Do I really need sunscreen?

One of the hard things about "covering up" is dealing with the reflected light from surfaces below.

Snow, of course, is notorious for reflecting UV/IR. Sand is likely bad too. Concrete, gravel, any light coloured surface.

Commercial 'sunscreen' is more likely to cause a cancer than the sun is.
https://healingoracle.ch/2019/05/20/sunscreen-causes-skin-cancer-not-the-sun/

Chris Rocco wrote:Commercial 'sunscreen' is more likely to cause a cancer than the sun is.
https://healingoracle.ch/2019/05/20/sunscreen-causes-skin-cancer-not-the-sun/

Well, maybe. Viewed with a skeptic's eye, the article writer seems to start with a conclusion based on a whole lot of underlying assumptions that may or may not be valid. So I'm not inclined to swallow it whole.

For people like me who sunburn instantly, the risk is real and it takes many methods to manage it. That said, I don't like the way the chemical stuff makes my face turn beet red, so I'm hoping I can find or make a "barbecue sauce" that is zinc oxide based and see if that works.

Well, well.

Preventive effect of dietary astaxanthin on UVA-induced skin photoaging in hairless mice

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5295690/

Joylynn Hardesty wrote:Well, well.

Preventive effect of dietary astaxanthin on UVA-induced skin photoaging in hairless mice

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5295690/

Interesting! Thanks.

"Do I really need sunscreen?"

I would ask three questions: how long has the sun existed, how long have humans existed, and how long has sunscreen existed?

Something I always look out for is if someone says we "need" something that has existed a relatively short time. That makes me want to delve into the history of times before said thing existed. In this case, from what I've read it seems that all forms of cancer, including skin cancer, were virtually non-existent until modern times. With skin cancer especially, this makes sense to me. How did the first humans exist without all dying of skin cancer? No clothes, no buildings, no sunscreen, etc. I imagine they made use of shade, but I imagine they spent much, much more time in the sun than we do today. One thing I always try to keep in mind is that whether created or evolved, humans are designed to live in the environment. The environment contains sunlight.

It does seem that different peoples from different areas do have different tolerances for sunlight. And the mutation for redheads makes them something like twice as efficient at synthesizing vitamin D. It also seems to pan out that people with extremely dark skin have to make sure they get enough vitamin D if they live in areas with little sun. I think I recall reading that the European explorers were often impressed by the healthiness of the skin of many of the peoples they met who spent much time outside in places like the Pacific Islands. And I think that many of those peoples were known for maintaining wrinkle-free skin much later in life than many others, such as Europeans. But I believe as they have gradually adopted diets and lifestyles more like Europeans, they have started showing more symptoms of skin issues like Europeans have.

I'm not aware of any people who could have ever spent all day, every day in the sun without any negative consequences. But I think the opposite idea of even a tiny amount of sunlight being a direct route to cancer is also troubling. There is so much talk these days about the sun "causing" cancer. I think it is more appropriate to say that lifestyles cause cancer. I don't even like saying "causes cancer," because every healthy person (as far as we know) has cancer. Eradicating thousands of cancer cells every day is a natural job of our immune system. When a person "gets cancer" as we say, what really is happening is that there is a deficiency in the immune system's ability to keep up with cancer cells as they are formed, and they reproduce out of check and form tumors. I think it is more the issue of internal factors hampering the immune system rather than the sun causing cancer cells. After all, all forms of cancer have exploded in modern times, not just skin cancer. It is quite concerning, and I'm afraid there are just so many causes it is difficult to untangle just what all the things are that cause it. I like the idea of looking back to times when people didn't have the issues we face today, and see what knowledge we can glean from it. I think there is a lot of modernity that can be stripped from our bodies that can benefit us greatly. People like the quick fix. People like seeing instant results. Slather on some sunblock and problem solved! I'm afraid the best solution will go much deeper, and take much more commitment.

Places without shelter from the sun, humans tradionally wear thick clothing to keep the sun and heat out. The long black wool robes in parts of the middle east for example.

Really interesting, Jordan! I have been thinking along those lines.
Although r ransom, I considered your line of thought as well. It's crazy how many facets this subject has!!! I love it, keep it coming, folks!

Kind of off topic but I read an article a couple of years ago in an old Mother Earth News from the 70's that dealt with this as well (which is a huge part of my opinion on it.)
Basically the question they posed was:
If black=hot, absorbing the sun and white=cool, reflecting the sun, why are the countries that are closer to the equator populated by darker-skinned people and animals and the countries that are closer to the poles populated by lighter-skinned people and animals? Shouldn't it be reversed?
(I don't remember what the conclusion was, I believe it had to do with textures of hair)

Part of my problem here is that I have a deep-rooted prejudice against sunhats and long clothing. Please take no offense! I know you all are wonderful people. And this is kind of ridiculous.
But here it is: thinking back to growing up, all the people I saw "really doing it", gardening, living off the land, "real workers", didn't wear sun protection. I know an old guy that grows all his own produce and does it in a beater.
Consequently, the people with methods I didn't admire, the people with golf-course lawns, Home Depot petunias, spraying, etc, would put on sunscreen and parade around in a sun hat and long clothing...I suppose in my mind it became to be a costume of sorts that I didn't want to be associated with. I didn't want to be branded with "UV phobia"
Please please please no offense. I know clothes don't make a person AT ALL. Just because you wear a hat doesn't mean you're not "legit". Heck, the Amish are master gardeners!
...But just thought I'd explain a bit more where I'm coming from...
I suppose the question may be, is the sun really that harmful?

Jordan-I totally think diet has a ton to do with staying wrinkle-free (okay, a ton to do with everything!).
Look at Stacy from Off-Grid With Doug and Stacy, they have a great diet!:

She's in her sixties! And not pasty-pale either.
And Jacquie from Deep Roots at Home, who also eats very healthy:

(I am not sure what kind of sun protection they use. I ought to look into it.)

Almond Thompson wrote:Kind of off topic but I read an article a couple of years ago in an old Mother Earth News from the 70's that dealt with this as well (which is a huge part of my opinion on it.)
Basically the question they posed was:
If black=hot, absorbing the sun and white=cool, reflecting the sun, why are the countries that are closer to the equator populated by darker-skinned people and animals and the countries that are closer to the poles populated by lighter-skinned people and animals? Shouldn't it be reversed?
(I don't remember what the conclusion was, I believe it had to do with textures of hair)

It's not about heat. It's the damaging effects of radiation.

It's because melanin is an evolutionary adaptation to shield the skin cells from the harm caused by ultraviolet light. This is something that nature spent millions of years figuring out. Mutations with low pigment levels in high-sunlight areas (low latitudes in general) would have died out more quickly and removed from the gene pool.

Jordan Holland wrote:Something I always look out for is if someone says we "need" something that has existed a relatively short time. That makes me want to delve into the history of times before said thing existed. In this case, from what I've read it seems that all forms of cancer, including skin cancer, were virtually non-existent until modern times.

Jordan, your long and thoughtful post cannot be easily distilled into "aha!' arguments against. Nor would I try, even when I disagree. I appreciate your honest thoughts.

If I may, I would offer a counterpoint perspective that I believe is salient: In the past, people simply did not live very long. The average human lifespan was  40-50 years. Cancer was not unheard of, it simply was low on the hit parade. They died of other things.

So yes, cancer is a disease of modernity.  Public health, nutrition, disease control, and medical knowledge and intervention in "developed' nations have greatly increased the human lifespan. We live much longer, and we expect this to be the case. And with the other "hitmen" under control, cancer is now a big killer.

I know, Phil, it's totally dumb, I just thought I'd throw it out there in addition

Almond Thompson wrote:I know, Phil, it's totally dumb, I just thought I'd throw it out there in addition

Almond, there is always room here for thoughtful and respectul discussion, even when we firmly and vigorously disagree. Unlike the rest-of-the-internet, we try to listen as well as speak. So don't sweat it.

The big problem with asking "do I need..." is that we now have permission to give our opinions.  Based on our life experiences, people we know, personal events, things we've read or seen on the news... There is a lot of information out there on this topic.  Some of it contradictory.  You should see what happens when someone asks "Should I give up coffee?" - there's enough science on both sides to keep us going for years.  

