Are we over (sun) protective?

[Mum2girls]

Just back off hols - where it was 30 degrees+.

Whilst on the beach and at the pool DDs (2 and 4) had on UVA costumes (with the three-quarter arms and legs), hats (with back-of-neck flaps) and SPF 30 on.

We frequently came across British kids who just had the usual costumes on, often no hat, most probably sun cream tho, I would think. Admittedly, some looked like they were burning, but there were others who were as brown as berries.

My question is this: I thought that suntan = sun damage...is that the case? if so, what happens when your kids are 14 or whatever, surely we can't keep them covered up like this forever.

(I should add that I do like to get a little tanned myself, but still understood this to be damaging to the skin).

oops - pressed enter before I meant too.

Meant to add that we're talking about our children in this thread, so while it may be too late for some (not me I'm still young enough ) to stop any damage which has been done, it's not too late for us to protect our children

Lots of crossed posts here.

Soupy, I don't put ds in a UVA suit

a) because I thing they look uncomfortable
b) because I moderate the time he spends out in the sun and
c)because I believe that moderate sun exposure is actually beneficial.

And to be blunt, you don't know if you have a genetic predisposition of not. FIL family had not past history of melanoma, but he was pale skinned and went to live in california, ie just like pale skinned people going on holiday to warner places.

Life is, as you say, for living, but there are better, more comfortable ways of ending your days than he is currently experiencing.

But we DO bloody wear it (see below), I just think there is more than coincidence between the hugely increasing use of high factor suncreams and the hugely increasing incidence of skin cancers.

If using suncreams worked to the extent that the companies would have us believe, then you would expect the incidence of melanoma's to fall, or at the very least to stabilise.

And as Happymerryberries says, her father wasn't a sun worshipper anyway.

Vitamin D properties

Good for:

• strong bones and teeth.

Signs of vitamin D deficiency:

• unhealthy teeth

• osteomalacia (causes weakening of bones)

• rickets in children.

Good sources of vitamin D:

• cod-liver oil

• sardines

• herring

• salmon

• tuna

• milk and milk products

• sunlight (the action of sunlight on the skin allows our bodies to manufacture vitamin D).

So - there are plenty of places (other than sun exposure) that children today can get their Vitamin D.

No, because people don't use them in the right way.

I burn very easily. If I use factor 30 it allows me to be in the sun for 30x the lenght of time than I could otherwise. But I don't, I use it to make sure that my exposure is reduced.

FIL didn't use sun screens, didn't see the point as he wasn't sunbathing, just in the sun, IYSWIM.

You can't minimise this risk, as sadly it is all too real.

I think the benefits of sunscreen (ie drops in melanomas) have yet to be seen and what we are seeing now are the result of sun damage before the campaigns started in force.

fwiw, DSs never seem to be uncomfortable in their UV suits even though I think they should get hot and sweaty in them.

According to this

Skin cancer death rate in those born AFTER 1950 in Australia are dropping put down largley to the SunSmart campaign introduced over 20yrs ago.

"Skin cancer incidence is falling in Australians born after 1950 although it is still rising in the elderly.""

So although they do have "more" suncancer diagnoses than us (not suprised they get all the bl**dy sunshine ) it's doesn't kill as many people and incidences are dropping.

And looking at the numbers of skin cancers is more complex than just saying, there should be a decline, there isn't , therefore it is the fault of the sun screens. Peoples patterns of sun exposure have changed. We tend not to go out into the sun except when we go out at holiday time, often into sun that this far stronger than we are used to.....you only have to see all the Brit 'lobsters' on holiday to see the dameage that people do.

Also as QoQ has said, the damage to the ozone layer makes the sun more of a problem now than it was in the past, so you would expect levels to rise.

QoQ, and just think of all those fair skinned people who wnet to live in Oz in the 50s! The worst skin type to live in that climate!

I think people misunderstand what the sf means too. If you can stay out for a minute with no protection without burning, a SPF 30 will let you stay out 30 minutes. That's 30 minutes total not 30 minutes per application. Once your skin has reached it's own limit it will burn no matter what you put on it bar 100% sunblock/clothing.

