Why wasn't skin cancer a common cause of death before the invention of sun screen then?

[emkana]

I understand the importance of sun protection, I really do. But what I keep wondering about is this: Before sun screen was invented people were exposed to the sun all the time, and far more than people today in many cases (more work being done outdoors), so was skin cancer a really common cause of death then?

I think people did die more of cancers in the past but it just wasn't identified and named as cancer then kwim? People just got very sick and died.

I think maybe we sunbathe more now as well? Certainly in the 19th C it was v.fashionable to be extremely pale so they avoided the sunshine but that was more the richer people I guess.

global warming?

being tan wasn't 'in' till fairly recently?

good question!

Explanations:

a) hole in ozone might have made sun stronger now?

b) people get much more intermittent exposure to sun now - they don't have none at all and then two weeks broiling, resulting in bad burns, which cause cancer.

c) most skin cancers are gross, but not fatal. There's only one type that's fatal.

d) most skin cancers happen when you're quite old. By which time, ages ago, people were generally dead.

because we've made a hole in the ozone layer

thinner ozone layer causing much higher levels of harmful uva and uvb

I guess that because there was no sunscreen people would be more likely to cover up to prevent sunburn, it was unfashionalbe to be tanned, women in particular owuld wear far more modest clothing than now, hats were more widely worn, people didn't tend to take holidays abroad and fry themselvse for 2 weeks.....

I have often wondered exact same Q actually!!!!

Altho it is true that 100yrs ago, having a tan was something to be looked down upon. Like a brand of being 'working class scum' if you like! made all the snobs very smug while wandering around under their parasols!!!!

Because most people died of other things before skin cancer got them. Until the 20th century only the poor had tans and also had shorter life expectancy.

crossed posts big time!

But people would have been out on a day to day basis in clothes, but with parts of their body exposed I suppose, wouldn't they?
And nowadays it is said that you should always use sun screen, even for just lower arms/face/lower legs if just walking around in the day for day-to-day business.
And I wonder sometimes if that's a bit excessive?

I think it's a combination of factors. As smurfgirl says the cause of skin cancer pobably wasn't established 100 years ago but also people wore different clothing which covered them up, didn't go abroad for holidays unless super rich, longer working hours and fewer holidays and very importantly, no holes in the ozone layer.......

They usually wore head coverings though, which covered the exposed parts of their bodies.

And people just didn't have such exposed bodies - they covered up. Until the 20th century, it was considered indecent to bear your arms. Still is in churches in some parts of Europe.

It's absolutely excessive.

Oh, and the other thing is, I think skin cancer did hurt people a bit, so people evolved to be darker in sunnier climates. This happened reasonably quickly, as the aboriginal folk in North/South America certainly come in lighter and darker shades.

Mainly because they died of something else first! Medicine has advanced so much in just the last 30 odd years that life expectancy has gone up and up.
In Victorian (ish) times, life expectancy was on average 50 - so as someone already said, they had died before skin cancer would've developed. And true too, they were tanning averse.

the sun is stronger now

well for what its worth...unless we are going to be out excessivly I don't smother mine or me in cream...and I burn really badly too.

The mini psychos tho take after their dad and have lovely skin colour!!

They don't burn tho, as I do make sure they do get sprayed if I feel the need, but I also think that getting some sun to uncovered skin is healthy and beneficial to them...if only for the vit D aspect.

I reckon covering up is more sensible TBH - sunscreen can lull you into a false sense of security. God know what long term effect the chemicals in it cause. I've very rarely put it on dd.

NZ and Australia have one of the highest incidences of skin cancer in the world - it is believed to be mainly attributable to climate change,

I don't use it. I don't trust it. I'd rather cover up, sit in the shade, avoid the midday sun, wear a hat etc. I once saw a report on newsnight which cast very convincing doubt on sunscreen,.

I think a lot of it is our mobile society. I'm sure that the incidence of skin cancer in NZ and Australia is in no small part due to immigration of skin types not suited to that climate.

Hmm, not sure about climate change & skin cancer in Australia. The Aboriginal people are black which kind of suggests the sun's a bit strong there....

Wasn't there that article about how there's more vitamin D deficiency now due to increased use of sunscreen? I vaguely remember a piece on the radio about how everyone in the UK should spend 15 mins in the midday sun without sunscreen during the summer to make sure they had enough vit D to last through the winter...

Here you go - massive pdf but:

Sunlight Robbery (requires adobe acrobat to view)

and a guardian article:

midday sun may be good for you (heh, not committing themselves with that headline are they!!)

When your skin is thicker it is less vulnerable to getting skin cancer (this is what a US Navy expert on skin cancer told me). Your skin gets thickest when it has a dark tan that has built up slowly. (Personally I think skin like this looks like leather and wouldn't want it, myself).

People in the past built up their sun exposure slowly over the whole year, working outdoors from early spring to late-autumn. They didn't get a sudden fast-track to colour using sunbeds or jetting off on holiday in April, and they rarely got sunburnt. They got a steady dose everyday instead of suddenly spending all day on the beach after 6-8 hours at school/work every day before. Even a redhead can get a tan with slow enough build up to sun exposure.

Yes sun cancer was underdiagnosed in past, and people used to die earlier from other causes, but if you got to age 8 you usually lived to 60 or 70 (barring death in labour, estimates for ancient Rome , last 165 years of US data ). Our modern indoor lifestyles means that we tend to have sudden and fast rather than slow build up to high sun exposure, which makes a lot of difference.

Also in past as today people got 80-90% of their life-time sun exposure in childhood; kids were outside playing (or working) most of the time, were as rubbish about wearing hats as they are today, and weren't expected to cover themselves up that much (perceived as asexual) -- too hard (for most families) to keep their clothes in good nick, anyway. But those kids also used to have a slow build up each year to sun exposure; nowadays they are in school most of the time.

Undoubtedly sunlight ages your skin, though, so a tan is probably always "bad" in that respect.

My doctors are always going on about skin cancer as transplant patients are at high risk They say that often old people with other cancers have a malignant skin cancer somewhere on the body when they are looked over.