{"id":2437,"date":"2011-04-21T16:28:12","date_gmt":"2011-04-21T23:28:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/?p=2437"},"modified":"2011-04-21T16:28:50","modified_gmt":"2011-04-21T23:28:50","slug":"sunlight-information-skin-cancers-and-vitamin-d","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/2011\/04\/21\/sunlight-information-skin-cancers-and-vitamin-d\/","title":{"rendered":"Sunlight Information: Skin Cancers and Vitamin D"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>\n<p>Sunlight Information: Skin Cancers and Vitamin D by <strong>Barry Groves<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h3>Introduction<\/h3>\n<p>For the past several decades the numbers of skin cancers, and particularly the             deadly one,             malignant melanoma, have risen dramatically among Caucasian populations             throughout             the world. In the USA melanoma is the seventh most commonly diagnosed cancer             with a             rate of 14.2 cases per 100,000 population,             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_1_\"><sup>(1)<\/sup><\/a> while in 1987 Queensland, Australia, had 55.8             cases per 100,000, the world&#8217;s highest rate.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_2_\"><sup>(2)<\/sup><\/a> The incidence of the various types of skin             cancer in the general British population has been increasing at an annual rate             of two to             eight percent over the past 2 decades.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_3_\"><sup>(3)<\/sup><\/a> The contributory factors seem to be a light-skinned, northern European             population living in areas of high ambient sunlight, and the             incidence of the disease is seasonal, with more cases reported in summer than             winter.             Yet several clinical and epidemiological aspects of cutaneous melanoma seem             anomalous because they contrast with other sunlight-associated skin cancers. For             example, persons with the greatest risk of melanoma are not those with the             greatest             cumulative solar exposure; the anatomic areas that receive the most solar             exposure are             not preferentially affected; and not all light-skinned people suffer the same &#8211;             albino             Africans who have no pigmentation, are more likely to get sunburn and a number             of             other skin complaints as a result of exposure to the sun, but they don&#8217;t get             melanomas.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_4_\"><sup>(4)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>In the 1960s I lived with my family in Singapore, just 1.5 degrees from the             Equator. I have blond hair, fair skin and blue eyes. It is a combination not             believed to be             suited to the harsh sun of the tropics. Nevertheless, I regularly went on the             beach, to the             swimming pool or sailing on the South China Sea with little or nothing on, in             the heat of             the midday sun. I don&#8217;t go brown, the best I can manage by way of a tan is a             dark golden             colour. I remember, in an effort to deepen my tan, I would lie out for hours             with the sun             to one side of me and its reflection in a mirror of cooking foil on the other             to increase my             exposure. Like everyone else in the ex-patriot Singapore community, I didn&#8217;t             give skin             cancer a thought in those days; the phrase &#8216;malignant melanoma&#8217; was unheard of.<\/p>\n<p>I didn&#8217;t use a sunscreen. They too were unavailable. If we used anything at             all, which             most of the time we did not, it was usually a well-shaken mixture of coconut             oil and vinegar.             This was a concoction used at the time by naturists. We smelt like a fish and             chip shop, but             we didn&#8217;t get burnt in the years we lived there.<\/p>\n<p>Today, it seems, all that has changed. Why? What has changed in the last forty             years?<\/p>\n<h3>Skin cancers<\/h3>\n<p>There are three major forms of skin cancer:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> <strong> Basal cell carcinoma <\/strong> is the most common form of skin cancer. It forms small, fleshy               bumps or lumps on the head, neck, and hands. Named for the lowest layer of the               epidermis (top layer of skin) where the cancer originates. It occurs most               frequently in               men who spend a great deal of time outdoors and is usually found on the head               and neck.               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_5_\"><sup>(5)<\/sup><\/a> Basal cell carcinoma is not particularly dangerous as it rarely spreads               throughout the             body, although it can extend below the skin to the bone.<\/li>\n<li> <strong> Squamous cell carcinoma <\/strong> is the second most common skin cancer. It usually affects               people who sunburn easily, tan poorly, and have blue eyes and red or blond hair.               Squamous cell carcinoma often develops from actinic keratoses and can               metastasise               (spread) if left untreated.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_6_\"><sup>(6)<\/sup><\/a><\/li>\n<li> <strong> Malignant melanoma <\/strong> is the rarest form of skin cancer but it is the most deadly. It               originates in the melanocytes &#8211; the cells that produce the skin colouring or               pigment               known as melanin &#8211; and can be recognised by its black or grey colour. It               usually grows               from an existing mole, which may enlarge, become lumpy, bleed, change colour,               develop a spreading black edge, turn into a scab, or begin to itch. It is more               prevalent               among city and office workers than among people who work out-of-doors and is               thought               to be linked to brief, intense periods of sun exposure such as one might get on               annual               holidays on sunny beaches and a history of severe sunburn in childhood or               adolescence.               