Sun tan or sun burn( Boaty medical)

alant said:
What's the difference between "technically true" & 'actually happening'?
Click to expand...

It means I'm not disputing the scientific statement that any degree of colour change due to UV light indicates damage to cells. I don't know if it's true, but it seems plausible and I'm willing to accept it. However, that's not the same thing as saying that the smallest degree of sun exposure causes damage to the person. Lots of things we do cause minor cell damage, from scratching an itch to (I assume) drinking a glass of wine. Yes, grilling yourself in tropical sunshine is asking for trouble, but going outdoors in the UK without enveloping yourself in some kind of neo-burkha is not in the same league.

My forearms are a pleasant shade of light brown because I almost always wear a short-sleeved shirt, so they get to gently acclimatise to the changing seasons as VO5 describes. They never go red. I am intensely relaxed at the suggestion that this is doing any kind of damage to me.

alant said:
You might want to visit the department in Southampton General Hospital & see the scale of the problem.
Click to expand...

Not exactly a representative sample, though. If I visit the hospital, I will see sick people. Big surprise. If you had visited the Endoscopy department of that same hospital just before Christmas, you'd have found three out of five patients suffering from a lump of steak trapped in their throats - I know because I was one of them. But does this prove that there's a major epidemic of oesophageal obstruction, and you're taking your life in your hands every time you order steak and chips?

If there's an epidemic, why aren't I constantly meeting people with bits chopped off them, or going to funerals? Yes, there's one old guy in my parents' village with the tops of his ears trimmed off due to skin cancer - but that was acquired over a career in Africa in the 50s, 60s and 70s when I'm sure nobody took any precautions whatsoever.

All I'm saying is be sensible, not paranoid.

Pete
 
It definitely causes damage but sunlight is still important a recent story here told of a mother who kept her son covered in factor 50 summer and winter the poor lad has rickets now due to vitamin D deficiency. Sunburn apparently takes around 14 months to heal so often it never heals as the next years holiday tops up the damage.

Dave
 
prv said:
My forearms are a pleasant shade of light brown because I almost always wear a short-sleeved shirt, so they get to gently acclimatise to the changing seasons as VO5 describes. They never go red. I am intensely relaxed at the suggestion that this is doing any kind of damage to me.
Click to expand...

I try and avoid getting burnt; after all, it hurts! But I too find that my arms below the sleeve of my polo or T shirts get brown in the summer - and that happens even if I've had very little exposure to sun. I'm not mahogany coloured, but there does seem to be a seasonal change in the colour of exposed parts of my body that isn't directly related to sun exposure. That said, I'm dark-skinned for a northern European, and my father was very dark.

I'd certainly agree that in the southern hemisphere it is very important to cover up - the combination of clear air and the ozone hole means that you can burn very quickly and without being aware of it at the time. I had the misfortune to misjudge conditions in the Falklands a few years ago, and got quite badly sunburnt, despite it being a pleasantly cool day when I went for a long walk. Of course, in Antarctica (where the ozone hole is deeply depleted), it is a matte of H&S to apply high factor sun-cream on leaving a building when the weather is clear.

Sailing is high risk for burning, though, because you can easily burn while not feeling uncomfortably hot. I was careless a week or two ago, and had an uncomfortable few days! But at the time I was not aware that I was getting sunburnt - it was only in the evening that I realized I was burnt.

Vitamin D is an interesting one, and there is undoubtedly a balance to be struck between enough exposure to ensure vitamin D production and too much to provoke skin cancer! But my understanding is that northern Europeans don't need that much sun to generate enough vitamin D; certainly not enough to provoke changes in skin pigmentation.
 
Saved! It's clouded over in Scotland, again.

I carry the red gene and have had, what turned out to be, non malignant lumpy freckles removed from my back. My BIL got diagnosed with melanoma in the nick of time and had it removed before it got damaged; he has a few birth marks, so is probably a bit more susceptible.

Both his and my own consultant (Darby and Edinburgh respectively) said more or less the same thing when we compared stories. If you have the red gene (blue eyes, blonde hair, red hair, freckles) then you are at a significantly higher risk of developing cancer as a result of the suns radiation.

Like most things in life its all a matter of probabilities: if you have the red gene, hang out in the sun all day long, all year, then the probability of getting skin cancer is much higher than the same type of person who doesn't hang out in the sun all day.

My take on it as a 'red gene' is that if I work up a tan slowly, I am increasing the risk of cancer. I believe the health benefits of sun and outdoors are more beneficial than the increased risk of getting cancer. However, anyone who burns themselves should understand that; its like smoking a cigarette, it does increase the probability. Apparently damaging effects are cumulative.

