Sunscreen poll

Banty wrote:

In article , bizby40 says...


"Marie" wrote in message
. ..
On 27 Jun 2005 00:05:40 -0700, "-L." wrote:
FWIW, I slather it on DS every time we will be outside for more than a
few minutes - and he is African-American so tolerates sun better than
us blondies. IMO as little exposure as possible is the best line of
defense.

I agree. Children need the sunscreen to protect them against the
dangerous sunrays, not just against sunburn. If their skin is tanned,
there is already damage. Just because a child tans easily doesn't mean
they won't get skin cancer.
Marie

There was an article in the paper just a few days ago saying that
having no sun exposure is also bad, and they now recommend
15 minutes of sunscreen-free exposure to the sun a day.

The problem is that unless a child is bed-ridden in the hospital, most
parents are not assiduous enough in applying sunscreen that this would
ever not be the case. i.e. in the course of normal life, any child
gets 15 minutes of exposure a day.

So I'd prefer that the parents err on the conservative side.

And I've heard on PBS that now there's some evidence that some cancer-protective
enzymes depend on sunlight exposure...

I haven't heard that. Sailors and roofers and farmers are among the
high risk groups for skin cancer. So it must be a moderate exposure
that's being advocated.

Not that this is a medical cite. But I do think the recommendations are
intended for a wide public, and draw the lines somewhat conservatively, to get a
consistent message out to those many, many people who do spend a lot of time in
the summertime in sun-exposing activities. To my mind, the *most* effective
thing to do would be to abandon that constant-in-the-sun lifestyle. But people
of course like it So they're told to *always* use sunscreen.

And I'm a bit leery of the defininton of tanned skin being "damaged". I'm all
on board with the health messages against tanning booth and beach tanning, but,
to take this completely seriously that tanned skin is damaged, I'd be
slithering sunscreen on my dear little hands all through the year. Because
they're tan all through the year just from doing errands, walking in the parking
lot to the workplace door, etc. Granted there are *changes* in skin due to
becoming tan. But I think this is like the thing about having *no* alcohol
during pregnancy, *never* using a microwave to heat up formula. Since there are
a lot of people who will only understand and follow very clear-cut rules with no
fuzzy edges, that's the message that gets out there.

But, really, how many people here protect their hands all trough the year?
Remember - tanned skin is damaged skin...

Banty

If you've ever watched "What Not to Wear" you will know that Carmondy
when she talks to men about make-up (which most men don't wear of
course), she recommends a sunscreen every day, at least on their heads
and faces. Some men's faces extend onto the head more than others of
course. Dh has started to do that.

And I would disagree with you about the no-tanning thing being
overemphasized. I think the old style southern women who protected
against tan had it right.

I protect my face against sun, and my skin looks younger than my
daughter's skin - she's outdoors in the regular sun (not in a tanning
booth - she doesn't have to use that because she lives in Miami). And
my mom looks way younger than her years because she's never gone in
for tanning.

It's true I don't protect my hands, but I mostly cover everything else
up. And some people use hand lotion, and it would be easy enough to
use lotion with sunscreen.


grandma Rosalie

"KR" wrote in message
ps.com...
Why? Did the article give any reasons for having sunscreen-free sun
exposure? AFAIK kids still get the vitamin D benefits of sun exposure
with sunblock on.

I don't think they do. I read an article claiming that more children are
getting rickets (vit D deficiency) because of suncream and covering up. I've
just searched the site where I thought I saw it and couldn't find it, but I
did find this quote, which is relevant:
"And it is estimated sunscreen blocks about 90% of ultraviolet light -
leaving our bodies unable to make enough vitamin D. "


I put it on DD every time we head outside to play in the sun. Unless
we are just going to the car, she has sunscreen on and so do I. I also
apply it to our faces if we are going outside in the winter. SPF 45
for her, 20 for me.

Apparently anything over factor 30 is not necessary (in UK anyway) as you
need to reapply it before anything more than that becomes relevant.
Where do you live that you need to apply it in the winter?
Debbie

P. Tierney wrote:

When do your kids need to (or don't need to) put it on? Under what
circumstances, that is, such as duration outdoors, time of day, severity of
sun, or whatever.

Caterpillar really only wears sunscreen if we're going to be out in the
direct sun for an extended period (going to the shadeless zoo, or a
playground with no shade; she swims at an indoor pool), but she doesn't
spend a lot of time outside during the peak sun hours. She usually does
wear a Solarveil sun hat. She also has naturally darker skin.

As I understand it, the science (as of this week) is that low-level
Vitamin D deficiency is a bigger risk for future health problems than is
sun exposure. So I don't see sunscreen as having a clear-cut right choice.

Phoebe

Welches wrote:
E45 and nivea both do a factor 30, which are meant for sensitive skin.
Debbie

Thanks - I will look for them.

-L.

In article ,
enigma wrote:

i've been looking for a sunscreen that doesn't give me hives
for a few years now... i hate staying indoors most of the day in
summer. i do outside stuff between 6am & 9am and after 5pm. it
sucks.

Have you tried any of the sunscreens intended for babies?
One of my kids was quite sensitive to several different
sunscreens, but does well with Coppertone Water Babies.
YMMV.

--Robyn

P. Tierney wrote:
When do your kids need to (or don't need to) put it on? Under what
circumstances, that is, such as duration outdoors, time of day,
severity of sun, or whatever. Just curious, thanks.

