SIL wants her baby to 'catch a tan'

[LocksHear]

AIBU to be fuming?!

She refuses to cover him up and isn't applying any sun lotion. Baby is 10 months.

Apparently no one puts sun lotion on their kid's in her country, and they're just kept out of the sun when it's at its strongest (between 1.30/3)

She's adamant he doesn't burn, and she doesn't. Which is true. But burning isn't the only sign of skin damage by the sun. So is a sun tan. Any change to pigmentation is, isn't it?

I was at the park with her and all the kids yesterday, I made a point of putting sun lotion on all of mine, and made sure I had loads in my hands when I said "Oh I've loads left. Let me do yours. Might as well, loads left "

She was very and said I'd rather you didn't. I didn't know what to say to that. 5 minutes later she claimed to have a migraine coming on and left.

I've been advised to report her to her health visitor but I know she doesn't have one.

We don't ahve much sun in the UK, it was 25/26 degrees yesterday, which is warm for the UK but in global standards is no great heat. What happens to us whites white skinners is that we are clothed and then we go on holiday, and we burn... it is the burn that is dangerous. But people that live in countries where it's warmer who don't have to cover up get gradual tans and don't burn like us and therefore they have a more relaxed attitude to skin. You're a product of your times and skincare propaganda which may be more appropriate for people who are light skinned and then go on a holiday for 2 weeks a year and tan tan tan. Some people prefer natural oils to prevent burning which to us english the suggestion of wearing coconut oil in sunshine sounds horrifying....

I personally am HORRIFIED that parents feed their children McDonalds, chicken nuggets etc. I think you might find you are going to fall out with your SIL over this, pick your battles. It's sun lotion, you've raised your point - made it crystal clear....

I can't believe all these posts about people using factor 50 in the uk!

Anything above factor 18 is considered a sun block.

Factor 30 blocks out 96% of UVB rays.

Factor 50 blocks out 98% of UVB rays.

Unless you burn within 4 minutes factor 30 is enough to give you 2 hours + worth of protection.

I don't apply sun cream on my blue eye blond haired child unless she is going to be in direct sunlight for more than 30 minutes. And even then I would only use factor 30 when the UV index is "very high".

I'm fair skinned and I can promise you I don't tan beautifully. I go bright red, I peel and then I go back to normal. If I have sun cream on I just stay normal. I do get lots of freckles though which I suppose could eventually join up to make a tan.
I always get confused when people tell me that I will get a lovely tan eventually cause I really dont all I get is pain and one time when I fell asleep on a boat a massive blister.

Fair skinned people do tan but in the way that Mountains suggests, by regular gradual exposure to sunlight. I am fair skinned and never used to tan so I had to be very careful in the sun. But since I've had a dog I've tanned much more easily through regular morning dog walks, no suntan lotion, no sunburn.

Tanning is a visible sign of skin damage. To actively encourage it in a 10 month old. Well she is clearly a cunt.

Mountainsoutofmolehills-We don't ahve much sun in the UK, it was 25/26 degrees yesterday, which is warm for the UK but in global standards is no great heat. What happens to us whites white skinners is that...

Oh please. There are plenty of northern Europeans with brown hair and who tan without going red in the sun. Infact the further north you go, the more daylight you are exposed to in summer.
It isn't just about sunburn either, a small baby can become dehydrated, or very uncomfortable at the least when exposed to extremes in weather and the UK weather can have extremes.
It is common sense to regulate what a baby is exposed to with regards sun and heat. Especially the midday sun

When her child starts nursery and school she will find out about how strict they are about covering up and wearing caps and sun hats.
You are being unfairly criticised OP. Malignant melanomas are so much ,more common now, with a 15% increase in the past 10 years.
Ignore the posts from those who are contrary on purpose.

Sunburn is bad but sunlight is good and protective.

I live in Australia and before moving here I lived in Spain and Italy and there is an increasing research that avoiding the sun is more damaging .

"This review considers the studies that have shown a wide range health benefits from sun/UV exposure. These benefits include among others various types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer disease/dementia, myopia and macular degeneration, diabetes and multiple sclerosis. The message of sun avoidance must be changed to acceptance of non-burning sun exposure sufficient to achieve serum 25(OH)D concentration of 30 ng/mL or higher in the sunny season and the general benefits of UV exposure beyond those of vitamin D."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5129901/
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10811734/Why-avoiding-sunshine-could-kill-you.html

Here in Australia, those working outside (gardener, builder, ....) have way lower rates of melanoma compared to those working in office and following the slip, slap, slop guidance. The sun radiation causes a mutation but what causes this mutation to become cancer is far more complicated.

