Getting Burned

I think sunscreen is one of the best inventions ever....I have suffered from sunburn my whole life, almost, and now to be able to spend the day in the sun without worry, it's just amazingly wonderful....What a great feeling.....

and then, I see this....

Sun exposure is necessary for vitamin D production. Most sunscreens block the helpful rays and allow the harmful rays through. After allowing adequate area of skin adequate time in the sun (about a half hour) for vitamin D production, be smart: COVER UP. Slathering chemicals on your body is far more likely to cause cancer than the sun. Sunshine by virtue of working with the body to create vitamin D (which has potent anticancer properties) will help prevent cancer. The skin is living tissue and WILL pass those chemicals through to the circulatory system and the chemicals will then freely circulate throughout your body. The sunburn/cancer connection is a great scare tactic that sells a lot of petrochemicals that unsuspecting consumers dutifully smear all over their skin.

"The sunburn/cancer connection is a great scare tactic...."

Well I've got skin cancer, and everybody I know has skin cancer, so I'd say that's BS!

So could you show me any scientific evidence that sunscreen causes cancer? or are you just making this up?

I am personally of the opinion that the rise in prevalence of skin cancer is possibly connected to the air pollution in which our modern urbanized citizens chose to live. I can provide anecdotal evidence (not scientific study, unfortunately), that relatives of mine have lived well into their nineties, spending most of their waking hours out in the sun in rural environments. No skin or any other cancer. The rise in the incidence of skin cancer is suspiciously concurrent with the rise in urbanization. There could be a joint effect of sun and air pollution, but I find it difficult to blame only the sun.

I also have reason to believe that, at least in some isolated cases, a diagnosis of skin cancer is more a function of the dermatologist's house payment coming due than a function of solar exposure.

Meanwhile, I am reading more and more literature dealing with vitaminD deficiency in our youth...

Using sunscreen responsibly does not include covering every square inch of your skin every time you go out in the sun...Therefore the small amount of exposure that you need for adequate vitamin D production, is not an issue...Using a balanced sunscreen product is only common sense...Most skin cancer is not life threatening, but is slow growing and painful or itchy, a red patch that will not heal...That statement about dermatologists misdiagnosing for personal gain is the most ridiculous statement I have heard in a long time...While I wouldn't argue that pollution may be a contributing factor, it I think has yet to be proven, so I won't jump to any conclusions...Anecdotal evidence, from the wiki, "Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence.", since we have scientific evidence, that trumps your personal observations of your relatives...imo

I think a combination of two other more benign reasons is a big factor in the increase in skin cancer.

One reason is the the shift in the population of the US to the 'sun belt' states. Over the past half century the 'rust belt' states have declined in population and states like Florida, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, and so on, have had tremendous growth. (Helped of course by the ubiquitous use of air conditioning.) Related to this is the growth in tourism to the southern states. (Like to Disney World in Florida and vacationing to the sunbelt beaches.)

A related reason (again, thanks somewhat to AC) is that kids spend more time indoors than outdoors so their skin doesn't develop a protective tan. Then, when they do go outdoors their skin gets sunburnt very quickly. When I lived in Florida I saw this a lot. Pale-skinned families would go to the beach and either not use sunscreen right away or fail to re-apply it periodically. By the end of the day these families looked like cooked lobsters. ['...but we used sunscreen.']

People don't seem to understand that UV is much more intense in Florida that in northern states due to the higher altitude of the sun and thus less atmospheric extinction of UV.