Malignant melanoma metastasises readily and is almost always fatal if not               caught in               time               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_7_\"><sup>(7)<\/sup><\/a> as it responds poorly to conventional therapy.               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_8_\"><sup>(8)<\/sup><\/a> Malignant melanoma is growing               at a rate of seven percent per year in the United States. In 1991 cancer               experts estimated               that there would be about 32,000 cases during the year of which 6,500 would be               fatal.               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_9_\"><sup>(9)<\/sup><\/a> In Canada melanoma incidence rose by six percent per year for men and by 4.6               percent               per year for women during the period 1970 to 1986.               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_10_\"><sup>(10)<\/sup><\/a> In Australia the rate for men               doubled between 1980 and 1987 and for women it increased by more than fifty               percent.               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_11_\"><sup>(11)<\/sup><\/a> It is now estimated that, by the age of 75, two out of three Australians will               have been treated for some form of skin cancer.               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_12_\"><sup>(12)<\/sup><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Who&#8217;s at risk?<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li> Whites at greater risk than other groups.<\/li>\n<li>People who have had excessive exposure to UV radiation from the sun without             protection.<\/li>\n<li> People with fair skin are at more than twenty-times greater risk.<\/li>\n<li> Men are two to three times more likely than women to have basal cell and               squamous cell             cancers.<\/li>\n<li> People with a family history of skin cancer.<\/li>\n<li> Workers exposed to arsenic, industrial tar, coal, paraffin, and certain types             of heavy oils.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>How to detect skin cancer<\/h3>\n<p>Consult a dermatologist immediately if you have moles or pigmented spots with             these           characteristics:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> Asymmetrical (one half is not identical to the other)<\/li>\n<li> Borders that are irregular, uneven, or ragged<\/li>\n<li> Colour varies from one area to another<\/li>\n<li> Diameter is larger than 6 mm<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Ultraviolet radiation<\/h3>\n<p>All types of skin cancer are attributed to exposure to the ultraviolet (UV)             part of the             spectrum of sunlight. UV is classified as three distinct wavebands: A, B and C.             They are all             believed to contribute to the development of skin cancer.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_5_\"><sup>(5)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> <strong> UVA <\/strong> rays constitute between ninety and ninety-five percent of the ultraviolet               light that               reaches the earth. It is not absorbed by the ozone layer. UVA light penetrates               furthest               into the skin and is involved in the initial stages of suntanning. UVA tends to               suppress               the immune function and is implicated in premature aging of the skin.               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_5_\"><sup>(5)<\/sup><\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_13_\"><sup>(13)<\/sup><\/a><\/li>\n<li> <strong> UVB <\/strong> rays are partially absorbed by the ozone layer. They do not penetrate the skin               as               far as the UVA rays but are the primary cause of sunburn. They are also               responsible for               most of the tissue damage which results in wrinkles and aging of the skin and               are               implicated in cataract formation               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_5_\"><sup>(5)<\/sup><\/a> .<\/li>\n<li> <strong> UVC <\/strong> rays are almost completely absorbed by the ozone layer. However, it is thought               that               as the ozone layer thins UVC rays may begin to contribute to sunburning and               premature               aging of the skin               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_5_\"><sup>(5)<\/sup><\/a> .<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>How strong is the evidence linking exposure to sunlight with melanoma?<\/h3>\n<p>During the 1980s and early &#8217;90s more than a dozen studies compared histories of             sunburn             in patients with melanoma and controls. But differences in design and             definition of sunburn             make it difficult to quantify a single estimate of risk.<\/p>\n<p>The most complete data on melanoma and sunburn come from six studies from             Australia, Europe and North America. These studies suggest an association but             say that the             effect is modest. They emphasise the point that episodic exposure seems to be             more risky             than constant exposure.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_14_\"><sup>(14)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>British doctors R Marks and D Whiteman are unconvinced of the sunlight\/melanoma             link. They point out that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> Melanoma can be found on ovaries<\/li>\n<li> Melanoma occurs               <em> less <\/em> frequently on sun-exposed areas<\/li>\n<li> In Japan forty percent of pedal melanomas are on the soles of the feet<\/li>\n<li> There is 5-times more melanoma in Scotland on the feet than on the hands<\/li>\n<li> And melanoma in Orkney and Shetland is ten times that of the Mediterranean             islands.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Other clinicians agree. Karnauchow says: &#8220;The simplistic idea of a sun\/melanoma             relationship is based more on a belief than science.&#8221;. . . &#8220;As with other             neoplasms, the cause             of melanoma remains an enigma and most probably the sun has little, if             anything, to do with             it.