Is it possible that the rise in numbers for skin cancers is because the generation suffering now were the ones who sunbathed as children? The significant damage happens before the age of puberty (so my DF's oncologist told us). So it unfortunately doesn't bode well for our generation I'm afraid but at least it has highlighted the problem and means we can do something to prevent our own children joining the statistics.

"Also as QoQ has said, the damage to the ozone layer makes the sun more of a problem now than it was in the past, so you would expect levels to rise."

oooooo - no - that wasn't me - I'm not scientific enough to think of things like that

Me! Me! That was me. But I wasn't going to point it out.

Og God, Ive 'dissed' the Dragon.......now that is dangerous!

Sorry SD

We have adopted 'hot country habits'. DP's family are from a very hot country - no-one there would dream of deliberatly sitting in the full sun - in the middle of the day we sit in the shade on the beach (lots of trees along the beach) and DS plays on a shaded stretch of sand. T shirt and hat with flap for swimming. Also we wear light but long sleeved tops.

When we went to greece a few weeks ago, we lived Greek Siesta Style - DS had an afternooon sleep in the heat of the day, we took him down to the beach at about 4.30 and then kept him up with us so that we could go out for dinner - all v relaxing and convenient.

We did that in France 2 years ago in the heat wave. On the beach just after 8, off it by 10, rest in the shade, back on the beach at 4.....all rather nice.

Hehehe. I'm a gently dragon really. Not like my evil twin TheOldDragon - I wouldn't diss her if I were you.

It's LOVELY being on the beach in the evening.

Realy makes you feel like you are on holiday! Very decadent, and then a nice walk to a local resturant for supper...yummy, and the kids are old enough to do that now! I'm so looking forward to our holiday!

As a carer of young children not a parent i always ensure the children in my care and covered up and creamed up b4 playing outside, children under walking age i place in shade be it natural shade or a folded sheet above them on chairs etc.

Whether the parents do this in their time is upto them, i remember that even tho i had applied SPF50 regularly to a blonde haired medium toned 3y old and we had not gone out till 4pm after 2 hours in the pool and garden come bathtime the little girl had clear lines on her back from her swimmers, the parent's weren't worried as precautions had been taken.

As the person in charge i feel it is my duty to lessen any risks, be that holding hands while out walking, kitchen safety or following sun safety advice.

On a recent hloiday to OZ it was rare to see a pushchair that didn't have a sun mesh enclosing the child, all the babies/toddlers seemed happy as one would imagine they know no different.

I do agree that maybe we are getting too extreme about sun protection without knowing all the risks. I'm talking about daily life in this country rather holidays abroad.

My sons school suggested that parents put the new 'all day' sun protection on children before sending them to school each day during the summer term. I refuse to cover my son in chemicals all day, to protect him during the 40 minutes they are out at lunchtime (I think the morning & afternoon breaks are early & late enough not to have to worry too much), especially as at 8 in the morning you don't even know what the weather going to be like that day. I just tell my son that he must wear his hat and keep in the shade if its very hot.

I have a 'science' friend who is very concerned about the long term risks of children being plastered in chemicals every day and never being exposed to the sun - it's likely to thow up a whole new set of problems in years to come.

Thanks PopsP,

I was starting to feel a bit picked on for a while back there.

But you don't even need to have hot sun to get burned - it's the sun index that matters, not the heat.......ny worst ever sunburn came on the only day I didn't bother with suncream as it was overcast and drizzling.

And 40 minutes a day is plenty long enough to get burnt [frozn]

my sister went to a mole clinic recently, and was told by the specialist that anything over factor 20 was not to be used...but i can't bloody remember why!!!!! i found it v surprising, but sounded feasible at the time, i'll ask her next time i speak to her, anyone else heard this?

i do think that the point is not to overdo the sun whatever protection you have on, and that you can go in the sun for a few minutes at a time with no protection, and that once you have built up your own natural protection you can be in the sun for longer. i have dark skin that tans easily, but have always hated actually sunbathing as find it really uncomfortable, have always prefered being in shade, where i still get a tan, but more slowly.