A video circulating online claims that it is not the sun that causes skin cancer, but the sunscreen. First of all, the fact is incorrect and this is another denial of science that causes unnecessary death and secondly, the video is full of logical fallacies
This video, which runs online, claims that there is nothing to fear from tanning. He claims that there is a high rate of skin cancer in northern countries where there is no sun, which proves that it was not the tanning that caused the cancer but the carcinogens in the sunscreen. This argument is wrong. There is more skin cancer not because of sunscreen but because Ozone depletion at the poles due to the emission of greenhouse gases and other gases; Because in the last decades the ozone layer has been depleted and man has been exposed to ultraviolet radiation at unprecedented rates. With sunscreen the rate of skin cancer increased? It just means that without sunscreen, the rate of skin cancer would have gone up even more.
This is a known logical fallacy: if A happens followed by B, then A caused B to happen. If I use sunscreen and cancer rates have increased, then sunscreen causes cancer. If I spit three times every time I go on the court and I have high shooting percentages, then the spitting is what made me successful in the game. If I kiss the mezuzah every time I enter the house and the house does not fall down (after all, earthquakes happen all over the world all the time), then my kissing the mezuzah is what caused the house not to fall down. If the rooster crows every morning and then the sun rises, then that it was the crowing of the rooster that made the sun shine. click here for a list of logical fallacies.
The correct claims in the video are not related to cancer. Sun may be important for preventing winter depression, but it is not related to the question of tanning, only to the number of hours of light in a day.
The video goes against the pharmaceutical industry that sells vitamin D capsules. He claims thatand vitamin D is synthesized by the body as a result of solar radiation and therefore needs to be exposed to it. The video fails to mention that vitamin D is not only created from short exposure to the sun, but also breaks down in the sun after it is created. Long exposure to the sun without protection will break down most, if not all, of the vitamin produced. Click here for a link to one example study. The video also doesn't mention that we also get enough vitamin D by eating green vegetables, bread and dairy products, so we don't need exposure to the sun for more than five minutes a day. An Israeli dermatologist writes like this:
"The improvement in children's nutrition in the Western world and the intentional introduction of vitamin D into the bread and dairy products we all eat, led to the disappearance of the disease. Today it is already clear that there is no need to "roast" the babies and children in the sun to get the necessary amount of vitamin D. In the Israeli sun, exposure of 3-5 minutes to sunlight containing UVB is enough to create the necessary daily amount of the vitamin. The amount that the children in Israel receive in food and from every short stay outside, even in the shade, is definitely enough."
The melanin in the skin protects us from radiation. We do not have melanin like blacks and those with dark skin, therefore we must not be exposed to the sun. Those with light skin and little melanin, like most of us, are able to synthesize vitamin D even in cloudy conditions and in conditions of a lack of direct sunlight, and food makes up for the deficiency, so which should not be exposed to the sun More than what is revealed anyway.
Regarding the scientists or doctors who oppose sunscreen - in every scientific branch where there are millions of doctors or scientists, there are several dozen people whose approach is not based on the latest research in the field but on an agenda. As you can see in the video, these doctors have an agenda, which is not medical but economic: anti-capitalism, anti-pharmaceutical companies. There is no scientific basis for what they say. If I want scientific information, I go for doctors and the scientific consensus and not to those with foreign interests.
Click here toThe response of the Cancer Society for the video, and continue to put on sunscreen and be exposed to the sun moderately - until ten in the morning and after four in the afternoon.
With thanks to Noam Levitan from the operators of the Facebook page "Big science, little one".
13 תגובות
Let's put some forces in order:
1) The UV radiation in the sun has a direct harmful effect on the skin, therefore the main "power" is negative.
2) It is the UV radiation in the sun that leads to the creation of vitamin D in the skin, vitamin D, among other things, prevents cancer, so it can be said that the UV radiation indirectly reduces the chance of cancer, this is an additional force and it is positive. However, nowadays vitamin D is available to everyone and is safe, so it is recommended to supplement with vitamin D instead of getting it from the sun and thus avoid the harmful effect.
3) Sunscreen of the type that is absorbed by most (unfortunately, these are most of the creams today) that a quick look at the list of its ingredients already says it all, indeed increases the creation of free radicals in the skin so that after two hours of protection from the sun, it actually increases the damage from the sun.
Therefore, the correct recommendation is to avoid direct exposure to the sun as much as possible, supplement with vitamin D, and if you need to use a sunscreen, use a cream that is based on physical protection (one that "sits" on the skin and is not absorbed into it.
