7 ms·

Is Sunscreen a Lifesaver or a Poison?

44 points by adamzerner 12y ago

VLM 12y ago
"An obvious initial complaint in applying these findings to humans is that people typically do not eat sunscreen." Yet the story begins with anecdotes about smearing it all over three year old kids. The author apparently does not have children. One convenient probably fairly low risk solution for sun exposure is clothing. Cuts back a lot on mosquito bites and minor cuts -n- scrapes. I've been told over and over that my baggy pants and baggy long sleeve shirts will give me heat exhaustion on the hiking trail, exclusively by people who refuse to try it, and are instead smeared with a 1/4 inch layer of sunscreen and bug spray goo which makes them look more miserable than I actually feel. This probably won't help on the beach but for the other 99.9999% of life time it does help. It is true that they can survive 90 degree weather when I quit at 85 degrees, but when its 85 degrees out, going for a couple mile hike in direct sunlight is not my first choice of leisure activity anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Personally UV caused cataracts leading to blindness or a financial death penalty scare me more than a mere easily detectable and removable skin tumor, so I reach for the UV proof glasses before I even think about sunscreen anyway.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  The author uses the possessive voice when discussing her child and mentions using clothing as protection from the sun twice.
- kalleboo 12y ago
  In Australia they say Slip Slop Slap[0] - slip on a shirt, slop on suncream, slap on a hat. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGgn5nwYtj0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGgn5nwYtj0 edit: apparently Seek shade and Slide on sunglasses have been added in later years https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzYHwzSE1VY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzYHwzSE1VY
- learc83 12y ago
  >Yet the story begins with anecdotes about smearing it all over three year old kids. The author apparently does not have children. The author specifically mentions that the 3-year-old is her daughter. >In contrast, my 3-year-old daughter is not permitted to leave the house without a heavy coating of sunscreen and ideally a large, floppy hat.
bluedino 12y ago
I wear sunscreen so I don't get a burn. I'm not a particularly fair-skinned person but a day out on a boat will burn me to a crisp. Also helps keep the freckles and moles down.
Moto7451 12y ago
Does sunscreen have to be an all or nothing affair? This seems to be, to me, the underlying assumption made on both sides of these arguments. I live in Southern California and work by the beach. I put sun block on when I know I'm going to be outside a lot and my exposure will be high... Like most people I previously assumed. Not when I'm going to be outside for an hour. I doubt I'm killing myself in either case.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  Zinc oxide based sunscreen is totally safe with zero question marks. Just use the white zinc oxide stuff on parts that are likely to burn or get over exposed.
  - graeme 12y ago
    Do you know of any brands that don't get greasy? I've been using Green Beaver, but it stays visible all day long. It's not white, but there's oil.
    - brandonmenc 12y ago
      I use Neutrogena Sensitive Skin Broad Spectrum. Gives the skin a healthy glow. In fact, my sister sometimes uses it as a base for makeup because of this. Whether or not you consider that "greasy," I don't know. It doesn't feel greasy to me. Give it a shot.
      - ddeck 12y ago
        Although containing zinc oxide, that product includes ingredients that I believe the parent post was looking to avoid. In particular, retinyl palmitate [1]. As an aside, the EWG's Skin Deep database is a useful place to find ingredients of potential concern for popular products: http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ [1] http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/product/567689/Neutrogena_Sensitive_Skin_Broad_Spectrum%2C_SPF_60%2B/ http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/product/567689/Neutrogena_Sensit...
specular 12y ago
It would be interesting to hear more about potential evidence linking sun exposure and sunscreen to malignant melanomas as opposed to basal and squamous cell carcinomas. BCCs and SCCs, while malignant, do not pose the same risks of metastasis as melanoma, so I would be much more inclined to alter my behavior given such evidence. In general (but not always) I like to assume that balance is the key. Life is carcinogenic, and too much of anything is probably harmful.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  I think focusing in on skin cancers and skin aging is myopic. This is what all these analyses do. Yes, sunscreen probably reduces skin cancers and aging from sun exposure. But there is evidence that depriving yourself of sun exposure leads to a higher overall death rate. You dodge melanoma but increase risk of a heart attack or various internal cancers. People who work outside live longer, despite looking "weathered" in their old age.
  - kalleboo 12y ago
    Sun screen doesn't block sun exposure though. It screens it. You're still getting sun exposure, just not amounts that are going to burn you.
kourt 12y ago
Aside from cancer, one needs to be concerned about aging: just look at the difference between the sides of truck driver William McElligott's face: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/06/bill-mcelligott-sun-damage_n_1573546.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/06/bill-mcelligott-sun-...
- Symmetry 12y ago
  The UV frequencies that contribute most to that effect aren't really blocked by the sorts of sunscreen you can buy in the US.
  - pyre 12y ago
    What places have said sorts of sunscreen?
    - dublinben 12y ago
