *toddler* will wear some form of SPF, because I will not assume unnecessary risks for him.


I never said overexposure was "okay".







Nor did I say that you need to be overexposed to get enough vitamin D. Just clarifying because I can't tell from your post what is directed at me. Like I said, in my family, we just tan easily (but do not burn easily), WHETHER we slather the sunscreen on or not. So really, I was referring to the OP that if tanning was bad, we'd be in big trouble, because it's almost unavoidable in our case unless we DO just avoid sun exposure.


----------



## TonyaW (Dec 5, 2006)

http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_bl...cer-22358.aspx


----------



## pigpokey (Feb 23, 2006)

Chance of getting skin cancer -- pretty high

Chance of getting colorectal cancer -- not so high; third most frequent cause of cancer; skin cancer is first.

But to die from it? I'm as likely to die from it as to be murdered.

Let's take a look at my state:

Georgia, Melanoma of the Skin, Caucasian, death rate 3.4 per 100,000
Georgia, Colon and Rectal, Caucasian, death rate 17.3 per 100,000
From: http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.go...eathrates.html

And over the country:

US, Assault (homocide), Caucasian, death rate 3.7 per 100,000
US, Alzheimer's, Caucasian, death rate 27.6 per 100,000
http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/


----------



## bottomsup (Jul 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pigpokey* 
Chance of getting skin cancer -- pretty high

Chance of getting colorectal cancer -- not so high; third most frequent cause of cancer; skin cancer is first.

But to die from it? I'm as likely to die from it as to be murdered.

Let's take a look at my state:

Georgia, Melanoma of the Skin, Caucasian, death rate 3.4 per 100,000
Georgia, Colon and Rectal, Caucasian, death rate 17.3 per 100,000
From: http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.go...eathrates.html

And over the country:

US, Assault (homocide), Caucasian, death rate 3.7 per 100,000
US, Alzheimer's, Caucasian, death rate 27.6 per 100,000
http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/

You're right. I see. I did have skin cancer, but I didn't die, so all good. The three inch scar on my back from having a malignant mole removed, fun. The huge hole on my friend's nose from having skin cancer there...also awesome.
And don't forget chemo; a barrel of monkeys I hear.

I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I do not understand this argument...that just because you do not die, it's not a substantial risk?

And *1babysmom* I am sorry I was unclear. I kind of used your post as a jumping off point, because I do not know how to use the multiquote function







I was kind of meshing together a whole bunch of responses. Sorry


----------



## nighten (Oct 18, 2005)

Quoting my favorite parts and bolded the one that most bears repeating:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bottomsup* 
You can get Vitamin D without over exposing yourself to the sun. You can enjoy the sun without soaking too many harmful UV rays.

It is absolutely healthiest to protect your child's skin from over exposure to the sun, even if some do not feel there is "proof." Skin cancer, most kinds, is caused by over, and sometimes just incidental, exposure, to the sun.

I can't imagine why people want to remain in the dark (so to speak) about the science and evidence here. It is almost as unfathomable as people who refuse to see that breast is best, that formula is just as good







: Just goes to show people pick and choose the science they want to believe.

AS far as chemical sunscreens causing cancer, fine. Don't use it. Use a physical block. Better yet, use UV protective clothing and sun common sense.

Sunlight is good for you. Yes. Too much is not.

*1 out of every 5 people get skin cancer. Drill that into your heads. That is more than breast cancer. More than lung cancer. To a large extent, it is preventable.*

My toddler will wear some form of SPF, because I will not assume unnecessary risks for him.

If you don't mind polygamy, I accept your proposal.









In all seriousness, I truly do not understand how people choose to ignore the dangers of skin cancer anymore than any other cancer. I can only assume they've never had anyone close to them suffer from it.

There is no way I am going to allow my child's risks for skin cancer to go ignored. Nor any other form of cancer for that matter, though as you pointed out this one is largely preventable!

We are so conscientious about what goes into her body, of course we are equally diligent about what goes on her body, and that includes harmful rays from the sun. Not everyone feels that same level of concern about their children's health and that's their choice. But someone asks me if tans are bad, then by gum, I'm going to tell them flat out YES. Because they are. But I'd say the same thing if they asked me about pesticides on our foods. There is no difference, to me.


----------



## BusyBeeMom (May 15, 2005)

Tanning indicates skin damage. Skin damage leads to wrinkles & skin cancer. Now, how serious the risk depends on how fair you are. (My mom is an oncologist and has treated a lot of skin cancer in her 25 yr career) People with olive complexion or darker are at pretty low risk for skin cancer. The nordic types are at much higher risk.

My kids and I are very fair. I know sunscreen has its downsides, but with a strong family history of skin cancer, I'm not risking it.

