Scientists reverse stance on sun and cancer: Now they admit sunlight can prevent skin cancer

How many of us have been following the advice and guidance given to us about the dangers from the Sun?

Well, it appears that scientists have had a re-think on another BIG issue that has been debated over the last 20+ years.

Since the 1980s, physicians and cancer groups have regularly warned the public against the potential health dangers of direct sunlight on skin. As a result, many people have stayed out of the sunlight completely, covered their limbs even in warm weather or slathered themselves with UV protection products, all in the interest of lowering their risk of melanomas.

A 2009 study by a group of Leeds University researchers found that higher levels of Vitamin D were linked to improved skin cancer survival odds. Other studies have found that Vitamin D has a connection to a strong immune response in the body. In fact, Vitamin D may hasten the death of tumor cells.

When we are continously asked to trust science and scientists beliefs, it becomes increasingly difficult, when these beliefs are constantly changing.

I think I will continue to do what I have always done. Expose myself to sunlight and find a nice shady spot with an ice cold beer when I start feeling a slight tingle on the skin.

On another note, too much Vitamin D has an adverse effect on health, so happy days!!

www.naturalnews.com...

I've always found it ludicrous that scientists would say that the sun is bad for you. Everything needs it to live and thrive...except us? HA! Ridiculous.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


you're absoloutly right...

it seems like once a week something else causes cancer...

then they go back on it...

I say just llive your life in a reasonably responsible manner, and don't worry about it...

we all have to die from something

I always knew that sunlight wasn't bad since most things need it. Now this confirms it! The only time I've used sun block was when it is extremely sunny out with no cloud cover. As a result I have an improved immune system and a great tan!

There must be a reason nicely tanned bodies "look" so much more attractive: There's a primal trigger telling us they are healthy.

Science is catching up to evolution.

That is a dangerous conclusion to come to on the grounds of vitamin D and life needing the sun to, well, exist... Mass extinctions have occurred due to UV flooding the surface of the planet at times when the ozone levels were significantly decreased. Plants need sunlight, phytoplankton need sunlight, and both rapidly wither and die when exposed to high levels of UV light. [Sunlight has lots of UV before it hits Earth's atmosphere, and much of it is absorbed before it gets near the surface]

Yes, the sun is good for you and you (for the most part) need it to survive. You also need salt (NaCl,) water, and oxygen to maintain your own life. Do you know what happens when you ingest too much salt? Too much pure water? Or even too much oxygen? I'll go down the list... death [by dehydration, heart attack, etc]... oh, death on the second one [literally water intoxication, which can occur even with mineral water, and too much very pure water will leach the electrolytes from your body and do funny things like stop your heart or cause your brain to swell]... and, yep, death from the last one as well [can be very painful, or painless depending on circumstances].

When i was a kid, a few decades ago,my friends and i would run around the whole day with no shirts on,in the height of summer,with no adverse effects!
Sunblock was totally unheard of back then!
Nowadays,i feel fit,healthy and invigorated with a bit of colour to my skin,plus everything seems better about life when the sun is shining!

I should write a book chronicling all the flip-flops of science.

Whatever they say something is today they'll say the opposite in a decade then go back to the old statement another decade later and so on and so on.

Good thing governments dont use this sort of flip-flop pseudo-science kind of crap to force legislation down our throats.

Oh, wait.....

These are the same people after all who pushed trans-fats into everything they could for 30+ years claiming it as heart-healthy. That turned out great.

Scientists have never said that the sun is bad for you as far as I'm aware. It's been well known for a long time that we need sunlight to produce vitamin D.

Staying in the sun for hours until your skin burns is still bad for you and is a contributory factor in susceptibility to skin cancer. If you disagree with that then I'd like to see some evidence to refute it.

Of course mileage varies from person to person and there will be anecdotes of well weathered people are able to stay in the sun for long periods with no ill effects. It is still a bad idea for an average person with more sensitive skin to do the same.

I am sure that the sun cream manufacturers exaggerate things to sell more. The decline in the ozone layer and subsequent increase in UV is most likely a factor in increasing skin cancer, but I can bet that it also has something to do with the products that are rubbed onto the skin on a daily basis too.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
When we are continously asked to trust science and scientists beliefs, it becomes increasingly difficult, when these beliefs are constantly changing.

