To not smother my DCs in suncream?

[CantankerousCamel]

I know there is a lot of information suggesting ‘there’s is no such thing as a healthy tan’ but AIBU to think it’s gone too far the other way?

I am very lax about suncream personally (choice partly and research mostly) but everywhere I look, people seem to be smothering children in factor 50 every second of the day!

This cannot be healthy surely? Some sort of happy medium is necessary? Obviously some skin needs heavy sun cream and some needs none (I have Spanish skin and my husband is South African, neither of us or the kids have burned when being careful with staying in the shade in midday sun and popping a thin layer on/hat if needed

Why the factor 50 in May?

AIBU to think NICE should be adjusting guidelines to ward off such thick use of creams on young children? It is important for skin to experience sunlight, especially in the Northern Hemisphere and especially this time of year when moderate exposure is easier, safer and will prevent burning later on in the summer.

You don't have to burn to get skin cancer, and if you think that that is the case then you are truly daft. No skin type is more susceptible to damage from the sun than any other. It's bollocks to suggest that dark or mediterranean skin is less prone to skin cancer.

Australia has had a 20 year campaign about sun safety. Statistically, it is working. Increased use of sunscreen, staying in the shade, wearing long clothing etc. are all working in conjunction to reduce skin cancer rates in the country which formerly had the highest rate of skin cancer in the world.

Heed the advice, or don't, but don't use your opinion to argue against fact.

FENELLA

It’s not just sunlight we have to ‘fear’
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11040119/A-suntan-is-not-only-healthy-it-can-be-life-saving.html

My kids are 1/4 asian and I rarely put sunscreen on them- only if the temp will get about 25. They never burn. I also encourage them to get out of the sun during the hottest hours.
Personally I wear factor 50 all year simply because I am vain.

Depends on the child. I have one olive skinned child who i used factor 15 on and he would turn colour. My other child would get a photo sensitive rash with anything less than 50 for a number of years and has always burned

Until you have a v fair skinned child you don’t really know what you are talking about

RedDwarves

But rickets is re-emerging in Australia alongside the reduction in skin cancer rates. That's the law of unintended consequences.

PLEAS

Even very fair children need some sunlight without heavy creams.

No one is advocating for midday baking, but 30 mins in the morning or evening

It would be hugely irresponsible for me to send my kids to school on a sunny day without sun cream. because they're pale, freckley, ginger-y blondes who go pink after the slightest bit of sun exposure.

Maybe consider that some people's (may people, given how pale the British often are!) skin and situation is different to your own before congratualting yourself for your laissez-faire attitude?

From the links I’ve read (one is above) the rates of cancer haven’t decreased, the type of cancer has just changed.

I use factor 50 as I have fair skin and burn easily even may.My DD has different skin and so can be in the sun for longer.She does put suncream onif she's going to be outside all day but I and she have never slapped it on 2 hourly.
She had a patch of sunburn a few years ago on her shoulder at a water park so at places like that now wears on of those sun protecting tee shirts.
There are however already the first newspaper reports about babies left out in the sun and coming into hospital with serious burns.

I agree there isn't a one size fits all for sun care and we all have different skin, however dd has inherited my pale skin and after having skin cancer we are both smothered in factor 50

PINGU

where has anyone suggested you don’t send your children to school with suncream?

How is researching something and coming to a reasonable conclusion, a ‘laissez-faire attitude’?

YANBU. I have terribly low Vit D levels and it's because I cover up, use sunscreen religiously etc. I since have realised some sun on bare skin is fine. I live in the South East where we are lucky to get some nice weather during the summer, but I have been a little too careful about sun protection to the extent I have next to no Vit D.

My DCs have never been sunburnt, they have hats and suncream and so on. I think it's totally necessary on an abroad holiday where the sun is very strong, and on those rare days here where it's very hot, but day to day, for example 22 degrees in May in UK when they are in and out of shade - no, I won't suncream them for that any more.

However If we were in the park from 11-4pm and it was strongly sunny and hot (over 21-22 degrees maybe) , I'd definitely have hats on them and I'd apply suncream to exposed areas.
But I don't do it religiously any more.

Vit D deficiency is becoming a real problem and the side effects from it are bad. No child should ever be sunburnt, but sometimes exposure to ordinary sun on a warm day (especially when in and out of shade) is beneficial rather than harmful. In fact it's useful to do the exposure on warm but not "so hot you could burn quickly" days. Get the Vit D in whilst you can!

