Sunscreen

[SKL]

actually, the tops of feet and ankles is one of those places my derm warned me about. Wearing sandals, shorts, capri pants, etc means that our feet and ankles get a lot of UV exposure and most people don't put sunblock there. And remember, light reflects and bounces, so the feet and ankles get exposed not just directly but by light bouncing off sidewalks etc.

 

You might not tan or burn there, but it is the constant drip, drip, drip of UV over time that causes problems.

 

Are you sure it was the sun, though?  Because I read that darker skinned people who do get melanoma aren't getting it from sun exposure.  They are usually getting it in places that are not exposed to the sun.

 

The well-known link between the sun and skin cancer for fair-skinned people should not blind people to the fact that there are other causes of skin cancer.

 

I realize your daughter may not be in this category, but I am concerned about the implications of always assuming sun avoidance is the way to prevent skin cancer.

 

[Lady Florida.]

actually, the tops of feet and ankles is one of those places my derm warned me about. Wearing sandals, shorts, capri pants, etc means that our feet and ankles get a lot of UV exposure and most people don't put sunblock there. And remember, light reflects and bounces, so the feet and ankles get exposed not just directly but by light bouncing off sidewalks etc.

 

You might not tan or burn there, but it is the constant drip, drip, drip of UV over time that causes problems.

 

We have a niece who had skin cancer and it first showed up between two of her toes. It's actually more common there than one would think. We were always taught to put sunscreen on all the way to our feet. It's an area most people don't think about when using sunscreen but it's important. 

[bettyandbob]

My feet have burned at more than one swim meet. I coat them in zinc oxide now.

[Slartibartfast]

:banghead:   No one is saying that anyone needs to change how THEY feel.  We're all entitled to our beliefs (SAME WITH HOMESCHOOLING STUDIES pro or con).  It's just far nicer on message boards when posters can accept that others FEEL DIFFERENTLY, can still be intelligent, and THAT'S OK!

 

The scientific method is the FIRST thing we teach too!   :banghead:

 

And when we actually do labs and study studies, we've NEVER found one that gives us the exact same result 100% of the time, so we also talk about variability.  When we study science HISTORY we talk about what used to be commonly accepted truths that now aren't or are now modified - like smoking (once doctors advised patients to do this!), certain chemicals in plastic, or trans fats/margarines, etc, and we teach our students to think for themselves knowing themselves AND the results of studies.  Others can do as they wish.  If everyone always followed accepted advice and no one ever tried new things, doctors still wouldn't be washing hands before delivering babies.

 

I wasn't saying there is no way that essential oils would ever be proven to prevent any sort of illness or condition ever.  

 

I was complaining about the *process* the person on that website was using. I was complaining about people claiming that any essential oil can be used to replace *any* allopathic medicine. That is INSANE but *no one* here said that. There is very little research on essential oils and NONE that will say anything remotely like some of the wild claims I see by YL and dotterra reps. Those are very different arguments.

 

I do think research should be done.

 

There are some intriguing studies on this.  So far, it's worked with my family and ancestors.  It does not mean it will work for all.  No study is 100%.  Some even have issues when undergoing routine stuff like surgeries and vaccs (I'm pro vacc BTW, but allowing for others to do things differently should they have reasons to do so).  It helps to know what is likely to be in an individual's genetics, but even then, there can be surprises.

 

With the damage the ozone layer has suffered I don't think we can trust genetics. I am NA and tend to tan well, but I just don't feel secure with things being the way they are.

[Lady Florida.]

Are these the studies people are referring to when claiming tht exposure to the sun prevents skin cancer?

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/16/sun-can-protect-you-against-skin-cancer.aspx

 

I'll bet that's the study my actively sun-seeking, anti-sunscreen friend who ended up with skin cancer read. She is a big fan of all things Mercola and Natural News.

[Slartibartfast]

I'll bet that's the study my actively sun-seeking, anti-sunscreen friend who ended up with skin cancer read. She is a big fan of all things Mercola and Natural News.

He does cite a study but we can't read the whole thing.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18406602?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

I am not a huge fan of mercola.

[Halftime Hope]

nm 

 

[Melissa in Australia]

My husband and I have been doing this lately.  I believe the studies were from Australia and they saw a decrease in skin cancer for people who follow the recommendations.

 

 

1 in 3 people in Australia have had skin cancer.  My mother has had small spots burned off, my grandmother's husband has had half his nose removed ( and plastic surgery to reconstruct) many older men half only half an ear.

I myself have had 5 moles removed. 4 of them had something wrong with them  but were not cancerous. Skin cancer is taken VERY seriously here. Everyone here knows that you are an idiot to not either cover up or wear sunscreen. I choose the cover up method.

I have stated before on this thread that the weather issues UV ratings and warnings all day long in the summer.