Posted on 12/25/2004 6:00:57 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite
'They have vilified the sun - and me' Professor Michael Holick, author of The UV Advantage, tells Brendan O’Neill how he was turned into a pariah for suggesting that a little bit of sunlight can be good for you.
'I was treated almost as a villain, as if I had said something really outrageous.' Michael Holick, professor of medicine and physiology at Boston University School of Medicine, is still sore about being asked to resign his professorship of dermatology in May 2004. His crime? He wrote a book called The UV Advantage, which suggests that exposing yourself to sunlight without sunblock for five or 10 minutes a day can be a good thing, providing us with Vitamin D and helping to strengthen our bones and protect against illnesses like type II diabetes and multiple sclerosis. 'It was the "without sunblock" bit that they didn't like', he says. 'Apparently it's forbidden to tell people to go out without sunblock.'
One newspaper compared Holick to Copernicus, another scientist who got into a spot of bother over his views on the sun. But Copernicus said something truly radical - his assertion in the 1500s that the sun, not the Earth, was at the centre of our universe turned conventional wisdom on its head. Proponents of Copernicus' theory were denounced as heretics and burned at the stake for daring to challenge the Bible's claim that the Earth is flat and stationary (see Isaiah 5:26). All Holick says is that, while we should avoid tanning and staying in the sun for too long, we should recognise that sunlight 'can maintain bone health and prevent rickets in children'. Hardly Copernican, convention-shattering stuff.
But Holick offended against a contemporary religion, one which says that sunlight causes skin cancer, that tanning is the irresponsible act of reckless individuals, and that we should, in the words of a sun-awareness campaign, 'slip, slap and slop' - slip on a shirt, slap on a hat and slop on some suncream before venturing out on a sunny day. On both sides of the Atlantic, government health campaigns warn of the apparent dangers of staying out in the sun. The UK Department of Health advises Brits to 'stay in the shade or indoors' on hot, sunny days - or 'if you can't avoid being out in the sun, apply sunscreen (factor 15+) and wear a t-shirt, hat and sunglasses'. British schoolkids are advised to play in the shade and to wear Legionnaire-style hats and long-sleeved shirts, while 'Molewatch' teams patrol beaches urging holidaymakers to 'cover up' (1).
Yet like the flat-Earthers who challenged Copernicus, the claims of the 'sun awareness raisers' often overlook the facts - which suggest that the link between sunlight and skin cancer is more complex than they allow. 'The message that was initiated 20 or 30 years ago, with the advent of sunscreen, was a reasonable one', says Holick. 'Namely that you should not bake outside. But now it's been taken to an extreme and people aren't thinking straight anymore.' We have become scared of the sun, reckons Holick.
It is clear from Holick's book that he is no sun-worshipping tan god. It begins: 'I do not advocate tanning.' There are tables at the back of the book where Holick spells out exactly how long you may spend in the sun, depending on where you are on the planet and what time of year it is. The book's main message is that humans get 90 to 95 per cent of their Vitamin D from the sun, and that therefore some unblocked exposure to the sun is necessary for Vitamin D upkeep.
The idea that Sunlight Is Bad has become conventional wisdom Holick never imagined that saying this would have such 'terribly serious consequences'. He says the sunscreen industry took out a paid advertisement in US newspapers the month before his book came out, personally attacking his reputation. He was called in by Barbara Gilchrist, chair of the Department of Dermatology at Boston University School of Medicine, and told that 'your thinking is not in line with ours'. Holick groans that the sunscreen industry is 'a major funder of the dermatology community in the US, especially the American Academy of Dermatology….' 'So I was asked to resign from the department', he says, though he remains at Boston as a professor of medicine and physiology.
For Holick, one of the most grating things about being accused of behaving irresponsibly is that the much-talked-about link between sunlight and skin cancer is actually quite complex. Sun awareness campaigns focus on malignant melanoma, moles which turn cancerous. Yet these are a relatively rare form of skin cancer and the one least related to sunlight. The majority of skin cancers in America and in Britain are basal-cell or squamous-cell carcinomas, both of which are highly correlated with sun exposure and which commonly appear on the head, neck and arms - those parts of the body where skin is most likely to burn. These two cancers are more common in middle-aged or elderly men than in the young; they tend to grow slowly and are quite easily treated with surgery or radiotherapy.
