suncream recommendations?

professor~yaffle

I'm going to try JASON factor 20 cream.

http://www.hollandandbarrett.com/shop/product/jason-sunbrellas-facial-natural-sunblock-spf20-60075789

Re. the SPF it's just a case of doing some simple mathematics. If you can go for (say) half an hour before you start to burn, and you want to stay outside for (say) 6 hours, you will need 12 x protection. So an SPF15, or thereabouts. SPF20 will provide protection for longer than that unless you have a particular skin condition which necessitates a higher sunscreen.

There is no way someone with 'normal' skin should need anything like SPF30 or 50 here in the UK. I wouldn't be surprised if use of these really high factor sunscreens is contributing to the current epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. Stands to reason.

Pop_Up_Pirate

professor~yaffle wrote: »

I'm going to try JASON factor 20 cream.

http://www.hollandandbarrett.com/shop/product/jason-sunbrellas-facial-natural-sunblock-spf20-60075789

There is no way someone with 'normal' skin should need anything like SPF30 or 50 here in the UK. I wouldn't be surprised if use of these really high factor sunscreens is contributing to the current epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. Stands to reason.

People with 'normal skin' don't need SPF in the UK for the majority of the time.
Suncreams are not only linked to vitamin D deficiency but also contribute to the increase in skin cancers and chronic illnesses.

Human skin naturally produces its own sun protection when it is subjected to the suns rays. As that builds up during the spring months, it is unlikely that SPF will be needed during the summer under normal circumstances.
It is only BURNING of the skin for prolonged periods that is harmful.

Putting SPF on a child is not needed either.

There have been some very interesting Australian studies done on this very subject who are now retracting advice of lathering on SPF, which causes skin cancers in itself. Their studies have also shown that most vitamin D supplements can make the problem worse.

professor~yaffle

Pop_Up_Pirate wrote: »

People with 'normal skin' don't need SPF in the UK for the majority of the time.
Suncreams are not only linked to vitamin D deficiency but also contribute to the increase in skin cancers and chronic illnesses.

Human skin naturally produces its own sun protection when it is subjected to the suns rays. As that builds up during the spring months, it is unlikely that SPF will be needed during the summer under normal circumstances.
It is only BURNING of the skin for prolonged periods that is harmful.

Putting SPF on a child is not needed either.

There have been some very interesting Australian studies done on this very subject who are now retracting advice of lathering on SPF, which causes skin cancers in itself. Their studies have also shown that most vitamin D supplements can make the problem worse.

Funny isn't it, when the things the Powers That Be advise us to do seem to go against all common sense. We're all being told to avoid the sun and slather ourselves and our children in factor 50 sunscreen, and then we're told we're all deficient in vitamin D! Well, yes.. d'uh :rotfl:

I didn't know sunscreens could actually cause cancer though.

Gloomendoom

Pop_Up_Pirate wrote: »

There have been some very interesting Australian studies done on this very subject who are now retracting advice of lathering on SPF, which causes skin cancers in itself. Their studies have also shown that most vitamin D supplements can make the problem worse.

Not according to the Western Australian Cancer Council...

Cancer myth: Sunscreen, Vitamin D and Cancer

Summary

There is no evidence that use of sunscreens increases the risk of skin cancer or causes vitamin D deficiency. Meanwhile, there is definitive evidence that sun exposure increases the risk of skin cancer. Solar radiation is classified as a known human carcinogen in the Report on Carcinogens. IARC also classifies solar radiation as carcinogenic to humans.

professor~yaffle

To be honest, you can find links on the internet to prove just about anything. We did this as an experiment a few years back over on Discussion Time. People's task was to come up with the wackiest most ridiculous ideas and the OP would then find 'proof' on the internet that the idea was in fact true. They managed it, every single time.

But getting back to SPFs, it obviously stands to reason that if you use sunblocks you're not going to get sufficient sun exposure (that is what a sunblock does.. as the name suggests), which will lead to vitamin D deficiency. Common sense should prevail.

Gloomendoom

professor~yaffle wrote: »

But getting back to SPFs, it obviously stands to reason that if you use sunblocks you're not going to get sufficient sun exposure (that is what a sunblock does.. as the name suggests), which will lead to vitamin D deficiency. Common sense should prevail.

It should, and the source I quoted should be seen in the Australian context where sunlight levels are generally a lot higher than in the UK.

Pop_Up_Pirate

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Not according to the Western Australian Cancer Council...

