Is Sunscreen Causing Cancer? Interesting read...
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 6:19 am

I'm not saying I agree with this article in it's entirety, and it seems to be extremely one-sided, but there seems to be some truths in here. I found this on MUA. I do believe Vitamin D and building up ones immune system through nutrition is crucial to preventing disease in general.

Any thoughts?

http://www.naturalnews.com/021903.html

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 8:18 am

"Drowning is a Myth!! Water can't hurt you, in fact, if you don't drink water you'll die! Why else would three quarters of the Earth's surface be covered with water if water could kill you?! It's a conspiracy of the life preserver and boat industries!" This kind of shrilly paranoid tinfoil-hat conspiracy stuff gives the natural nutrition movement a bad name. Leaving aside for a moment the ridiculous assertion that there is a "cancer industry" including the entire medical community and sunscreen manufacturers who actually want people to get cancer and intentionally suppress known cancer cures, all the rest of the "facts" here are either laughably wrong or just plain made up. Example of a silly mistake of reasoning: "Sunscreen chemicals enter the bloodstream through the skin. I can prove this--nicotine patches let nicotine through the skin, therefore anything put on the skin will enter the bloodstream." Okay, that reasoning would support the following absurdity: "Draining potatoes in a colander can't possibly work, the potatoes will go right through and down the drain. After all, salt passes right through the colander, therefore potatoes will too." Same argument, same fallacy--the fact that some chemicals can pass through the skin barrier doesn't mean that all do.

Made up facts without any support--lack of Vitamin D causes 77% of all cancer in women; sunscreen chemicals cause cancer, etc. No scientific evidence is provided to support either one of these wild assertions. That's because none exists.

Having said that, I do think that there is a case to be made that Vitamin D supplementation is a valuable asset to human health and that exposure to sunlight may have beneficial as well as harmful effects. There is good epidemiological evidence that rates of certain diseases like breast cancer, osteoporosis, and multiple sclerosis are higher in people that live in regions with limited sunlight like the Pacific Northwest, Scotland, and Finland. And eating a diet richer in anti-oxidants can't hurt you and may well help you.

Unfortunately, hysteria and misinformation like this doesn't encourage people to think seriously about this issue. And that's a shame.

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 8:38 am

I have read similar claims from other - more serious - people.

I believe one is best off by protecting face, neck and chest to prevent signs of aging and expose other body parts to sunlight without sun cream 15-20 min every day in order to get enough vit D. Then you can apply sun cream.

The sun is our most important source of vit D, which protect against many types of cancer. I believe it's unhealthy to avoid all sun exposure. Sun block inhibits the uptake of vit D.

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 8:52 am

I agree with Septembergirl - I will keep protecting my face, neck, chest and hands to prevent aging, but will be more than happy to get other body-parts a little sun-kissed. Thus getting valuable vit.D and avoiding ghostly-pale look. I am very fair and in winter and spring look like I`ve gone out of some cave Rolling Eyes

As for the chemicals absorbing the skin, I do believe it is reasonable and this is why I`m looking for a good ALL PHYSICAL ss right now!
Are physical sunscreens with zink oxyde considered totally harmless? are they NOT able to penetrate the skin?

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 9:09 am

does sunscreen make ur skin dry?
cuz it happend to me... Crying or Very sad

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 9:19 am

to flitcraft -
don`t get it wrong but there IS a "cancer industry"... of course I can`t assert that they have something to do with the use of sunscreen, but it is true that they suppress cancer CURES... cancer medicines are extremely expensive and they provide the pharma-industry with tremendous amounts of money, and these medicines are not made to CURE, but to support. More to that the cost of surgeries... there were in fact some attempts of inventing cancer-cures, and ridiculously simple and cheap ones, but the very moment people heard about them, there was just silence and nothing more... it would be really disadvantageous for the pharma-industry (in fact, it would just kill all the billion-industry) if there were some cure on the market, especially simple and cheap one. I cannot tell the exact figures, but cancer medications-industry means tremendous amounts of money for the companies. And the people are left alone with this.
it`s a cruel world we live in...
but c'est la vie Sad

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 9:55 am

[quote="flitcraftUnfortunately, hysteria and misinformation like this doesn't encourage people to think seriously about this issue. And that's a shame.[/quote]

Thanks for presenting the opposing view. That's why I started a thread, to start a discussion and make people think, not to cause hysteria. I think we have a very well-informed group of people here who can separate fact from fiction.