When it comes down to it, you're the one living your life.  You get to make the choices that fit best with your values and lifestyle.  

Personally, I feel somewhere between what we "should" do and what our lifestyle demands is good.  I hated sunhats until I was nearly middle-aged - they never fit.  Plus they look old lady.  Then I found a couple that fit so well, now I hardly ever go out in the summer without one.  

Thanks rr and doug, that's what I'm looking for. Love reading these conversations. Just didn't want to make anybody feel bad

Hi @carlaBurke I am interested in your natural, non toxic sunscreen/block, please

As a person who is allergic to the sun and almost everything in the world, I strongly recommend using children's sunscreen lotions.

i generally dont like sunscreen at all but I have exceptionally fair skin. Before I go out I ask a simple question - will I be outside more than 30 minutes in direct sunlight or more than an hour in the shade? If no, I skip the sunscreen and get some vitamin d. If yes, I have a simple mineral sunscreen that is just zinc oxide, beeswax and sunflower oil.

I also agree with anyone suggesting wide hats and long sleeves if you have DRY heat. When things get humid I think its better to dress down and stay out of the sun at midday.

Nina Mendes wrote:Hi @carlaBurke I am interested in your natural, non toxic sunscreen/block, please

Hi, Nina! It's posted a couple times, as a link, on the previous page, but here you go:

SUNSCREEN, TICK & SKEETER REPELLENT
2oz(weight)cocoa butter
2oz (weight) beeswax
1oz (weight) jojoba
.5oz@ evening primrose & frankincense
3ml@ lemongrass, geranium, & lavender essential oils
10drops sweet orange e.o. (Leave out, for use in the tropics, as it can increase sun sensitivity - is more for bug repelling)
1T non-nano zinc oxide
Melt first 3 ingredients together, in a double-boiler (or a heat proof bowl on a pan of water), stirring, occasionally. Allow to cool a few minutes, then stir in everything else

For me I'm into a big hat, leather gloves, long sleeves, sometimes neck buff, and if needed a mineral sunscreen. The spring/fall is actually harder since the sun stays below my hat brim a lot of the day.

That trucker photo...

https://cdltraining.org/truck-driver-sun-damage/

All sorts of technical info

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoaging

Anything that you put in between yourself and the sun will have spf- just different levels. I’ve hated all the mineral sunscreens I’ve tried and will ONLY do natural now.

I saw someone doing an experiment with different oils /mineral based etc and carrot seed oil turned out to be a winner, along with red raspberry seed oil.

I’ve been using carrot oil exclusively as SPF for the last two summers and have only good things to say. It’s one ingredient, and my skin is dry and just drinks it up. The RRS oil I use on my face. Love them both. Good luck!

I always wear long sleeve shirts even in summer (lighter weight of course.) Only time I wear T's is if I am running errands and don't plan on being in the sun. Out in the garden or mowing, besides my long sleeves I have gloves and a hat on so very little is exposed. Having very fair skin my whole life, I have had times of bad sunburns when it was outside my control (HS football practice in Aug.; humping a B-52 in Guam....). Yes, reflection from the snow in the winter time can give you a sunburn. I had one when I had to guard the route during a convoy during war games.

My ducks would be ticked if I tried to put sun protection on them. I whack a piece of rebar in the ground, and slide an large umbrella over it. The door in the background is their overnight shelter. If I've forgotten to raise the umbrella, they won't come out!



ETA -OT: Yes, a bunch of them are molting so they're looking a little messy. Yes, that is a chicken whose flock-mates took a sudden dislike for her. She is also molting, but is laying which means she's happy enough even if a bit lonely for actual chicken companions. Another of her ex-flock-mates has gone broody, so eventually I'll try adding her in with mom and chicklets when the time seems right.

Plain old mud works very well too, as my cousins discovered when they came in from an afternoon in the stock pond with unburned spots wherever they were smeared with pond mud.

I would sure like to find some gauze shirts, to use both as sunscreen and as a bug garment (I have a mosquito shirt but it doesn't breathe well). Used to have one that was a very loosely woven fabric from India that was great for the purpose, but wore it out.