      Europe and Japan. You can probably order some Garnier Ombrelle suncreen from Canada that contains Mexoryl. That's the UVA-blocking ingredient that we're missing in the US.
      - 15characterlimi 12y ago
        Why is it not in the US?
        doreo 12y ago
        Because the FDA works in mysterious ways apparently http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/fda-to-consumers-burn-for-all-we-care/ http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/fda-to-consumers-burn-for-all-we-...
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - rm999 12y ago
CreRecombinase 12y ago
Nice example of Betteridge's law[0] here. While as a biologist, I am supremely aware that plausible biological mechanism alone shouldn't be sufficient to drive public policy, UV induced DNA damage causing melanoma is one of the better understood mechanisms for oncogenesis. The real question to me is not whether sunscreen works at preventing UV damage, and thus skin cancer, but to what extent acute, high dose UV exposure, especially at a young age, can do to lifetime cancer risk. If it is the case that one or two bad sunburns can dramatically increase risk of skin cancer, it will be very difficult to design a randomized clinical trial to demonstrate the effectiveness of sunscreen in adults. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
- Symmetry 12y ago
  It's worth noting that sunscreen in countries other than the US does more to prevent skin cancer, so the balance might be different in different places. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2014/03/20/be85a288-a9fc-11e3-9e82-8064fcd31b5b_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2014/0...
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "Nice example of Betteridge's law[0] here." "Is sunscreen a lifesaver or a poison?" "No." ...
  - bunderbunder 12y ago
    I know you're trying to make a joke about it not being a yes-or-no question, but really it's a pretty fair and straightforward characterization of what the article said: "No, there's not strong data to say it's a lifesaver. No, the evidence doesn't say it's a poison either."
  - lazugod 12y ago
    What Betteridge's law really means is "Questions in headlines have boring answers."
jobu 12y ago
Unfortunately the article doesn't delve into the controversy over sunscreen limiting Vitamin D production, and all of the problems that can cause (thin, weak and/or brittle bones, as well as possible cancer risks: http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20111004/low-vitamin-d-levels-linked-to-advanced-cancers http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20111004/low-vitamin-d-leve...)
- mercurialshark 12y ago
  Agreed, there are several potential issues that make it difficult to say there's no downside. There's a difference between Vitamin D production and absorption. Have we firmly established that it's better to absorb all via digestion? Moreover, tanning is due to an immune response. I can't speak to whether that in itself could have positive effects of the immune system, I would like to know more. While the cons may very well outweigh the pro (ie cancer & skin damage) not sure why the other isn't discussed in context of moderation.
- purephase 12y ago
  Except that all evidence points to the fact that sunscreen/sunblock usage doesn't have an effect on vitamin D intake through sun exposure. People that use it tend to spend more time in the sun than those that don't. Also, vitamin D is more effective through ingestion as opposed to sun exposure anyway.
  - _delirium 12y ago
    The amount of sun exposure needed to max out skin-produced vitamin D in sunny regions during the summer (which is where/when most people would use sunscreen) is very low anyway. Somewhere around 30 minutes of exposure per week does it. People usually put on sunscreen when intending to be out in the sun for hours, and there is definitely no need to have hours of exposure to summer sun from the perspective of Vitamin D production.
    - jobu 12y ago
      Isn't that for adults though? My understanding is that kids tend to need much more vitamin d than adults (for growing bones).
micro_cam 12y ago
Tech related aside, the design of sun resistant clothing that doesn't overheat you is an area that is seeing a lot of advancement recently. Polyester fabrics with texture to keep some air under the fabric and thin merino wool poly blends (that have a bit of natural texture) really seem to work. They can act almost like a mesh that still blocks the sun.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Do you have any example clothing products? I am in search of this sort of active wear.
  - beamatronic 12y ago
    Check out Solumbra products - http://www.sunprecautions.com/ http://www.sunprecautions.com/ I have one of their long sleeve "jackets" that you can wear in the water. Their products are not cheap, but they do last a long time, mine is over 10 years old.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      Thank you!
  - dusing 12y ago
    I like the Columbia Omni Shade clothing, for example: http://www.columbia.com/Omni-Shade/Technology_Omni-Shade,default,pg.html http://www.columbia.com/Omni-Shade/Technology_Omni-Shade,def...
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      Thank you!
  - micro_cam 12y ago
    The patagonia sun shade hoody is my favorite for wearing at high elevation or on the water when there is some wind though it can be too hot if their isn't wind. For warmer conditions there are some great pieces in their summer trail running line (on clearance at the moment) including the air flow and gamut shirts: http://www.patagonia.com/us/shop/web-specials-mens-trail-running?k=1D-3m-ga http://www.patagonia.com/us/shop/web-specials-mens-trail-run... Edit: opt for the stuff with mesh zones, the straight cap 1 stuff doesn't breath as well. Their merino 1 t shirts are also nice. Also check out fly fishing clothing by them and others for sun protective clothing with a less athletic look.