The beliefs are constantly changing, often contradictory, and generally of little use to lay people. The scientific discussion is not straightforward, simple, or clear. This follows from the complexity of the system under consideration - the reality is so convoluted as to be nearly incomprehensible. Very bright people spend a decade at a university and then a lifetime in a lab working on understanding a single component in a system with millions of components. The result is not a simple checklist of what you can do to be healthy. It's a confusing and often inconsistent conversation in the form of peer reviewed articles that not too many people are equiped to assess.

That's why journal articles aren't meant to be taken as medical advise. You can't expect research findings to come in the form of immediately "actionable intelligence." Based on the article in the OP, it seems like it's probably the case that vitamin D really does improve survival rates in people with skin cancer. However, it's also definitely true that the radiation coming from the sun causes mutation in DNA, and these mutations can lead to cancer. But, that same solar radiation is what makes vitamin D in our bodies. These are all true facts, and they don't lend themselves to a simple yes or no answer about whether or not "the sun is good for you." We need sunlight, but, it causes skin cancer.

Articles like the one linked in the OP, which seek to polarize and oversimplify scientific issues, are counter-productive. It's simply not true that scientists have "reversed their stance" on the sun causing skin cancer. The associated research publication says nothing of the sort, and there is overwhelming evidence that UV radiation can damage DNA and generate cancerous mutations. It's also not the case that sunlight can prevent skin cancer. The article quotes scientists as saying that vitamin D helps fight tumors once they form, not that the tumors are prevented from forming by the sun. The approach taken by the authors at Natural News is an unfortunate one. It's misleading and incorrect to present the issue in the way that they have, and the reason that they do it is to demonize mainstream medical science and portray mainstream medical findings as unreliable, self-contradictory, and not worth your time. Don't fall for it - the true picture is not straightforward, trying to see it in black and white is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to undermine legitimate research findings because they're not consistent with a narrative that's easy to make sense of.

Originally posted by MzMorbid
I've always found it ludicrous that scientists would say that the sun is bad for you. Everything needs it to live and thrive...except us? HA! Ridiculous.

That would be rediculous... Does it seem reasonable to you that that would be the scientific position? I assure you it's not, but I'd be interested to know where you heard that it was.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I should write a book chronicling all the flip-flops of science.

Whatever they say something is today they'll say the opposite in a decade then go back to the old statement another decade later and so on and so on.

Good thing governments dont use this sort of flip-flop pseudo-science kind of crap to force legislation down our throats.

Oh, wait.....

These are the same people after all who pushed trans-fats into everything they could for 30+ years claiming it as heart-healthy. That turned out great.

edit on 27-5-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

It's true that the abundance of contradictions in medical research is striking. However, on the whole it seems to have worked out pretty well. Modern medicine is responsible for doubling the life expectancy in developed countries. Doesn't that mean that progress is being made overall, even though it sometimes comes in the form of three steps forward, two step back? It's not as though the entire enterprise should be considered a failure just because it's not always right. Shouldn't we be willing to forgive things like being mislead about trans-fats, given that the establishment responsible also did things like cure polio and small pox?

I agree that most politicians aren't qualified to translate scientific research findings into policy, but I don't blame the researchers. I think for the most part everyone is doing the best they can. Even when the scientists get it wrong, they probably have a pretty reasonabe argument supporting their position. The real problem is that the general public doesn't appreciate the nuance and subtlety of most scientific issues, and when they read one news article that references a single scientific publication they consider the issue to be resolved. Then they're upset when something contradictory comes along a couple years later. As long as it's a problem for people to hear that the truth is convoluted and not reduceable to a sound-bite or headline - a "yes" or "no" - they'll always resent the scientists for painting a picture of reality that is frustrating and unmanageable. Unfortunately, reality is like that.

I've read it posted here that today's sunlight has less red in it's spectrum...don't really know what that means but I seem to remember the sun and weather in general, to be less harsh in my youth. Then again, maybe I'm just being nostalgic.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


Science is constantly changing. I was always told to never say "I know" but instead..."I think". I think it's weird of someone to wear long clothing if it's hot and sunny...I never have.