'There may be a million squamous or basal-cell cancers in the US a year', says Holick, 'but that's like the bread and butter of a dermatologist's work. They can be treated. Of the more dangerous melanoma, there are around 50,000 cases in the US each year, and around 8,000 die. It is still quite rare that a young woman will wind up with melanoma and die. If she does, often the melanoma has developed on a part of the body not exposed to sunlight.' Melanomas commonly appear on these 'non-sun exposed' parts of the body, like the back of the legs, the soles of the feet and the buttocks. Indeed, there is a similar incidence of malignant melanoma in Japan as there is in America and Britain, and the Japanese are not known for spending long hours sunbathing. In Britain, as in America, melanomas account for less than 10 per cent of skin cancers; there are around 4,000 cases a year in Britain, causing around 1,500 deaths.
Holick points out that when melanoma is sun-related, it is more common among certain types of people. 'It's associated with those who have a markedly high number of moles', he says. 'We also suspect there is a genetic contribution, from a family history of the disease. It is common in people who have red hair and in those who sunburn. The number of sunburning experiences increases your risk of melanoma. So some susceptible people who don't get moderate sun exposure, and then rush out on the weekend to burn and bake for several hours, are putting themselves at high risk.'
Yet the over-simplistic notion that Sunlight Is Bad For Everyone has become conventional wisdom. Holick notes that where the sun was once seen as a source of health and vitality, it now tends to be viewed as a mortal threat lurking in the skies, potentially poisoning our skin. 'Over a couple of decades the sun has been vilified', he says. Children's outdoor school activities, like sports days and outings, can now be called off if the wicked sun is out. Derby City Council in England recently advised headteachers: 'Give consideration to postponing or cancelling [external activities] in periods of excessive sun and high temperatures.'
The suntanned are today seen as irresponsible and reckless Where the suntanned might once have been seen as healthy, outdoor types, today they are likely to be viewed as irresponsible. Sara Hiom, described by the Observer as 'the pale-skinned information manager at Cancer Research UK', has launched a 'struggle against the tanning culture'. She runs the SunSmart campaign, aimed at educating sunbathers about the allegedly deadly danger they are putting themselves in. Hiom says we need to 'get back to that Victorian way of thinking where the sun is something to be avoided' (2). One London expert has suggested that parents who allow their children to get sunburned should be prosecuted for neglect. In both the criticisms of young holidaymakers (especially the kind who lounge around in southern Spain for two weeks) and of parents who let their kids out to 'burn', it is easy to detect distinct moral undertones to what is presented as medical advice.
Holick says there is a powerful conformism on the issue of sunlight and skin cancer, 'and if you question it….well, look at what happened to me'. He pins much of the blame on the 'sunscreen industry', which makes financial gain from panics about skin cancer. No doubt there is some opportunism among sunscreen manufacturers and dermatologists; indeed, in the 1990s Professors Sam Shuster and Jonathan Rees of Newcastle University accused some of their academic colleagues of 'making a living out of perpetuating the skin cancer scare' (3). But the sunlight scare also speaks to a broader climate of health panic today, where the authorities increasingly seek to police personal behaviour in the name of public health. As with smoking, drinking and diet, sunbathing has become another apparently medical issue through which some very morally-loaded judgements are made about people's lifestyles and behaviour. And if getting us to conform to the model of the healthy citizen means scaring us witless about melanomas that most of us are unlikely ever to get, so be it.
What about Holick? Couldn't he be accused of playing the scare game, too? One of his main arguments is that avoiding the sun makes us potentially Vitamin D deficient, which will 'increase our risk of developing most of the serious chronic diseases that afflict people later in life, including many common cancers'. Where the anti-sun brigade tells us that going out in the sun in anything less than Victorian garb will put us at risk of cancer, Holick says that staying indoors will also put us at risk of cancer in the longer term. It is an indictment of our fearful, irrational times that one of the few ways you can challenge a panic is by launching a counter-panic; so those who question the obesity obsession claim there is a growth in eating disorders instead, while those who challenge the scare over the MMR vaccine raise the spectre of a measles epidemic if the MMR take-up rate continues to fall.
Holick denies that he is counter-panic mongering. Instead, he says, we need to start having a 'rational discussion about something that, let's face it, we have to live with - the sun'.
Yes, you need sunlight for your body to produce Vitamin D. In far-northern regions of the earth, the sun shines only an hour or two a day in the winter (or not at all), and some nations offer UV clinics where you can go be exposed to UV rays for 10 or 15 minutes.
Sunblock is a religion for many.
No Sun, No Vit. D, Welcome to Rickets.
sunlight stimulates vitamin D and helps children grow
I baste myself in SPF 50 when I go cycling.
The sun also produces a natural anti-depressent.
How does the bible verse Isaiah 5:26 state that the earth is flat?
"And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and behold, they shall come with speed swiftly;" KJV.
There are LOTS of places called "Land's End".
That is why there is a gradient in skin color for human populations-darker near the equator to white toward the poles.
Vitamin D dosage must be at optimum level during pregnancy. Mortality rates go up with too high or too low a dose of D. Thus, natural selection selects darker skin tones to filter out the sun and lighter skin tones to get more sun.
Sorry to have to take a mild detour off subject here, but this line isn't true. Nobody was burned at the stake for promoting Copernicus' theory.
Nonetheless, it's a good article overall.
How do you come out? Medium? Med well? God forbid, Well done?
Las Vegas - maybe not THE capital of UV - but come summer time I go lay outside for 8 - 10 hours everyday. No sun block.
I'm going for that "wrinkled by 50" look.
LVM
Actually, I once read a study (which has probably been surpressed) that said that people who had moderate sun exposure had the lowest rates of melanoma. People who got very little sun but had occasional severe sunburns (i.e., office workers who went to the beach for two weeks a year and sunburned seriously) were much more likely to get melanoma than people who had regular sun exposure, which led to the conclusion that severe sunburns may have been connected with the changes leading to melanoma.
People who were exposed regularly to sunlight were not prone to melanoma, but did get some of the non-malignant types if they were heavily exposed and had no external protection (heavy-duty fishermen who never wore hats would get certain types of skin cancer on the tips of their ears or their noses, for example).
I don't remember the study - but it's not PC any longer, so it has probably gone far, far away...
It is amazing to me that Holick loses his chair in dermatology, while Noam Chomsky and countless other pro-Marxists face no such consequences, in spite of 100 million dead to prove otherwise concerning the theory they espouse.
Bingo
I hate sunburn.
The sun is good for you. Just don't overdo it. Sun at the beach with the salt ocean water always makes me feel great.
Sungazing: Looking at the sun ---->>>
http://www.sungazing.com/
http://www.solarhealing.com/
________________________________________
I never understood how Eskimos fit into that equation.
So do I. I'm just careful during the start of "heat" down here - moderate my exposure, etc. That way, by the time the real heat hits I don't have to worry about a burn when I go outside to do the usual things - mow the lawn, wash the car, etc.
I never go without at least a T-shirt (or hat...for the ...ummmm...thin spots up top), so when I go in the pool, if I take the shirt off it's not for long.
But I never use sun block.
I went to Hawaii one time, for the USAF. Figured I'd play Mr. Tourist and really did lay out in the sun. Within 15 minutes I could feel that I was burning. Wow. Last time I did that.
LVM
exactly. has everyone in the world forgotten about the idea of moderation? Oh yeah, we're too stupid to moderate. We have to be told what to do by PC liberal feel good dogooders.
I am so screwed.
Ugh! Moderate exposure is good for you, from a general health standpoint to mental health!
What they don't tell you is that all the xenoestrogens in the sunblocks is what causes a whole other set of errr..problems. ;)
I always figured it was the reflection of the light off the snow that darkened their skin.
If it can blind you, it makes sense it could burn you too.
_______________________________________
Eskimos run around naked? Why aren't Swedes or Lapps dark?
"That is why there is a gradient in skin color for human populations-darker near the equator to white toward the poles."
Actually it is not that simple. Skin color has a lot to do with skin thickness; the thicker the skin, the darker you will be. The skin of African populations is thicker, which is an advantage in a tropical environment. Caucasians have thin skin, which is advantageous in Northern environments because it allows more sunlight in.