I think people always need to question everything they are using on themselves or loved ones. Most people do not question the medical advice that they are given, and that is giving your control away in a sense. You need to work in partnership with the doctor, you will feel much more empowered and less afraid. I can speak from some experience, as I had breast cancer. Do research on all the various options out there, not just the ones your doctor tells you about. Drugs (especially for cancer) are big business, especially in this country. Ever count how many drug ads you see on the CBS Sunday Morning News?? It seems like every other one is a drug ad. There are non-drug therapies which have studies backing them and have minimal side effects. These complementary and alternative treatments (CAM) are being used for cancer in other countries but nobody hears about them here because they are not drugs or big money makers. Google mushrooms (PSK coriolus versicolor) and SGS from broccoli, avemar from fermented wheat germ, artemisinin, selenium, melatonin...all viable options for adjuvant cancer treatment or cancer prevention, with no side effects. You will never hear about these from your oncologist.

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 10:18 am

boski wrote:

[quote="flitcraftUnfortunately, hysteria and misinformation like this doesn't encourage people to think seriously about this issue. And that's a shame.

Thanks for presenting the opposing view. That's why I started a thread, to start a discussion and make people think, not to cause hysteria. I think we have a very well-informed group of people here who can separate fact from fiction.

I think people always need to question everything they are using on themselves or loved ones. Most people do not question the medical advice that they are given, and that is giving your control away in a sense. You need to work in partnership with the doctor, you will feel much more empowered and less afraid. I can speak from some experience, as I had breast cancer. Do research on all the various options out there, not just the ones your doctor tells you about. Drugs (especially for cancer) are big business, especially in this country. Ever count how many drug ads you see on the CBS Sunday Morning News?? It seems like every other one is a drug ad. There are non-drug therapies which have studies backing them and have minimal side effects. These complementary and alternative treatments (CAM) are being used for cancer in other countries but nobody hears about them here because they are not drugs or big money makers. Google mushrooms (PSK coriolus versicolor) and SGS from broccoli, avemar from fermented wheat germ, artemisinin, selenium, melatonin...all viable options for adjuvant cancer treatment or cancer prevention, with no side effects. You will never hear about these from your oncologist.[/quote]

Amen Boski! I'm looking forward to the book about sunscreen that Dr. H mentioned in the 302 thread. I suspect it's going to be mighty controvesial. Additionally, if Dr H's view on the antioxiants are even close to be correct, then that blows the lid off of the skincare industry. Interesting reading. Always question your Dr. Always.

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 10:30 am

I am no friend of Big Pharma, believe me. I think they make obscene profits and use patent law to unreasonably prop up drug prices. I also think they spend huge advertising budgets to convince consumers that they need prescription medication to "cure" things like shyness or mild anxiety and push new, expensive medications to treat conditions like allergies or high cholesterol when older, cheaper medications and lifestyle changes are equally effective.

That said, where is the evidence that there are safe, effective cancer treatments that are being suppressed? Just saying it doesn't make it so. Just repeating it or saying it louder doesn't make it any more true, either.

As a cancer survivor, I have had all too much first and second hand experience with the "cancer cures exist but they're being suppressed" crowd. They encourage cancer sufferers to stop going to doctors ("They're all part of the conspiracy!") and to give up on traditional cancer treatments like chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation in favor of whatever it is they are pushing. Of course, their "cures" aren't subjected to scientific double-blind testing. ("Science is all wrong too! Measuring outcomes is another trick of the Cancer Industry!")

I know the appeal of this. It's cheaper than traditional cancer therapy, less painful and unpleasant than running the chemo/surgery/radiation gauntlet, and it always promises a cure, whereas oncologists often have grimmer predictions to make. But in my opinion, there's money being made by the purveyors of false hope and quackery. And valuable time for treatment is lost.

But back to the subject at hand--I think it is entirely possible that sunscreen ingredients, whether "chemical" or "physical" *could* penetrate the skin. (Incidentally, that observation is equally true of *anything* put on the skin--soaps, serums, lotions, etc.)

So the real questions are: Has anyone found sunscreen ingredients in the bloodstream or in fatty tissue? And then, is there any evidence (through epidemiology or in vitro studies) that suggest a link between those ingredients and health problems? Call me old fashioned or even a tool of the conspiracy, but I prefer a scientific approach to the questions, which I think are indeed important ones.

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 10:48 am

flitcraft wrote:

I am no friend of Big Pharma, believe me. I think they make obscene profits and use patent law to unreasonably prop up drug prices. I also think they spend huge advertising budgets to convince consumers that they need prescription medication to "cure" things like shyness or mild anxiety and push new, expensive medications to treat conditions like allergies or high cholesterol when older, cheaper medications and lifestyle changes are equally effective.

That said, where is the evidence that there are safe, effective cancer treatments that are being suppressed? Just saying it doesn't make it so. Just repeating it or saying it louder doesn't make it any more true, either.