Give me a break. EVERYONE you know has skin cancer? I have been in the medical profession for more than 20 years, which gives me a unique insight. The pattern that has emerged is that drug companies are masters at peddling worthless junk to people, in many cases worse than worthless in that it does more harm than good. Another pattern that has emerged is that practically all cancer can be traced to chemical poisoning of some sort and/or nutritional deficits. Indeed, many chemotherapy "protocols" give the patient toxic levels of the trace element the deficiency of which caused a predisposition to cancer in the first place. Just as wall street bankers move between Wall Street and the US Treasury Dept, CEOs of drug companies go to the FDA, do a stint there, and return to the drug companies. It's about profit, not saving lives. I have come across many cases of doctors, MEDICAL DOCTORS, who make great discoveries/breakthroughs and their research gets buried, hidden, funding yanked, etc. For years and years the mainstream health care industry claimed antiangiogenesis was not a valid cancer treatment because the only substances that caused antiangiogenesis were natural (can't patent a plant). But as soon as they learned how to synthesize a substance that caused antiangiogenesis, oh, their tune changed. This nonsense of claiming sunshine is bad for you is just that, nonsense. You should be smart and limit your exposure. You shouldn't avoid it altogether as some exposure is very good for your health.

Everybody I know in my age group, yes, has had skin cancer...Most, if not all, people who hang on the beach get keratosis, a pre-cancerous condition burned off every year...The older people, (pre-proactive treatments), have basal cell and/or squamous cell cancer tumors removed periodically....The EPA states that 1 in 5 people will get skin cancer in their lifetime...

http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/doc/fl_facts_print.pdf

well, now we have the makings of a real scientific study. One poster who has relatives who live long healthy lives out in the sun without sunscreen, cancer free. You have "everyone you know" hanging out at the beach, presumably using sunscreen, and they "ALL" have cancer. now what does that tell you?

TO answer your question, Yes I did see an actual scientific study which pointed the finger of blame at the sunscreens and not the sun. There is plenty of evidence available to support my contention that chemical exposure(s) cause cancer. You have the same tools I have to uncover the truth. I spend a lot of time researching these things. You can too. I don't bookmark and save every study I come across.

That's what I thought...

Being blond and fair skinned, I have to take care with the sun, I learnt a lot about this in Singapore as a teenager. I am also happy that over the last 30 years or so, sunscreen has improved dramatically.

But for anyone here that does get mildly burned, whether from the Sun, a fire or the stove, there is a simple technique which if followed fully, will reduce or even clear the burn.

Many people simply don't believe it, and they will probably post here, telling me it doesn't work, but they are the same ones that have either never tried it, did not do it properly or have never had the need......wait up, they will appear!!

So, to the "fix":-

As soon as you realise that you have sun (or any type of) burn, no matter how, you need to get it under cool (not cold, not hot - comfortable) fresh, clean water. For a sun burned back for example in the bath is the best place. Keep the water temperature to a comfortable point that precludes that prickle of sun burn.

Read a book.

Every half hour or so, bring the injured part out of the water and see if it starts to feel hot or prickle. If it does, then put it back in the water. If the pain remains completely gone, jump to "get out of the bath" below.

Loop back to reading a book.

Get out of the bath, dry off carefully. If the burn starts to prickle, get back into bath and loop to "read a book".

Use a good moisturising cream on the affected area.

Stay out of the sun for at least a couple of days.

Usually the skin will dry and drop off within 10 days. BUT new skin will be underneath.

If its a cooker burn or similar on say a hand, use ice & water and follow the same rules.....but never over cool your whole body, a hand or a finger may be cooled more, otherwise that could be dangerous.

If after 3 hours, there is still no release from pain, I would suggest a visit to the doctor may be a good idea.....of course it really depends upon the degree of burning - an hour too much sun is one thing, blackened skin from a forest fire is something else!!! Err on the side of safety in such matters.

By the way, it also works if you cover the area with say a T-Shirt and keep it flooded with cool fresh water.....

Its best not to get burned in the first place, so do be careful.....take more care.

Got any advice regarding 'bar burn'?

On my screen with FireFox, that looked like "bar bum"Sorry......

Something I used to get many years ago (before I was married the first time!!)

What is "barburn"?