drpgq 12y ago
I thought this was a little weird: "melanoma diagnosis increased by 1.9 percent annually between 2000 and 2009." I would have thought that this would have went down through this period. I was born in 1973 and wore some sunscreen as a kid and I would assume the amount of sunscreen wearing has increased over time and sun exposure has decreased. Some time before that people were barely wearing sunscreen or limiting exposure so as they die out I would expect the melanoma rate to decrease. Of course there would be a lot of compounding factors, like longer lifespans, a higher percentage of Americans living in the South, etc. Just seems a little odd.
- bcebulla 12y ago
  The reason melanoma incidence is increasing is because of a "diagnostic drift," similar to what we see in the rise of psychological disorders: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19519827 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19519827 We are more routinely getting skin lesion check ups and dermatologists and oncologists are more and more cautious, leading to an ever-increasing incidence of stage I melanoma. However, we're not really seeing an increase in later stage melanoma, meaning that the "true" incidence of melanoma is not increasing. It's sort of a huge public health scam. The dermatologists are using this vanity metric of increased diagnoses as evidence that we're in the middle of a melanoma/skin-cancer epidemic, when it's simply not the case. Not that safe sun exposure practices shouldn't be promoted, but the motor behind these messages is a bit of a scam.
- _archon_ 12y ago
  Don't forget that we have baby boomers entering the middle/later stages of life, where we would expect such diagnoses to be made. I'd expect the death rate in the US to steadily increase with respect to population over the next couple decades, then gradually decline.
mrbird 12y ago
Since the title is linkbait-y, I'll share that after reading it, I think the article boils down to these two quotes: "The bottom line is that although there are holes in our knowledge, there is no concrete evidence of any chemical risks of sunscreen at typical doses." "In the case of melanoma, the more dangerous form of skin cancer, there’s no data that tells us whether sunscreen works."
- TrainedMonkey 12y ago
  What we do know is that sunburns are uncomfortable and mess up your skin for a while, so for me choice between getting sunburned or applying sunscreen is clear. If you are not going to get sunburned, sunscreen does not really matter.
giardini 12y ago
And no one has yet mentioned rickets! Once virtually eliminated, rickets has increased markedly, in some studies as much as five-fold. In the malls I now occasionally see children who obviously have rickets. Unless corrected early, the adult will bear the scars of the child. Also there is mention that ingestion of vitamin D is superior to sun exposure but AFAIK there is no evidence of that. The ingestive route has it's own problems.
- ryandvm 12y ago
  It's worse than that. There is reasonable evidence that vitamin D deficiency contributes to a number of cancers and that heavy use of sunscreen has a questionable benefit on net mortality rates. http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/SkinCancer/7888 http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/SkinCancer/78...
ascotan 12y ago
It is known that cyclic aromatic compounds (like sterols) can pass through the cell membrane layer. It is also known that cyclic aromatic compounds can bind DNA (this is how steroid hormones work). It is also known that DNA breakage can occur when ionizing radiation strikes alkylating agents intercalcated with the DNA backbone. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if sunscreen has sterol-derived compounds that in the presence of ionizing radiation could cause skin damage. We hear about this stuff all the time in things like cigarette smoke, charred meat, etc. etc. That being said, the article doesn't address the incidence of cancer caused by NOT using sunscreen. Similarly, not all vaccinations are not 100% safe, but the risk you take from not having the vaccination is far greater if you didn't take it. Therefore, people will get scared off from using sunscreen from articles like this, likely increasing the incidence of skin cancer.
r-cid 12y ago
I'm super white, and I barely wear sunscreen. I put some on the other day for a 4hr river float.. But I spent a full day fishing the river yesterday; in direct sun, no sunscreen in 90 degree heat and I'm only mildly burned. I remember burning a lot worse when I was a teenager.. But I think it had something to do with drinking Mt. Dew all the time. I've pretty much entirely removed high fructose corn syrup from my diet. I eat fruit for my sugar fix more often these days. I also supplement vitamin-d now, perhaps that also has something to do with it? This is all just anecdotal, but perhaps if you burn quickly and easily you should take a look at your diet.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
secstate 12y ago
Am I the only one troubled by a statement like this: "As to whether I should be slathering my kid with sunscreen or not, the good news is that I’m not causing any damage by doing so." At the end of an article that otherwise claims to investigate the scientific merit of the case against sunscreen? It's fine if you want to say "I'm very likely not causing damage ..." But it seems awfully unscientific to claim that the good is that I'm not causing ANY damage by doing so. Also, I feel like this is an endemic thought process in our post-modern society. Humans want answers. Humans like answers. Scientific logic produces very few slam-dunk answers. So while we all trot around claiming to be "scientific" in our outlook, we rarely if ever apply truly scientific thought to our daily routines. Not that it's easy to do, but it's frustrating when people mis-associate belief with knowledge.