As a cancer survivor, I have had all too much first and second hand experience with the "cancer cures exist but they're being suppressed" crowd. They encourage cancer sufferers to stop going to doctors ("They're all part of the conspiracy!") and to give up on traditional cancer treatments like chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation in favor of whatever it is they are pushing. Of course, their "cures" aren't subjected to scientific double-blind testing. ("Science is all wrong too! Measuring outcomes is another trick of the Cancer Industry!")

I know the appeal of this. It's cheaper than traditional cancer therapy, less painful and unpleasant than running the chemo/surgery/radiation gauntlet, and it always promises a cure, whereas oncologists often have grimmer predictions to make. But in my opinion, there's money being made by the purveyors of false hope and quackery. And valuable time for treatment is lost.

But back to the subject at hand--I think it is entirely possible that sunscreen ingredients, whether "chemical" or "physical" *could* penetrate the skin. (Incidentally, that observation is equally true of *anything* put on the skin--soaps, serums, lotions, etc.)

So the real questions are: Has anyone found sunscreen ingredients in the bloodstream or in fatty tissue? And then, is there any evidence (through epidemiology or in vitro studies) that suggest a link between those ingredients and health problems? Call me old fashioned or even a tool of the conspiracy, but I prefer a scientific approach to the questions, which I think are indeed important ones.

I'm absolutely not advocating that people stop seeing their doctors or to not consider conventional treatments, because everybody's case is different. The type of cancer you have and the stage that it is in may very well require chemo/radiation/surgery. I'm just saying to go and research ALL the options and make an informed decision with your doctor.

I don't think the CAM therapies are so much "suppressed" as they are not advertised or written about as well as drug therapies. Most western doctors are not trained in CAM therapies. So unless you do the research yourself, you will never know about these options. There are no companies interested in performing the expensive double blind studies on these because they can't patent these things and charge exorbitant prices like they can a drug. Just my opinion...

Anyway, I don't want to debate about the cancer industry because that was not the original topic. I think we should get back on track and talk sunscreen Very Happy

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 11:23 am

Well, that was certainly an interesting read. I am one who supports homeapthic medicine, but i had trouble with the statements being made here.

Hard to ignore that damage by the sun can lead to cancer, my own brother and a neighbor have faced this- farmers who spent hours unprotected in the sun....

Being one of those very fair skinned folks who burns easily, my thoughts are: when I put sunscreen on I do not burn, left off and I fry, especially early in the summer when my skin is not used to it, and I am very particular about my diet as far as nutrition needs.

We know that sunscreen blocks Vit D absorbtion, thats why the recommendation that you try to get 10-15 minutes in the sun without sunscreen. I will continue to use my sunscreen and take my 10-15 minutes a day when the sun is not at its worst. I am skeptical of the claims....

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 11:24 am

Aiva wrote:

I agree with Septembergirl - I will keep protecting my face, neck, chest and hands to prevent aging, but will be more than happy to get other body-parts a little sun-kissed. Thus getting valuable vit.D and avoiding ghostly-pale look. I am very fair and in winter and spring look like I`ve gone out of some cave Rolling Eyes

As for the chemicals absorbing the skin, I do believe it is reasonable and this is why I`m looking for a good ALL PHYSICAL ss right now!
Are physical sunscreens with zink oxyde considered totally harmless? are they NOT able to penetrate the skin?

Yes! I believe that an all physical sunscreen with zinc oxide is harmless. I agree with your strategy of protecting face but, say, letting other parts of the body be exposed a little to the sun sometimes. Just take a multivitamin with 100% vitamin D...

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 11:28 am

I really hope that this article is not true because I use sun screen pretty consistently. However, it concerns me. Does anyone know a really good all natural sunblock cream that does not contain any toxin or carcinogens. Advice please!

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 11:35 am

You can also supplement your vitamin d but its best in a liquid form. But first you need to go to your doctor and get a test to see how low you are in vitamin d before you start randomly adding it to your diet.

