to think that smearing chemicals on my children every day would do them more damage than the sun?

[morningpaper]

I feel terrible smearing chemicals all over my children and then terrible sending them into the sun with no sunscreen on.

Which is worse? I seem to go through phases of using creams and watching them spend days covered in rashes and itching like mad, and then weeks when I do nothing and feel guilty about that instead.

I've tried lots of brands and really can't afford to keep trying them and finding them useless after a day because they sting the children or make them half-blind with allergies and itching.

there were a couple of links in saving money/promotions section for cut price sunsuits the other day.

the uv clothes are expensive, but tbh, no more than I'd spend on suncream/other clothes over the summer, and the dds are going to be sewn into them as soon as they arrive, and only released once the summer has long gone

Bonsoiranna - that product contains sls which is v drying on skin and def not good for excema sufferers. we use http://www.badgerbalm.com/p-372-spf-30-for-face-body.aspx badger suncream - active ingredient is zinc oxide and contains only natural ingredients. would definitely recommend it. It's an american website but can get it in the UK.

this is the Jason one
I can't vouch for it as haven't checked it out properly but was recommended to me....

DD1 reacts to a lot of suncreams - but she is ok with Simple suncare - baby factor 50. She may be ok with other factors of the Simple range - but having discovered that have stuck with it.

badger

trying again...

this is the site I use for a lot of different stuff, and they have a few different sunscreens on there (inc the badger balm one)

Badger balm here in UK - might order some

Someone on MN recommended this to me. It is very good: unscented, very lightweight and soaks in quickly. My mother uses it (very sensitive skin, has had issues with skin cancer in the past) and loves it.

As they're already wearing hats, you could just upgrade them to something like this. That might help.

I thought that soaking in was BAD for a sunscreen?

I completely agree with the sentiments in the OP. Cream in unnatural and contains hosts of possibly unpleasent chemicals.

Except for very fair people it is enough in Britain to wear sensible clothing, seek shade, and avoid prolonged exposure in very hot sunshine.

The advice to slather cream constantly was an over-cautious public health message in reaction to the absurd practice of excessive sunbathing.

Our bodies have their own protective device -- mild tanning, which is NOT a sign that your skin has already been damaged. All white-skinned people are darker than they would be if they lived underground, because of a response to sunshine. When we are in sushine a little more we get a little darker. A beautifully economical self-protecting mechanism.

Expert advice has already backtracked a little, by acknowledging that some level of exposure to sun is harmeless and indeed necessary. But commercial entities need to keep selling their product, so they are happy with the panicky overuse of cream. The panic is a gift to them -- now even just 'being outside in summer' is accessorised.

I do use sun cream if my dc absolutely have to be out in the sun, but I prefer to cover them up and keep them indoors in the hottest part of the day. This is what people who live in hot countries do. What do they say about mad dogs and English men....?

The green people stuff is v. good MP.

Roc is what my mum uses and I don't react to it either.

I agree with the mineral rather than chemical block, my mum's dermatologist told her we (with sensitive atopic eczema) will eventually react to ANY chemical sunscreen.

the downside for me is that the green people one makes you white (but then on kids you could see where it was).

I also agree that you need to crack down on the nekkid thing! We also stay indoors at "siesta" time throughout the summer - boring I know but essential - no suncream is enough for early afternoon sun.

I hate sending my dc to schoool on days like today. dd2 came home yesterday totally fried. I had applied sun cream in the morning, but of course schools do not reapply it, and then send them outdoors to a playground with very little shade at midday. Grrrrr.

agree that there is sometimes an over-hyped hysteria about suncream.

my stepdaughter slathered it on yesterday, as we were going outside.

we were walking to the car (outside the front door), and going shopping (in an indoor shopping centre), but she had to rub it all in "just in case" (she is 19, so old enough to know when she should be using it, imo)

oh, playgrounds with no shade are my bugbear.

dropped dd1 at school yesterday (nicely covered up with long trousers, long sleeves, etc, and wearing her hat (legionnaires style)) and the school asked, straightaway - does she have suncream on, or should we put some on? (dd1 only goes afternoons, so dropped her at 12.30)

I mentioned that really, at that time, they should be working on staying in the shade etc, and they thought I was barking mad. "oh, it's only 30 mins or so" said the teacher. I was , but sadly, shady playgrounds do not appear to have ocurred to most schools...

YANBU to object to sunscreens as long as you are finding viable alternatives. I have had a long battle to convince dh that there is a real risk from long term sun damage - he told me that it was all hype by the sunscreen companies. But in my opinion, even if the link between sun exposure and skin cancer wasn't real (and I do believe it is), why would anyone want sunburn (which is an actual burn)? Redness, soreness, peeling skin - how can this be good?

Red War Moth makes an excellent post. You don't need to feel guilty for not sending them out in the sun with no sun tan lotion. They will absolutely not get skin cancer just because!

Although trying to get some clothes on them would probably be a good idea.

staying: IKWYM but because the children (or me or DH) never seem to burn at all, it tends to give us a false sense of security....

MP

I bought my DD some sunsuits / rash vests on Ebay last month. All were BNWT and none cost me more than £6. Agree that UV stuff in shops is expensive (although got last years supply in Matalan quite cheaply) but DD gets through one per month, so I always buy 6 at a time - at £6 I didnt mind.

(Oh and have you tried the P20 stuff? DD came out in a rash from all the supermarket 'own brands' I bought, and a Nivea one but hsnt had any reaction to P20)

I really don't understand why is it considered bad parenting to not go to extremes to protect our DC against one specific risk (like putting on sunscreen all the time to try and prevent skin cancer) when the result (vitamin D deficiency) can also cause different kinds of cancer? Surely it should be a case of all things in moderation? And only putting on sunscreen in situations where they are likely to burn?

It would also help in sensitive skin situations where intolerances and allergies to the chemicals build up very quickly.

Message withdrawn

To my knowledge there is no scientific evidence that sunscreen causes or raises the risk of cancer in humans.

How did we all manage in the millennia before suncream?