&#8221;             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_15_\"><sup>(15)<\/sup><\/a> And Newcastle dermatology professor, Sam Shuster states that the main reason             for the supposed increase in melanomas was             a change in diagnostic beliefs: lesions previously regarded as benign became             classified first             as dubious then as malignant. &#8220;Melanomas are being invented, not found,&#8221; he             says, &#8221; . . .             exposure to screening and pigmented lesion clinics is a greater cause of             melanoma than sun             exposure.&#8221;             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_16_\"><sup>(16)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Dr Anne Kricker and colleagues, looking at studies into skin cancer other than             malignant melanoma and exposure to sunlight, also say that the evidence linking             skin             cancers with sun exposure is weak. They note that most studies have not found             statistically             significant positive associations, while the few that have lacked empirical             evidence that sun             exposure was the cause.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Many questions remain about the relationship between sun exposure and skin             cancer,&#8221;             they say.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_17_\"><sup>(17)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<h3>The ozone hole<\/h3>\n<p>The stratospheric ozone layer is a delicate umbrella guarding us from the worst             effects of             solar radiation. One suggested cause of the recent increase in skin cancers is             our use of             chemicals which interact with protective layers in our atmosphere that screen             us from the             sun&#8217;s ultraviolet rays, of which the best example is a hole in the ozone layer             which appeared             over the Antarctic a few years ago.<\/p>\n<p>The history of skin cancers follows the increase in the use of many chemicals             now             known to be harmful to the environment. Manufacturing processes which use or             generate             such synthetic chemicals as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons             (HCFCs), and other perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) all of which tend to destroy             the ozone             layer as well as having other deleterious effects on our atmosphere, have             proliferated over             the past half century.<\/p>\n<p>Not only do these gases have a strong environmental effect, their chlorine and             fluorine             bonds make them exceptionally long-lived in the environment. For example, data             show that sulphur             hexafluoride may persist in the atmosphere for up to 3,200 years.<\/p>\n<p>Could our increasing release of these chemicals into the atmosphere be the             cause of the             dramatic increase in skin cancers? Unfortunately, it seems not. In 1991             Professor Johan             Moan of the Norwegian Cancer Institute made an astounding discovery: He found             that             between 1957 and 1984 the annual incidence of melanoma in Norway had increased             by 350             percent for men and by 440 percent for women. But he also determined that there             had been             no change in the ozone layer over this period. His report concluded that:             &#8220;Ozone depletion             is not the cause of the increase in skin cancers&#8221;.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_18_\"><sup>(18)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>But if the ozone layer has not yet changed significantly, except at the poles,             then what             is causing the recent, enormous increase in skin cancer?<\/p>\n<h3>The sunscreen connection<\/h3>\n<p>The Australian experience might provide the first clue. The medical             establishment in             Queensland has vigorously promoted the use of sunscreens for many years &#8211; and             today,             Queensland has more cases of melanoma per capita than any other place in the             world. This             is a trend seen worldwide.<\/p>\n<p>Incidence rates of melanoma have risen especially steeply since the mid-1970s.             The two             principal strategies for reduction of risk of melanoma and other skin cancers             during this             period were sun avoidance and use of chemical sunscreens. Rising trends in the             incidence             of and mortality from melanoma have continued since the 1970s and 1980s, when             sunscreens with high sun protection factors became widely used.<\/p>\n<p>Sunscreens are designed to protect against sunburn which is caused by UVB; they             generally provide little protection against UVA rays. There are two types of           sunscreen:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> <strong> Physical sunscreens <\/strong> contain inert minerals such as titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, or talc               and work by reflecting the ultraviolet (UVA and UVB) rays away from the skin.               This is             the type seen as white or coloured bands on the lips and faces of sportsmen.<\/li>\n<li> <strong> Chemical sunscreens <\/strong> contain chemicals such as benzophenone or psoralen as the active               ingredient. They prevent sunburn by absorbing the (mainly UVB) ultraviolet               rays. These               are the sunscreens used by those on the beaches wishing to tan. A sunscreen               with a sun               protection factor (SPF) of 15 filters out approximately ninety-four percent of               the UVB               rays. Using one with a SPF of 30 does not double to protection &#8211; filtering out               ninety-seven percent means that it only increases protection by about three               percent. And this               quoted SPF applies to UVB rays only. The protection provided against UVA rays in               chemical sunscreens is much less at about ten percent of the UVB rating.               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_19_\"><sup>(19)<\/sup><\/a> Drs Cedric and Frank Garland of the University of California are the foremost               opponents               of the use of chemical sunscreens. They point out that the greatest rises in               melanoma are in               countries where chemical sunscreens have been heavily promoted.               