A problem with sunscreen too is that the SPF rating on each of the bottle was generated using a certain level of use on the skin. A typical person isn't going to put nearly as much sunscreen on as recommended, so the actual amount of protection given is a fraction of what you think you're getting (though it doesn't matter for me, I'm going to crisp up like bacon either way )

As for the skin cancer debate that's going on above me (breaking that fourth wall!), the FDA did do a study on this and found data that neither of you are bringing up. Typically, sunscreen blocks UV B rays which cause sunburns. Although it's possible that the lotion also protects against UV A rays, there is currently no regulation or testing being done to ensure that it does anything at all. Skin cancer comes from exposure to the UV A rays, so the sunscreen potentially does nothing to help protect you against it

Last time I checked in on it was last summer (I'm paranoid of that flaming ball in the sky), and the F.D.A. only had pending tests that they wanted to force onto manufacturers, but it was only pending. Hopefully, more stringent requirements are in place and I can face the sun once again!

[/crawls back to the cave]

I would suggest to a skeptic, study radiation. There are different types of radiation. Gamma, alpha, and beta. Alpha and beta particles are stopped by the skin. However, sunshine is predominantly gamma radiation. Gamma particles penetrate really well. That is why very dense material (lead) is used around nuclear reactors. The gamma radiation is the danger. A few layers of skin cells isn't slowing those gamma particles down to even a perceptible degree. Exactly how much depends on the energy level of the specific particle(s). So, if sun exposure equals skin cancer, it ought to also equal other cancers as well. The previous post regarding UVA and UVB is pertinent. The sunscreens block the rays that are responsible for forming vitamin D which in turn helps prevent cancer. It allows through the rays that do damage. The chemical exposure sets up a predisposition for skin cancer. You feel free to use them ALL YOU WANT, solar eagle. I prefer not to. Study the effects of ionizing radiation, not just on living tissue but matter in general and then you can ponder what effect the radiation is having on those chemicals you just slathered on your skin which WILL be absorbed into your skin.

This site pretty much says it all...


http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/uva-and-uvb/understanding-uva-and-uvb
http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/uva-and-uvb

Zinc oxide is the only single ingredient that blocks both UVA and UVB rays, including the long UVA rays that have been linked to photoaging and skin cancer. It has been used safely on the skin for many years, even on babies!

According to The Environmental Working Group;

The FDA's 2011 sunscreen rules allow sunscreen makers to advertise that using their products can decrease the risk of skin cancer and sun-related skin aging. But a wide range of public health agencies - including the FDA - have found very little evidence that sunscreen prevents most types of skin cancer. In reviewing the evidence, the FDA said that the available clinical studies "do not demonstrate that even [broad spectrum products with SPF greater than 15] alone reduce the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging." The agency also said that it is "not aware of any studies examining the effect of sunscreen use on the development of melanoma." The International Agency for Research on Cancer recommends clothing, hats and shade as primary barriers to UV radiation.

Sunshine serves a critical function in the body that sunscreen appears to inhibit - producing vitamin D. The main source of vitamin D in the body is sunshine, and the compound is enormously important to health - it strengthens bones and the immune system, reduces the risk of various cancers (including breast, colon, kidney and ovarian cancers) and regulates at least a thousand different genes governing virtually every tissue in the body (Mead 2008). About one-fourth of Americans have borderline low levels of vitamin D, and 8 percent have a serious deficiency (CDC 2012). Particular groups are at the highest risk - breast-fed infants, people with darker skin and people who have limited sun exposure (NIH 2012).

Some people can make enough vitamin D from 10 to 15 minutes of unprotected sun exposure several times a week. But many others cannot. The right amount depends on the individual's age, skin tone, the intensity of sunlight, time outdoors and skin cancer risk. Check with your doctor to see if you should get a vitamin D test or if you should take seasonal or year-round supplements.

Recently available data from an FDA study indicate that a form of vitamin A, retinyl palmitate, may speed the development of skin tumors and lesions when applied to skin in the presence of sunlight (NTP 2009). This evidence is troubling, because the sunscreen industry adds vitamin A to 25 percent of all sunscreens.

The industry puts vitamin A in its formulations because it is an anti-oxidant that slows skin aging. That may be true for lotions and night creams used indoors, but FDA recently conducted a study of vitamin A's photocarcinogenic properties - the possibility that it can promote cancerous tumors when used on skin exposed to sunlight. Scientists have known for some time that vitamin A can spur excess skin growth (hyperplasia) and that in sunlight it can form free radicals that damage DNA.