___________________________________________
Thanks but I didn't write that first statement, I included it in mu response the the fellow who did write it.
Eskimos as well as all other native North/South American tribal folks migrated across a land bridge in what is now the Bering Straight....different gene pool than Euro-northerners. My question about Eskimos was sorta tongue-in -cheek.
They came from asia fairly recently and have not had time to completely adapt. It probably is not known how long a population has to stay in an area to have a wholesale change. There is just a small percentage of still births that causes the change.
It is all amount of melanin, not skin thickness.
SIL in Russia had to figure out how and where to get vitamin D into her son's diet since they live so far north and it's not always in the milk there. (Depends on what brand they get ...)
Seems like our society has a puzzling tendency to go to extremes ... especially when it comes to anything our parents' generation considered common sense.
Ann
I looked up Brendan O'Neill at BU School of Medicine and got this:
University data from Personnel
Name Holick, Michael F
Academic rank Professor
Department MED Endocrine Laboratory
Office address 715 Albany St, M
What this article seems to say is that he was "asked to resign" but hopefully he has refused. As a full professor, he presumably has tenure and cannot simply be fired except for cause.
This article is really very interesting. I've spent my whole life in boats, mostly sailing. I wear a hat, but I don't bother with sun block unless I'm out all day, and then I dab a bit on my nose and cheek bones.
If you really bake yourself, it's probably unhealthy. But it's also unhealthy, IMHO, to avoid the sun entirely. There's nothing wrong with getting a gradual tan, I'd just avoid getting burned or baked.
Shortly after the second war to end all wars, my Mother from Maine came to my Father's home in West Texas. I am told the in-laws went berserk when they discovered she was "sunning" me, a common practice in UV deprived northern climes. Extremes are what hurt, be it sunshine, chemicals, or pathogens.
My heritage being what it is, I have a less than scientific notion that my fair Irish skin does not mix well with full exposure to desert sun, that's why I'm the one man on the crew wearing long sleeved shirts and long pants on 100+ summer days.
Before going nuts over the health threat de jour, might help to remember we evolved as a mainly outdoor species and somehow not only survived, but fruitfully multiplied to the point we actually have to worry about over-population.
"It is all amount of melanin, not skin thickness."
So there is no variation between the thickness of skin in individuals around the world? Because that is the only way melanin could be the sole determinant of skin color.
Two independent things. The thickness of the skin does allow for more sun damage tolerance, but does not affect skin color.
The chances you'll die from sun exposure, although increasing, are still relatively small. The chances you'll live to regret it, nonfatal, are a LOT higher. I don't normally preach 100% sun avoidance, but rather practical sun reduction. If you're going to be out for an extended amount of time put on sunblock, at least SPF 15-20. If it is truly just an infrequent 5-10 minutes it isn't worth the time required to put on the block. Hats, cover-ups and ducking into shade may still be helpful options. If it is multiple 5-10 minutes, most days, then put sunblock on each morning.
The best data is that sun protection does NOT cause vitamin D deficiency. Very little sun exposure is needed to make vitamin D. Dermatologists have looked at vitamin D levels in patients with Xeroderma Pigmentosum, a genetic disease in which the risk of sun induced cancers is increased over 1000x normal. They start having cancers in elementary school and many are dead of skin cancer before age 20 even with good care. They need extreme sun protection all the time; even what sun gets through normal clothing is a problem. A burkha would be smart outdoor attire for them, a leather (the most sun proof fabric) burkha smarter attire. Staying indoors is ideal for these poor folks. With compulsive complete sun avoidance they have a chance to survive and studies of such well protected people have not shown any vitamin D deficiency.
There is a contrary position, promoted by the multi-billion dollar tanning industry I believe, that claims bones need much higher levels of vitamin D than what had long been considered the RDA. IIRC his book may have been alleging such. Having such affiliated with a Dermatology department makes as much sense as having a Democrat in Bush's cabinet. I doubt we need to quadruple the vitamin D RDA, but can't claim to be an expert on bone metabolism. If more really is needed than it would be easier and safer to add it to more foods or to have people take appropriate doses of oral supplements.