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_20_\"><sup>(20)<\/sup><\/a> They say that, while               sunscreens do protect against sunburn, there is no scientific proof that they               protect against             melanoma or basal cell carcinoma in humans.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Indeed, the Garland brothers strongly believe that the increased use of chemical             sunscreens is the primary             <em> cause <\/em> of the skin cancer epidemic. Recent studies by them have             shown a higher rate of melanoma among men who regularly use sunscreens and a             higher rate             of basal cell carcinoma among women using sunscreens.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_21_\"><sup>(21)<\/sup><\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_22_\"><sup>(22)<\/sup><\/a> This was confirmed             by another study group who found that &#8216;always users&#8217; of             sunscreens had 3.7 times as many malignant melanomas as those &#8216;never using&#8217;.<\/p>\n<p>The Garland brothers suggest that this is because people using sunscreens             develop a             false sense of security; that because they do not get a sunburn they are             encouraged to stay             longer in the sun, but there may be other reasons why chemical sunscreens can             be dangerous:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> Chemical sunscreens do little to stop UVA rays. These rays penetrate deeper               into the               skin where they are strongly absorbed by the melanocytes which are involved not               only               in the production of the skin-tanning pigment, melanin, but also in the               formation of               melanoma.               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_20_\"><sup>(20)<\/sup><\/a> UVA rays also have a depressing effect on the immune system.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_23_\"><sup>(23)<\/sup><\/a><\/li>\n<li> More importantly, however, may be the fact that most chemical sunscreens               contain up               to five percent of benzophenone or its derivatives oxybenzone or benzophenone-3               as               their active ingredient. And benzophenone, used in industrial processes to               initiate               chemical reactions and promote cross-linking.               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_24_\"><sup>(24)<\/sup><\/a> is one of the most powerful free radical               generators known to man. Moreover, benzophenone is activated by ultraviolet               light. UV               breaks benzophenone&#8217;s double bond to produce two free radical sites. These free               radicals desperately look for a hydrogen atom to make them &#8220;feel whole again&#8221;.               While               they may find this hydrogen atom, harmlessly, in the sunscreen, they could               equally find               it on the surface of the skin and thereby initiate a chain reaction which could               ultimately             lead to melanoma and other skin cancers.<\/li>\n<li> Harvard Medical School researchers also discovered that psoralen, another               ultraviolet               light-activated free radical generator, is an extremely efficient carcinogen.               They found               that the rate of squamous cell carcinoma among patients with psoriasis, who had               been               repeatedly treated with UVA light after an application of psoralen to their               skin, was               eighty-three times higher than among the general population.               <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_25_\"><sup>(25)<\/sup><\/a> This added weight to a               study in 1991-2, in which scientists at the European Organisation for Research               and               Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) found that regular use of sunscreens increased               cancer               risk by fifty percent but sunscreens containing psoralen multiplied the risk by               228               percent. They also showed that in people with a poor ability to tan, psoralen               users had               almost four-and-a-half times the risk of malignant melanoma compared to regular               sunscreen users. There was no increase of risk for those using self-tanning               cosmetics.               They say: &#8220;Serious doubts are raised regarding the safety of sunscreens               containing               psoralens&#8221;.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_26_\"><sup>(26)<\/sup><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>There is, however, some evidence that regular use of sunscreens helps prevent             the formation             of actinic keratoses, the precursors of squamous cell carcinoma.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_27_\"><sup>(27)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<h3>The dietary connection<\/h3>\n<p>In the 1970s, when kidney transplantation was pioneered, doctors first             encountered the             problem of tissue rejection. To combat it, they gave their transplant patients             linoleic acid.             This suppressed their immune systems very effectively, preventing their             transplanted kidneys             being rejected. But it also caused a large increase in cancers and this             treatment was stopped.<\/p>\n<p>Since then, linoleic acid and oils that contain it, have been shown time and             again to             increase the risk of several types of cancer, including skin cancers.<\/p>\n<p>Linoleic acid is the major fatty acid in all polyunsaturated vegetable             margarines and           cooking oils:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> Polyunsaturated margarines are around 40% linoleic acid<\/li>\n<li> Sunflower, safflower, corn and soya oils are all more than 50% linoleic acid.