Eating crisps and chips (acrylamide) for example increases melanoma in men www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27128581 and www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5835509/

And don't even get me started on meat on the BBQ combined wth a cold beer which completely exhausts your antioxidant reserve and leaves you vulnerable to dangerous mutation.

Bottom line. It is not as simple and you have your opinion , your SIL hers. Stay out of it.

delatron you're wrong. Mechanically a tan is an outward sign of skin damage. It means the skin has activated its defence mechanism, 'melatonin' to act as one factor to try to protect against the damage. He other being increased skin thickness to move sensitive cells at the base of the dermis further away from the insult. And yes. I am expert in this. With papers to prove it.

What was the baby wearing, did he have a hat & long sleeves?

DS is mixed, quite often I put him in a legionnaires swim hat, uv shirt & board shorts when we are in France. Quick dab of lotion about factor 30 on exposed legs hands and face. For me, shading their heads is the most important.

There is a problem with darker skinned people not getting enough vitamin D in northern latitudes because of their higher melatonin levels

She's a feckin idiot.

Honestly I despair 😩

You are absolutely right she is risking his health
That said , keep yer hooter out, she don’t wanna hear it

I'm actually shocked by the amount of people that thing sun cream isn't necessary. Especially for a 10 month old. With the heat lately we've been having our dinner in the garden, my baby is 9 months old and he's been wearing long sleeves and trousers. (We life in Scotland so it's not actually that warm, 15 degrees for us is tropical) he also wears a sun hat and I later cream on his face. I can't believe some people wouldn't put their babies health first over a tan. Ludicrous.

No problem BakedBeans47

I'm always surprised that people think they can make enough just going without sunscreen.

For me it's a no brainer.
Not enough vit D and risk of skin cancer or stay safe and just supplement and make sure you're getting enough.

I take 10,000IU a day, 1 bottle of 360 gel caps costs me about £13. A years supply and I know I'm safe.

paradyning I accepted that a tan is a sign of sun damage but I don't agree that avoiding the sun is the answer either!
Agree with everything KingIrving has posted...

This ad was on for years in Australia. I think it puts the issue very bluntly.

Can't believe someone has commented on how they like their children with a tan as it's "healthy". Seriously - it's your skin defending itself from UV attack. Thought this was common knowledge. What would you rather? Several surgeries a year leaving you covered in scars/disfigured with the potential of deadly malignant melanoma or taking a chewable vitamin D supplement once a day? I speak as someone who has had over 20 surgeries and counting. I remember burning in the sun as a child on one holiday abroad and my first skin cancer appeared at age 22. Maybe your child won't be so unlucky but why take that risk for a vanity tan that lasts a matter of weeks??

A time existed before sun tan lotion. People survived.

It's April and the kid has dark skin. It's not that bigger deal.

Wow RedDwarves that is a very powerful ad.

For every intelligent post there's one like Afternooncatnap. Yes a time did exist before sun cream. Life expectancy was shorter and many now manageable or preventable illnesses were prevalent. Plus the ozone layer was not as damaged as it is now.

But let's not let that stop us blaming the nanny state for interfering to try and stop us all getting cancer.

OP could you somehow show the austraian ad to your SIL? If you posted it on your Facebook page for example?

Afternooncatnap-A time existed before sun tan lotion. People survived

I have some sympathy for the 'sunscreen is a chemical' argument and must admit I am wary of it myself but people survived before sunscreen because they protected themselves by covering up from the heat of the sun, by staying indoors and using shutters or by wearing protective clothing. The heat and sun is damaging and historically they knew it as well

It's interesting that skin cancer is on the up when using sun cream is also on the up... Personally I'll admit to not bothering too much with my dark-ish skinned kids (and myself). Maybe I am wrong. I do know that depending on where you are the UVs are different so I think in India the sun isn't that bad even tho it's burning hot and that's it's worse in the UK. I think so anyway. Which means I should maybe use more sun cream. But it is not that simple or straightforward so keep out!

I don’t think you’re being unreasonable OP, a bit of sun exposure plus vitamin D supplements for children is appropriate, hours in full sun is not. If people are so obsessed with their children being “healthily” tanned why not get them spray tanned and then use the SPF. Sounds better than skin cancer to me.

Is there not some evidence that supplementation is not as effective as sun exposure for making vitamin d? Considering the risks associated with low vitamin d , I think a sensible approach to sun exposure is the best option. In my opinion, completely avoiding the sun has more downsides than not and I think we might start to see that in the coming years

I don't tan or try to. Burn within 5 minutes, but vit D is fine thanks to being a redhead
Still seems to be this view that tanned = glowing and healthy and pale = unhealthy and sick