My kids play outside a lot. I apply it if they will be out between the
hours of 11am and 6pm. If we go to the beach/pool I lather them up good
every 2 hours. If the wind cooperates we wear hats. Ds1 and I get burned
heads if we don't. If the wind is blowing to hard then we try to go later
in the day after 3-4pm. I use the high powered stuff and we don't get
burned at all. We only need it if they are out for 45min or more. Both
will burn but ds1 is particularly susceptible.
--
Nikki

Rosalie B. wrote:
Banty wrote:

In article , bizby40 says...


"Marie" wrote in message
. ..
On 27 Jun 2005 00:05:40 -0700, "-L." wrote:
FWIW, I slather it on DS every time we will be outside for more than a
few minutes - and he is African-American so tolerates sun better than
us blondies. IMO as little exposure as possible is the best line of
defense.

I agree. Children need the sunscreen to protect them against the
dangerous sunrays, not just against sunburn. If their skin is tanned,
there is already damage. Just because a child tans easily doesn't mean
they won't get skin cancer.
Marie

There was an article in the paper just a few days ago saying that
having no sun exposure is also bad, and they now recommend
15 minutes of sunscreen-free exposure to the sun a day.

The problem is that unless a child is bed-ridden in the hospital, most
parents are not assiduous enough in applying sunscreen that this would
ever not be the case. i.e. in the course of normal life, any child
gets 15 minutes of exposure a day.

Hmmm...I'd heard otherwise. Mainly that due to the increased
particulate matter in the atmosphere, the sunlight of today has been
more effectively blocked from reaching parts of the globe where the
oozone is relatively intact. The example given was that children
outside today for N minutes are *less* likely to have had 'adequate sun
exposure necessary for Vitamin D production' versus the same person
outside for N minutes in 1950. This is from Science News, so there's
some hard science behind it -- I'll see if I can dig up the article.
("Understanding Vitamin D Deficiency" -- also with pointers to Vitamin
D decifiency in African Americans, people with MS, stroke patients, and
people who succumbed -- versus survived -- lung cancer. The particulate
matter article is available online to subscribers only. )

They also mentioned that dark-skinned folks are more likely to be
deficient w/r/t Vitamin D if they lived in Northern climates (like New
England). And heaven knows, the number of sunny days is slim once we
hit early November, where sunset is at 4:10 p.m.

My take is that excess sun exposure causes skin cancer; vitamin D
deficiency is implicated in bone loss, autoimmune diseases, and other
cancers (how's that for the big summing up?) and it becomes a choice of
'choose your poison.'

Caledonia

I live in Canada, and we probably don't need to use it in the winter,
but we spend lots of time outdoors so if it's sunny I do, not as strong
as the summer stuff, just a SPF 15 moisterizing cream.

Each 8 oz. cup of milk provides 25% of the daily recommendation for
Vitamin D. That doesn't include the yogurt and cheese we eat every
day, I have no doubts that our family gets enough Vitamin D through
dairy.

I am sure my daughter would burn with 15 minutes straight of
un-sunblocked exposure. I was thinking though, if you count the 5
minutes I spend chasing her around before we get in the car, and after
we get out, or walking up our driveway to get the paper, etc., we
definately spend 15 minutes unexposed in the sun, just not all at once!

Thanks for the info! You learn something new every day!!

"Caledonia" wrote in message
oups.com...
My take is that excess sun exposure causes skin cancer; vitamin D
deficiency is implicated in bone loss, autoimmune diseases, and other
cancers (how's that for the big summing up?) and it becomes a choice of
'choose your poison.'

My personal opinion is that sun exposure cannot *possibly* be as dangerous
as it's currently cracked up to be. If it were, human beings would have died
out a long time ago.

It's certainly the case that very fair-skinned folks like myself have to
take some precautions if we live closer to the equator than our ancestors
did, since we're more likely to experience skin cancer problems if we get
too much exposure. On the other hand, folks whose ancestors came from closer
to the equator and are darker skinned are probably harmed by covering up too
much in the sun. They're much more likely to get vitamin D deficiency than
to get skin cancer.

My kids are half-and-half: my husband is of the dark-skinned,
indigenous-MesoAmerican persuasion while I'm all fair-skinned, northern
European. My kids are much more olive-skinned than I am and less prone to
sunburn, but they're also lighter skinned than my husband. I rarely put
sunscreen on them unless I know they're going to be out for more than a
couple of hours at the height of the sun in summer (e.g., going to the
County Fair, while we'll be doing this Friday). Otherwise, I don't bother.
And none of them has been sunburned more than a couple of times (and those
times, it was because I didn't realize they had already been out in the sun
for several hours and then let them go swimming or something).
--
Be well, Barbara

"KR" wrote in message
ups.com...
Each 8 oz. cup of milk provides 25% of the daily recommendation for
Vitamin D. That doesn't include the yogurt and cheese we eat every
day, I have no doubts that our family gets enough Vitamin D through
dairy.

From everything I have heard, it's being realized that vitamin D from
dietary sources is not really very well utilized by the body.

You really *need* the sun exposure to manufacture sufficient vitamin D.
There's a reason people whose ancestors come from far northern climates tend
to have light skin, and it's precisely so that their bodies can manufacture
sufficient vitamin D with less total sun exposure. IOW, unprotected sun
exposure is something we're *designed* to get, and it's simply *not* as
dangerous (IMHO) to be out in the sun for fairly extended periods of time
without sunscreen--especially if one lives in a northern clime--than it's
currently made out to be.
--
Be well, Barbara