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Drs B S and L E Mackie, working on Australia&#8217;s Sunshine Coast have a great deal             of             experience in skin cancers. They say: &#8220;In view of the work of Black and             Erickson in mice             and our own work in humans, we believe that human subjects who are at high risk             of             melanomas and other solar-induced forms of skin cancer should be advised to be             moderate             in their intake of dietary polyunsaturated fats.&#8221;             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_28_\"><sup>(28)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Patricia Holborrow also points out that the increase in melanomas could be a             result of             dietary changes to PUFs.&#8221;Recently, I followed up four families that started in             1976 to use             a diet with preferred oils as safflower and sunflower oil and low in             salicylates and additives             (that interfere with the metabolic pathway of these fats). There had been three             cases of             cancer resulting in two deaths in these families.&#8221;             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_29_\"><sup>(29)<\/sup><\/a> &#8220;The issue is further complicated by             dietary factors that are cofactors for the metabolic pathways for the fatty             acids and which             may in addition favour or have a negative effect on the anticancer or cancer             enhancing             properties of the various prostaglandins (eg the negative effects of vitamin E             and the             positive effects of vitamin C).&#8221;             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_30_\"><sup>(30)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>The Australians are as paranoid about heart disease as the Americans. I was in             Australia             in 1995 and noticed that it is even their custom to remove the cream from milk             and replace             it with polyunsaturated vegetable oil.<\/p>\n<p>One of the recommendations for reducing the risk of skin and other cancers is             to reduce             intakes of fats and take vitamin supplements. But this approach doesn&#8217;t seem to             work. The             findings of a huge study by scientists at the Departments of Nutrition and             Epidemiology,             Harvard School of Public Health, Boston; the Division of Human Nutrition and             Epidemiology, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, Netherlands; the             Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, Mount Sinai School of             Medicine, New             York; and the Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women&#8217;s             Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, of 43,217 male participants of the             Health             Professionals Follow-up Study, did not support the hypothesis that diets low in             fat or high             in specific vitamins lower risk of basal cell carcinoma.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_31_\"><sup>(31)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>It&#8217;s usually saturated animal fats that get the blame for all diseases today.             They are not             the culprits &#8212; &#8216;healthy&#8217; vegetable oils are (see             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/cholesterol_myth_2.html#PUF\">Polyunsaturated Fats<\/a> in The Cholesterol Myth)<\/p>\n<h3>The benefits of sunlight<\/h3>\n<p>Although the medical establishment still strongly supports the use of             sunscreens there is a             growing consensus among progressive researchers that the use of sunscreens and             heeding             the current advice to cover up when out doors may promote not only skin cancers             but other             cancers as well.<\/p>\n<p>There is very little vitamin D in any of the food we eat. Most of the body&#8217;s             vitamin D             supply is manufactured by the action of UVB rays on lipids on the skin.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_32_\"><sup>(32)<\/sup><\/a> Using a sunscreen             drastically lowers this production.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_33_\"><sup>(33)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Researchers at the Occupational Medicine Department, School of Medicine,             University             of California, San Diego studied men in the US Navy during 1974-1984. They             discovered             that personnel working indoors had 10.6 cases of melanoma per 100,000 while             those who             worked in occupations that required spending time both indoors and outdoors had             the lowest             rate at 7.0 per 100,000. They also determined that there were more melanomas on             the trunk             than on the more commonly sunlight-exposed head and arms. Findings from this             study             suggest a protective role for brief, regular exposure to sunlight and fit with             laboratory studies             that showed that vitamin D suppressed the growth of malignant melanoma cells in             tissue             culture.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_27_\"><sup>(27)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>The same team found that lack of exposure to ultraviolet sunlight may place some             populations at higher risk of breast cancer. The association between total             average annual             sunlight energy striking the ground and age-adjusted breast cancer mortality             rates in eighty-seven regions of the United States was evaluated. Annual             age-adjusted mortality rates for             breast cancer varied from 17-19 per 100,000 in the South and Southwest to 33             per 100,000             in the Northeast. Risk of fatal breast cancer in the major urban areas of the             United States             increased as intensity of local sunlight decreased. They conclude that &#8220;Vitamin             D from             sunlight exposure may be associated with low risk for fatal breast cancer, and             differences             in ultraviolet light reaching the United States population may account for the             striking             regional differences in breast cancer mortality&#8221;.