There are lightweight and breathable fabrics that block all (or nearly all) UV. A mate of mine used to sell purpose-designed sunwear. He's a lifelong surfer and spends lots of time on sailboats as well, in addition to being quite blond and fair-skinned. So I guess you could say he had multiple motivating factors. The business didn't take off and he got into working on a diversion program for at-risk youth that involved organising surfing lessons and outings for them.

For my use an open weave that provides a little shade and confuses mosquitoes would do.  Doesn't need to be UV blocking as such. But it does need to let in as much air as possible, so I don't melt.

Nikki Corey wrote:I use mineral sunscreen (zinc oxide) on my face if I’ll be outside for longer than 20 minutes. There are no chemicals in it at all. It is greasy and it makes my face temporarily whiteish, but it is worth it to prevent burning, freckles, wrinkles and especially cancer.

I’m sure “chemicals” in sunscreen are a concern, but I thought a big issue with most sunscreen is the nanoparticles of aluminum, zinc and other metals that can absorb through the skin, cross the blood brain barrier and cause all sorts of neurological issues. We have a couple “alternative” sunscreens that specifically say “non-nanoparticle” and they dont rub in like the standard ones do. You stay kind of pasty white because the metal particles stay on your skin instead of being small enough to pass through into your body.

Either way, I personally don’t use much of the stuff. I get my sun for an hour or two in the morning and evening and then usually wear a wide brimmed hat, glasses and a light long sleeve shirt while working in the hot mid day sun.

Douglas Alpenstock wrote:One of the hard things about "covering up" is dealing with the reflected light from surfaces below.

Snow, of course, is notorious for reflecting UV/IR. Sand is likely bad too. Concrete, gravel, any light coloured surface.

Also, of course, water, as my fishing-mad great-aunt discovered.

Rez Zircon wrote:For my use an open weave that provides a little shade and confuses mosquitoes would do.  Doesn't need to be UV blocking as such. But it does need to let in as much air as possible, so I don't melt.

I buy oversize long-sleeve dress shirts, tan or cream coloured, from thrift shops. The light colour reflects heat and deters bugs. I only do up 2-3 buttons and don't tuck in the shirt-tails, and sometimes unbutton the cuffs, so whenever I move air is being pumped around inside the shirt.

Sure, I look silly, and my neighbours give me some good-natured chaff about "dressing like a beekeeper" but it lets me operate in the heat without being barbecued alive.

r ranson wrote:
As for Vitimine D absorbtion.  It depends on genetics and diet, but from what my doctors have told me, most of it is absorbed through the eyes.  This is contrary to what they taught me in school way back when, so I'm guessing they got more information since then.  

I looked that up and everything I see says both.  obviously the skin has a much larger surface area than the eyes, so it makes sense that there would be more absorption through it.  

Chiming on to this comment on diet.
"that the diet plays a crucial role in protecting us from the sun"

I've heard from a couple sources that consuming seed oils disrupts the skin's ability to withstand sunlight without burning.  One reference
https://drcate.com/seed-oil-makes-sunburn-worse-and-ages-your-skin/

Interesting, Sam. I have heard some people on carnivore diet (I think? Maybe it was vegetarian? I know it was one or the other), before they were on the diet, they had a very high sun tolerance, and then after they had been on the diet it totally went away...like having to be in complete shade at all times. May be a detox though.

Did you know that avoiding the sun has a significant bad effect on life expectancy? Most of us know reasons FOR limiting sun exposure but how did this huge study that found AGAINST limiting sun exposure get so badly forgotten?

This epidemiological study was huge: 29,000 women were followed for 20 years, and were categorized as sun avoiders or "active sun habits." Result: avoiding sun is a dangerous as smoking. The rates of mortality and morbidity for all causes was significantly higher in the sun avoiders. Yes, the rate of melanoma was higher in the active sun habits group, BUT, once they had it, their mortality from it was lower than in the sun avoiders!

But yes, sun exposure will give you wrinkles earlier, especially for white people, even for those of us who rarely burn. That's a trade off I was and am willing to take; I've used sunscreen about once a year throughout my life, when I knew I'd spend a sunny midday next to water or snow. Otherwise I never use sunscreen. And yep, I'm wrinkly!

