Does Sunscreen Protect Against Skin Cancer?

[street]

I have not used it and spent my entire life being outside with work and my love for the outdoors. I'm dark skinned but not saying that I won't get skin cancer but I don't remember ever getting sun burn face etc..

I wear floppy hats or cowboy hats for protection what that is worth.

 

[nash031]

I don't wear it as much as I probably should given how much I'm outside. I generally avoid spending too much time unprotected outside between 10a-2p. Outside those windows, I usually don't wear sunscreen - some sun is good for you, and the chemicals in sunscreen probably aren't.

As I've gotten older, I am more conscious of putting sunscreen on exposed areas before long runs or rides, especially my face, neck, ears and nose. I don't like slathering the stuff everywhere, so I opt to limit peak sun exposure instead. That said, if it's a beach day or long event outside, I'm wearing sunscreen on exposed areas.


Sunscreen can't prevent skin cancer - cancer is a generally stochastic occurrence, so properly sunscreen probably reduces your risk of skin cancer. I know that it prevents sunburns and reduces sun damage to your skin, so those alone are enough for me.

 

[zinger1457]

The sun (UV) does cause damage to the skin other than just cancer, just look at the skin of people that spent years 'tanning' out in the sun, their skin looks like old dried up leather. Can also be noticeable on truck drivers where the window side of the face is aged much more than the other.

 

[bmcgonig]

You can find studies that refute their conclusion also, as I'm sure you know, if you looked through the literature. Here is an article (which cites some of those contradictory studies) that summarizes some of the problems associated with sunscreen use, and a quote from the article:

https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/causes-of-skin-cancer/

"A 2004 study in the medical journal The Lancet showed indoor workers were twice as likely to get skin cancer as those who spent more time in the sun: “Paradoxically, outdoor workers have a decreased risk of melanoma compared with indoor workers, suggesting that chronic sunlight exposure can have a protective effect.”
Lack of sunlight means lack of vitamin D, which is a necessary nutrient for the body’s immune system to function properly. Low vitamin D levels are linked to health problems, including cancer. Appropriate sun exposure helps maintain adequate levels of vitamin D. Using sunscreen interferes with that exposure and could be contributing to the rise in skin cancer."

Here is what is in many of the most popular sunscreens:


"Sunscreen often contains cancer-causing chemicals that bake into the skin and get absorbed into the bloodstream, over-taxing the liver with toxins. Here are some of the offenders:

1. OMC – The main chemical used in sunscreens to filter out UVB is octyl methoxycinnamate (aka “OMC”) which has been shown to kill mouse cells even at low doses. Plus, it was also shown to be particularly toxic when exposed to the sun. And guess what? OMC is present in the vast majority of sunscreen brands!
2. Titanium dioxide – another common ingredient in sunscreens, has been classified as “a potential occupational carcinogen” by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
3. Oxybenzone – oxybenzone becomes carcinogenic when exposed to the sun and has been found to be a hormone disruptor! The Environmental Working Group (EWG) recommends consumers avoid oxybenzone, and yet it remains in many major brands of sunscreen.
4. Derivatives of vitamin A such as retinol and retinyl palmitate – AOL News reported that about half the sunscreens tested in a study contained derivatives of vitamin A such as retinol and retinyl palmitate. These ingredients have been found to be photocarcinogenic by the FDA’s own studies, meaning the ingredients become toxic and cancer causing when exposed to sunlight.
5. Diesopropyl adipate – in 2006, the National Toxicology Program reported that diesopropyl adipate, another ingredient in many sunscreens, increased the incidence of tumors in laboratory animals."

Personally, I have no desire to put this stuff on my skin.........I'll stick with my hat and lightweight long-sleeve shirt if I feel like I am getting too much sun.

What I quoted wasn't a study but an analysis of all the existing pubmed studies. Basically they looked at all the studies and could find no evidence for your assertion.

 

[redduck]

. But I also deliberately increase my exposure to the sun for short periods of time, to make sure I am getting enough Vitamin D.

How long do you spend in the sun to get enough Vitamin D?

 

[RAE]

What I quoted wasn't a study but an analysis of all the existing pubmed studies. Basically they looked at all the studies and could find no evidence for your assertion.

Yes, I understand that. But they also admit that the studies they looked at produced "inconsistent results".