I prefer to use a cap and long loose clothes with just a small amount of cream on the face.
I don’t think the ingredients in sun cream are great and some have known issues. So I use in moderation.
Vitamin d deficiency is a well known problem also.
Playing in direct sunshine for long periods is dangerous because of sunstroke and sun cream won’t stop that.

technically a tan can be described as 'damage' however a splinter damages your body but it's not a broken leg.

A better analogy would be the damage you do running for the bus, it's specifically that damage that signals your body to rebuild the damage stronger so as to make running for the next bus easier.

I have the sort of skin that burns very easily. I burnt too many times as a teenager/young adult and I’m worried about the damage I’ve caused myself. It’s hard trying to get the balance for my toddler. If she’s popping out in the garden for 20 minutes in the morning I don’t tend to bother. I also find we spend most of the late afternoon out and a lot of the time i don’t reapply. But yesterday the sun was very powerful and I did put cream on at 4 and I wouldn’t have had her out without it. If we’re out in the sun for a full day then i do apply and re-apply properly. When we go on holiday she’ll have cream on all the time as she won’t be used to 38 plus temps and I’ll have no worries about having her in a uv suit and hat in the pool. I’ve seen some people on here take the piss of that but I found it a lot easier last year and will do the same again. I used a rash vest myself last year for the first time on holiday and for the first time ever I didn’t burn my shoulders in the pool.

SUNDAY

I think more people suffer with some vit D deficiency than we know.

It amazes me that the governments reaction to that is to give people more chemicals (vit D drops for children) rather than release some decent information regarding sun exposures

It’s just about being sensible. The sun is demonised by many and yet is what gives us life and is good for us (without sounding too cringey!).
My children don’t burn easily and have thankfully not burned yet. I’ve put cream on them 3 days this year, and that’s when they are going to be in the garden all day, on a day when the sun is shining all day and with their skin out. Their skin has gone a golden colour without burning and means they won’t burn while playing out for half an hour in school. I keep a a close eye on their skin and usually they have clothes on and are in and out of the sun anyway. I’m talking the uk, though. I do put lots of sun cream on when we go abroad and are at the beach/by the pool all day long.
I do find it a bit ridiculous when you see children at the park with so much cream on that they’re gleaming white, with clothes on top and a uv protection sun had and sunglasses, but eating a ham sandwich, packet of haribo and a ribena. I guess we all choose our own poison.

SIR

that’s a great analogue. If we know a tan is not unhealthy

My kids are pretty good at knowing when they need sun screen - 4 years in New Zealand gave them a healthy respect for the sun. The two eldest are darker skinned than our youngest, but they all use a factor 30 sunscreen with high UVA protection (we've never used factor 50, even in NZ)

I don't make them use it at the moment for school (they're not out in it for long enough, plus their playground is shaded) but later in the afternoon, if we go to the Lido and it's sunny, I will.

Yanbu, I don’t put sun cream on my children for school unless they are going to be outside for hours like last weeks sports day.

ANS

That just sounds like more chemicals on the outside to match all the ones being poured inside

In terms of UV May is worse than August. Nothing to do with temperature.

SKI

We used factor 50 when we holiday’d with my mother in Cairns Australia. Can’t think why they even sell it in the uk

But rickets is re-emerging in Australia alongside the reduction in skin cancer rates. That's the law of unintended consequences.

You've clearly ignored the fact that it's most often linked with the ethnic heritage of the person, not whether or not they've been exposed to an adequate amount of sun without going overboard. Half of the children diagnosed over the last few years were of Sudanese heritage, and the increase since the early 2000s is occurring alongside increased rates of immigration from countries which are prone to vitamin D deficiency (i.e. not fair skinned people).

Cantankarous - I know, but I think it's because the govt. might worry that some parents would drop any pretence or bother of sun protection on their DCs because "Vit D".

It's a balance. I literally ponder every sunny day over whether hat or no hat, how long they'll be out in it for, cream top to toe or just forearms if they're wearing a t shirt (rather than forearms and legs and neck and hands etc etc) It's a constant balancing act as I am paranoid about burning, and am proud that my DCs have never burned however I have come to realise that some exposure is definitely necessary and as essential for health as burning is harmful.

Even though I cover up and wear sunscreen, I am just a "normal" person - I don't hide in the shade all the time and I walk about in the sun, do the school run, go to the park and errands etc. Basically I didn't think I was that underexposed to the sun - but my almost non-existent levels of Vit D say otherwise.