I try and cover them up with long sleeves/pants as weather permits. I definitely avoid skimpy tank tops, etc. I avoid going out between 11 and 1, at least. They wear wide-brimmed hats and sunscreen. For the beach, I get the long-sleeved high SPF outfits.

I wear sunscreen on my face every day of the year.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bottomsup* 
It is absolutely healthiest to protect your child's skin from over exposure to the sun, even if some do not feel there is "proof." Skin cancer, most kinds, is caused by over, and sometimes just incidental, exposure, to the sun.

I have not seen anyone here saying they don't protect themselves or their children from OVERexposure. We just have different ideas of what overexposure is.

-Angela


----------



## Jessy1019 (Aug 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Historically humans have been in the sun and been tanned. I don't see how the natural set up could be that harmful in the big picture.

We avoid burns. We avoid over-use of chemical products. We don't avoid tanning.

-Angela

Yep, us too. My kids have blonde hair that lightens in the sun, and they get beautiful, glowing tans in the summer . . . they look like little surfer kids. They never burn, and we are careful when they are going to be in the sun during the worst parts of the day . . . but I don't think I could keep them from getting tan, and I wouldn't want to!


----------



## Amila (Apr 4, 2006)

I am not a lay-out-and-tan kinda gal, and generally avoid tons of sun exposure. If it is going to be a super hot day I will put some natural sunscreen on DD- if we are going to the pool or something I am vigilent about it. In our yard, I put her baby pool in the shade. And try to get her to wear a hat. But if we are going out for short periods I don't use any sunscreen. i think a little sun is healthy. DD has never gotten more than a sun-kissed look or rosy cheeks that go away that same day.


----------



## snoopy5386 (May 6, 2005)

personally....we try and stay mostly in the shade and if we are going to be out for more than an hour in the direct sun then I put on sunscreen. I wear it on my face daily, but I don't put it on me unless I am in a bathing suit. I hardly ever burn and don't really tan either. So far DD seems similar. Today we were at the park at 11 am for about an hour. She had a hat, short sleeves, long pants and no sunscreen, although I thought about it, didn't have any with me. But just playing outside in our shady front yard in late afternoon? No, no sunscreen for us.


----------



## nancy926 (Mar 10, 2003)

There have been large studies showing that sunscreen use is not linked with vitamin D deficiency. Vit D deficiency is actually a bigger problem in older people, because we start to lose our ability to absorb vit D as we get older.

I didn't really get the question about evolution and menopause. It's possible the two things have nothing to do with one another. By the time you reach menopause (during which certain genes might get turned up or on and others turned down, or off), you've passed on your genes. There's no selection pressure there - you could have 20 kids or 2 kids and you're going to do it long, long before menopause.

There could be selection pressure if women who got too much sun had infants with neural tube defects, though. That would select for light-skinned women with less sun exposure and darker-skinned women.

Sun exposure is necessary for skin cancer to happen. Does that mean I always use sunscreen? No. But we do a lot of things that aren't optimal for our health. For some people, being tan IS bad. For other people, it's fine. the problem is, you don't really know which group you are in until the end of your life.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nancy926* 
There have been large studies showing that sunscreen use is not linked with vitamin D deficiency. Vit D deficiency is actually a bigger problem in older people, because we start to lose our ability to absorb vit D as we get older.

I'd be interested in seeing those studies, because recent studies seem to contradict them. There have been several studies lately that show infants and children are not getting enough sun exposure and are developing vitamin D deficiency as a result. Part of this equation is the overuse of sunscreen (part is too much inside time also...)

-Angela


----------



## pigpokey (Feb 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bottomsup* 
You're right. I see. I did have skin cancer, but I didn't die, so all good. The three inch scar on my back from having a malignant mole removed, fun. The huge hole on my friend's nose from having skin cancer there...also awesome.
And don't forget chemo; a barrel of monkeys I hear.

I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I do not understand this argument...that just because you do not die, it's not a substantial risk?

High levels of vitamin D are linked to a sharp decrease in the colorectal cancer death rate. The easiest way to get optimum high levels of vitamin D is to go out in the sun.

These people have some interesting things to say: http://vitamindcouncil.org/

As did this scientist studying the relationship between sunscreen and cancer http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0218052957.htm


----------



## Unconventional1 (Apr 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dawncayden* 
I find this very interesting and knew a woman who was very into just using Coconut Oil for her and her family and would spend countless hours in the sun and never burn and hardly even tan. She told me it all had to do with what we put into our bodies. If we ate non organic, used chemicals, and ate trans fats etc we would burn no matter what. So no amount of sunscreen would help. If we detoxed our bodies, and those chemicals weren't leeching out of our pores, we would not burn and sunscreen is not needed.

I also wanted to add about my ancestry as well. I am mostly northern European with a dash of native american. My mother (and all siblings) is very fair, her brothers and sisters have red and blond hair (hers was dark brown) they all have light colored eyes. My father's side is a mix of brown, black and blond hair- light and dark eyes, they have fair and olive tones in the family.

I am brown haired, blue eyed and fair in skin color. I do not burn in the sun anymore. I do think that tanning is a sign of some, slight (but if you are healthy you can easily overcome it) damage. But like all things in life the slight risks of a *light* tan are worth it.

You risk your (and your family's) life every time you get into a car. You damage your cells when you eat many plant products because of the toxins in them. But In the case of eating, the benefits outweigh the risks. I feel the same about some sun exposure done responsibly. I do use a hat for my son when he is out for any length of time, and we are *never* out in full intensity sun. Other than the risk for serious burns there are a multitude of other negative factors such as heat stroke and dehydration caused by being out in peak hours.

Cancers are a result of an imbalance in the body and insufficient immune responses. Everyone has cancer cells. If you are healthy with good immune function, it won't develop into a problem.

Be responsible. Be moderate. Be healthful. And you will benefit from sun exposure.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nighten* 
In all seriousness, I truly do not understand how people choose to ignore the dangers of skin cancer anymore than any other cancer. I can only assume they've never had anyone close to them suffer from it..

You know, it may be as simple as this--no one in their family has ever suffered from it. It could be that some people (families) are more susceptible, probably due to skin tone. So, yeah, my olive skinned, greek husband isn't really concerned about the dangers of skin cancer--because it is a very low risk for him (confirmed by a dermatologist who examined him for something unrelated a couple years back while we lived in FL....he said he rarely saw skin cancer in people with his skin tone--even in south FL).

Now, if you have had several people in your family develop skin cancer--or even one, for that matter--you will likely have a very different pov about the risks of sun exposure. And for good reason, because the risks are probably much greater _for you_ than they are for the person with no skin cancer in their family.


----------



## granolalight (Nov 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
We avoid burns. We avoid over-use of chemical products. We don't avoid tanning.
-Angela

Same here.


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

I think one way to frame the discussion is to seperate "Is tanning bad?" (the op's question) from "Is tanning serious?" (which seems to have become the focus of discussion).

A tan is the visible mark of skin damage caused by solar radiation. It is "bad" to the same extent that any cellular damage is "bad". There doesn't really seem to be any debate about "what" a tan is.

Is it serious? That's the question that is open for debate. Is it better/worse than not tanning? Is it Pretty? Healthy? Natural? Industry-influenced? Risky? Should it be avoided, encouraged, manipulated (chemically or via barrier methods)? And if so... how? What are the risk/benefits of different options?

It may help people understand the different points of view being expressed if they think of the shades of grey in "serious" rather than the black/white of "bad".


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
You know, it may be as simple as this--no one in their family has ever suffered from it. It could be that some people (families) are more susceptible, probably due to skin tone. So, yeah, my olive skinned, greek husband isn't really concerned about the dangers of skin cancer--because it is a very low risk for him (confirmed by a dermatologist who examined him for something unrelated a couple years back while we lived in FL....he said he rarely saw skin cancer in people with his skin tone--even in south FL).

Now, if you have had several people in your family develop skin cancer--or even one, for that matter--you will likely have a very different pov about the risks of sun exposure. And for good reason, because the risks are probably much greater _for you_ than they are for the person with no skin cancer in their family.

FWIW my grandmother has had several melanomas removed. My dad has had a couple. Ride in the park? No. But Grandma turns 101 in September and has had NO other serious illnesses and NO other cancer. Not sure about her historical sun exposure.

My dad however was lobster-man every year when I was growing up. Super fair and would NOT do anything to avoid a burn. Where were his melanomas? Shoulders. Those shoulders that I saw blistered every year. So yeah, I chalk that up to burn damage.

-Angela


----------



## springbabes (Aug 23, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nancy926* 

I didn't really get the question about evolution and menopause. It's possible the two things have nothing to do with one another. By the time you reach menopause (during which certain genes might get turned up or on and others turned down, or off), you've passed on your genes. There's no selection pressure there - you could have 20 kids or 2 kids and you're going to do it long, long before menopause.

I guess I wasn't being clear. And I was off-topic. So warning--the following is still off-topic:

[I wasn't saying menopause had anything to do with skin cancer. I only brought it up because a couple of posters claimed that people rarely outlived their reproductive years way back when. I don't think that's the case--for a number of reasons, one being that we have menopause, something that happens after our reproductive years. Menopause is a reproductive advantage to be sure (something we don't need to go into here). All I was saying that since it exists at all should be seen as evidence that humans in pre-history had a longer lifespan than a lot of people believe.]