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 11:38 am

I`m with boski here.
of course I`m not advocating against doctors either! when one is diagnosed with cancer, he/she has no other choice! some people claim there is, and they prove it, and some get cured on alternative ways, but it is not for everyone and one simply shouldn`t risk him/herself!
what I tried to say (and may be faild due to my limited English) is that what boski expressed better - all the pharma-industry is interested in is their money. And everything else - they are either not interested in, or see as a threat to their business.

sorry, boski, I will do no more debate on this, so to our sunscreen talk.

here I think everything that goes to extremes is wrong. Yes, people who cover themselves in sunscreen from head to feet or do not leave their houses at all to avoid sun, they will be deprived of vit.D as a result. More to that, the sun does influence on - at least my - moods Smile

- I`m getting depressed, tired and with zero energy without the sun.
But I think too much of the sun is also harmful. I can`t stop wondering seeing topless ladies on beaches, when the breast-cancer rate is so high throughout the world... I had some ovary-problem before and was told to avoid direct sunlight on the beach at all. And these ladies can lie there for half a day, including the most dangerous time.
Plus photo-induced aging of the skin...

so, to resume what I`ve said - I can just repeat - I`ll keep my face, neck, chest and hands under sunscreen - for the sake of vanity, not to get more wrinkles and freckles Smile

and will let the rest of me enjoy the sun sometimes - to get my vit.D and good mood Smile

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 11:39 am

Sorry for the rants above, but that kind of conspiracy mongering gets my blood boiling,especially the fringe group that discourages people from seeing medical doctors and using conventional therapies. That kind of quackery is deadly,in my personal opinion.

But I agree that much more research is needed into causes and cures of cancer and other diseases that almost certainly have huge environmental and lifestyle components. I am lucky to be at an HMO that actively encourages the use of complementary therapies as well as conventional ones. So my oncologist linked me to a lot of interesting information about diet and cancer--particularly phyto-nutrients.

Sunscreen raises a host of important questions, beginning with the question of whether solar radiation has positive impacts on human health in addition to the known negative effects. So there's the question of whether sunscreen use (assuming that it is effective in blocking UVA A and B rays) is also preventing those benefits. Then there is the separate question of whether sunscreen may break down and degrade while on the skin: Does that prevent protection? And do the breakdown chemicals present additional health problems?

Then there is the matter of sunscreen penetration into the body--which ingredients, if any, penetrate the body? Does size of particle matter? Do these ingredients get excreted or stored in fatty tissue? And what health issues, if any, might this kind of penetration raise? And given the large number of different ingredients, these questions may well have differing answers for the various ingredients.

Of course,there is also the question of what fraction of sunlight--assuming that sunlight can be beneficial--is the "good" fraction of sunlight. It would be nice if it turned out that the "good" effect of sunshine could be enjoyed while still blocking the UVA rays.

I look forward to hearing from you all about any information you have about any of these issues. (Till I know better, though, it's sunscreen for me when I'm out and about...)

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 12:01 pm

According to the poster we all recognized as the "sunscreen expert" on on the YTF board, you could just have the tips of your ears exposed to sunlight and that would be enough for Vitamin D. I personally know I forget to do my ears a lot.

The fact is that you may apply sunscreen religiously everyday but still miss areas without even knowing it. It's kind of like those red tablets they used to have us kids put in our mouths after we brushed our teeth in order to show how many areas we missed.

In other words, for Vitamin D conversion, wearing sunscreen is most likely not going to stop some sunlight from getting through. Not to mention that sunscreen begins to break down after 2 hours of exposure anyway. We are probably getting plenty of sunlight unless we live in Alaska and have 20 hour nights or something. And there is always Vit D supplementation if the doctor orders it.

Personally, my mother, brother, and sister all fight skin cancer, and I'll take the risk with using powerful sunscreen to try to avoid that. Not to mention that my pale Northern European skin ages easily with sun exposure. Saggy arms and knees because of sun damage would be just as ugly to me as saggy face.

As far as the conspiracy to stop cancer cures, I believe that the pharma industry would prefer we never find a cure. We just all have to be as informed as we can and then make our choices based on the info we can get, and try not to stress out, because that just adds to the risk! Smile

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 12:15 pm

Nimue wrote:

Yes! I believe that an all physical sunscreen with zinc oxide is harmless. I agree with your strategy of protecting face but, say, letting other parts of the body be exposed a little to the sun sometimes. Just take a multivitamin with 100% vitamin D...

A vitamin supplement is fine, but cannot beat "the real thing".

Several studies during the last years have demonstrated that people with high vit D levels are less likely to develop cancer and more likely to survive it. Some studies have also suggested that those people are less prone to obesity.

It's hard to get enough of this crucial vitamin through our diet, as fat fish is the main source. Many people suffer from low vit D levels, according to new research.

Vit D is oil soluble and can cause toxicity when taken in high dosages orally. Sun exposure will boost vit D levels to a large extent in a natural way without ever causing toxicity.

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 12:24 pm

If people are concerned that they aren't getting enough vitamin D, perhaps the best thing would be to have themselves tested, rather than just randomly using less sunscreen or skipping entire areas on purpose.

