| Author |
 Topic  |
|
NaturistDoc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/12/2012 : 12:51:26 PM
|
Compared to, say, Hawaii, Canada may not get "a lot of really intense sun", but I can say from personal experience that it is entirely possible to get a sunburn on Wreck Beach. Fortunately, mine didn't involve any vital structures, just a stripe on one side that the sunscreen missed.
And now, mirabile dictu, I find myself in at least partial agreement with BobKnows. No, I'm not talking about the 'men's genitals' post, but the earlier one about sun exposure and Vitamin D. The Australians have long been world leaders in studies of solar UV exposure. The vast majority of their population lives on or near the coast, and they have a very high rate of skin cancers. They heavily promoted use of sunscreen back in the 1970s, but to their dismay, actually saw skin cancer rates increase. The crappy sunscreens available back then blocked UVB well enough to prevent sunburn, but let the longer-wavelength UVA (which nobody thought was harmful) right through. So ... less sunburn led to longer sun exposure which meant more UVA which meant more skin cancer. Once it dawned on people that UVA was carcinogenic (and wrinkle-o-genic too, BTW) sunscreens that blocked both A and B began to appear on the market. There is no question that modern sunscreens, properly applied, will reduce the incidence of skin cancers. However ... avoidance of UV exposure undoubtedly decreases production of Vitamin D. In fact, Robyn Lucas at the Australian National University published a provocative study back in 2008 (Int. J. Epidemiol. (2008) 37 (3): 654-667) suggesting that the overall disease burden caused by too LITTLE sunshine exposure was far greater than that posed by too much. So, how much sun is enough? No single answer, alas. The higher your latitude and the darker your skin, the more sun you need. Estimates range from "a few minutes a day" to "half an hour 3-4 times a week". Personally, I use sunscreen only when I know I'm going to be in the sun for an hour or more. I also take a Vitamin D supplement. But this is in no way intended to be interpreted as medical advice.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1054 |
 |
|
|
HomeNudist
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/12/2012 : 1:54:32 PM
|
NaturistDoc,
I have often wondered about that. All the effort to limit exposure to sunlight and the cancer rates still go up. I do wonder if part of the increasing cancer rates is from all the chemicals we are rubbing into our skin to block the sunlight.
|
Edited by - HomeNudist on 10/12/2012 2:57:53 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 182 |
|
|
|
Bob Knows
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/12/2012 : 6:13:15 PM
|
I have read on that topic for years and years. Sunblock is often worse than not using it.
Vitamin D has health effects that help the body fight off cancer in skin and many other places. Lack of Vitamin D, lack of sunshine, raises cancer rates. The higher death rate from lack of sunshine is so severe that human populations from dark skin tropical regions are rapidly selected for light skin by evolutionary death rates. Chemical sun block puts white skin people into the health category of dark skin people. It raises cancer and other death rates. Sun block is, perhaps, useful if you have to go out in the sun for several hours in the spring before becoming acclimatized to summer sun. But it is unhealthful to use sun block to prevent natural sunlight on your skin.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 295 |
|
|
|
NaturistDoc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/13/2012 : 01:09:05 AM
|
Tough call. As Lucas pointed out in her article, solar UV radiation has the potential both to prevent and promote disease. That's why I limit my UV exposure by using sunscreen, but hedge my bets by taking Vitamin D.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1054 |
|
|
|
NaturistDoc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/14/2012 : 02:02:05 AM
|
Some of the chemicals in sunscreens (avobenzone, octocryline) have proven weakly carcinogenic in some animal assays, but not in others. Their carcinogenic potential in humans seems low, but not zero.
Mexoryl has shown little or no carcinogenic potential, and isn't absorbed in any great amount through the skin. Unfortunately it is often mixed with small amounts of other sunscreens, but even then its risk is pretty low.
Much has been made of "mineral" sunscreens like titanium dioxide and zinc oxide. Great UV blockers with very little systemic absorption, but the older formulations were pasty white goops that looked like war paint. More recently, sunscreens containing "nanoparticles" of TiO2 or ZnO2 have been marketed. Still good UV blockers, and transparent to boot! But the nanoparticles seem to be absorbed to a much greater degree than the older preparations, and considerable concern has been raised from lab studies of TiO2 nanoparticles.
A product I intend to try is Kabana's Green Screen line. It uses what they call "non-nano" ZnO2 - particles roughly 10-20 times larger than the typical nano. So far it's only available in the range SPF 20-35. It is described as "essentially transparent", whatever that means. They don't say how waterproof it is. To their GREAT credit, Kabana publishes the ingredients in their sunscreens on their website.
To sum up: The sun is good ... but it's also bad. Sunscreens are good ... but they may be bad too! Good luck working out the optimal risk/benefit ratio.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1054 |
|
|
|
Bob Knows
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 10/14/2012 : 09:44:30 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by NaturistDoc
Tough call. As Lucas pointed out in her article, solar UV radiation has the potential both to prevent and promote disease. That's why I limit my UV exposure by using sunscreen, but hedge my bets by taking Vitamin D.
Interesting discussion. There are differences in approach that work for different people. Here's my approach.