----------



## springbabes (Aug 23, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nighten* 
In all seriousness, I truly do not understand how people choose to ignore the dangers of skin cancer anymore than any other cancer. I can only assume they've never had anyone close to them suffer from it.

There is no way I am going to allow my child's risks for skin cancer to go ignored. Nor any other form of cancer for that matter, though as you pointed out this one is largely preventable!

--Because there are many types of cancer that are more deadly than skin cancer. And there is a direct link between vit. D deficiency and these types of cancer.

--Because the sun is the best source of vit. D. Because the amount of vit. D needed to prevent rickets is not enough to prevent a deficiency.

--Because it has never been proved that sunblock reduces your risk of skin cancer. In fact, by looking at the causal evidence, the skin cancer rates continue to climb despite the increased use of sun block.

Even so, I do not ignore the dangers of skin cancer. I believe a little tan this time of the year will protect my kids more in the summer. We avoid going out in the heat of the day. We always wear sun hats (I'm really surprised at the number of people who don't wear sunhats!). We swim in the evening right before dinner. If for some odd reason we end up going swimming at noon, then yes we use sunblock. If we go to an amusement park in summer (something I also usually avoid), we also use sunblock.

Some anecdotal evidence--I have two friends who slather their kids with sunblock all day, everyday. And guess what? Their kids are always sick. One child even has an autoimmune disorder. I think there is science that suggests there might be a link.

I feel safer trusting something that has always been there (the sun and tanning) over something that is new and untested (sunblock).


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:

We avoid burns. We avoid over-use of chemical products. We don't avoid tanning.
-Angela
Same here!


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

I'm somewhat on the fence about this one.

I know people who burn easily are more at risk for skin melanoma, and all the doctors say it's because of sun exposure. But, I'm not sure I buy this. Is this *really* because they burned? Or is it because there is something in their DNA linking tendency to burn with tendency to develop melanoma REGARDLESS of the amount of sun exposure? Perhaps for people who generally tan, anyway, there is a much smaller predisposition toward melanoma, anyway, and vice versa. Maybe for people who tan, their bodies "process" the sun's rays differently than for people who burn.







I can see how, if you burn easily, yes, you'd want to use sunscreen rather religiously, whereas, if you rarely burn, constant sunscreen use might do more harm than good.

I tend to use sunscreen during peak hours, at the beginning of the season, or if we're at the beach/pool. Dunno.


----------



## N8'sMom (Jun 25, 2007)

My family is Native American and we don't burn. We go in the sun
and get darker and darker and darker.
I don't use sun block, don't burn, etc. I'm not afraid of the sun.
My dermatologist isn't scared for me either.
I think people can go overboard both ways, but I'm not in the
category where I'm so scared that I won't do my normal things in
the summer like swim, run, golf, play ball, etc.


----------



## aidansmama (Jun 5, 2006)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/136310/page/1


----------



## Unconventional1 (Apr 3, 2006)

I don't think anyone is advocating spending a week in a tanning bed to look good here. I know that most of our ancestors- way before the advent of sunscreen, did not stay out in the sun during peak hours. Some Europeans still have three hour lunches during peak sun hours and then go back to work afterwards. There is still a tradition of siestas in Mexico during the high noon. I believe these traditions came about to avoid the damaging rays during peak heat times of the day.

The other thing no one has mentioned is the way the sun's rays reflect off of the atmosphere during different hours of the day. When the sun is overhead most of the rays are direct and intense, and you get the full light spectrum- that changes as the day wears on- that is why the sunrise and sunset are red and orange. So I wonder if you burn worse under full spectrum light versus partial spectrum light?


----------



## bottomsup (Jul 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Unconventional1* 
I don't think anyone is advocating spending a week in a tanning bed to look good here. I know that most of our ancestors- way before the advent of sunscreen, did not stay out in the sun during peak hours. Some Europeans still have three hour lunches during peak sun hours and then go back to work afterwards. There is still a tradition of siestas in Mexico during the high noon. I believe these traditions came about to avoid the damaging rays during peak heat times of the day.

The other thing no one has mentioned is the way the sun's rays reflect off of the atmosphere during different hours of the day. When the sun is overhead most of the rays are direct and intense, and you get the full light spectrum- that changes as the day wears on- that is why the sunrise and sunset are red and orange. So I wonder if you burn worse under full spectrum light versus partial spectrum light?

I think the important part of that article was this part --the first sentence esp.