Cancer myth: Sunscreen, Vitamin D and Cancer

They are as reliable for factual evidence as our own NHS.

There are 100s of peer to peer reviews, studies, research and scientific evidence that shows the Sun is not a carcinogenic in itself and that putting on sunscreen 24/7 is detrimental to health. Not just due to the blocking of the sun, but also down to the rubbing in of chemicals into the skin. Even 'natural' sunscreens contain ingredients that really shouldn't be rubbed into our largest, breathing organ.
Sunscreens are also detrimental to the environment.

What works for health is staying out of the midday sun (when its scorching hot), covering up, wearing a hat and seeking shade. In between times a person walks around getting sun on their bodies which can then synthesise the hormone Vitamin D. Without the sun, that process does not happen.

In the UK, we need a looooong time in the sun to get enough of the hormone, so SPF should never be worn.

Synthetic supplements have been shown, again by scientific studies, to actually make chronic illnesses worsen.

This isn't about what a health board or charity might dictate. Its about real scientific evidence on how the human body works and how the environment affects it.
Children these days, especially, are being denied an essential hormone which is leading to many chronic illnesses before they are even out of school.

Gloomendoom

Pop_Up_Pirate wrote: »

This isn't about what a health board or charity might dictate. Its about real scientific evidence on how the human body works and how the environment affects it..

The Western Australian Cancer Council recommendations are based on "real scientific evidence"...

References

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service National Toxicology Programme, 12th Report on Carcinogens, in National Institute of Environmental Sciences. 2011

International Agency for Research on Cancer (AIRC) IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 93 - Carbon Black, Titanium Dioxide and Talc, 2010.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 2007 , IARC: Lyon, France.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs. 2011.

Dennis, L.K., L.E. Beane Freeman, and M.J. VanBeek, Sunscreen use and the risk for melanoma: a quantitative review. Ann Intern Med, 2003. 139(12): p. 966-78.

Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Literature Review on the Safety of Titanium Dioxide and Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles in Sunscreen - Scientific Review Report. 2013, Australian Government - Department of Health and Ageing.

Green AC, Williams GM, Logan V, Strutton GM Reduced Melanoma After Regular Sunscreen Use: Randomized Trial Follow-Up, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 20 January 2011; 29(3)

Sinclair, C., Risks and benefits of sun exposure: implications for public health practice based on the Australian experience. Prog Biophys Mol Biol, 2006. 92(1): p. 173-8.

Sollitto, R.B., K.H. Kraemer, and J.J. DiGiovanna, Normal vitamin D levels can be maintained despite rigorous photoprotection: six years' experience with xeroderma pigmentosum. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1997. 37(6): p. 942-7.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Feature Article - Vitamin D. July 2014 [cited on 14/08/2014] Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/E31CBC051F4F6EA8CA257CBA00128C83?opendocument

Berwick, M., Counterpoint: sunscreen use is a safe and effective approach to skin cancer prevention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2007. 16(10): p. 1923-4.

Green, A.C. and G.M Williams, Point: sunscreen use is a safe and effective approach to skin cancer prevention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2007. 16(10): p. 1921-1922.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Solar and ultraviolet radiation, in IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 1997, IARC: Lyon, France.

Marks R, Foley PA, Jolley D, Knight KR, Harrison J, Thompson SC. The effect of regular sunscreen use on vitamin-D levels in an Australian population - results of a randomized controlled trial. Archives of Dermatology 1995; 11(4): 415-421.

Farrerons J, Barnadas M, Rodriguez J, Renau A, Yoldi B, Lopez-Navidad A, Moragas J. Clinically prescribed sunscreen (sun protection factor 15) does not decrease serum vitamin D concentration sufficiently either to induce changes in parathyroid function or in metabolic markers. British Journal of Dermatology 1998; 139(3): 422-427.

Farrerons J, Barnadas M, Lopez-Navidad A, Renau A, Rodriguez J, Yoldi B, Alomar A. Sunscreen and risk of osteoporosis in the elderly: A two-year follow-up. Dermatology 2001; 202(1): 27-30.

Norval, M, Wulf HC. Does chronic sunscreen use reduce vitamin D production to insufficient levels? British Journal of Dermatology 2009; 161(4): 732-736.

Pop_Up_Pirate

Gloomendoom wrote: »

The Western Australian Cancer Council recommendations are based on "real scientific evidence"...

You really need to do more thorough research.