Sunscreen - what to think

[horizon]

This is the latest salvo in the argument over the benefits and risks of sunscreen:

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/201 ... -than-good

I gave up on sunscreen in around 1972 (that's the last recollection I have of using it). I decided that the body's own defences were better: instant, painful sunburn and even sunstroke if you don't heed the warnings. Since then I've been out lots in the sun, yes got sunburn but yes covered up when necessary. I'm not going to make any arguments for or against sunscreen - just to say these are my practices and beliefs. Nor do I wish to make any hubristic claims about skin cancer. I cannot be certain about the correctness of my choice, but my choice it is.

I'm always interested to hear others' views. I know that members of this forum have suffered from skin cancer and I know that cyclists are in many ways very vulnerable to sunburn. So your views and practices please but while I'm happy to gently debate I'm not out to criticise sunscreen users.

[mattheus]

This is the latest salvo in the argument over the benefits and risks of sunscreen:

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/201 ... -than-good

If you're not anywhere near coral (or other vulnerable organisms), what do you think the risks are?

[horizon]

Further down in the article was a discussion about the risk to human health.

[mattheus]

Really? Oh, aplogies in that case. I started skim reading after a few paras. Then the final para started with:

"In conclusion, wear sunscreen."

[random37]

My mum died a very painful death from skin cancer. Half her face was missing at the end of her life. You could see her brain when her dressings were changed.
I am predisposed to get the same cancer. Genetics, innit. So I've had a lot of thought about this.
I wear a hat religiously, but when I ride, I don't wear a helmet. I cover up, and use sunscreen.
I will probably still get the cancer. But it puts the odds slightly in my favour. If you can prevent such a nasty thing with some suncream, I think that's an acceptable cost.

[pjclinch]

I work in a Medical Physics department. One of our outposts is in Photobiology, itself connected to Dermatology. Everyone there is very keen on sunscreen.

There is the argument that this might be a bit like A&E doctors being keen on cycle helmets, but on the other hand they're not looking at acute, traumatic incidents but rather a lot of chronic effect.

I dislike sunscreen, but I dislike getting burned even more (and I burn quite easily). I often use physical barriers instead, but where I can't avoid it (say, a day's sea kayaking with no shelter and lots of reflection off the water as well as direct sun) I will use high factor suncream.

(Another thing I've learned from my colleagues over in P-B is don't even entertain the idea of using a tanning parlour)

Pete.

[rotavator]

I use sunscreen and a wide brimmed hat when hiking in the summer because I want to cut down the risk of sunburn and skin cancer. Hopefully this doesn't make me defficient in Vitamin D or kill any corals.

[Pastychomper]

...There is the argument that this might be a bit like A&E doctors being keen on cycle helmets, but on the other hand they're not looking at acute, traumatic incidents but rather a lot of chronic effect...

I've often wondered about that, after all dermatologists are likely to be looking at chronic effects that have already led to a negative outcome. On the other hand, surely someone in the field will have thought of that.

My impression is that a lot of modern Brits spend the first half of the summer in buildings and cars, then spend two weeks lying on a subtropical beach and the medical profession sees a lot of melanomas down the line. Hence "don't even try to tan" is good advice for most of the people they work with, and likely most of the population. But I wonder how many studies have been done, for example, comparing skin cancers in people who work outside all day and slowly develop a tan to those in occasional sun-chasers who sometimes forget to reapply sunscreen.

As for me, I'm no sun-chaser but I do work in the (relative) dark, so I use various screens (liquid, cloth, wood...) when I do get out in the sun.

[mattheus]

My impression is that a lot of modern Brits spend the first half of the summer in buildings and cars, then spend two weeks lying on a subtropical beach and the medical profession sees a lot of melanomas down the line. Hence "don't even try to tan" is good advice for most of the people they work with, and likely most of the population. But I wonder how many studies have been done, for example, comparing skin cancers in people who work outside all day and slowly develop a tan to those in occasional sun-chasers who sometimes forget to reapply sunscreen.

I see what you're saying - my (empirical) view is that the Aussies are outdoors all year round, and recognized a serious skin cancer problem back in the 70s. They are now far more careful than Brits ("slip-slap-slop!" ).

[LollyKat]

Remember that the ozone layer has not yet recovered fully:

More than 30 years after the Montreal Protocol [1987], NASA scientists documented the first direct proof that Antarctic ozone is recovering because of the CFC phase-down: Ozone depletion in the region has declined 20 percent since 2005. And at the end of 2018, the United Nations confirmed in a scientific assessment that the ozone layer is recovering, projecting that it would heal completely in the (non-polar) Northern Hemisphere by the 2030s, followed by the Southern Hemisphere in the 2050s and polar regions by 2060.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... depletion/

[Pastychomper]

I see what you're saying - my (empirical) view is that the Aussies are outdoors all year round, and recognized a serious skin cancer problem back in the 70s. They are now far more careful than Brits ("slip-slap-slop!" ).

Remember that the ozone layer has not yet recovered fully:

More than 30 years after the Montreal Protocol [1987], NASA scientists documented the first direct proof that Antarctic ozone is recovering because of the CFC phase-down: Ozone depletion in the region has declined 20 percent since 2005. And at the end of 2018, the United Nations confirmed in a scientific assessment that the ozone layer is recovering, projecting that it would heal completely in the (non-polar) Northern Hemisphere by the 2030s, followed by the Southern Hemisphere in the 2050s and polar regions by 2060.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... depletion/

Both good points, thanks.

Also (slightly off-topic), considering how popular those nice, safe CFCs were - and how long they last - a predicted full recovery within the next 40ish years still sounds like a success story to me.

[Mike Sales]

Apparently the problem of CFC emissions has not been wrapped up and finished with.

Researchers say that they have pinpointed the major sources of a mysterious recent rise in a dangerous, ozone-destroying chemical.
CFC-11 was primarily used for home insulation but global production was due to be phased out in 2010.
But scientists have seen a big slowdown in the rate of depletion over the past six years.
This new study says this is mostly being caused by new gas production in eastern provinces of China.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48353341