In the FDA's one-year study, tumors and lesions developed sooner in lab animals coated in a vitamin A-laced cream than animals treated with a vitamin-free cream. Both groups were exposed to the equivalent of just nine minutes of maximum intensity sunlight each day

From the FDA's website...

"Products that pass the broad spectrum test will provide protection against both ultraviolet B radiation (UVB) and ultraviolet A radiation (UVA). Sunburn is primarily caused by UVB. Both UVB and UVA can cause sunburn, skin cancer, and premature skin aging."

http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm258416.htm

From the CDC's website....

"The three types of UV rays are ultraviolet A (UVA), ultraviolet B (UVB), and ultraviolet C (UVC)-

• UVA is the most common kind of sunlight at the earth's surface, and reaches beyond the top layer of human skin. Scientists believe that UVA rays can damage connective tissue and increase a person's risk of skin cancer.
• Most UVB rays are absorbed by the ozone layer, so they are less common at the earth's surface than UVA rays. UVB rays don't reach as far into the skin as UVA rays, but they can still be damaging.
• UVC rays are very dangerous, but they are absorbed by the ozone layer and do not reach the ground.

Too much exposure to UV rays can change skin texture, cause the skin to age prematurely, and can lead to skin cancer. UV rays also have been linked to eye conditions such as cataracts."

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/index.htm

"The strongest available evidence that sunscreen use is an effective approach to prevention of skin cancer comes from a 4.5-year community-based randomized controlled trial among 1,621 adult residents of a subtropical Australian town. In comparison with people randomized to using sunscreen at their discretion if at all, people randomized to daily use of a broad-spectrum SPF15+ sunscreen showed a 40% reduction in squamous cell carcinoma tumors at the conclusion of the trial [1]."

http://www.cancernewsincontext.org/2010/07/does-sunscreen-prevent-skin-cancer.html

And the next paragraph of the article you just quoted goes on to state that other studies show just the opposite.

Of particular concern is WHO FUNDS THE STUDY. The global warming hoax gained a lot of traction before the public became aware that the "researchers" (and I use the term loosely) were faking the data to make it appear that co2 is a major contributor to global warming. The facts strongly suggest otherwise. They point to one glacier that is shrinking, while glacier researchers point to the fact that most glaciers are growing and only a minority are shrinking. They point to one year in which polar caps shrink and ignore years when the opposite occurs. I'm deviating to make a point.

You wanted research that backs up my claims. I provided it. I proved my major points: Chemicals in sunscreen aren't safe, sunscreens inhibit production of vitamin D, an extremely essential hormone. And the article you just quoted from goes on to state that it is best to MINIMIZE EXPOSURE which I will reiterate yet again. COVER UP. Stay out of the sun during the peak hours of 10:00 a.m. to early afternoon.

Those studies that show the opposite are not saying that the chemicals in sunscreen are causing cancer, but that people using inadequate protection(15spf and below) tend to spend more time in the sun thinking they are safe...If you follow the guidelines from any reputable source, your chances of getting skin cancer are greatly reduced....That would be using 30+ spf broad spectrum liberally, and limiting exposure in recommended ways...You have failed to prove anything other than your mind is made up and you have an agenda, and that you care little about facts that don't serve your purpose...

http://www.livestrong.com/vitamin-d/

I guess you missed the part about vitamin A palmitate as an additive to sunscreen CAUSING CANCER. You also don't want to bother to study up on HOW ionizing radiation affects (changes) various elements and chemicals, organic and inorganic matter. It is for this reason that you are forced to rely on the opinions of others. What is missing from this discussion is what other cancers or health problems might sunscreen be causing? It was a long time before physicians made the connection between thalidomide and birth defects. Might also be a long time before anyone makes the connection here as well. I stand by my assertion: putting weird chemicals on your skin isn't much different than ingesting them, they WILL find their way into your body. Second assertion: Chemical poisoning (and poor nutrition) are the cause of much, if not most, cancer. The FDA is really taking a hands-off approach to sunscreen manufacturers, allowing them to make claims of which the FDA admits there is no proof. PLEASE, feel free to use their products all you wish. I won't. Like I said, study health in general and cancer in particular, and patterns emerge. The pattern is simple: Put weird chemicals in your body, except bad things to result. It is as simple as that. The FDA is constantly giving its blessing to dangerous substances that Big Pharma likes to call drugs and people are getting hurt and/or killed by it. Again, PLEASE feel free to slather it on every couple of hours, after you sweat (who doesn't sweat in the sun?), after you swim, etc. Keep 'em in biz. Doesn't matter to me. The risks, in my well-informed opinion, outweigh any perceived benefits. You did note the part about ZERO evidence that it helps prevent melanoma, didn't you?