My dad and my grandmother both had skin cancer, my dad was a swimmer on swim teams and water polo teams out in the sun a lot. My grandmother is out in the sun as well doing her gardening.

Of course the sun is good for you, but it also can be...a bit dangerous.
Fyi that's my mothers mother not my father's. So I doubt there's any connection.

We need sunlight on our skin for our bodies to produce Vitamin D, which is an essential vitamin for health in many, many ways.

Here's a list of some symptoms of Vitamin D deficiency:

www.vitaminddeficiencyguide.com...

Vitamin D deficiency symptoms appear more as various disorders. These symptoms include:

Rickets – It is the most frequent vitamin D deficiency symptom in children. As a result of vitamin D deficiency, the bones are weakened, the bone tissue fail to mineralize leading to soft and deformed bones.

Osteoporosis – It is a similar symptom to ricket, but it is found as vitamin D deficiency symptom in adults. Because of the low vitamin D level in the body there is deficient calcification in bones, which become brittle and soft.

Depression – According to scientist, depression is the result of the lack of vitamin D. They argue that because of urbanization, the sunlight can’t adequately reach the skin, reducing thus the 25(OH) level in the body, causing depression. It has been also discovered that a great number of people suffer from seasonal affective disorder during the winter due to insufficient exposure to direct sunlight. The parathyroid hormone is the one causing the vitamin D deficiency symptom – depression.

Hyperparathyroidism – Results from hypocalcemia, which is a blood condition with unusually low vitamin D level, resulting in hyperparathyroidism.

Fatigue – According to old remedies, sunshine and fresh air are essential for good health. The absence of vitamin D synthesis in the morning can result in fatigue.

Obesity – Vitamin D deficiency is frequently linked to obesity, as the insufficient level of vitamin D holds back the production of hormone leptin, which regulates the fat in the body. Inadequate exposure to sunlight disrupts the normal function of the body, determining the individual to eat more than it is necessary for the body.

The list of vitamin D deficiency symptoms also includes chronic backache, cancer, chronic pain, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, heart diseases or hypertension

Sunlight can definitely be harmful, I don't believe what they're saying. The sun puts off three types of UV radiation, A, B, and C. A is the most harmful, and if a ray penetrates the skin and happens to hit the nucleus of a cell, that could cause a mutation in the DNA and potentially cause skin cancer. It's extremely rare that a UV A ray hits the nucleus of a cell like that, but if you work outside constantly the chances that that will happen jump up. Tanning beds are even worse, ~90% of the UV rays put off by tanning beds are A rays, so the chances that you get skin cancer from them jumps quite dramatically compared to good old fashioned sunlight.

Yeah...I'm not about to go start tanning just cuz of this. Besides...I like pale skin more...I'm not really into looking like a oompa loompa. Yes, sunlight is neccessary, but you only need about ten minutes of direct sunlight per day. And that also depends where in the world you are.
Constant sun exposure will undoubtly harm your DNA...

Guess it's time for this one again...



Getting no sunlight is bad for you, but so is excessive exposure. Learn some moderation.

And to the person who thinks tanning must be good because it's attractive, see if you still feel the same way when the person starts looking like a leather handbag after a few years.

Originally posted by laiguana
Yeah...I'm not about to go start tanning just cuz of this. Besides...I like pale skin more...I'm not really into looking like a oompa loompa. Yes, sunlight is neccessary, but you only need about ten minutes of direct sunlight per day. And that also depends where in the world you are.
Constant sun exposure will undoubtly harm your DNA...

You only become an oompa loompa if you go to a tanning bed. And I don't think it harms your DNA as it is a necessity. I agree that too much is bad, but that's what sun burn is, isn't it?

Scientists are a bunch of John Kerrys

People remember how John Kerry was a flip-flopper right? Or is calling someone a John Kerry outdated now?

Anyway, It's pretty obvious that over-exposure to the sun can cause adverse health effects. You wouldn't get a sun burn if the sun isn't baking your skin.

But just like everything, moderation is the key. All these extremes of harshly limiting sugar, fats, sun, salt, whatever else they say is bad for you this week seems pointless. Just don't go crazy with anything, don't stress yourself out, and you'll be fine. My opinion anyway.