There have also been claims that using sunblocks actually increases skin cancers by letting you spend more time outdoors. With the currently available sunblocks that has been debunked! Proven false by a good recent study here in Iowa I'm proud to report. Even better sunblocks may be coming soon. The FDA is considering finally letting the US have some sunblock ingredients Europe has had for several years that are reported to be better than any we now have.
Some people need to follow the above advice closer than others. The sun is racist! If you were born pale and you turn red easier than you turn tan you are at high risk. If you were BORN tan you are fairly safe, although not immune, from skin cancer. Black folks should watch their white areas: soles, palms, under their nails and mucous membranes remain at significant risk for melanoma. Those who were born pale, but who tan easily are at intermediate risk, NOT zero risk. If your tan can fade it can and often does grow skin cancer. I've taken many cancers off of people who never sunburned and who have been tan for decades. And seen many such turn into wrinkled prunes. Don't make your skin wear out before you are done wearing it!
That comes from visible light, not the ultraviolet. Sunblock won't block it and you can have as much of it as you want.
"Two independent things. The thickness of the skin does allow for more sun damage tolerance, but does not affect skin color."
How is that possible? Either the total melanin levels increase as the the skin gets thicker, or the total melanin levels stay the same and just get more spread out. If the melanin level just spread out, then thicker skin does not have an advantage for preventing sun damage. However, you said it does.
How about "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?" ;-)
The skiiers are on the slopes, meeting women--
The losers stay inside and feel sorry for themselves. ;-)
Sounds like you are aiming for "by 40." My colleagues will appreciate your business. Self reliance is a common Freeper theme. It is supposed to be a free country, including the right to take on known risks. Still it is smart and prudent to educate yourself about the risks and to do what you can to minimize them. At least review the signs of skin cancer and try to watch yourself for it. The Skin Cancer Foundation has a good site. Better to catch them early and small. Nevada is too purple a state, we can't afford to lose any Freeper votes to skin cancer.
That is a part of it. I race in the winter to pick up chicks. Anyone who can race with me in Feb in Boston Harbor is tough enough to put up with me. Then I tell them I have a sailboat in Marblehead for the summer.
Yet another area Pubbies are playing catch-up on - if he were a RAT, death wouldn't remove his vote.
The outermost, dead, generally unpigmented, layer of the skin does contain some colorless chemicals that provide limited ultraviolet protection. On very pale skin, only, this can make a difference. This thickens with sun exposure accounting for what tolerance to sunburn those that don't tan can develop. Things that exfolliate their skin can make them burn easier again.
The living layers of the skin vary in thickness in different regions of the body, but don't vary geographically or by ethnic group. The skin color you see is in part the result of the proportion of the two different forms (and colors) of melanin produced. That is regulated by the same known gene that gives red hair. It more importantly is the result of how much melanin each pigment cell produces and especially by how well the melanin gets dispersed within the skin. White folks actually have a few more pigment cells than black folks, theirs just don't work the same way. The details of this are not yet worked out. I don't want to think how society will take it when we finally can control melanocyte function.
Where does the Bible claim the earth is flat?
http://medi-smart.com/skin-ca.htm
You can look at the above link.
I am no expert on this subject, just a biologist who taught evolution etc. in college, worked for USDA, ran a farm and studied cockroach glands.
However, the article states that everyone has the same number of melanocytes, but different races produce different levels of melanin based on where they resided for long periods of time. Thus, it is not the thickness of the skin that effects melanin production at all. I think the melanin producers reside in one specific layer of the epidermis and it is simply the amount of melanin produced that varies.
Skin thickness is a completely separate characteristic that probably was naturally selected together with melanin production.
This is the same problem with science that creationists have now. It is simply the interpretation by certain sects that makes the Bible say the Earth is flat, that there was special creation or that there was a world wide flood.
My study of the Hebrew in Genesis 1 indicates the passage can be interpreted to comport pretty closely to what modern science shows. I think it is impossible to make Gen 2 conform to what we see, because it is based on an ancient pagan myth.
I can find no evidence in the literature that skin thickness varies by race. It seems that where the most abrasion occurs, the skin becomes thicker. So, it is an acquired characteristic, not an inherited one.
Where did you get the idea that races vary in skin thickness? Perhaps it is just another old wive's tale.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.