"Skin and cancer experts also strongly dispute the ITA ad that contends there is "no compelling scientific evidence" linking melanoma, the most deadly type of skin cancer, and the sun. While it's true that the risk varies by type of melanoma and amount of UV exposure, research dermatologists like Dr. Ken Kraemer of the National Cancer Institute say the overall consensus is that both repeat sunburns (especially acquired as a child or teen) as well as cumulative UV exposure increase the risk of melanoma. Intermittent but intense blasts of UV rays (the type you might get during occasional trips to the beach or tanning salon, for instance) may be particularly risky."

As for time of the day, I am sure that plays a part, as well. In fact, don't they covered during peak hours, like 12:00 3:00 or so?

As far as our "design," that was addressed several times in this thread, but no one seems to be persuaded by the fact that humans were not designed to cook unprotected in an atmosphere affected by a depleted ozone and the fact that evolution slows down or is negated with technologies and that early humans did not live long enough to develop skin cancer.


----------



## Unconventional1 (Apr 3, 2006)

I find it interesting that so many people eat their chemical laden conventional "food", and put their chemical laden products all over their bodies and homes and yards and then they want to blame the SUN!!!!???? (the giver of all life on this planet) for cancer???? I agree that the damage the UV rays can do will aid in getting cancer if you are unhealthy- but I don't think that healthy people, with any sort of common sense about the amount of sun you expose yourself to(you know, don't be out during peak hours or for long periods of time....), are going to have issues when they don't use sunscreen. JMHO though!

By the way, my blond/blue eyed/ fair skinned DS and I spent two hours out in the sun during peak times today, and neither one of us have much color to show for it. Granted, we are not in the middle of summer yet, so it wasn't as intense as it could be, but really, we have no problems at all with this kind of exposure. We are very healthy though, and I suspect the slight change in skin color that we have will be gone by tomorrow as usual.


----------



## bottomsup (Jul 6, 2007)

Wow. The post above bordered on offensive. So only unhealthy people get skin cancer? I call BS on that, to be sure. In fact, I am not sure I am going to even address it, except to say that you are banking yours and your child's health on a guess and false logic.

Let's take a look at some other natural things here; other things necessary or really useful for life on earth: The sun is natural, but baking in it is not.

The ocean is natural and controls the tides, which play a part in climate, but drinking its water is bad for you.

Flora and fauna are natural and needed to sustain environments, but many of them will kill you if ingested.

Dirt is the very foundation of the earth, but eating a ton of it is not a good idea.

The clouds and atmosphere are necessary for climate and oxygen, but hang out at too high an altitude and eventually, you suffer (or die).

I don't buy the just because it is natural it must be good for you.

That color you and your son enjoyed? Check out the sun damage in a few years under the surface of the skin and see if that speaks to you. Wait, if you can't see it, it must not be there!

And you do not have to use chemicals to protect yourself from the sun!! Stay shaded during peak hours, use a physical block, UV protective clothing, or just protective clothing period. Some of which is probably what humans have been doing NATURALLY for millennia to protect themselves from the sun!


----------



## Joyster (Oct 26, 2007)

I'm brown and rarely burn, I think I've had a burn once in my life and even then it was a very mild one on my cheeks. I do apply sunscreen pretty religiously on my children and myself. Why? Because I've already had a melanoma removed and despite a very good plastic surgeon, I don't care for the miniscule scar it left on my face. I'm pretty darned healthy and live a low chemical lifestyle, but with our ozone depleting and our increased knowledge about how that's bad for us, it's just not a risk I'm willing to take.


----------



## SAHDS (Mar 28, 2008)

*bottomsup* - Couldn't agree more! Well said!

My children wear sun screen almost all of the time. Not only when the sun is beating down, but even on overcast, cloudy days. Sure, the vitamin D is good for you, but the UV rays are not and that's what I want my children protected from.

I cringe every time I see a child with tan lines.


----------



## TonyaW (Dec 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SAHDS* 
*bottomsup* - Couldn't agree more! Well said!

My children wear sun screen almost all of the time. Not only when the sun is beating down, but even on overcast, cloudy days. Sure, the vitamin D is good for you, but the UV rays are not and that's what I want my children protected from.

I cringe every time I see a child with tan lines.

Just wanted to say that tan lines develop despite sunscreen in those who tan easily! For instance me and my son.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SAHDS* 
*bottomsup* - Couldn't agree more! Well said!

My children wear sun screen almost all of the time. Not only when the sun is beating down, but even on overcast, cloudy days. Sure, the vitamin D is good for you, but the UV rays are not and that's what I want my children protected from.

I cringe every time I see a child with tan lines.

Cringe away. I cringe when I see kids slathered in sunscreen every single day.









To each his own.

If you're always covered in sunscreen chances are you're not getting enough vitamin D.