I've got to repeat this, because I find that people who I tell it to let their preconceptions hear the opposite: Avoiding the sun has as bad an effect on life expectancy as smoking cigarettes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26992108/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joim.12496

Results
Women with active sun exposure habits were mainly at a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and noncancer/non-CVD death as compared to those who avoided sun exposure. As a result of their increased survival, the relative contribution of cancer death increased in these women. Nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, indicating that avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking. Compared to the highest sun exposure group, life expectancy of avoiders of sun exposure was reduced by 0.6–2.1 years.

While I cover up, I virtually never use sunscreen.  The last time I remember using it was when I was on a multi day solo hike in the Canyon Lands of Utah. I felt a bad burn could turn especially ugly if it took me several days to hike out with one.

Rebecca Norman wrote:Did you know that avoiding the sun has a significant bad effect on life expectancy? Most of us know reasons FOR limiting sun exposure but how did this huge study that found AGAINST limiting sun exposure get so badly forgotten?

It's important to note that a number of questions were raised regarding the study's methodology. In essence, the study's conclusion might well have been something like "we find that young, healthy women who spend a lot of time outdoors getting exercise may live longer than older, unhealthy women who spend their time indoors being physically inactive."

A. Torres Response

Hoffman & Sobotzki Response

Torres noted the sample-size discrepancy between  the "no exposure" group (1,721 women) and "moderate-highest" group (27,797 women) and that a large proportion of the no-exposure group were older women who already  had chronic health issues when they entered the study.

Notably, the comparison groups on which the study's interpretations are based are significantly weighted towards women in the moderate or high categories of sun/UV exposure (i.e. no exposure, n = 1721; moderate exposure, n = 16 166; highest sun exposure, n = 11 631), which limits the reliability and generalizability of the results, especially when further stratified for subgroup analysis. Further, the no exposure group is heavily skewed towards women between the ages of 55 and 64, with an indicated higher percentage of comorbidities that further confound the contribution of sun/UV exposure to the risk of CVD- and noncancer-related mortality.

Torres also noted that the study analyzed only information about the women's sun habits, activity levels and health that was provided at the beginning of the study -- there was no consideration of changes in these habits over the timespan of the study.

Another study limitation is the questions used to capture ‘sun’ exposure behaviours. First, it is important to note that responses to these questions were captured only at baseline. Any differences in these behaviours prior to or post-study inception is not discussed as it relates to the obtained results.

Hoffman (referencing Torres) also noted that a large number of no-exposure women (78% of the group) reported existing health issues, and that being older, unhealthy and inactive might be why they spent little time in the sun.

These limitations include the debatable operationalization that was chosen to capture sun exposure habits and the fact that the ‘no exposure group' is heavily skewed towards women who are aged between 55 and 64 at baseline and who present a high percentage of comorbidities.
(...)
Furthermore, the overrepresentation of women who indicate having been treated by antidiabetic or anticoagulant medication in the ‘no exposure group’ (which concerns 1351 of the 1721 women in this group) suggests that the avoidance of sun exposure as defined in the study may be a marker of chronic disease rather than a risk factor in itself.
(...)
The problem of mismeasurement is exacerbated by the pattern of missing values in the study. Indeed, the percentage of missing values in the ‘no exposure group’ is about twice as high as in the other groups for several confounding variables, including body mass index, physical exercise, smoking, alcohol consumption and marital status. The authors neither discuss this pattern of missing data, which is clearly not missing at random, nor do they state which approach they chose to account for it.

Hoffman also notes that the study does not address whether the high-exposure women used any type of sun protection, and makes a dubious suggestion that vitamin D levels are involved:

Furthermore, the study did not capture information on skin cancer preventive measures; some of the women with moderate or high sun exposure behaviours may have taken measures to prevent skin cancer, and therefore the results may not account for differences between unprotected and protected UV exposure. Similarly, whilst the discussion speculates that the results are related to the influence of vitamin D, a significant limitation is that vitamin D levels of patients were not analysed as they are related to their sun/UV exposure or dietary intake/supplementation.