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_34_\"><sup>(34)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>They also evaluated the association between total average annual sunlight energy             striking the ground and age-adjusted breast cancer incidence rates in the USSR             and found             that the pattern of increased breast cancer incidence in regions of low solar             radiation in the             USSR was consistent with the geographical pattern seen for breast cancer             mortality in the             USA and worldwide.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_35_\"><sup>(35)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p>A low blood level of vitamin D is known to increase the risk for the             development of             breast and colon cancer             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_36_\"><sup>(36)<\/sup><\/a> and may also accelerate the growth of melanoma.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_27_\"><sup>(27)<\/sup><\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_28_\"><sup>(28)<\/sup><\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_37_\"><sup>(37)<\/sup><\/a> Because of this, Dr Gordon Ainsleigh in California believes that the use of             sunscreens causes             more cancer deaths than it prevents. He estimates that the 17%             increase in             breast cancer observed between 1991 and 1992 may be the result of the pervasive             use of             sunscreens over the past decade.             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_30_\"><sup>(30)<\/sup><\/a> He also estimates that 30,000 cancer deaths in the             United States alone could be prevented each year if people would adopt a             regimen of             regular, moderate sun exposure.<\/p>\n<h4>Prostate Cancer<\/h4>\n<p>That this could be so is confirmed by recent studies which have suggested that exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation may be protective to some internal cancers including that in the prostate. One such is by scientists working at the Department of Urology, North Staffordshire Hospital, Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK. They studied 212 prostatic adenocarcinoma and 135 benign prostatic hypertrophy patients to determine whether previous findings showing a protective effect for UV exposure could be reproduced. Their data confirmed that higher levels of cumulative exposure, adult sunbathing, childhood sunburning and regular holidays in hot climates were each independently and significantly associated with a reduced risk of this cancer.<a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_38_\"><sup>(38)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<h3>Cancer Prevention<\/h3>\n<p>So what should you do to protect yourself as much as possible against these             cancers?             Summarizing current research the following recommendations appear reasonable:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> <strong> Most important: <\/strong> the best protection is a natural suntan.<\/li>\n<li> DO try to develop a moderate natural suntan unless you have extremely sensitive               skin and               burn easily.<\/li>\n<li> DO build up a tan slowly over, say, a week. Aim for no more than a slight               pinkness each day.             You should never tan so much that your skin peels off.<\/li>\n<li> DO remember that sunlight is strongly reflected from sand, snow, ice, and               concrete and can             increase your direct sunlight exposure by 10 to 50%.<\/li>\n<li> DO cut down on the amount of polyunsaturated fat and oil in your diet.<\/li>\n<li> DO see your doctor if you spot any unusual moles or growth on your skin \u2014               particularly if               they are irregular in shape, bleed, itch, or appear to be changing. Most skin               cancers can be             cured if caught in time.<\/li>\n<li> DO NOT sunbathe in the early morning or late afternoon sun as recommended by health authorities. If the sun is low in the sky, you will only receive UVA rays, which is counter-productive. Yes, UVA tans, but it also <strong>reduces<\/strong> the body&#8217;s vitamin D stores.<\/li>\n<li>DO NOT use a sunscreen but DO use a moisturiser on your skin. Put it on at               least fifteen               minutes before going into the sun to allow it to penetrate the skin. It is a               good idea to put this               on all over your body before you dress to go out. That way you don&#8217;t miss bits               such as the             &#8216;bikini line&#8217;.<\/li>\n<li> DO NOT shower in the morning before going out to sunbathe. The oils naturally               produced             by your body during the night are a good protection.<\/li>\n<li> DO NOT shower for at least an hour after you have sunbathed. Vitamin D formed               by the             action of the sun on oils on the skin need time to be absorbed.<\/li>\n<li> Forget &#8216;aftersun&#8217; products. They are expensive and unnecessary if you have               followed this               advice and not allowed your skin to be burnt. But after you have showered, do               use a             moisturiser.<\/li>\n<li> DO NOT wear sunglasses that filter out 100% of the ultraviolet light. They may protect             you against the development of cataracts, but they stop UV entering the eyes \u2013 and that is much more important as <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/full_spectrum_sunlight.html\">UV through the eyes prevents cancer<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Dermatologists recommend that you do periodic self-examinations for any changes             in the             number, size, shape, and colour of pigmented areas of your skin, such as             freckles and moles.<\/p>\n<p>However, consulting your doctor or a dermatologist may be the surest way to             detect skin cancer early.             Physicians are trained to recognise skin cancers and are more likely to detect             thinner             melanomas, the most dangerous type of skin cancer, than patients who do             self-examinations,             increasing the likelihood that the skin cancer can be detected early enough to             be treated             effectively.