"Analysis finds sunscreens containing retinyl palmitate do not cause skin cancer

SCHAUMBURG, Ill. (Aug. 10, 2010) - Despite previous concerns about the cancer-causing potential of sunscreens containing retinyl palmitate (vitamin A), an independent analysis published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (JAAD) determined that there is no evidence that the inclusion of retinyl palmitate in sunscreens can cause cancer in humans.

"Earlier this year, the Environmental Working Group issued a health warning that sunscreens containing retinyl palmitate could pose a cancer risk," said dermatologist Henry W. Lim, MD, FAAD, chairman of the department of dermatology at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit. "This warning garnered significant media attention and caused considerable confusion among the public. Our report should help dismiss the misinformation that sunscreens are not safe, as sunscreens are vitally important in reducing your risk for skin cancer, not causing it."

Retinyl palmitate is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in over-the-counter and prescription drugs, and it is also used as a food additive (e.g., to fortify low-fat milk, dairy products and breakfast cereals with vitamin A). When used in sunscreen, retinyl palmitate is not an active drug ingredient (unlike sunscreen filters), but rather a cosmetic ingredient. In sunscreen, it can serve as an antioxidant to improve product performance against the aging effects of UV exposure or to enhance the aesthetic qualities of sunscreen.

In the commentary published in JAAD entitled "Safety of retinyl palmitate in sunscreens: A critical analysis," lead investigator and dermatologist Steven Q. Wang, MD, FAAD, director of dermatologic surgery at Memorial-Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, explains that although retinyl palmitate was selected for testing by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), mere selection does not mean that the chosen compounds are dangerous or unsafe. He explained that retinyl palmitate was mainly selected because of its widespread use in cosmetic and sunscreen products. Many common ingredients, such as aloe vera, nanoscale titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide are currently under review by the NTP.

One of the primary concerns about retinyl palmitate cited by the Environmental Working Group in its annual sunscreen report is that when the compound is exposed to ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation, it can result in the generation of oxygen radicals, or free radicals. Since 2002, there have been eight in vitro (test tube) studies using mouse lymphoma cell and human skin Jurkat T-cell cultures demonstrating that retinyl palmitate can produce free radicals, which can disrupt cell function.

"Despite the concerns raised by these non-human studies, retinyl palmitate operates within the skin as only one component of a complex antioxidant network," said Dr. Wang . "For example, when a sunscreen with retinyl palmitate is applied to the skin, a number of antioxidants work together to alleviate the risk of free radical formation seen in these in vitro experiments. If studied on its own - outside of this environment - its antioxidant properties can rapidly be exhausted, allowing the production of oxygen radicals. In these non-human studies, retinyl palmitate was the only compound studied - making the biological relevance of these findings to humans unclear."

In addition, a large animal study testing whether hairless and albino mice developed tumors sooner when coated in retinyl palmitate versus a placebo cream was conducted by the NTP. At this time, the findings have not been published in peer-reviewed literature. After critically analyzing the available data, Dr. Wang and his team of investigators determined that there is no conclusive evidence to indicate the combination of retinyl palmitate and UV radiation causes increased rates of skin cancer.

"It is important to note that the mice in the NTP study are highly susceptible to the effects of UV radiation and can develop skin cancer or other skin abnormalities within weeks of UV exposure, even in the absence of retinyl palmitate," said Dr. Wang. "That is why extreme caution is needed when extrapolating these animal study results to humans."

