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.

Bought a UV suit for DS this week - BNWT from ebay for £6.99 plus P&P.

Label seemed legit and seller had good ratings but it hasn't turned up yet so I can't verify quality! Saw some in Boots today for about £8-10, as well.

can't recommend Green People sunscreen enough - non chemical sunscreen, no hormone mimickers, and brilliant. We all have very sensitive skin and eyes and no reaction here.

When I was pregnant with dd2 I was Vit D deficient. Being in Australia & not really liking the sun, I stayed out of it as much as possible.

My dr said that 30 mins in the early morning sun (with at least my arms & some of my legs exposed) was all that was needed to boost my vit D levels. And it helped. She repeated the test a few weeks later & it had worked. I should also point out that I was pregnant forall of our summer & worse sunscreen, but because I spent time out in the sun early am my Vit D levels were maintained.

The sun doesn't have to be hot & burning to get your vit D levels up. As long as you spend a little time in the sun, as I did Vit D deficiency need not be a worry.

Indeed different name. It may be that you need more than half an hour of early morning sun in much of the UK to keep vit D levels up but that does not translate into hours of unprotected exposure in the middle of the day.

DH just keeps the children in during the heat of the day. They gradually turn pale brown, as they go out at every other opportunity, but don't burn (and we are really pale and my fluffy-haired ds2 will not wear his hat).
If we are on holiday they get sun-screened up with that thick white stuff that will not wash off/come off your hands when you have put it on...

You can take a Vitamin D supplement but you can't undo skin cancer.

Sun burn before 16 is the strongest predictor of melanoma later in life.

Sun exposure through life is directly linked to basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas - these are not normally life threatening, but need surgery or radiotherapy and can be disfiguring.

SPFs are regulated - there is a international standard that they have to be tested against.

Using sunscreen sparingly is not a good idea. The SPF is based on the application amounts given on the bottle, and by applying less, you are reducing the protection

I also have had a malignant melanoma 15 years ago (aged 14) and so am very careful in the sun but at the same time get terrible prickly heat when wearing sunscreen. I have bypassed this problem by not wearing sunscreen except on my face and instead covering up or sitting in the shade when on hols and so far have lived a far more comfortable existance! In the UK I wear a high factor lavera organic cream but only apply it if I know i will be out in the midday sun which is rare.

IMO my skin cancer was caused by me sitting in the bedroom whilst my mum went on the sunbed since I never burnt as a child and I believe the increase in cases is from excessive sunbed use in the 80's and "binge tanning" on the costa del sol. But that is not based on anything factual!

"You can take a Vitamin D supplement but you can't undo skin cancer"

Heck, you don't even need to do that. If you have a well balanced diet you will get plenty vit D. The vit D argument against using sun protection is a red herring imo