To think children don't need a bloody tan!

[GordontheGopher]

4 year old mindee came back to my house after school with really bad sunburn all down one leg.

This parent almost refused to give me suncream for her daughter, and when she finally did it was a factor 12 and I was to only put it on her face .

Now she's got sunburn (happened over the weekend btw) and was complaining how sore it was poor girl.

I cannot understand why parents do not put factor 50 on their children. What's the point in a child having a tan? Possibly increasing their risk of premature aging and skin cancer later on in life?!

It really baffles me tbh.

[nzshar]

I do not avoid the sun at all that is my point we stay in between 12 and 2 or at least if we are out we try and stay in the shade but i certainly do not avoid the sun. How does someone do that when the sun is out between 4am and 10pm at the moment

[nervousal]

DD always has at least factor 30 on. As far as I am aware damage from sun and risks re skin cancer isn't just about getting sunburnt. My FIL dies from cancer, started as a skin melanoma and spread. Its not worth the risk

[Threadwormm]

Yes, we're all different. I and the kids are quite dark and tan easily.

Just out of interest, here's the kind of news story I had in mind:

'For years, we have seen these aggressive campaigns aimed at cutting back on any exposure to the sun because of concerns about skin cancer,' he said. 'But sunlight is the normal and natural source of vitamin D and, unlike food or vitamin pills, it is free. Some 60 per cent of people in the UK have insufficient amounts of the nutrient in their blood, so they are almost certainly at a higher than average risk of developing cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis and a number of other diseases.'

Others also believe that the warnings have gone too far. Neil Walker, a consultant dermatologist and leading skin cancer expert, warned recently that messages that you had to to avoid the sun entirely are 'Draconian and unnecessary'.

His view was supported by Professor Brian Wharton, from the Institute of Child Health in London, who is worried that rickets may be making a comeback in children from Asian and African-Caribbean families, as their darker skin makes it harder to synthesise enough vitamin D. He said: 'We do need some sensible use of the sun and we have been swinging too strongly against it.'

The change follows a growing number of studies showing the dangers of vitamin D deficiency. This year, a joint British/US study suggested that teenage girls might need more vitamin D to cut the risk of breast cancer later in life. They found that women with the highest levels of the vitamin were up to 50 per cent less likely to develop breast cancer.

But in Britain, for six months of the year the sun is too weak for skin to synthesise vitamin D. A lifestyle spent in offices and cars exacerbates the problem, as does air pollution, which means less of the sun's UV radiation reaches the ground.

[nzshar]

"Others also believe that the warnings have gone too far. Neil Walker, a consultant dermatologist and leading skin cancer expert, warned recently that messages that you had to to avoid the sun entirely are 'Draconian and unnecessary' "

Yes totally agree with this. That is why we should be out but with protection. Nowhere in that text was the mention that we shouldnt use protection when out. Sunblock does not block the bodies ability to absorb vitiman D.

[talilac]

Yes it can..

[whatdayisit]

I do use sunscreen on my children, if they are going to be out at midday or for long periods, but really prefer the cover-up/stay in the shade route.

I have a sneaking suspicion (based on absolutely no scientific knowledge)that it won't belong before the "experts" are telling us the sun creams are just as bad for us as the sun.

Remember how margarine was sooo much more healthy than butter in the 1970's/80's? That marg was made from partially hydrogenated fats!!! but the experts knew best....

[nzshar]

Ok Talk about extremes. That article is once again talking about people who do not go outside at all or those whose constantly wear sunscreen which I am not saying is right either. But neither is being out long enough to burn unprotected. The article mention 15-20 minutes a few times a week without sunscreen.

[Nemoandthefishes]

same as soupkitchen I dont use suncream very much due to eczema flaring up worse when using it. DD2s face is a delight at the moment where it has dried out and people keep asking what is wrong with her..nothing apart from I had to put suncream on her

[kiskideesameanoldmother]

the latest insult being hurled around our schoolground (secondary for boys) is 'sunbed basher'

it is pleasing to hear in some ways.

[mumeeee]

All children should use suncream actually everyone should use it. A small child needs ayt least a factor 25 ( unless there is a medical reason for them not to).
A tan does not protect a child from the sun in fact tanned skin is damaged skin.

[Doodle2U]

Is 12 til 2pm really the worst time? Sounds very short to me. We were out today and I'd have said 11.00am til 3pm - a much longer time slot?

Mine use E45 factor 25 because it is the only sun cream (and we've tried ALL of them) my fair skinned, red headed, prone to skin flare ups DS can use without any problems.

[madmuggle]

My daughter learned a valuable lesson this week. Playing out at school without her hat has caused her to have a burnt scalp. Ouch!

Firm believer in the slapping on of sunblock in my house. We've got some factor thirty in several different guises. Wish the five year old was as easy to coat as the under one though. Minx!