So many people are getting melanoma these days. The E Street Band (Bruce Springsteen's band)'s keyboard player just died of it. It seems based on the people around me at least that hardly anyone actually wears sunscreen on a regular basis, or if they do, it's just a touch, whatever's in their makeup or whatever. I have a hard time believing that a large number of average people have low vitamin D levels due to sun deficiency.

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 12:24 pm

Septembergirl wrote:

Nimue wrote:

Yes! I believe that an all physical sunscreen with zinc oxide is harmless. I agree with your strategy of protecting face but, say, letting other parts of the body be exposed a little to the sun sometimes. Just take a multivitamin with 100% vitamin D...

A vitamin supplement is fine, but cannot beat "the real thing".

Several studies during the last years have demonstrated that people with high vit D levels are less likely to develop cancer and more likely to survive it. Some studies have also suggested that those people are less prone to obesity.

It's hard to get enough of this crucial vitamin through our diet, as fat fish is the main source. Many people suffer from low vit D levels, according to new research.

Vit D is oil soluble and can cause toxicity when taken in high dosages orally. Sun exposure will boost vit D levels to a large extent in a natural way without ever causing toxicity.

I`ve bought a nice supply of Omega3 salmon fish-oil, Laughing

and you`re right! substituting natural sources of vitamins with artificial ones is not a good idea. Artificial vitamins have worse assimilation...

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 12:31 pm

seabliss wrote:

If people are concerned that they aren't getting enough vitamin D, perhaps the best thing would be to have themselves tested, rather than just randomly using less sunscreen or skipping entire areas on purpose.

So many people are getting melanoma these days. The E Street Band (Bruce Springsteen's band)'s keyboard player just died of it. It seems based on the people around me at least that hardly anyone actually wears sunscreen on a regular basis, or if they do, it's just a touch, whatever's in their makeup or whatever. I have a hard time believing that a large number of average people have low vitamin D levels due to sun deficiency.

I believe there is always "the golden mean" - too much is as bad as too little.
There are still soo many people going to tanning booths until they are brown in colour, or frying themselves at the sun. There will be this risk of cancer of course.

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 12:36 pm

seabliss wrote:

If people are concerned that they aren't getting enough vitamin D, perhaps the best thing would be to have themselves tested, rather than just randomly using less sunscreen or skipping entire areas on purpose.

So many people are getting melanoma these days. The E Street Band (Bruce Springsteen's band)'s keyboard player just died of it. It seems based on the people around me at least that hardly anyone actually wears sunscreen on a regular basis, or if they do, it's just a touch, whatever's in their makeup or whatever. I have a hard time believing that a large number of average people have low vitamin D levels due to sun deficiency.

as well as I have a hard time to believe that 15-20 minutes of sun exposure a day can cause melanoma, unless one lives near the equator...

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 1:44 pm

I think another big consideration is the use of "chemical" versus "physical" sunscreen. I intend on using my zinc/titanium physical sunscreen when I'm in strong sunlight for a more than an hour. But for normal daylight, I will just use MMU on my face and neck, so I do get some exposure on my arms and legs. I did a quick and dirty search on sunscreen and cancer and this very interesting article by Dr Loren Pickart came up. I didn't realize the estrogenic properties of some of those chemicals.

http://www.skinbiology.com/toxicsunscreens.html#Do%20chemical%20sunscreens%20increase%20cancer?

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 2:16 pm

I agree that too little is bad and too much is bad. However, this is not stopping me from putting on my sunscreen. I believe that no matter how much I try, I'm not being covered from the sun 100%. Also I'm not wearing sunscreen all the time, and I don't reapply it during the day, so I know some rays go through. I believe that even someone who's good about wearing sunscreen on the face probably gets enough sun.

Also, the fairer you are, the less sun you need for your body to manufacture the vitamin D. People who have darker skin by nature should be more concerned about getting enough sun. Do people who are meant to live in locations that have 5 sunny days out of the year really need that much exposure to the sun? I don't think so...

free skin care · Wed May 21, 2008 2:39 pm

Nimue wrote:

I agree that too little is bad and too much is bad. However, this is not stopping me from putting on my sunscreen. I believe that no matter how much I try, I'm not being covered from the sun 100%. Also I'm not wearing sunscreen all the time, and I don't reapply it during the day, so I know some rays go through. I believe that even someone who's good about wearing sunscreen on the face probably gets enough sun.

Also, the fairer you are, the less sun you need for your body to manufacture the vitamin D. People who have darker skin by nature should be more concerned about getting enough sun. Do people who are meant to live in locations that have 5 sunny days out of the year really need that much exposure to the sun? I don't think so...

yes, Nimue, you are right Smile

we fair guys need much less sun than others with darker skins.

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.