-Angela


----------



## nighten (Oct 18, 2005)

From the Newsweek article linked above:

Quote:

Doctors say the safe approach is to combine the incidental sun exposure people get in the course of normal living (running out for a sandwich at lunchtime or walking between their car and office) with supplements and foods high in vitamin D (fatty fish like salmon or vitamin D-enriched products like milk and juice). Someone with very fair skin needs only about five minutes in the sun without sunscreen, (three times a week between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.), to achieve optimal levels of vitamin D, says Davis.
And it's entirely possible to still get plenty of Vitamin D, and minimize harmful sun exposure without the use of chemical sunscreen.

I don't cringe when I see tanlines. I do cringe when my neighbor brags on her toddler's tan. Thankfully most people here aren't talking about purposefully tanning their toddlers. So yes, to each her own.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

I cringe at the idea that "normal living" means being exposed to the sun only during the occasional run for a sandwich or while walking to and from the car. I think it ought to be normal to spend a lot more time outdoors than that.


----------



## sweetieberlin (Mar 30, 2007)

found an interesting article from dr. mercola-

http://products.mercola.com/summer-s...kit/?source=nl

Quote:

Natural sunlight's potential to harm you has really been blown out of proportion. This is thanks to many doctors, health officials, advertisements, beauty experts, corporations, and well-meaning friends. They basically tell you that you need to stay out of the sun because the sun will kill you. This simply isn't true.

Quote:

Plus, there's a good deal of evidence that sun exposure without sunburn significantly decreases the risk of melanoma (a more deadly form of skin cancer.) So safe sun exposure is key.


----------



## amitymama (Nov 17, 2006)

I burn very, very easily and DH does somewhat too so I put sunscreen on DD pretty regularly if we're going to be outside between about 10am and 5pm. I got a slight burn the other day just from walking around London for an hour, when it was 72 degrees and windy. I don't want the same to happen to my two-year-old's skin.


----------



## bottomsup (Jul 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sweetieberlin* 
found an interesting article from dr. mercola-

http://products.mercola.com/summer-s...kit/?source=nl


Here is an article that claims according to the CDC and WHO smoking does not cause lung cancer, so why not light one up for our tots? The risk is low, it is not a direct cause yadda yadda yadda. Sounds good to me.

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/E...Vol-1/e1-4.htm

I guess it doesn't matter that Mercola is trying to pimp his own product?

Again, you do not have to use a a chemical block to protect yourself from the sun, or stay out of it at all costs.

But you do not see people in deserts etc running around nekkid. They cover up. For a reason.

The sun can be harsh. Skin cancer and skin damage are not urban legends or the equivalent of cramping up if you do not wait a half of an hour after eating before swimming.

Whatever. Somebody, *nighten* I believe, already posted all you need to do to get adequate vitamin D, and the rest of the time, just use sun smarts.

But people want to argue using mystery logic they find on the internets and take risks with their toddler's future skin health. Fine.

if it were me, I would not assume that risk for my son. Not my choice.

And this coming from a mom who had her 14 month out on the boat all weekend. Adequately covered with a hat, a rash guard, and some physical block. When he wasn't in the water, he was under the bimini.

I feel good about that. We go outdoors, we live life, my toddler loves the Texas sun. But he is also going to learn how not to cook himself in it until he is Old Man Leather or Mr. Melanoma. And not to buy into fals logic, voodoo science, and corporate conspiracy theories.

ETA: I have also come around on higher SPFs. I use one because I burn fairly easily because of my tetracyclin. BUT. I would not use an SPF that high for my son, not anymore at least. I use physical blocks and clothing with him now.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
I cringe at the idea that "normal living" means being exposed to the sun only during the occasional run for a sandwich or while walking to and from the car. I think it ought to be normal to spend a lot more time outdoors than that.


Yes! I get so tired of hearing "walking to and from the car" as an example of "normal" sun exposure. Um, most days we never get in the car! We, you know, _walk_ places







:.


----------



## Stinkerbell (Aug 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sweetieberlin* 
We go out in the morning or late afternoon.. usually every day if its nice..

ds wears a hat, but I havent used sunscreen yet this year.. I usually dont unless we will be out during the strong sun hours, or unless ds is minimumly clothed like at the beach...

I noticed yesterday that ds is already tan, I thought his hands were dirty, tried to wash them, and then realised his hands are brown from being tan!!

is it ok to get tan.?? should he have sunscreen on everyday??

what are your thoughts on this..

btw, the sunscreen we do use is natural..

I did not read through the thread.

If your skin changes color from sun exposure, you are damaging your skin and therefor increasing your risk of skin cancer. Period. Fact.