<\/p>\n<p>Having said that, however, Christopher Del Mar, Professor of General Practice,             University of Queensland, Australia, may disagree. He notes that a worried             public are the initiators of surgery. Doctors perform excisions of benign             pigmented tissue because of             pressure from their patients. He says: &#8220;The benefits of early detection             programs are             uncertain; such programs need to be evaluated to determine whether there are             any benefits             and, if so, whether they outweigh the costs.&#8221;             <sup> <\/sup> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_38_\"><sup>(39)<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<h3>Conclusion<\/h3>\n<p>Johnathan Rees, Professor of dermatology, University Department of Dermatology,             Newcastle upon Tyne, appraises the current melanoma &#8220;epidemic&#8221;, saying: &#8220;Once             you excise             a pigmented lesion and know its histology you forfeit the chance of knowing             what would             have happened if you had left it in situ&#8221;. &#8220;Cohort analyses show, perhaps             surprisingly, that             mortality from melanoma rose from the 1890s to the 1950s and then started to             decline.             Changes in leisure activity don&#8217;t explain the 3-7% pa increase in melanoma             incidence from             mid-1950s to early 1980s.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8220;. . . individuals with higher continuous sun exposure have lower rates than             those exposed             intermittently.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;There is after all no robust empirical evidence to defend most health             promotion in this             area. It has been suggested that the antithesis of science is not art but             politics; melanoma is             perhaps an example of the two having become mistakenly intertwined. An amicable             separation is required. The certainties of health of the Nation and             &#8220;slip-slap-slop&#8221; already             look a little shaded: molecules care little for consensus.&#8221;             <a href=\"http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html#N_39_\"><sup>(40)<\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong> Some years ago, the vicar of a parish in Devon, who was not in favour of a               nearby nudist beach, wrote in his parish magazine: &#8220;If God had meant us to walk               around without clothes, we&#8217;d have been born naked&#8221;! Well, of course, He did and               we are \u2014 perhaps it was for a very good reason. <\/strong><\/p>\n<h3>References<\/h3>\n<p><span><a name=\"N_1_\">1. <\/a> American Cancer Society.               <em> Cancer facts and figures 1998 <\/em> . Atlanta, The Society, 1998.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_2_\">2. <\/a> MacLennan R, Green AC, McLeod GR, Martin NG. Increasing incidence of cutaneous               melanoma in               Queensland, Australia.               <em> J Natl Cancer Inst <\/em> 1992; 84: 1427-32.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_3_\">3. <\/a> Potten CS,               <em> et al <\/em> . DNA damage in UV-irradiated human skin in vivo: automated direct measurement               by               image analysis (thymine dimers) compared with indirect measurement (unscheduled               DNA synthesis) and               protection by 5-methoxypsoralen.               <em> Int J Radiat Biol <\/em> . 1993; 63: 313-24.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_4_\">4. <\/a> Diffey BL, Healy E, Thody AJ, Rees JL. Melanin, melanocytes and melanoma.               <em> Lancet <\/em> 1995; 346: 1713.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_5_\">5. <\/a> Harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation.               <em> JAMA <\/em> 1989; 262: 380-84.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_6_\">6. <\/a> Hacker SM, Flowers FP. Squamous cell carcinoma of the skin.               <em> Postgraduate Medicine <\/em> , 1993; 93: 115-26<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_7_\">7. <\/a> Lee JAH. The relationship between malignant melanoma of skin and exposure to               sunlight. <em>Photochem               Photobiol<\/em> 1989; 50: 493-96<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_8_\">8. <\/a> Malignant melanoma \u2014 Report of a meeting of physicians and scientists,               University College, London               Medical School.               <em> Lancet <\/em> 1992; 340: 948-51.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_9_\">9. <\/a> Skolnick AA. Revised regulations for sunscreen labelling expected soon from               FDA.               <em> JAMA <\/em> 1991; 265:               3217-20.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_10_\">10. <\/a> <em> Statistics Canada <\/em> . Canadian Cancer Statistics, 1991.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_11_\">11. <\/a> Reynolds T. Sun plays havoc with light skin down under.               <em> J Natl Cancer Inst <\/em> 1992; 84:               1392- 94.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_12_\">12. <\/a> Ozone depletion and health.               <em> Lancet <\/em> 1988; ii: 1377.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_13_\">13. <\/a> Fitzpatrick TB, Haynes HA.               <em> Photosensitivity and other reactions to light <\/em> . In               <em> Harrison&#8217;s                 Principles of Internal Medicine <\/em> , 7th ed, McGraw-Hill, 1974, 281-84.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_14_\">14. <\/a> Marks R, Whiteman D. Sunburn and melanoma: how strong is the evidence?               <em> Br Med J <\/em> 1994; 308: 75-6.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_15_\">15. <\/a> Karnauchow PN. Melanoma and sun exposure.               <em> Lancet <\/em> 1995; 346: 915.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_16_\">16. <\/a> Shuster S. Melanoma and sun exposure.               <em> Lancet <\/em> 1995; 346: 1224.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_17_\">17. <\/a> Kricker Anne, Armstrong B K, English D R. Sun exposure and non-melanocytic               skin cancer.               <em> Cancer Causes and Controls <\/em> 1994; 5: 367-392.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_18_\">18. <\/a> Moan J, Dahlback A. The relationship between skin cancers, solar radiation and               ozone depletion.               <em> Br J Cancer <\/em> 1992; 65: 916-21.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_19_\">19. <\/a> Kaidbey K, Gange RW. Comparison of methods of assessing photoprotection               against ultraviolet A in               vivo.               <em> J Am Acad Dermatol <\/em> Vol. 16, No. 2, Pt. 1, February 1987, pp. 346-53<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_20_\">20. <\/a> Garland CF,               <em> et al <\/em> . Could sunscreens increase melanoma risk?               <em> Am J Publ Hlth <\/em> 1992;               82: 614-15.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_21_\">21. <\/a> Garland CF,               <em> et al <\/em> . Could sunscreens increase melanoma risk?               <em> Am J Publ Hlth <\/em> 1992;               82: 614-15.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_22_\">22. <\/a> Garland CF,               <em> et al <\/em> . Effect of sunscreens on UV radiation-induced enhancement of               melanoma growth in mice.               <em> J Natl Cancer Inst <\/em> 1994; 86: 798-801<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_23_\">23. <\/a> Fuller, Cindy J., et al. Effect of beta-carotene supplementation on               photosuppression of delayed-type               hypersensitivity in normal young men.               <em> Am J Clin Nutr <\/em> 1992; 56: 684-90.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_24_\">24. <\/a> Kirk-Othmer               <em> Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. <\/em> 1981; Vol 13, 3rd ed: 367-68.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_25_\">25. <\/a> Stern RS, Laid N. The carcinogenic risk of treatments for severe psoriasis.               <em> Cancer <\/em> 1994; 73: 2759-64.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_26_\">26. <\/a> Autier P,               <em> et al <\/em> . Melanoma and use of sunscreens: an EORTC case-control study in Germany,               Belgium and               France.               <em> Int J Cancer <\/em> 1995; 61: 749-55.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_27_\">27. <\/a> Dover JS, Arndt KA. Dermatology.               <em> JAMA <\/em> 1994; 271: 1662-63.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_28_\">28. <\/a> Mackie BS, Mackie LE. Dietary polyunsaturated fats.               <em> Med J Aust <\/em> 1988; 149: 449.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_29_\">29. <\/a> Holborow P. Melanoma and polyunsaturated fat; cancer and diet.               <em> NZ Med J <\/em> 1990; 103: 515-6.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_30_\">30. <\/a> Holborow P. Melanoma and fatty acids.               <em> NZ J Med <\/em> 1991; 104: 19.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_31_\">31. <\/a> van Dam R M,               <em> et al. <\/em> Diet and basal cell carcinoma of the skin in a prospective cohort of men.               <em> Am J                 Clin Nutr <\/em> 2000; 71: 135-141<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_32_\">32. <\/a> Garland FC,               <em> et al <\/em> . Geographic variation in breast cancer mortality in the United States:               a hypothesis involving exposure to solar radiation.               <em> Prev Med <\/em> 1990; 19: 614-22<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_33_\">33. <\/a> Koh HK, Lew RA. Sunscreens and melanoma: implications for prevention.               <em> J Natl                 Cancer Inst <\/em> 1994; 86: 78-9<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_34_\">34. <\/a> Garland FC, Garland CF, Gorham ED, Young JF. Geographic variation in breast               cancer mortality in the               United States: a hypothesis involving exposure to solar radiation.               <em> Prev Med <\/em> 1990; 19: 614-22<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_35_\">35. <\/a> Gorham ED, Garland FC, Garland CF. Sunlight and breast cancer incidence in the               USSR               <em> . Int J Epidemiol. <\/em> 1990; 19: 820-4<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_36_\">36. <\/a> Martinez ME, Willett WC. Calcium, vitamin D, and colorectal cancer: a review               of the epidemiologic evidence.               <em> Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev <\/em> . 1998; 7: 163-8<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_37_\">37. <\/a> Ainsleigh HG. Beneficial effects of sun exposure on cancer mortality.               <em> Prev Med <\/em> 1993;               22: 132-40.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_38_\">38. <\/a>Bodiwala D, Luscombe CJ, Liu S, Saxby M, French M, Jones PW, Fryer AA, Strange RC. Prostate cancer risk and exposure to ultraviolet radiation: further support for the protective effect of sunlight. <em>Cancer Lett<\/em> 2003;192:145-9<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_39_\">39. <\/a> Del Mar C. Slip, slop slap and wrap. Should we do more to prevent skin cancer?               <em> Med J Aust <\/em> 1995; 163:               511-2.<br \/>\n<a name=\"N_40_\">40. <\/a> Rees J L. The melanoma epidemic: reality or artefact.               <em> Br Med J <\/em> 1996; 312: 137-8 <\/span><\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.second-opinions.co.uk\/sunlight.html<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sunlight Information: Skin Cancers and Vitamin D by Barry Groves Introduction For the past several decades the numbers of skin cancers, and particularly the deadly one, malignant melanoma, have risen dramatically among Caucasian populations throughout the world. In the USA melanoma is the seventh most commonly diagnosed cancer with a rate of 14.2 cases per [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[351,473,503,545,363,474,544,405],"class_list":["post-2437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-barry-groves","tag-fps","tag-functionalps","tag-melanoma","tag-pufa","tag-simi-valley","tag-skin-cancer","tag-vitamin-d"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2437","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2437"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2437\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2439,"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2437\/revisions\/2439"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}