Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

To be happy that dd has 'caught the sun'

48 replies

Hercomesthesun · 16/04/2011 19:49

name change here.
We have just got back from holiday. Dd has not really tanned but she has caught the sun and has a nice healthy glow and looks lovely. Before everybody thinks I'm a terrible mummy, dd did of courses have suncream on and she did not burn. I think she has her daddy's genes. He tans well. I don't think that I am being unreasonable.

OP posts:

chipmonkey · 16/04/2011 22:33

YANBU. She didn't burn and she got some Vit D.

Maryz · 16/04/2011 22:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

chipmonkey · 16/04/2011 22:41

My ds2 gets a fab tan even with factor 40, Mary. And I don't think he has ever burned.

Your friend sounds jealous!

Mahraih · 16/04/2011 22:50

YANBU, if she didn't burn then what's the issue?

I've not put sunscreen on DS (9 weeks), or a hat. But he is 1/4 black and darker than I was at that age - I grew up in Kenya and my skin's never seen a drop of suncreen. Plus, what we have in England is barely sun. When we go on hols, I will use sunscreen.

Assuming we're all sensible people, a bit of common sense should cover this issue...

CharlieCoCo · 17/04/2011 00:08

a bit of sun is good for you and you do need vitamin d, however just because you dont see the damage doesnt mean there isnt any. i have spent my adulthood in mole clinics for dodgy moles and im very anal about suncream but they said you dont get skin cancer from one day in the sun with no cream, its created over time and what you do as a child has an impact as an adult, so if your kids go in the sun alot without cream on, you could be causing long term damage.

CharlieCoCo · 17/04/2011 00:10

oh just to add, i have only been slightly burnt one time, that was when i was a young adult i spent the day in turkey and i didnt put cream on my back so i peeled slightly. im a fair skinned person but in the sun i do go brown, im not a reddy or burny type of person with sensitive skin, i just have a lot of moles-which i didnt have as a child.

TandB · 17/04/2011 07:44

I can see why the OP is worried people might think she is unreasonable.
My son has my skin colour - sallow/olive depending on how generously you want to describe it - and blonde hair and looked like a surfer-dude all summer. The number of people who made slightly snide comments about "ooh, he must have been out in the sun alot", I lost count.

I did once snap at one old lady we knew from the local area and who tended to get a bit over-involved, "Have you ever taken a look at me?"

CoffeeDodger · 17/04/2011 08:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

meditrina · 17/04/2011 08:38

tethersegg: you must have misunderstood tour GP. Vitamin D is not being prescribed to every choked in UK. There ricketts is topical and so indications on when to prescribe have been discussed (including on This Morning), but it's not being given to all.

A tan isn't healthy - it's a sign that the skin is reacting to danger, and the real damage won't show up for years, even decades. Here is a quotation from the Australian Cancer Council (experts in this area):

"A tan is not a sign of good health or wellbeing, despite many Australians referring to a ?healthy tan?. Fifty per cent of Australian adults still hold the misguided belief that a tan looks healthy.

"Tanning is a sign that you have been exposed to enough UV radiation (from the sun or solarium) to damage your skin. This will eventually cause loss of elasticity (wrinkles), sagging, yellowish discolouration and even brown patches to appear on your skin. Worst of all, it increases your risk of skin cancer.

"A tan will offer limited protection from sunburn, but usually no more than SPF4, depending on your skin type. It does not protect from DNA damage, which can lead to skin cancer".

meditrina · 17/04/2011 08:42

BTW: here's a link to what they say about Vitamin D (only a few minutes daily exposure required - less than time to produce a tan).

And for those who may be interested here is their Sun Smart page, with lots on information and useful links.

TrillianAstra · 17/04/2011 09:17

I can see why the OP thought she might get slated. The sun is eeeeevil don't you know?

tethersegg · 17/04/2011 09:20

Medtrina- it's quite possible that my GP was wrong, but I most certainly did not 'misunderstand' her.

meditrina · 17/04/2011 09:21

The sun isn't evil (or not evil, come to that). Accumulated sun damage to the skin can hardly be a good thing, though, can it?

TrillianAstra · 17/04/2011 09:37

This sot of thing is why the OP thought she might get flamed for allowing her DD to be exposed to the sun.

Bonsoir · 17/04/2011 09:39

Suncream is very dangerous stuff. Much more dangerous than a light tan;

IngridBergman · 17/04/2011 09:51

Trillian what are you talking about? That thread is about tanning beds, not sun exposure. they are two totally different things.

wfrances · 17/04/2011 09:51

my poor son has excema on his scalp and face being 12 its really horrible for him ,but this weather has cleared it up.i certainly wont use sunscreen on him.
youngest son 7 is another matter always in the garden,football ,riding his bike and goes very dark.
schools have a policy here,sun hats and sunfactor to be in school if you havnt got any you sign a consent form and they apply it twice a day.
my dad had to have a cancer removed from his hand ,hes a club cyclist he goes practically black docs thought it was caused by constant exposure .

IngridBergman · 17/04/2011 09:53

and furthermore the fact you're trying to make a comparison between the attitude to tanning beds and the attitudes to sun exposure just serves to highlight the ignorance around tanning.

I posted vehemently on that thread but I have no issue with the OP's exposure of her child to a bit of sunlight.

TrillianAstra · 17/04/2011 09:56

I'm not sure if we are necessarily disagreeing here Ingrid. I didn't recommend that anyone put their child in a sunbed. I simply used the very strong reaction to sunbeds as a reason why the OP might have felt the need to namechange, in case people reacted equally strongly to "natural" tanning.

IngridBergman · 17/04/2011 10:00

But you could probably have used a thread that was about natural tanning if you had really wanted to make that point, Trillian.

The two issues are almost poles apart. I don't like my obviously strongly worded post on that thread being held up as an example of why people might be opposed to natural tanning...I'm not. I'm vehemently against sunbed use.

TrillianAstra · 17/04/2011 10:04

There probably is a thread about natural tanning where people go 'oh no, the sun, you will burn and get cancer and die', but there isn't one in active convos right now. :o

It's not an example of why people might be against natural tanning, it's an example of why the OP might worry that people would be against it, until she asked and found out that people think the two are different.

IngridBergman · 17/04/2011 10:08

that's what I meant Trillian. You might as well have used one about smoking though for all the similarity.

xStarGirl · 17/04/2011 11:33

It all depends, doesn't it?
I despise the idea of putting my DS in bright sunlight for long periods even with suncream on, because I burn so quickly (with cream or without!) and he has my pale skin so would likely do the same. And sunburn bloody hurts, why would I put my DS through that?

But if your kids tan easily or are fairly robust then I imagine it's not so bad to let them tan. Bit of a non-issue, really.

Flip

1 2