However, not everyone thinks this is such a huge deal. Plenty of people spend most of their lives at least partially "sunkissed" or tanned and it is fine. I don't slather my kids everytime we go outdoors (I'm in New England and it's springtime).

Sunscreens usually only apply to UVB rays, which are largely responsible for cancer causing changes. UVA rays are responsible for damaging elastin in your skin, causing wrinkles and premature aging.


----------



## Calidris (Apr 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Historically humans have been in the sun and been tanned. I don't see how the natural set up could be that harmful in the big picture.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *nancy926* 
I think it's much more complicated than that. Many humans are dark-skinned, not tan, and for a long time, all humans were dark skinned. Light skin arose at least twice in human evolution and of course experts dont' agree why it spread.

But an important point is that dark skinned people tan too, even very dark-skinned people. So the tanning mechanism has been around for as long as people, not just since the light-skinned people came about.

I think an element of moderation and common sense need to be applied, If you live closer to the equator, you need to be more careful of exposure than if you live far from it, and if you are planning to be in the direct sun for many hours it is more of a concern than if you are walking in partial shade for 20 minutes.

But the absolute sun paranoia I see in some places reminds me of the butter is evil, eggs will kill you attitude of a few years ago.


----------



## Magali (Jun 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calidris* 
But an important point is that dark skinned people tan too, even very dark-skinned people. So the tanning mechanism has been around for as long as people, not just since the light-skinned people came about.

I think an element of moderation and common sense need to be applied, If you live closer to the equator, you need to be more careful of exposure than if you live far from it, and if you are planning to be in the direct sun for many hours it is more of a concern than if you are walking in partial shade for 20 minutes.

*But the absolute sun paranoia I see in some places reminds me of the butter is evil, eggs will kill you attitude of a few years ago*.

ITA


----------



## nighten (Oct 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
I cringe at the idea that "normal living" means being exposed to the sun only during the occasional run for a sandwich or while walking to and from the car. I think it ought to be normal to spend a lot more time outdoors than that.


I don't think anyone here is arguing against going outside. That's unrealistic and silly.









I think the points so many of us are trying to make is that having a tan does more than protect against burns. Having a tan indicates your skin is damaged from sun exposure, and the more tan you are, the harder it is for your body to create vitamin D from sun exposure. So is having a tan healthy? No. Is being burned healthy? Absolutely not. But using the excuse that having a tan looks healthy or feels healthy, or helps prevent burns which are more unhealthy doesn't change the fact that tans in and of themselves are not healthy.

And it's very possible to be outside and use protective clothing or shade, if you're uncomfortable with any sunscreens (even the physical blockers as opposed to the chemical ones). There's nothing wrong with incidental sun exposure. It helps the body make Vitamin D which is a wonderful thing. But purposefully tanning is not healthy. It may have been less unhealthy long ago, before we started ruining the ozone layer, but it is certainly no longer a healthy thing to do, and the younger the tanning starts, I believe, the higher the risk of skin cancer later on, especially if tanning is continuous every summer.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nighten* 
But purposefully tanning is not healthy.

I still have not seen anyone here who is "purposefully tanning"

-Angela


----------



## bottomsup (Jul 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *veganf* 
Being tan is fine, if it is done gradually with no burning and is not excessive. I always start out the season with the boys being allowed outside before 10:30am or after 3pm, that way I don't have *to worry about sunscreen and they get a slow tan*. Obviously if we're out all day at the beach or something then I'll break out the sunscreen. If I end up with a freckled redhead (not impossible with my husband's heritage) then I'll have to change my plan obviously.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
It's hard for me to see getting a tan as unhealthy. Spending time outdoors and getting tanned is what humans evolved to do - it's our natural state. I'm suspicious of the idea that it's healthier to cover yourself with artificial sun protection at all times. It reminds me of the idea that it's healthier to circumcise boys, or to use margarine instead of butter.

I do put sunscreen on myself and my kids at times when I think we're likely to burn otherwise, like in the spring when we're first starting to wear shorts and t-shirts and we're out in the middle of the day. *But my goal every summer is for us to gradually develop enough of a tan that we don't normally need any sunscreen to be outside.*


Quote:


Originally Posted by *LavenderMae* 
I use to be afraid of the sun and put sunscreen on me and my older two kids all the time. Then I really thought about it and read up on it some and realized that Vit. D is our friend and chemical suncreens are not.

Burning is bad *light tanning is fine and most likely healthy imo.*


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Magali* 























I love the sun. I felt so much healthier when I lived on the beach and was in the sun all day long. I plan on limiting ds's sun exposure so he doesn't burn, and using sunscreen if absolutely necessary, *but I can't wait for us to get our tans this summer.*


Quote:


Originally Posted by *MCatLvrMom2A&X* 







:

*I feel better and look better with a tan myself and I do sunbath without sun block.* I worry a bit about cancer since I have delt with it in the past but I need to be brown to look and feel my best.