I am very much a short sleeve person (middle east work), T shirt in the UK, so I always have a dusting of tan on my arms and face. I am probably risking it to much, but so what, I enjoy the sun and I enjoy the warmth on my skin.
 
As the sunlight passes through the atmosphere the medicinal rays are progressively reduced, less so the browning rays. Off season, only sunlight near midday contains medicinal rays, due to the greater length of travel when the sun is lower in the sky. I don't have a link, but there is a website that calculates available medicinal rays anywhere in the world. It just needs a date and location.
 
prv said:
It means I'm not disputing the scientific statement that any degree of colour change due to UV light indicates damage to cells. I don't know if it's true, but it seems plausible and I'm willing to accept it. However, that's not the same thing as saying that the smallest degree of sun exposure causes damage to the person. Lots of things we do cause minor cell damage, from scratching an itch to (I assume) drinking a glass of wine. Yes, grilling yourself in tropical sunshine is asking for trouble, but going outdoors in the UK without enveloping yourself in some kind of neo-burkha is not in the same league.

My forearms are a pleasant shade of light brown because I almost always wear a short-sleeved shirt, so they get to gently acclimatise to the changing seasons as VO5 describes. They never go red. I am intensely relaxed at the suggestion that this is doing any kind of damage to me.



Not exactly a representative sample, though. If I visit the hospital, I will see sick people. Big surprise. If you had visited the Endoscopy department of that same hospital just before Christmas, you'd have found three out of five patients suffering from a lump of steak trapped in their throats - I know because I was one of them. But does this prove that there's a major epidemic of oesophageal obstruction, and you're taking your life in your hands every time you order steak and chips?

If there's an epidemic, why aren't I constantly meeting people with bits chopped off them, or going to funerals? Yes, there's one old guy in my parents' village with the tops of his ears trimmed off due to skin cancer - but that was acquired over a career in Africa in the 50s, 60s and 70s when I'm sure nobody took any precautions whatsoever.

All I'm saying is be sensible, not paranoid.

Pete
Click to expand...

I think you will be suprised how many people actually have had bits cut out of them.
 
AntarcticPilot said:
I try and avoid getting burnt; after all, it hurts! But I too find that my arms below the sleeve of my polo or T shirts get brown in the summer - and that happens even if I've had very little exposure to sun. I'm not mahogany coloured, but there does seem to be a seasonal change in the colour of exposed parts of my body that isn't directly related to sun exposure. That said, I'm dark-skinned for a northern European, and my father was very dark.

I'd certainly agree that in the southern hemisphere it is very important to cover up - the combination of clear air and the ozone hole means that you can burn very quickly and without being aware of it at the time. I had the misfortune to misjudge conditions in the Falklands a few years ago, and got quite badly sunburnt, despite it being a pleasantly cool day when I went for a long walk. Of course, in Antarctica (where the ozone hole is deeply depleted), it is a matte of H&S to apply high factor sun-cream on leaving a building when the weather is clear.

Sailing is high risk for burning, though, because you can easily burn while not feeling uncomfortably hot. I was careless a week or two ago, and had an uncomfortable few days! But at the time I was not aware that I was getting sunburnt - it was only in the evening that I realized I was burnt.

Vitamin D is an interesting one, and there is undoubtedly a balance to be struck between enough exposure to ensure vitamin D production and too much to provoke skin cancer! But my understanding is that northern Europeans don't need that much sun to generate enough vitamin D; certainly not enough to provoke changes in skin pigmentation.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons that people's skin/hair colour ranges from ebony blacl through to pale & ginger, is natures way of dealing with the Vit D issue. Those from the subcontinent, wearing a full covering, seem to be a problem in the UK, from rickets
 
alant said:
I think you will be suprised how many people actually have had bits cut out of them.
Click to expand...

Totally unnecessary in many cases where not malignant. There seems to be a policy of cutting out anything remotely related to a tumour to avoid medical negligence claims.
 
ianj99 said:
Totally unnecessary in many cases where not malignant. There seems to be a policy of cutting out anything remotely related to a tumour to avoid medical negligence claims.
Click to expand...

I had a non-malignant tumour taken out a few years ago. It may not have been necessary to save my life, but it was sometimes painful when pressed on, and I regarded it as a good thing to get rid of it, especially as the surgeon wasn't sure it wasn't malignant without lab tests on the tumour! I also had another removed from my nose, where it had been since my childhood - but it was very slowly growing and had started to intrude into my vision. Neither were malignant; both needed removing for different reasons.