44 points by adamzerner 12y ago

VLM 12y ago

"An obvious initial complaint in applying these findings to humans is that people typically do not eat sunscreen." Yet the story begins with anecdotes about smearing it all over three year old kids. The author apparently does not have children. One convenient probably fairly low risk solution for sun exposure is clothing. Cuts back a lot on mosquito bites and minor cuts -n- scrapes. I've been told over and over that my baggy pants and baggy long sleeve shirts will give me heat exhaustion on the hiking trail, exclusively by people who refuse to try it, and are instead smeared with a 1/4 inch layer of sunscreen and bug spray goo which makes them look more miserable than I actually feel. This probably won't help on the beach but for the other 99.9999% of life time it does help. It is true that they can survive 90 degree weather when I quit at 85 degrees, but when its 85 degrees out, going for a couple mile hike in direct sunlight is not my first choice of leisure activity anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Personally UV caused cataracts leading to blindness or a financial death penalty scare me more than a mere easily detectable and removable skin tumor, so I reach for the UV proof glasses before I even think about sunscreen anyway.

maxerickson 12y ago
The author uses the possessive voice when discussing her child and mentions using clothing as protection from the sun twice.
kalleboo 12y ago
In Australia they say Slip Slop Slap[0] - slip on a shirt, slop on suncream, slap on a hat. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGgn5nwYtj0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGgn5nwYtj0 edit: apparently Seek shade and Slide on sunglasses have been added in later years https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzYHwzSE1VY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzYHwzSE1VY
learc83 12y ago
>Yet the story begins with anecdotes about smearing it all over three year old kids. The author apparently does not have children. The author specifically mentions that the 3-year-old is her daughter. >In contrast, my 3-year-old daughter is not permitted to leave the house without a heavy coating of sunscreen and ideally a large, floppy hat.

bluedino 12y ago

I wear sunscreen so I don't get a burn. I'm not a particularly fair-skinned person but a day out on a boat will burn me to a crisp. Also helps keep the freckles and moles down.

Moto7451 12y ago

Does sunscreen have to be an all or nothing affair? This seems to be, to me, the underlying assumption made on both sides of these arguments. I live in Southern California and work by the beach. I put sun block on when I know I'm going to be outside a lot and my exposure will be high... Like most people I previously assumed. Not when I'm going to be outside for an hour. I doubt I'm killing myself in either case.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
Zinc oxide based sunscreen is totally safe with zero question marks. Just use the white zinc oxide stuff on parts that are likely to burn or get over exposed.
- graeme 12y ago
  Do you know of any brands that don't get greasy? I've been using Green Beaver, but it stays visible all day long. It's not white, but there's oil.
  - brandonmenc 12y ago
    I use Neutrogena Sensitive Skin Broad Spectrum. Gives the skin a healthy glow. In fact, my sister sometimes uses it as a base for makeup because of this. Whether or not you consider that "greasy," I don't know. It doesn't feel greasy to me. Give it a shot.
    - ddeck 12y ago
      Although containing zinc oxide, that product includes ingredients that I believe the parent post was looking to avoid. In particular, retinyl palmitate [1]. As an aside, the EWG's Skin Deep database is a useful place to find ingredients of potential concern for popular products: http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ [1] http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/product/567689/Neutrogena_Sensitive_Skin_Broad_Spectrum%2C_SPF_60%2B/ http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/product/567689/Neutrogena_Sensit...

specular 12y ago

It would be interesting to hear more about potential evidence linking sun exposure and sunscreen to malignant melanomas as opposed to basal and squamous cell carcinomas. BCCs and SCCs, while malignant, do not pose the same risks of metastasis as melanoma, so I would be much more inclined to alter my behavior given such evidence. In general (but not always) I like to assume that balance is the key. Life is carcinogenic, and too much of anything is probably harmful.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
I think focusing in on skin cancers and skin aging is myopic. This is what all these analyses do. Yes, sunscreen probably reduces skin cancers and aging from sun exposure. But there is evidence that depriving yourself of sun exposure leads to a higher overall death rate. You dodge melanoma but increase risk of a heart attack or various internal cancers. People who work outside live longer, despite looking "weathered" in their old age.
- kalleboo 12y ago
  Sun screen doesn't block sun exposure though. It screens it. You're still getting sun exposure, just not amounts that are going to burn you.

kourt 12y ago

Aside from cancer, one needs to be concerned about aging: just look at the difference between the sides of truck driver William McElligott's face: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/06/bill-mcelligott-sun-damage_n_1573546.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/06/bill-mcelligott-sun-...

Symmetry 12y ago
The UV frequencies that contribute most to that effect aren't really blocked by the sorts of sunscreen you can buy in the US.
- pyre 12y ago
  What places have said sorts of sunscreen?
  - dublinben 12y ago
    Europe and Japan. You can probably order some Garnier Ombrelle suncreen from Canada that contains Mexoryl. That's the UVA-blocking ingredient that we're missing in the US.
    - 15characterlimi 12y ago
      Why is it not in the US?
      - doreo 12y ago
        Because the FDA works in mysterious ways apparently http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/fda-to-consumers-burn-for-all-we-care/ http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/fda-to-consumers-burn-for-all-we-...
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- rm999 12y ago

CreRecombinase 12y ago

Nice example of Betteridge's law[0] here. While as a biologist, I am supremely aware that plausible biological mechanism alone shouldn't be sufficient to drive public policy, UV induced DNA damage causing melanoma is one of the better understood mechanisms for oncogenesis. The real question to me is not whether sunscreen works at preventing UV damage, and thus skin cancer, but to what extent acute, high dose UV exposure, especially at a young age, can do to lifetime cancer risk. If it is the case that one or two bad sunburns can dramatically increase risk of skin cancer, it will be very difficult to design a randomized clinical trial to demonstrate the effectiveness of sunscreen in adults. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

Symmetry 12y ago
It's worth noting that sunscreen in countries other than the US does more to prevent skin cancer, so the balance might be different in different places. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2014/03/20/be85a288-a9fc-11e3-9e82-8064fcd31b5b_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2014/0...
dllthomas 12y ago
"Nice example of Betteridge's law[0] here." "Is sunscreen a lifesaver or a poison?" "No." ...
- bunderbunder 12y ago
  I know you're trying to make a joke about it not being a yes-or-no question, but really it's a pretty fair and straightforward characterization of what the article said: "No, there's not strong data to say it's a lifesaver. No, the evidence doesn't say it's a poison either."
- lazugod 12y ago
  What Betteridge's law really means is "Questions in headlines have boring answers."

jobu 12y ago

Unfortunately the article doesn't delve into the controversy over sunscreen limiting Vitamin D production, and all of the problems that can cause (thin, weak and/or brittle bones, as well as possible cancer risks: http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20111004/low-vitamin-d-levels-linked-to-advanced-cancers http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20111004/low-vitamin-d-leve...)

mercurialshark 12y ago
Agreed, there are several potential issues that make it difficult to say there's no downside. There's a difference between Vitamin D production and absorption. Have we firmly established that it's better to absorb all via digestion? Moreover, tanning is due to an immune response. I can't speak to whether that in itself could have positive effects of the immune system, I would like to know more. While the cons may very well outweigh the pro (ie cancer & skin damage) not sure why the other isn't discussed in context of moderation.
purephase 12y ago
Except that all evidence points to the fact that sunscreen/sunblock usage doesn't have an effect on vitamin D intake through sun exposure. People that use it tend to spend more time in the sun than those that don't. Also, vitamin D is more effective through ingestion as opposed to sun exposure anyway.
- _delirium 12y ago
  The amount of sun exposure needed to max out skin-produced vitamin D in sunny regions during the summer (which is where/when most people would use sunscreen) is very low anyway. Somewhere around 30 minutes of exposure per week does it. People usually put on sunscreen when intending to be out in the sun for hours, and there is definitely no need to have hours of exposure to summer sun from the perspective of Vitamin D production.
  - jobu 12y ago
    Isn't that for adults though? My understanding is that kids tend to need much more vitamin d than adults (for growing bones).

micro_cam 12y ago

Tech related aside, the design of sun resistant clothing that doesn't overheat you is an area that is seeing a lot of advancement recently. Polyester fabrics with texture to keep some air under the fabric and thin merino wool poly blends (that have a bit of natural texture) really seem to work. They can act almost like a mesh that still blocks the sun.

toomuchtodo 12y ago
Do you have any example clothing products? I am in search of this sort of active wear.
- beamatronic 12y ago
  Check out Solumbra products - http://www.sunprecautions.com/ http://www.sunprecautions.com/ I have one of their long sleeve "jackets" that you can wear in the water. Their products are not cheap, but they do last a long time, mine is over 10 years old.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Thank you!
- dusing 12y ago
  I like the Columbia Omni Shade clothing, for example: http://www.columbia.com/Omni-Shade/Technology_Omni-Shade,default,pg.html http://www.columbia.com/Omni-Shade/Technology_Omni-Shade,def...
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Thank you!
- micro_cam 12y ago
  The patagonia sun shade hoody is my favorite for wearing at high elevation or on the water when there is some wind though it can be too hot if their isn't wind. For warmer conditions there are some great pieces in their summer trail running line (on clearance at the moment) including the air flow and gamut shirts: http://www.patagonia.com/us/shop/web-specials-mens-trail-running?k=1D-3m-ga http://www.patagonia.com/us/shop/web-specials-mens-trail-run... Edit: opt for the stuff with mesh zones, the straight cap 1 stuff doesn't breath as well. Their merino 1 t shirts are also nice. Also check out fly fishing clothing by them and others for sun protective clothing with a less athletic look.

drpgq 12y ago

I thought this was a little weird: "melanoma diagnosis increased by 1.9 percent annually between 2000 and 2009." I would have thought that this would have went down through this period. I was born in 1973 and wore some sunscreen as a kid and I would assume the amount of sunscreen wearing has increased over time and sun exposure has decreased. Some time before that people were barely wearing sunscreen or limiting exposure so as they die out I would expect the melanoma rate to decrease. Of course there would be a lot of compounding factors, like longer lifespans, a higher percentage of Americans living in the South, etc. Just seems a little odd.

bcebulla 12y ago
The reason melanoma incidence is increasing is because of a "diagnostic drift," similar to what we see in the rise of psychological disorders: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19519827 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19519827 We are more routinely getting skin lesion check ups and dermatologists and oncologists are more and more cautious, leading to an ever-increasing incidence of stage I melanoma. However, we're not really seeing an increase in later stage melanoma, meaning that the "true" incidence of melanoma is not increasing. It's sort of a huge public health scam. The dermatologists are using this vanity metric of increased diagnoses as evidence that we're in the middle of a melanoma/skin-cancer epidemic, when it's simply not the case. Not that safe sun exposure practices shouldn't be promoted, but the motor behind these messages is a bit of a scam.
_archon_ 12y ago
Don't forget that we have baby boomers entering the middle/later stages of life, where we would expect such diagnoses to be made. I'd expect the death rate in the US to steadily increase with respect to population over the next couple decades, then gradually decline.

mrbird 12y ago

Since the title is linkbait-y, I'll share that after reading it, I think the article boils down to these two quotes: "The bottom line is that although there are holes in our knowledge, there is no concrete evidence of any chemical risks of sunscreen at typical doses." "In the case of melanoma, the more dangerous form of skin cancer, there’s no data that tells us whether sunscreen works."

TrainedMonkey 12y ago
What we do know is that sunburns are uncomfortable and mess up your skin for a while, so for me choice between getting sunburned or applying sunscreen is clear. If you are not going to get sunburned, sunscreen does not really matter.

giardini 12y ago

And no one has yet mentioned rickets! Once virtually eliminated, rickets has increased markedly, in some studies as much as five-fold. In the malls I now occasionally see children who obviously have rickets. Unless corrected early, the adult will bear the scars of the child. Also there is mention that ingestion of vitamin D is superior to sun exposure but AFAIK there is no evidence of that. The ingestive route has it's own problems.

ryandvm 12y ago
It's worse than that. There is reasonable evidence that vitamin D deficiency contributes to a number of cancers and that heavy use of sunscreen has a questionable benefit on net mortality rates. http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/SkinCancer/7888 http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/SkinCancer/78...

ascotan 12y ago

It is known that cyclic aromatic compounds (like sterols) can pass through the cell membrane layer. It is also known that cyclic aromatic compounds can bind DNA (this is how steroid hormones work). It is also known that DNA breakage can occur when ionizing radiation strikes alkylating agents intercalcated with the DNA backbone. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if sunscreen has sterol-derived compounds that in the presence of ionizing radiation could cause skin damage. We hear about this stuff all the time in things like cigarette smoke, charred meat, etc. etc. That being said, the article doesn't address the incidence of cancer caused by NOT using sunscreen. Similarly, not all vaccinations are not 100% safe, but the risk you take from not having the vaccination is far greater if you didn't take it. Therefore, people will get scared off from using sunscreen from articles like this, likely increasing the incidence of skin cancer.

r-cid 12y ago

I'm super white, and I barely wear sunscreen. I put some on the other day for a 4hr river float.. But I spent a full day fishing the river yesterday; in direct sun, no sunscreen in 90 degree heat and I'm only mildly burned. I remember burning a lot worse when I was a teenager.. But I think it had something to do with drinking Mt. Dew all the time. I've pretty much entirely removed high fructose corn syrup from my diet. I eat fruit for my sugar fix more often these days. I also supplement vitamin-d now, perhaps that also has something to do with it? This is all just anecdotal, but perhaps if you burn quickly and easily you should take a look at your diet.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

secstate 12y ago

Am I the only one troubled by a statement like this: "As to whether I should be slathering my kid with sunscreen or not, the good news is that I’m not causing any damage by doing so." At the end of an article that otherwise claims to investigate the scientific merit of the case against sunscreen? It's fine if you want to say "I'm very likely not causing damage ..." But it seems awfully unscientific to claim that the good is that I'm not causing ANY damage by doing so. Also, I feel like this is an endemic thought process in our post-modern society. Humans want answers. Humans like answers. Scientific logic produces very few slam-dunk answers. So while we all trot around claiming to be "scientific" in our outlook, we rarely if ever apply truly scientific thought to our daily routines. Not that it's easy to do, but it's frustrating when people mis-associate belief with knowledge.