Although there are no published human studies on the potential of retinyl palmitate or other retinoids to cause cancer, the commentary concludes that observations from decades of clinical practice do not support the notion that retinyl palmitate in sunscreen causes or promotes skin cancer. First, dermatologists routinely prescribe various forms of topical and oral retinoids to treat a number of skin conditions (e.g., acne, psoriasis and photoaging). Dr. Wang explained that there is no published evidence to suggest that topical or oral retinoids increase the risk of skin cancer in these patients. He added that oral retinoids (e.g., acitretin) also are used to prevent skin cancers in high-risk individuals, such as organ transplant patients.

"Based on the current available data from in vitro, animal and human studies, there is no convincing evidence to support the notion that retinyl palmitate in sunscreens causes cancer," said Dr. Wang. "On the contrary, years of research suggests that retinoids are helpful in reducing your risk for skin cancer. The bottom line is that people should continue vigilantly using sunscreens along with other sun-safe practices - such as limiting sun exposure, seeking shade, and wearing sun-protective clothing, hats and sunglasses - to reduce the risk of skin cancer and premature aging."

Headquartered in Schaumburg, Ill., the American Academy of Dermatology (Academy), founded in 1938, is the largest, most influential, and most representative of all dermatologic associations. With a membership of more than 16,000 physicians worldwide, the Academy is committed to: advancing the diagnosis and medical, surgical and cosmetic treatment of the skin, hair and nails; advocating high standards in clinical practice, education, and research in dermatology; and supporting and enhancing patient care for a lifetime of healthier skin, hair and nails. For more information, contact the Academy at 1-888-462-DERM (3376) orwww.aad.org.

Editor's Note: The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Washington, D.C.
http://www.aad.org/stories-and-news/news-releases/analysis-finds-sunscreens-containing-retinyl-palmitate-do-not-cause-skin-cancer

This article is just a whitewash. I think any discerning reader will recognize it as such. Kind of like that old saying, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS. So they do a study that contradicts previous STUDIES which concluded sunscreens are of marginal benefit and considerable risk. I'll go with the majority opinion. They used the wrong mice. We used the correct mice. LOL and LOL. And that's just one ingredient.

As I pointed out previously, it is always helpful to know WHO funds the research. IF they reach their conclusions before starting their research, it's not research. It's a whitewash. I've already seen plenty of them. And this is just another. We could go at this until the cows come home and even longer. You are welcome to your opinion. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, continue using sunscreens. They are good for you.

So you're claiming the EWG , Environmental Working Group, is a prestigious research group who's opinion should be taken over all the other groups and studies that disagree?

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/113-environmental-working-group

Pretty weak argument. EWG is merely regurgitating the FDA's position and research, an organization that is normally very friendly to corporations, particularly drug companies. You want to confuse the message with the messenger? Be my guest. The long BS article you quoted from, they stated their purpose from the get go, to soothe public's angst about use of sunscreens and get the public to continue to use sunscreens. That they did so with some impressive double speak, well, kudos to them. They are essentially contradicting the FDA's own research. You want to talk about agendas? The dermatologists have an agenda. they have been pushing Retinol for a long time. give them quite the black eye to admit there is a problem. The FDA also notes that retinol even in the absence of sunlight is problematic.

So you're saying the dermatologists want you to get skin cancer?

Now, after reading this, tell me who has the agenda? The FDA, who sat on the results for 10 years and denied the study ever took place? Or the EWG whom you seek to disparage?

But the EWG researchers found the initial findings of an FDA study of vitamin A's photocarcinogenic properties, meaning the possibility that it results in cancerous tumors when used on skin exposed to sunlight.