Just because something isn't life-threatening doesn't mean you don't need to do something about it.
 
ianj99 said:
Totally unnecessary in many cases where not malignant. There seems to be a policy of cutting out anything remotely related to a tumour to avoid medical negligence claims.
Click to expand...
"Totally unnecessary" maybe. However i would rather have the discomfort of 20 spots being removed unnecessarily than die from the effects of one spot being overlooked.
Melanoma is not a nice way to finish. This is a patient speaking after seeing people i know succumb, and working out the odds for myself. I don't give a damn about my doctors possible negligence claims, if he gets it wrong i wont be here to sue him. I actively want him to err on the side of caution because i have a statistically significant chance of dying prematurely from skin cancer.
This is a reality for me, not a hypothetical situation. Walk a mile in my shoes!
Scary thing is that even with best practice care, Melanoma can occur without visible symptoms until too late.

in spite of above posts and my own comments, i do feel the need for some sun exposure to avoid Vitaman D deficiency and avoid SADD (Seasonal Affective Disorder Depression) believed to be caused by lack of sunlight exposure. Even with precautions, my skin gets enough UV in summer to colour up somewhat and as a result of social conditioning, this makes me feel more attractive, more manly and healthier.

Damn! Yet another of those life situations where there is no brown and white answer!
In the end we have to make our own judgements and live or die by them.

(or OTOH we could get Govt to legislate exposure limits and attach UV dosimeters to each citizen and prosecute those who recklessly endanger themselves....)

Remember this about being human: - No-one gets out alive!
Cheers
John
 
Well guys I have vitiligo which means little or no melanin in the skin so i always looks pasty esp on my arms and legs!. The really interesting thing about it is that it developed symmetically on my body when it start at aged 11.When it started I had two identical white patches on the inside of my wrists and the spread in exactly the same pattern and size on both my left and right sides. That is stIll the same today 44 years later! I can burn in the UK winter if the sun is out!
So in the summer or if abroad and esp when sailing my first act of the day is to cover my whole body in factor 50. I use Nivea which is waterproof and find certainly in the UK one application a day works. If i go abroad then I top up once or twice a day. if i do first thing it soaks in and to be honest it acts like a suit of armour cos i can do what i like for the rest of the day...its great!
I had a sister-in-law who had the "red gene" ie was a red head and fair skinned but loved to sun-bathe sadly she died of skin cancer at aged 35
So my view is simple...the sun is dangerous although it is great to feel it on your body so protect yourself
 
Last edited:
pcatterall said:
Lots of bronzy looking peoples around here which got me thinking.

If you 'work up a tan' gradually and over a long time this should ensure that you can stay out in the sun without burning.

Does this protect you against the harmfull long term effects like skin cancer.

Or put another way, is it sun TAN which is harmefull or sun BURN?

I have suffered a bit from too much sun ( Middle east land surveyor) especially on my head ( hats were for soffties!!) I must have been a bit thin on top even in those days! So its hat on all the time now.
Click to expand...
As a kid back in the 50s and early 60s I used to live out the summer in just a pair of shorts and right up to the late 1980s used to take of windsurfing in a short sleeved wet suit.
These days as I enter my 60s my skin is full of this spot and that spot so I count myself lucky that as yet I dont have skin cancer.
I have been helped by the attitude of my family and their friends in NZ where cover up is the rule.
Less lucky was an old sailing friend who had done his time in the middle east managing an oil workers camp out in the desert.
He got diagnosed about 10 years ago and when I last saw him now in his 70s he looked non too well and I suspect he may no longer be with us.
Its not worth the risk!
 
William_H said:
Advice from an old Ozzie. The experts definitely say that any form of sun tan is just a sign of skin abuse. It does not protect you from further sun damage. Having said that of course we need sun exposure for Vitamin D but not that much.
I always wear long sleeved shirt and long trousers when sailing. Plus gloves and "arab" hat. (over ears and much of the face.) Plus sun glasses. Seems my bare feet are the most exposed. But always cream on feet.
I can only suggest to my UK friends enjoy the warm weather but don't strip off. White clothing is actually cooler than no clothing.
I hope it lasts for you. good luck olewill
Click to expand...
I find it odd now that the Brits just love to get burnt and those of us who wear bush hats and the like are still looked on oddly.
My wife noted how great it was that she could wander into centre of Brisbane with her sun hat on and cover up on the beach without the odd looks she would get over here in the UK!
My NZ brought up 7 year old grandson who is typically non too good at cleaning his teeth always plasters on the factor 50 and stick a bush hat on his head if hes out in the sun even over here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top