nzherald.co.nz

Shelley Bridgeman: Are you confused about sun safety messages?

10:30 AM Thursday Aug 16, 2012
What's your view on sun smart campaigns?
Photo / Thinkstock

What's your view on sun smart campaigns? Photo / Thinkstock

All those sun-sense messages about protecting our skin from damaging rays have turned me into an avid user of sunblock. I never leave the house without lathering a protective lotion with a high SPF over any exposed skin. It's a far cry from my high school days when at lunchtime we'd hitch up our pale blue uniforms and plaster Tropical Blend oil over our legs in order to tan faster.

Yet the issue of sun protection is fraught with complication. Our bodies produce vitamin D when the sun is on our skin so by applying protective lotion we are losing or reducing this opportunity. We're also exposing ourselves to products that may irritate our skin and, furthermore, nano-particles - which are found in some sunscreens - may present a separate set of health risks if they are absorbed.

There are also concerns as to whether the level of sun protection promised on the packaging is actually being delivered. In 2008 it was reported that a Cancer Society sunscreen spray tested by Consumer NZ was found to be under-performing in this regard.

I've had two encounters with Cancer Society sunscreen. The first time I used it, angry rashes appeared on my normally hardy hands and chest; my doctor prescribed a lotion which worked swiftly. Then in April on holiday my friend offered me some Cancer Society sunblock as we lay poolside on Langkawi Island, Malaysia. I viewed the sunscreen with suspicion but figured it would be okay if I used it sparingly and just the once.

The unpleasant tingling sensation started almost immediately. I ignored it for a few days and tried not to scratch my burning arms and stomach. But the rash started to spread and go scaly. Then after one restless night during which my skin felt like it was on fire I woke up to discover the sites were crusty and weeping.

I contacted my GP back home who thought I would need Locoid lipocream, antibiotics and a tar-based solution to wash with. The nurse at the resort couldn't access those particular items but she supplied me with pills and lotions that eased the problem. Back in Auckland it took two separate GP visits and increasingly powerful prescriptions to clear up my skin. The red welts across my stomach took weeks to fade. I won't be touching Cancer Society sunscreen again.

So I was interested to read Investigate Magazine's press release entitled Chemical Linked to Low IQ Found In NZ Cancer Society Sunscreens. Although the chemical was discovered in the combined sunscreen and insect repellent products (and not, it seems, in the specific lotion I happened to use), it just reinforced my belief that these particular products are not entirely trustworthy and may even, in certain circumstances, create more problems than they purport to solve.

According to the press release, Ian Wishart's new book Vitamin D: Is this the miracle vitamin? "explores the latest studies linking low vitamin D levels to a raft of major health issues, including cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's." It's a view broadly reinforced by the Herald Online's timely article Get more Vitamin D and live longer: study. Evidently Wishart's book cites overseas studies that "have estimated that for every one life saved from melanoma because of slip, slop, slap campaigns, a further 10 people have died from illnesses directly linked to a lack of vitamin D."

These are worrying claims for a society which has taken the anti-sunshine campaigns to heart to assimilate. Over the years we've doubtless collectively spent many millions of dollars on sun protection products and many millions of hours applying them - all in the interests of good health. And now we're being told that not only were those precautions perhaps not necessary but they may have caused us harm. Well, quite frankly, that leaves me speechless.

What's your view of the sun-smart campaigns? What sun protection do you recommend? Do you have a favourite sunscreen? Have you ever had a bad reaction to a particular brand? After years of avoiding the sun, are you now worried about your Vitamin D levels?

The Bug (Devonport) | 11:15AM Thursday, 16 Aug 2012
I never use sun screen. We have evolved a natural protection to the sun's rays over and rubbing chemicals into your skin, which we have no evolutionary ability to cope with, should only be used as a very last resort.
What I do though is try and stay out of direct sunlight during the midday sunshine peak and, if I know I can't avoid it, I make sure that I cover up with a hat and clothing and try to find shade.
This means that I get the benefits of the sun's rays and avoid most of the harm. The harm that I do get is dealt with by my natural mechanisms of melanin production and cellular regeneration.
mrskit (Japan) | 11:25AM Thursday, 16 Aug 2012
The best way to protect our skin from the sun is not to go outdoors during the 11am to 2pm hours, and then to cover up with shirt and hat, so we still can get the vitamin D but not the harmful rays, and we dont need suncream , apparently there is a school of thought that if we have a balanced diet, we will then have enough vitamins in our body to protect us from the rays in a way not to get burnt
Andrew () | 11:44AM Thursday, 16 Aug 2012
Welcome to the monopolistic medical industrial complex. We'll take your money, build some flimsey pseudo science around a newly created issue that scares people and ridicule any opposition that may arise. I hope you're starting to wake up now. Yes I have found cancer society sunscreen to be a skin irritant also. Best bet is to get healthy amounts of sunshine, don't burn, cover up, supplement with vitamin d3 in winter.
Copyright ©2013, APN Holdings NZ Limited