"In that yearlong study, tumors and lesions developed up to 21 percent faster in lab animals coated in a vitamin A-laced cream than animals treated with a vitamin-free cream," the report said. The conclusion came from EWG's analysis of initial findings released last fall by the FDA and the National Toxicology Program, the federal government's principle evaluator of substances that raise public health concerns. EWG's conclusions were subsequently scrutinized by outside toxicologists. Based on the strength of the findings by FDA's own scientists, many in the public health community say they can't believe nor understand why the agency hasn't already notified the public of the possible danger. "There was enough evidence 10 years ago for FDA to caution consumers against the use of vitamin A in sunscreens," Jane Houlihan, EWG's senior vice president for research, told AOL News. "FDA launched this one-year study, completed their research and now 10 years later, they say nothing about it, just silence." On Friday, the FDA said the allegations are not true. "We have thoroughly checked and are not aware of any studies," an FDA spokesperson told AOL News. She said she checked with bosses throughout the agency and found no one who knew of the vitamin A sunscreen research being done by or on behalf of the agency. But documents from the FDA and the National Toxicology Program showed that the agency had done the research. "Retinyl palmitate was selected by (FDA's) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition for photo-toxicity and photocarcinogenicity testing based on the increasingly widespread use of this compound in cosmetic retail products for use on sun-exposed skin," said an October 2000 report by the National Toxicology Program. FDA's own website said the animal studies were done at its National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson, Ark. And it was scientists from the FDA center and National Toxicology Program who posted the study data last fall.

Further, if you are a member of the medical profession and/or have any training in the effects of radiation, biological and otherwise, (I have both), I would love to hear what those qualifications are. I believe you are simply regurgitating research articles you have found, but have no way of ascertaining the accuracy of them for yourself. The fact that you stoop to impugning a consumer watch dog organization smacks of desperation. They would be the good guys. No doubt you can find articles denigrating their efforts, no doubt funded by the folks like the sunscreen manufacturers who love their profits first and foremost and could care less who gets harmed by use of their products.

TO further quote AOL news "The sunscreen industry cringes when EWG releases its yearly report -- this is its fourth. The industry charges that the advocacy group wants to do away with all sunscreen products, a claim that is not accurate. The report's researchers clearly say that an effective sunscreen prevents more damage than it causes, but it wants consumers to have accurate information on the limitations of what they buy and on the potentially harmful chemicals in some of those products.

EWG does warn consumers not to depend on any sunscreen for primary protection from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. Hats, clothing and shade are still the most reliable sun protection available, they say."

It is MY contention that putting unnatural substances on your skin is tantamount to putting them IN your body and not a good idea. If you have bothered to read the articles on sunscreens, you'd note that the ingredients used in early sunscreens are NOW recognized as dangerous to one's health. THere are researchers other than EWG who have serious reservations about the safety of the current crop of sunscreens based on nanoparticle size metals. I share their concern

So this proves that you shouldn't rub vitamin A on tumors....not that it causes the tumors...

One fact that was made crystal clear is that these products were (and are) put on the market WITHOUT adequate testing for efficacy OR SAFETY. The cavalier attitude of the manufacturers reminds me of a video I watched of mothers and children playing in and near a pool with pesticides being sprayed nearby and the voice-over saying how safe these chemical pesticides are while a virtual fog of pesticides swirls nearby. Anybody watching that video today would be horrified. Early pesticides were left over nerve agents from WWII.

Oh so using sunscreen is now tantamount to spraying nerve agents from WWII on yourself? That's quite a leap!! The only thing I can see that you have any expertise in is spin doctoring...

From the Wiki....

"Zinc oxide as a mixture with about 0.5% iron(III) oxide (Fe₂O₃) is called calamine and is used in calamine lotion. There are also two minerals, zincite and hemimorphite, which have been historically called calamine. When mixed with eugenol, a ligand, zinc oxide eugenol is formed, which has applications as a restorative and prosthodontic in dentistry.^[9][42]

Reflecting the basic properties of ZnO, fine particles of the oxide have deodorizing and antibacterial^[43] properties and for that reason are added into materials including cotton fabric, rubber, and food packaging.^[44][45] Enhanced antibacterial action of fine particles compared to bulk material is not intrinsic to ZnO and is observed for other materials, such as silver.^[46] This property is due to the increased surface area of the fine particles.