T*he kids will get brown as the summer goes on and that is fine with me. It is to hot here to even think about wearing long sleeves in the summer *shudder** Wearing as little as possible is the only way to keep cool.

I quit looking around page four or so for examples of purposeful tanning. I think there is a lot of misguided action being taken by these posters: the idea that a base tan will somehow help their children and make them healthier.

It is not slathering them in coconut oil and taking them to the Tanning Bed, but these are examples of purposeful tanning indeed.

I also disagree that wearing as little as possible is the only way to keep cool. Look around at hot climes, and you will not see people wearing as a little as possible, for the most part. Light colored, sweat wicking, longer clothing is more cooling than a tank top and shorts.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Point taken.

For *us* I don't go out with the purpose of tanning. But we do go out. And we don't wear sunscreen if it's not needed. A few weeks of swimming at my parent's house at 4pm and dd and I *do* have tans. Were we aiming for them? Not really. Not avoiding them either.

And it DOES have the bonus that then later in the summer if we're out for a couple of hours here or there the tops of our shoulders and such don't burn.

I am still of the mind that the most damage comes from burns. I've read the research on both sides. I'm comfortable with not avoiding tanning (while still doing our best to ALWAYS avoid burning)

-Angela


----------



## bottomsup (Jul 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Point taken.

For *us* I don't go out with the purpose of tanning. But we do go out. And we don't wear sunscreen if it's not needed. A few weeks of swimming at my parent's house at 4pm and dd and I *do* have tans. Were we aiming for them? Not really. Not avoiding them either.

And it DOES have the bonus that then later in the summer if we're out for a couple of hours here or there the tops of our shoulders and such don't burn.

I am still of the mind that the most damage comes from burns. I've read the research on both sides. I'm comfortable with not avoiding tanning (while still doing our best to ALWAYS avoid burning)

-Angela

And I see your point. We are outdoor people, and I believe a child should be outdoors at least an hour a day most days of the week. And some natural color changes are going to occur, even with protection.

We rock climb, boat every weekend during the summer, hike, and have a pool. I live just outside of San Antonio. Sun is a way of life, and I do not go out of my way to avoid it.

I try to be careful, wear protective gear etc. Maybe because we do spend SO much time outdoors, maybe because of my brush with skin cancer. I don't know.

But what I get from a lot of this thread is just plain MISinformation about what is safe and what isn't, and false logic about what is "natural." Shrug.

I think like so many things, people confuse what feels good with what is healthy. Not sure.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nighten* 
I don't think anyone here is arguing against going outside. That's unrealistic and silly.









No, I don't think anyone here is arguing that. But a belief that NO tanning is safe does seem as if it would be pretty likely to conflict with an outdoors-oriented life, and especially with a lot of spontaneous outdoor play for your kids. Maybe the constant vigilance and sunscreen application is easier for some of you than it would be for me - but I'm pretty sure that if my goal for my kids was no tanning, ever, they would spend less time outside.

It just seems unlikely to me that the healthiest thing for all of us is to do this thing that almost no one in the whole course of human history has ever done, or even been able to do - to spend so much time either inside or completely covered by protective clothing and lotions that we never develop any tan at all. Now I admit that it _might_ turn out to be the healthiest thing, even if it's not "natural." There are all kinds of things that help us stay healthy and live longer that were not available to our ancestors - antibiotics, surgery, etc. And of course the changes in the ozone layer mean we can't assume that what was healthiest now is the same as what what healthiest for our ancestors. But I can't help suspecting, like Calidris, that sun exposure is going to turn out to be like butter.

Actually, I imagine it's probably a lot like alcohol. Is alcohol good or bad for you? It seems to be so complicated that we can't really say. There are a lot of ways it can be really harmful - but there's also quite a bit of evidence that, in moderation, the overall effect can be beneficial. For some people, anyway. You have to take into account your genes, health conditions you may have, etc.

Even if it's true that it's safest to have no tan at all, it seems like that would put you at such risk for a bad sunburn that it might not be realistic to think you could actually manage never to burn. Is it safer for a kid never to tan, but to have a few bad sunburns on occasions when something goes wrong and she's outside for longer than usual without sunscreen, or to get a light tan every summer but no bad burns?


----------



## LeslieB (Feb 17, 2006)

DS tans so easily just like his dad. I do put him in a hat and a long-sleeved sun shirt, but he STILL tans. People have different skin types. I don't think a tan is necessarily a bad thing; I think burning is. I REALLY avoid sunscreens for us unless we're at the beach or in the sun for an all day thing.


----------