I have observed that many people who rely on sunscreen products to avoid sunburn rather than relying on Mother Nature to provide natural skin darkening often end up having more sunburn and skin damage. And yes, when I was younger I ended up in that group.
For one, there is an ongoing controversy about which alphabet UV needs to be blocked, and which chemical preparation blocks the "harmful" alphabet UV. Some research suggests that sunblock prevents only the non-harmful alphabet UV while allowing the most harmful alphabet UV to do its damage. It has been said that people who rely on artificial chemicals end up spending a lot more time in the sun without Mother Nature's natural skin darkening, and end up absorbing a lot more of the most harmful alphabet UV. I don't know if that is true, but I now avoid having to know by relying on natural skin darkening rather than on chemicals.
Another common result is that chemical sun block wears off, washes off, misses a place, isn't applied at sleeve lines or shorts lines, is carelessly applied, etc. I have, over the years, seen many children and some adults with badly sunburned places and bodies because of poorly done reliance on chemical sunblock products.
Rather than teaching children and adults to rely on artificial, and perhaps toxic, chemicals they would be better served learning to acquire a natural skin darkening by limited exposure in spring as outdoor weather increases. By summer children and adults will be able to enjoy the sun all day and get lots of healthful natural Vitamin D without having harmful UV exposure or sunburn.
I am also skeptical of artificial vitamin pills. Even if they are well made and effective the use of pills for this and that ends up being hit and miss for most users, often more miss than hit. And teaching children and ourselves to rely on pills rather than relying on nature doesn't sit well with my view of life.
I do carry sunblock. It is useful in the spring when someone is white from spending all winter indoors and suddenly has to spend more time in the sun than his natural skin darkening can support. In those situations the skin should be allowed to get some sun before the sunblock is applied. It is also probably effective for those few people who don't have the natural darkening pigments in their skin.
And, one can over do it. Frequent use of those Tanning Salons is a big mistake. So is laying in the sun, sunbathing, hour after hour day after day. You can commit suicide by drinking too much water too. Some of a good thing is good, too much is too much.
Your mileage may vary.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 295 |
|
|
|
PeteWhim
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/23/2013 : 1:27:20 PM
|
I agree about sun blockers. My experience has shown that it is better to sun bathe in steps of exposure till you have become tanned. Tried SPF 15, for example, and has upset the normal skin "seasoning" as it were. Oh yes,if you are white from winter lack of tanning and have to be out in the sun for hours, then I would use SPF 15 and even add Zinc Oxide to my nose.
Stay in the sun, stay smooth and enjoy who you are, fellow travelers !
Petewhim
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 82 |
|
|
|
nudesunguy
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/24/2013 : 01:17:26 AM
|
The thing I hate about sunscreen is that if you get it near your eyes (or rub it into your eyes from your fingers) it can ruin your day.
Don't forget umbrellas. Most have an SPF rating of at least 50 and allow you to stay at the beach all day and not overheat either. But be advised that reflected sunlight (from the sand, for example) can burn you also, though it takes many more hours to do so.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 593 |
|
|
|
old hippie
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/24/2013 : 5:11:36 PM
|
I rather like Bob's approach. Early in the warm weather, I'll slather SPF on my body, or stay under the umbrella, or both. After a few days, as something resembling tan develops, I feel more comfortable staying out longer or in more direct light. Give me a week or so, and I'm good for the rest of the season (unless we head to the tropics).
"Moderation in all things, my boy" Including your moderation, I replied.
Dum vivimus, vivamus!
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 327 |
|
|
|
FireProf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/24/2013 : 10:58:42 PM
|
I'm of latin/european/native american heritage. So ... my skin color is already ... tan. I used to use baby oil when I was sunbaking. I was injured in a home accident and got burned. My sunbaking days were over for some time because the intense pain I experienced on those parts that had been burned. I resumed sunbaking after a couple years and went to suntanning oils. I seemed to be able to go for long periods of time without sunscreen and not have any real noticible side effects ... like hurtful sunburn.
Then I was examined by our dermatologist and she told me ... "if you're gonna be out there sunbaking ... you'd best start applying sunscreen." The Prof is relentless. So ... I put it on. SPF 15 seems to work best for my body and I'll apply something a little stronger to my face. It helps and I've had many less days of sunburned shoulders and face.
My wife, on the other hand ... applies sunscreen religiously! She's hasn't had any problems or issues with her skin in over 2 years. She doesn't sunbake anymore but she doesn't stay outta the sun completely. She's just a lot more cautious and smart.
Loves being naked. Plays well with others!
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 3175 |
|
|
|
allnaturalwife
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/25/2013 : 3:27:38 PM
|
When it comes to tanning, I am still of the "old school" mentality. I use oil and develop a deep dark tan during the summer months. If I do say so myself, I am lucky enough to have very good skin. I am pretty dark naturally and have never had an issue. My husband is also quite dark due to his Italian heritage. And we passed our good skin on to our daughters. We are a family of "sun bakers" and most likely always will be. I do put some protection on my face though.
Jenn
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 689 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
nudity and sunscreen