Perhaps a better way to frame this discussion is that several studies (and at least one meta-analysis) have concluded that there is NO evidence that sunscreen use reduces the incidence of melanoma. Here is one:

https://www.aafp.org/afp/2010/1015/p989.html

And a quote from the above:

MELANOMA

A meta-analysis of 11 case-control studies involving 9,067 patients evaluated the effect of sunscreen use on the incidence of melanoma.4 Results were heterogeneous and included study data from population-based and hospital-based sources. The analysis did not find an altered rate of melanoma with sunscreen use (combined RR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.37 to 3.32). A review of 18 case-control studies examining sunscreen use in patients with melanoma found no significant association between melanoma and sunscreen use after controlling for skin sensitivity.5


The only type of skin cancer that sunscreen use appears to protect against is squamous cell (which is much less serious than melanoma). And you could probably get the same or better protection against squamous cell by wearing protective clothing, and not putting toxic chemicals on your skin.

A related problem with using sunscreen use is that it almost certainly inhibits absorption of Vitamin D from sun exposure. This can be a big problem, as Vitamin D is critical for health in many ways. Here is one article about that:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170501102258.htm

 

[RAE]

How long do you spend in the sun to get enough Vitamin D?

Depending on your skin complexion (fair, medium, etc.), and the latitude that you live at, they say that a good guideline is to get at a minimum of 10-30 minutes of direct sun exposure at least a couple times each week - more is okay, if you can tolerate it without getting a sunburn. And in the northern latitudes (anything about Lat. 34 N - which is most of the USA except for the deep south), you can’t make Vitamin D from sunlight from the beginning of October until the beginning of March, which is why many people in northern latitudes take supplemental Vitamin D during the winter months.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

.......... you can’t make Vitamin D from sunlight from the beginning of October until the beginning of March, which is why many people in northern latitudes take supplemental Vitamin D during the winter months.

The Lancet just published an update to that advice today with this conclusion. They were focused on bone mineral heath but implied that other previous health finding are also unfounded. Don't shoot the messenger.

Our findings suggest that vitamin D supplementation does not prevent fractures or falls, or have clinically meaningful effects on bone mineral density. There were no differences between the effects of higher and lower doses of vitamin D. There is little justification to use vitamin D supplements to maintain or improve musculoskeletal health. This conclusion should be reflected in clinical guidelines.

In a linked comment in the journal, he writes that "many patients and doctors have been persuaded by various studies and social media that vitamin D is a cure-all."
"This thinking is reminiscent of the fervour that supported the widespread use of vitamin A, vitamin C, and vitamin E years ago, and all of those vitamin trials later proved to be clinically negative."

https://www.afr.com/lifestyle/healt...plements-wont-save-your-bones-20181004-h1693n



https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(18)30265-1/fulltext

 

[RAE]

The Lancet just published an update to that advice today with this conclusion. They were focused on bone mineral heath but implied that other previous health finding are also unfounded. Don't shoot the messenger.

https://www.afr.com/lifestyle/healt...plements-wont-save-your-bones-20181004-h1693n

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(18)30265-1/fulltext

Thanks for the info.. The article from the Lancet is about bone mineral density, though (I don't see where they imply that other health benefits are unfounded). There are a myriad of other health functions Vitamin D is associated with, supported by many, many studies over the last few decades.

I do agree that it's best to get your vitamins and nutrients from diet (or sunlight, in the case of Vitamin D) if possible. But if you cannot reach adequate blood levels of Vitamin D (which you can check by a simple blood test, that your doctor can order for you) from sunlight alone, due the the latitude you live at or some other reason, then I think supplements are a reasonable thing to consider. Some folks may disagree, and that's okay. I will continue to get some sun exposure during the summer months, and take a Vitamin D supplement during the winter months. I think the evidence is pretty strong overall that it's good to maintain a reasonable blood level of Vitamin D for optimum health.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

Thanks for the info.. The article from the Lancet is about bone mineral density, though (I don't see where they imply that other health benefits are unfounded).

I don't have access to read the full text from the Lancet but did read some other articles that did. I think this is where I got that impression. More information coming in the near future.

“The authors should be complimented on an important updated analysis on musculoskeletal health, but already I can hear the fervent supporters – what about the extra-skeletal benefits of vitamin D?”
According to the SACN, there have been suggestions that vitamin D can help with a number of other “extra-skeletal” health issues, including cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, infectious diseases, neuropsychological functioning, oral health and age-related macular degeneration, although they did not find convincing evidence for any of these. Gallagher believes studies now taking place will answer those questions.
“Within three years we might have that answer because there are approximately 100,000 participants currently enrolled in randomised, placebo-controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation,” he wrote. “I look forward to those studies giving us the last word on vitamin D.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society...s-dont-help-bone-health-major-study-concludes

 

[TromboneAl]

How long do you spend in the sun to get enough Vitamin D?

I like this site, and find the results surprising (gives recommended exposure time based on latitude, etc.):

https://fastrt.nilu.no/VitD-ez_quartMED.html