I stopped at "autism". Because there is a limit.
C.
In Australia there is a lot of sun and a lot of skin cancer. And there is a high correlation between exposure and disease.
Yoshi
There is no connection between a "natural" product and a "healthy" product. It's a shame to just say things...
I debated whether to release C.'s response. People today are ready to believe any nonsense, as long as it sounds authoritative enough instead of being based on research. I have known several people who died of skin cancer due to exposure to the sun. Unlike websites, I am not ready to post irresponsible statements.
Those who try to disprove truths are all experts in their own eyes who don't care that others die as a result of their recommendations. The cancer deniers are a new factor but anti-vaccines are making a name for themselves in the western world when children die from diseases that have already been eradicated from the west thanks to mass vaccinations.
What you mean is controversial, after all there is no science that does not have opponents, even that the earth goes around the sun. The question is whether they should be given expression.
I grew up in an area with many moshavim and kibbutzim in the hottest part of the country and at a time when no one wore sunscreen and everyone worked the fields in the hot sun and I never heard of even one person who got cancer and I knew many of them as robust adults and most of them are still alive. I even heard Dr. Fisher say that when the sun is hot between 10:00 and 16:00 it is better not to go out at all. That means he doesn't trust the creams he sells either. Regarding vitamin D, almost everyone I know in Israel has been told that she lacks vitamin D, even the sailing instructor who is in the sea every day and has never put cream on herself, she was told that she lacks vitamin D. 15 years ago we lived in England and it was common there to go to sunny countries not only for depression but also for calcium. I believe in everything said in the video and apply it religiously and thank God everything works! Starting to suspect the reliability of the science site. Recently we see a lot of articles that try to disprove truths. It's a shame you are digging a hole for yourselves and I would suggest you not to bother with controversial issues.
Friends, thanks for the clarification. The problem was in the wording, and I would like to clarify:
Vitamin D overdose is impossible from UV exposure; the skin reaches an equilibrium where the vitamin degrades as fast as it is created.)
See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_sunlight_exposure#Synthesis_of_vitamin_D3
This text includes reference to three articles, two of which are from NIH.
Also, here:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/61/3/638S.full.pdf
It says, among other things:
Thus, prolonged
exposure to sunlight cannot cause the overproduction of precholecalciferol
because, once formed, the amount of precholecalciferol
is maintained in a quasi-photostationary state,
In short, the creation of vitamin D after a short exposure to the sun stops after reaching a certain level.
Agree with Yoshi.
As far as I know (I've heard from experts) there is also quite a bit of toxicity in the sunscreen.
It is still of course better to use it during hours of high radiation, but the recommendation I know is to prefer as much as possible to simply avoid exposure to radiation if the skin is light, and to prefer a sunscreen with a number lower than 50 since the high coefficients contain a much higher amount of toxic substances.
Obviously, the video is trending and probably contains a lot of data that is not true, but it is not black or white. There are many true things that are said in it:
1) I don't know if suntan cream is carcinogenic. However, it clogs the pores in the skin, and it is very difficult to remove it. If we take into account that it is not made from the most natural materials in the world, then probably applying suntan cream is not the healthiest thing. It is better to protect ourselves from the sun by wearing appropriate clothing.
2) It is clear that staying in the sun for too long is dangerous, the body tells you this by burning and hurting. This does not mean that you cannot expose to a degree when the sun is not very strong.
3) I don't know if their arguments about the risks of taking synthetic vitamin D are correct. However, in my opinion, if you can get it naturally from the sun then better. (I take the supplement because my vitamin D levels are low. I'm not out much)
4) Sunlight and being outdoors in general is very significant to improve mood and depression. You don't need a laboratory or advanced technology to experience this. This is not only valid for winter.
You don't have to believe everything shown in the video, but you should take the good things,
And the main message in my opinion is: sunlight in moderation is a good thing
Dear Herzl
Eat as much fluoride as you want. Just leave me alone.
"Vitamin D is not only formed from short exposure to the sun, but also breaks down in the sun after it is formed. Long exposure to the sun without protection will break down most, if not all, of the vitamin created" - really? I turned to the link, how does what is written there prove this "fact"? Stopping the creation of the vitamin beyond a certain period of continuous exposure to the sun is not the decomposition of the created vitamin. The article mixes proven facts with amateurish and demagogic information - too bad, not suitable for science.
Stupidity rises. There was also a health minister who abolished fluoridation. What about the new health minister? He has been on the job for two days - where is the fluoridation?