Zinc oxide is widely used to treat a variety of other skin conditions, in products such as baby powder and barrier creams to treat diaper rashes, calamine cream, anti-dandruff shampoos, and antisepticointments.^[47][48] It is also a component in tape (called "zinc oxide tape") used by athletes as a bandage to prevent soft tissue damage during workouts.^[49]

Zinc oxide can be used in ointments, creams, and lotions to protect against sunburn and other damage to the skin caused by ultraviolet light (see sunscreen). It is the broadest spectrum UVA and UVB reflector that is approved for use as a sunscreen by the FDA,^[50] and is completely photostable.^[51] When used as an ingredient in sunscreen, zinc oxide sits on the skin's surface and is not absorbed into the skin, and blocks both UVA (320-400 nm) and UVB (280-320 nm) rays of ultraviolet light. Because zinc oxide (and the other most common physical sunscreen, titanium dioxide) are not absorbed into the skin, they are nonirritating, nonallergenic, and non-comedogenic.^[52]

Many sunscreens use nanoparticles of zinc oxide (along with nanoparticles of titanium dioxide) because such small particles do not scatter light and therefore do not appear white. Although there has been concern that they might be absorbed into the skin,^[53][54] comprehensive reviews of the medical literature have not uncovered any risk.^[55]"

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc_oxide}

I didn't say that using sunscreen is tantamount to spraying nerve agents. I didn't even imply it. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I was using a similar situation to make the point that just because "experts," self-appointed and otherwise, proclaim something safe does not make it so.

You keep missing the point, even though I state it and RESTATE it. I think at this point it would be generous to label you obtuse. But I will restate it one last time and then I'm going to disconnect from this tedious discourse. It has been proven to my satisfaction beyond ANY doubt that putting unnatural substances in one's body leads to disease, and way too often, cancer. In fact, cancer is a very PREDICTABLE outcome. The skin is the largest organ of the human body, and highly absorbent. Only the top few layers are dead cells. The rest is LIVING TISSUE. So this absorbent LIVING tissue shouldn't undergo chemical assault. It's not a good idea. It WILL transmit those chemicals to the circulatory system and hence throughout your body where the various chemicals may accumulate in one or more organ systems (besides accumulating in the skin) and cause problems, such as in the PROVEN case of pesticides and breast tissue. There is also the problem of ionizing solar radiation causing changes in the chemicals in the skin and increasing the predisposition to skin cancer. Only one substance was tested for this condition that we know of, and it was proven carcinogenic.

The vitamin A additive, as I stated previously is just ONE ingredient proven to be problematic. Other ingredients in sunscreens have been PROVEN problematic as well. I'm sure that the other petrochemicals in there for "filler" and whatnot are just as problematic because they are not natural substances intended for ingestion or absorption through the skin.

And this is why I suggested you could research the matter yourself. The info is out there. In this case it wasn't even hard to find, DESPITE the FDA's efforts to cover up the facts of the matter, and your dermatology organization coming along after the fact to whitewash and run cover. IF, IF, IF you had any experience with the healthcare industry, you would know just the pharmaceutical aspect of it alone is a multi-BILLION dollar industry in the U.S. alone. They go to great lengths to protect those profits, irregardless of the toll in human life. This has been PROVEN time and time again. There are third world countries whose governments that do a much, much better job protecting its citizens than the US. Drugs that are known to cause cancer in this country remain available while other nations ban them, same with dangerous food additives, same with sunscreens.

At this point it is obvious you have been running your side of the argument "on the fly" and have no intention of backing off your position regardless of evidence presented. Your persistence is awesome. Best of luck to you.

Actually I agree with much of what you say...I would not recommend constant daily usage of sunscreen, but only occasional usage....It is better to shade yourself with clothing and umbrella's, awnings, trees etc...I would caution usage by pregnant or nursing mothers or those who may become pregnant...Sunscreen like just about everything else, is best used in moderation, and liberally when it is used....There are almost no products that have been thoroughly tested enough that they could be labeled completely safe, it just costs too much....I too have issues with the drug companies....and the FDA...I too think that drugs should only be used as a last resort...but,,,,I still think sunscreen is a great invention, and a giant step forward from baby oil, that we used to use....Go in peace....