The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Should we worry more about Vitamin D or skin cancer?  (Read 2479 times)

Offline thedoc

  • Forum Admin
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Apart from food, a major source of vitamin D is exposure to sunlight which makes the hormone in the skin.  So, some sun is good but therein lies the rub because sunlight can also cause skin cancer. Kat Arney discussing how to balance between the two...
Read a transcript of the interview by clicking here

or  
« Last Edit: 24/01/2012 16:50:43 by _system »


 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Should we worry more about Vitamin D or skin cancer?
« Reply #1 on: 24/01/2012 23:08:50 »
There was a brief mention on the web page, but there are 3 basic types of skin cancer.

Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Basil Cell Carcinoma
Melanoma.

The first two, Squamous and Basil Cell Carcinomas are most associated with sunlight and sunburns, but have an extremely low risk of mortality.  They are usually treated by simple excision in a General Practitioner's office.  Even if they recur, they can be excised again.  Of course, they often occur on the face and nose, so there is some risk with the excision being visible.

The third type, Melanoma has a much higher risk, and requires much wider margins of excision.  Oddly, darker skinned individuals have a much lower risk of Melanoma.  I believe there is some sunlight risk of melanoma, but it is less than the other cancers.  Sometimes moles and hairy moles can progress to melanoma, whether or not they've received a lot of sun exposure. 
 

Offline Sprool

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Should we worry more about Vitamin D or skin cancer?
« Reply #2 on: 24/01/2012 23:44:24 »
excessive anything is not good for you. No mention of the body's natural balancing act of generating more melanin on uv exposure, the skins own natural UV-absorber. Getting sunburnt is not good for you. This is not exactly a scientific revelation.
If this is the latest health scare fad that pseudo-science journalists are trying to milk for good copy then it must be a very slow news day.
 

Dr Mills

  • Guest
None
« Reply #3 on: 13/04/2012 14:25:16 »
There are so many inaccuracies in the above interview, it’s hard to know where to start!

Most vitamin D studies don’t suffer from poor methodology, “in fact” an individual’s vitamin D level is strongly linked to latitude, studies have adjusted for all of these factors listed and still find low UVB = higher cancer incidence, taking sunny holidays does not have a greater effect on vitamin D levels than geography, etc.

It is in stark contrast to the rest of the excellent podcast - the other interviewees discuss the latest vitamin D evidence in an open and honest manner - but maybe that’s because Dr Kat Arney is a press officer for CRUK (and not a vitamin D expert , practising scientist or medical doctor).

CRUK, remember, were the driving force behind the ‘Keep Out Of The Sun’ campaign – a campaign, incidentally, based entirely on non-‘rigorous’ ‘ecological’ evidence - and have only recently conceded that some sun exposure may be needed.  It appears that they still hold a grudge.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

None
« Reply #3 on: 13/04/2012 14:25:16 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums