Nudist-Resorts.Org - Naturist Discussion Forum / Bulletin Board

Nudist-Resorts.Org - Naturist Discussion Forum / Bulletin Board
Save Password

Forgot Password?

About Us | Active Topics | Active Polls | Site News | Nudist News | Online Users | Members | Destinations | N. A. I. R. | My Page | Search
[ Active Members: 1 | Anonymous Members: 0 | Guests: 69 ]  [ Total: 70 ]  [ Newest Member: Big_Bick ]
 All Forums
 Health and Safety
 Preventing sunburn and sun damage
 Sunscreens 101 (USA)
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic |   Reply to Topic |   Printer Friendly
Author Topic Next Topic: Best UV Defense For Suffers Of Rosacea?
Page: of 6

Forum Member

Posted - 04/30/2014 :  11:09:39 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
No one, least of all me, is advocating total sun avoidance. But there is a clear-cut dose-response relationship between sun exposure and skin cancer, and ignoring the statistics is much the same as invoking one's grandfather who "smoked 3 packs a day and lived to 93" as proof that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer.

FullSun is totally correct. Moderate sun exposure for most people isn't a huge hazard. And those lucky enough to tan easily do have a reduced risk compared to pale-faces. But the relevance of Danish shut-ins or tropical primitives (who likely die too young to have developed skin cancer) to the members of the forum - mostly white, mostly over 50, most with a tendency to sunbathe (a practice unheard of before the 20th Century) - is tangential at best.

It is hardly fear-mongering to wish my fellow nudists long lives with intact hides.

Country: USA | Posts: 1036 Go to Top of Page

Bill Bowser
Forum Member

Posted - 05/07/2014 :  5:21:07 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
According to science correspondent Sarah Knapton of The Telegraph

Why avoiding sunshine could kill you

Researchers followed 30,000 women for 20 years and found that those who avoided the sunshine were twice as likely to die. Women who never sunbathe during the summer are twice as likely to die than those who sunbathe everyday, a major study has shown.

Researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden claim guidelines which advise people to stay out of the sun unless wearing sunscreen may be harming the population, particularly in countries like Britain. Exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is often cited as a cause of skin melanoma. The NHS currently recommends avoiding overexposure to the sun to prevent all types of skin cancer. But the new research, which followed nearly 30,000 women over 20 years, suggests that women who stay out of the sun are at increased risk of skin melanomas and are twice as likely to die from any cause, including cancer.

"The results of this study clearly showed that mortality was about double in women who avoided sun exposure compared to the highest exposure group,” said lead author Dr Pelle Lindqvist. “Sun exposure advice which is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful for women’s health.

“The mortality rate was increased two-fold among avoiders of sun exposure as compared to those with the highest sun exposure habits.”

It is thought that a lack of vitamin D may to be blame. Vitamin D is created in the body through exposure to sunshine and a deficiency is known to increase the risk of diabetes, tuberculosis, multiple sclerosis and rickets. Cases of rickets have risen fourfold in the last 15 years as sunscreen has increased in popularity. Previous studies have shown that vitamin D can increase survival rates for women with breast cancer while deficiencies can signal prostate cancer in men. Low levels of vitamin D have also been linked to more aggressive forms of skin cancer.

Prof Dorothy Bennett, Professor of Cell Biology at St. George's, University of London, said: “The findings support the consensus that the ideal amount of sun exposure for Northern Europeans is ‘a little’, rather than zero.

“As the authors comment, our bodies need sunlight to make essential vitamin D, which can help us resist some cancer types. Those who normally avoid the sun and/or cover most of their skin are advised to take vitamin D supplements.”

The study looked at 29,518 Swedish women who were recruited from 1990 to 1992 and asked to monitor their sunbathing and tanning salon habits.
After 20 years there had been 2,545, deaths and researchers were surprised to find that women who never sunbathed during the summer months were twice as likely to have died from any cause.

1.5 women in 100 who had the highest exposure to UV were found to have died, compared with 3 in 100 for women who had avoided sunbathing. Women who sunbathed in the summer were also 10 per cent less likely to die from skin cancer although those who sunbathed abroad were twice as likely to die from melanoma.

Public Health England says it would be considering the research carefully.
A spokesman said: "Public Health England constantly reviews scientific research and our experts will consider this paper along with other peer reviewed research into this issue as part of that process."

Dr Andrea Darling, Post-doctoral Research Fellow from the University of Surrey, said there was still strong evidence that skin cancer is caused by sunbathing.

“The findings from Dr Lindqvist’s team are interesting, but it is possible that the women in the study who had high sun exposure differed from the women who had low sun exposure in ways that may explain their reduced cancer risk.”

Yinka Ebo, senior health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said striking a balance was important.

“The reasons behind higher death rates in women with lower sun exposure are still unexplained, as unhealthy lifestyle choices could have played a part,” she added.

“Overexposure to UV radiation from the sun or sunbeds is the main cause of skin cancer.

“We all need some sunshine to make vitamin D for healthy bones. Enjoying the sun safely while taking care not to burn should help most people strike a good balance.”

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: "Skin cancer can have devastating consequences and it is vital that people take steps to protect themselves.

"However, we also recognise the importance of Vitamin D for good health. Most people in the UK can get enough vitamin D from sunlight, but those at risk of vitamin D deficiency should take daily supplements.

“We are working to raise awareness of the symptoms of cancers through the Be Clear on Cancer campaigns. Anybody concerned about symptoms should visit their GP.”

The research was published in The Journal of Internal Medicine.

Bill Bowser - Cincinnati

Nudists are everywhere, but they're hard to identify with their clothes on.

Country: USA | Posts: 323 Go to Top of Page

Forum Member

Posted - 05/09/2014 :  2:09:11 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'll leave it to the individual person to do their due diligence and figure out how much sun exposure they want. In the meantime ...

I recently tried Blue Lizard Sensitive 30+. It's based on zinc oxide and titanium oxide, so it doesn't have all those scary-sounding chemicals that you find in the 'Active Ingredients' list on conventional sunscreens. (On the other hand, it contains an emollient with the totally mellifluous name of octyldodecyl neopentanoate.) It goes on easily ... very easily. A little goes a long way. There is a little bit of the inevitable zinc oxide pastiness at first, but it mostly goes away if you rub it in enough. The scent isn't bad, and dissipates quickly. It is a very effective sunscreen. Hours of sun and snow at a 6000 foot altitude produced no burn at all, not even on my fair-skinned son. It slightly stained my shirt collar, but it laundered right out.

There are two significant limitations to this product. First, the label notes that it should be re-applied at least every two hours. That may sound like a minor inconvenience, but in real life it's rather a nuisance. More problematic to most NRO members is the fact that this product is NOT water-resistant. In fact the label suggests you use some other product if you're going to be swimming or sweating. And it absolutely cannot be applied to wet skin. It forms a disgusting sticky emulsion that you cannot rub in. I had to take a shower, dry off completely, and start over.

In summary, it's a pretty good product for relatively less active outdoor activities - golf, picnics, sporting events - but really doesn't have a place at the pool or the beach.

Country: USA | Posts: 1036 Go to Top of Page

Forum Member

Posted - 05/11/2014 :  04:48:00 AM  Show Profile  Send Warmskin a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
I wonder if people who are outdoors more are more likely to be exercising, compared to indoor folks who get less exercise unless they have gyms in their homes. When I'm outdoors, I burn a lot of calories. Does exercise have a well-known ability to reduce cancer? I say this without regard as to how many rays you're exposed to -- just focusing on effects of outdoor behavior versus indoor.

“I rise early almost every morning and sit in my chamber, without any clothes whatever, half an hour or an hour, according to the season, either reading or writing.”
Ben Franklin

Country: USA | Posts: 1909 Go to Top of Page

Forum Member

Posted - 05/24/2014 :  2:09:25 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I hope I'm not offending anyone by vastly underestimating the intelligence of NRO members, but I also hope no one has been taken in by the recent claims by Osmosis Skin Care that they have a "drinkable sunscreen". It's gotten a modest amount of publicity, and has generated a lot of justifiably skeptical feedback. Here's a brief quote from the Osmosis web site.

"UV Protection Water is an ideal form of sun protection because it promotes tanning and is broad spectrum. If 2 mls are ingested an hour before sun exposure, the frequencies that have been imprinted on water will vibrate on your skin in such a way as to cancel approximately 97% of the UVA and UVB rays before they even hit your skin. "

If a phrase like "the frequencies that have been imprinted on water" does not instantly trigger your BS detector, please seek professional help.

Country: USA | Posts: 1036 Go to Top of Page

Forum Member

Posted - 05/29/2014 :  9:31:18 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I've just had one of those "Physician, Heal Thyself:" moments. Or rather, a sort of "I wish I knew then what I know now" moment. I came to my present state of sunscreen evangelism rather late in life, and had more than my share of really bad sunburns in my younger days under the Texas sun. The memory of an all-over burn sustained at Hippie Hollow in 1977 still makes me cringe. And now I'm paying the price. I just had five pre-cancerous lesions zapped with liquid nitrogen. This prompted me to do a fairly extensive review of the literature on UV exposure and skin cancer. Much uncertainty abounds, but there are a few very solid conclusions.

1. There is no reasonable doubt that basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma are closely linked to solar UV exposure. Fortunately these common skin cancers are rarely life-threatening and are easily treated.

2. Melanoma, the less common but more lethal skin cancer, is a peculiar beast. It's relation to solar UV is complicated, but there is considerable evidence that frequent brief sun exposure may actually be protective, while occasional prolonged exposures (i.e., the once-a-year beach vacation) increases the risk. But UV exposure is clearly not the whole story. Pale skin and the presence of numerous moles may be bigger risk factors.

3. The strongest consensus seems to be that excessive UV exposure at younger ages, especially frequent sunburns in childhood, is a huge risk factor for skin cancer of all types later in life.

4. Tanning bed UV is not the same as solar UV. It's worse. The association between tanning beds and melanoma in young people is stronger than the association between suntanning and melanoma.

5. While SPF is a fairly good measure of protection from UVB (burning) rays, we're not as close as I thought to a good measure of UVA (aging, cancer) protection. An unreadable discussion of the technical difficulties can be found at <>

At my age, much of the damage has already been done, and it may be that my concern over UVA exposure during what's left of my life may be beside the point. But younger folks, kids in particular, can save themselves a lot of trouble later on if they limit their sun exposure to a reasonable amount and stay out of the tanning bed. For us geezers and pre-geezers, an all-over skin check every year or two is good preventive maintenance.

Country: USA | Posts: 1036 Go to Top of Page

Forum Member

Posted - 05/29/2014 :  10:53:02 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
What you state makes perfect sense and "we" have had the experience to strengthen your argument. The Prof has always been a sunbather but more so when she began dating me and then marrying me. She used sunscreen regularly but when we began to take our nudism social, she, at that time, didn't have time to lay out in the sun very often and began using a tanning salon.

She didn't have any of these spots on her body until the 3rd year of using tanning beds and from what you say ... those tanning beds most likely contributed greatly to her having to have some serious pre cancer spots cut out by a plastic surgeon.

Since the Prof has seeing our dermatologist, limiting her sun exposure, using sunscreen ... she's had a clean exam, twice a year, for the last 3 years. Because of our love of the sun, our lifestyle and our recreation preferences (boating), she will continue with the bi annual dermatology visits and the liquid nitrogen zaps for age spots ... that last 3 years.

Not all will agree with what you have to say or the advice you're trying to share but ... we are glad that we took our dermatologists advice and that the Prof can enjoy "some" sun but also keep herself healthy by practicing some simple things like applying sunscreen daily.

Loves being naked. Plays well with others!

Country: USA | Posts: 2974 Go to Top of Page

Forum Member

Posted - 06/20/2014 :  1:55:20 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Please disregard everything I've ever written on this topic. It's not that any of it is untrue; it's just suddenly irrelevant. Forget about skin cancer. Forget forget Vitamin D. Scientists at Brigham and Womens Hospital in Boston have figured out the real reason we want suntans.

Country: USA | Posts: 1036 Go to Top of Page

Forum Member

Posted - 06/20/2014 :  1:58:10 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Ack! The link didn't work as intended. You'll have to do a cut-and-paste instead.

Country: USA | Posts: 1036 Go to Top of Page

Forum Member

Posted - 06/29/2014 :  11:45:36 PM  Show Profile  Send nudesunguy a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
I believe the study was done on mice. I think we can safely conclude that mice should aware that UV radiation may be addictive, especially if they shave...

Country: | Posts: 592 Go to Top of Page

Bill Bowser
Forum Member

Posted - 07/02/2014 :  8:09:33 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
An interesting article in "Men's Journal"

The Health Benefits of Sunshine

Credit: John Lund / Sam Diephuis / Corbis
For decades we've been warned to lather on sunscreen or pay the health price. The American Academy of Dermatology categorizes the sun's rays as a carcinogen, saying that no matter how few minutes you spend outside, there is "no scientifically proven safe threshold of sun ex­posure." Yet mounting research links sunlight and its physiological by-products – including vitamin D – with everything from cancer prevention to improved sports performance to weight loss. Many experts are adamant that our heliophobia has gone too far, and it's time to swing the pendulum back.

"This alarmist motto that you should never be exposed to one ray of sunshine without wearing sunscreen has led to a pandemic of vitamin D deficiency and health problems," says Dr. Michael Holick, a vitamin D researcher with Boston University School of Medicine. He believes 60 percent of us may be affected. Other studies have conservatively pegged that number at 40 percent.

Which begs the question: What's the best way to get the benefits of sunshine without raising our skin cancer risk?

"It's about being sensible," says Dr. Frank Lipman, founder of Eleven Eleven Wellness Center in New York City. "Recently, numerous studies have shown that modest, sunscreen-free exposure to sunlight helps the body produce the vitamin D it needs for good health and disease prevention." His recommendation: Step outside without sunblock for 20 to 30 minutes a few times a week.

Here's what you get during those minutes, according to new reports: an instant endorphin surge and drop in blood pressure, regulation of hunger hormones that may help you keep weight off, and key vitamin D synthesis that alters the expression of 291 genes responsible for everything from controlling how quickly your bones age to how fast you bounce back from tough workouts to how fertile you are.

The bit about bone health is critical. Men can start losing bone mass at 30, but maintaining vitamin D levels may slow that decline, preventing fractures later in life and fending off the muscle pain and weakness that come with soft bones. "There is no question that if you don't get enough D, you are putting your bones at risk," says Dr. John Swartzberg, editor of a new 50-page report on vitamin D by the University of California Berkeley School of Public Health.

Pro sports teams are now wise to the benefits of vitamin D, too. Because of studies proving that it strengthens fast-twitch muscles, quells swelling, and can stop respiratory infections, teams such as the Chicago Blackhawks started testing players' levels. Recreational athletes, take note. "We know lack of vitamin D can compromise athletic performance," says Enette Larson-Meyer, associate professor and vitamin D researcher at the University of Wyoming. "The week before a fit event, you may want to get some sun."

The science is young, but researchers also suspect poor D levels could lower your s**** count. One recent study found that vitamin D–deficient rats were 73 percent less likely to impregnate their mates, and in human studies on countries with long, dark winters, researchers find that conception rates are higher in summer months, when people are outside and synthesize more sun.

Despite all of this, dermatologists insist that no amount of unprotected sun exposure is safe. "If you have low D – but not so low that your bones are breaking – it's still better than getting melanoma, which can kill you," says Dr. Kenneth Mark, a clinical assistant professor at New York University's department of dermatology, who hears sunburned patients say, "I was just getting vitamin D." He believes we should rely on D-rich foods and supplements.

This may not be so realistic. Foods naturally rich in D aren't likely to be your supper-time staples. (Care for a can of sardines, eel, or cod liver oil?) And to get the minimum amount of prescribed D via commonly fortified foods alone, you may need to drink up to 10 glasses of milk or eat 10 bowls of fortified cereal – daily.

Meanwhile, supplements are expensive – and may not be effective. "There is no medical evidence that for healthy people D supplements treat, or ward off, diseases," says Dr. Marc Gillinov, a cardiac surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic, who points to several recent reviews confirming their negligible effects. Gillinov would recommend supplements for people with osteoporosis or gastro­intestinal disorders that keep them from absorbing D, and also for nursing-home residents who rarely go outside. If that's not you, "you're better off taking a walk outside in the sun a few times a week," he says.

Maybe it's just that America's behind the research curve. The Cancer Council Australia – the Aussie version of the American Cancer Society – now advises southern Australians to get as much as three hours of sun during winter weeks, and even more if they have darker complexions.

No one's advocating that we return to tinfoil sun reflectors and dousing ourselves in baby oil, though. Lipman, an integrative-medicine specialist, and Holick – who, it's worth noting, is a pale scientist who cycles, gardens, and plays tennis outside regularly – stress that this isn't about "tanning." They just think it's time people give the sun some credit.

Read more:

Bill Bowser - Cincinnati

Nudists are everywhere, but they're hard to identify with their clothes on.

Country: USA | Posts: 323 Go to Top of Page

Forum Member

Posted - 07/17/2014 :  04:55:00 AM  Show Profile  Send Warmskin a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Perhaps moderation is the key. Don't avoid the sun all day, but don't spend the whole day in the sun, either.

“I rise early almost every morning and sit in my chamber, without any clothes whatever, half an hour or an hour, according to the season, either reading or writing.”
Ben Franklin

Country: USA | Posts: 1909 Go to Top of Page

Bill Bowser
Forum Member

Posted - 11/11/2014 :  10:30:46 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
A study published over the summer of 2014 found that occupational sun exposure does not lead to an increased risk of melanoma.

Occupational sun exposure is frequent, continuous sun exposure, as opposed to intermittent sun exposure. This is the type of sun exposure seen in hunter-gatherer populations, which receive consistent sun exposure when sunlight is available.

The relationship between sun exposure and melanoma is complex. Previous research has revealed sunburn and intermittent sun exposure are associated with an increased risk of melanoma. On the other hand, studies examining the relationship between occupational sun exposure and melanoma have found no or inverse associations.

Melanoma is a type of skin cancer thought to be caused by multiple genetic and environmental factors and its relationship with sun exposure is suggested to differ by the site of cancer and the pattern of sun exposure.

There is some evidence to suggest that melanoma on the head and neck is related to continuous sun exposure, whereas melanoma that is located on the trunk and limbs is associated with intermittent sun exposure.

It is important to clarify the relationship between different types of sun exposure, areas the body exposed, and melanoma in order to ensure that health organizations make accurate and informed decisions when it comes to sun protection policy.

Researchers therefore decided to conduct a study analyzing data from two large, population-based case-control studies: the Australian Melanoma Family Study (AMFS) and the international Genes, Environment and Melanoma (GEM) study.

The AMFS is a multi-center, population based, case-control study that recruited, between 2001 and 2005,over 629 individuals with early-onset melanoma diagnosed before the age of 40 as well as 295 spouses or relatives and 240 individuals without melanoma to serve as controls. The aim of the study was to determine the contribution of genes and environment to melanoma incidence in populations from three different cities in Australia.

The GEM study is an ongoing population-based international consortium initiated in 1998 that is studying risk for melanoma development and progression and the role of sun exposure and genetics in melanoma. It currently consists of 3,700 individuals from the U.S., Canada, Italy, and Australia.

Both studies used self-administered and telephone-administered questionnaires to collect data on demographics, skin color, and sun exposure behavior.

The researchers used this data to determine a comprehensive view of sun exposure behavior, risk of melanoma, and site of melanoma.

Separate analyses on the two sets of data from the two case-controls yielded the following results:

In the AMFS, there was no association between occupational sun exposure and melanoma risk overall, and no association was found between occupational sun exposure and the anatomical site of the melanoma.

In the GEM study, there was a negative association between total weekday sun exposure and melanoma on the head and neck, meaning higher weekday sun exposure led to a decreased risk of melanoma at these sites.

After adjusting for weekend sun exposure in both case-controls, there was no association between total sun exposure and overall melanoma risk or melanoma at different sites.

In both studies, melanoma risk tended to be higher for people who had intermittent patterns of exposure.

The researchers summarized their findings by saying,

“We observed no consistent association between occupational sun exposure and melanoma risk overall and little evidence that this association varied by anatomical site. We observed no increase or decrease in melanoma risk in those with high levels of both weekday and weekend sun exposure (i.e., high continuous pattern of sun exposure) overall or for melanoma of the head and neck. There was, however, evidence that those who had intermittent patterns of exposure (‘high weekday, low week- end’ and ‘low weekday, high weekend’ categories) had increased risk of melanoma.”

The research team noted that the lack of association between occupational sun exposure and melanoma could be from the protective actions of melanin. Melanin absorbs ultraviolet radiation and mitigates its harmful effects. More continuous sun exposure increases both melanin production and the thickness of the skin, both of which are thought to protect against the damaging effects of UV radiation.

The most conspicuous limitation is the use of sun exposure data gathered from self-administered and retrospective questionnaires, which can lead to considerable measurement errors.

Skin type could have impacted the results, as fair skinned individuals self-select jobs that involve less sun exposure. Although the researchers did adjust for skin color and skin response to sun exposure, they were not able to adjust for skin phenotype.

These results provide more evidence that the relationship between melanoma and sun exposure is nuanced, and that a certain amount of consistent sun exposure may be protective against this skin cancer. The results also provide evidence against the notion that occupational sun exposure may increase the risk of melanomas on the head and neck.

Future studies looking to validate these results should include prospective cohort studies that correct for the limitations seen in this study and track sun exposure and development of melanoma over a long period

Bill Bowser - Cincinnati

Nudists are everywhere, but they're hard to identify with their clothes on.

Country: USA | Posts: 323 Go to Top of Page

Forum Member

Posted - 11/12/2014 :  12:09:58 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The underlying truth of sunshine is that health benefits of the production of Vitamine D offsets any skin damage caused by sunshine.

Naked is green.

Country: USA | Posts: 254 Go to Top of Page

Bill Bowser
Forum Member

Posted - 11/23/2014 :  9:34:49 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Skin cancer fears blinding people to health benefits of sunlight, say scientists
By Julia Medew the Health Editor of The Sydney Morning Herald

Skin cancer prevention campaigns may be steering people away from healthy doses of sunlight, which is now thought to protect against high blood pressure, heart disease and possibly stroke, a group of British scientists say.

In a provocative presentation to a Melbourne conference this week, Martin Feelisch, a professor of clinical and experimental sciences at the University of Southampton, questioned whether it was time for a "radical rethink" of the advice given to people about how much time they should spend in the sun.

Professor Feelisch said recent epidemiological studies suggested that the health benefits of moderate sunlight exposure outweighed the harmful effects of UV radiation on the skin.

In particular, a recent study conducted with colleagues at the University of Edinburgh found that a dose of UV equivalent to about 30 minutes of sunshine during the summer in southern Europe lowered people's blood pressure.

The research, published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, suggested UV radiation triggered natural stores of nitric oxide in the skin which dilate small blood vessels. The mechanism was independent of Vitamin D in sunlight which is already known to improve bone and muscle health. This means it cannot be substituted with a vitamin D supplement.

Several other studies have also shown that people with mild hypertension tend to have lower blood pressure in summer compared to winter, and that the further you live from the equator, the more likely you are to suffer from high blood pressure and heart disease.

Professor Feelisch said given high blood pressure was a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke, which accounts for 30 per cent of deaths globally each year, health authorities should start focusing more on the benefits of sensible sun exposure."We have to balance the benefits with the detrimental effects for the greater good of the entire population. The current public health advice is dominated by concerns about cancer," he said.

"That may be very important for a high risk group but that high risk group are the minority of the population. Many others would probably very likely tolerate higher than currently recommended exposure levels, provided their skin gets gradually used to this, and their health would benefit from that."

Professor Feelisch said it was possible that public health campaigns, such as the "Dark side of tanning" television advertisements which have been running in Victoria for five years, were scaring people into hiding from the sun.

"Everybody is so scared to expose themselves to natural sunlight or slap on sunblock lavishly even if they go outside for 15 minutes," he said at the Australian Health and Medical Research Congress. "That is cutting precisely the bit that is required to keep us healthy."

But head of the Australian Cancer Council Professor Ian Olver said current public health advice was sophisticated in Australia, balancing the pros and cons of sunlight for Vitamin D and emphasising high UV index times when people are more likely to burn.

"If the UV index is three or above, the sun is intense enough to burn you and therefore you need to take some protection measures. If it's less than three, you can probably safely go out in the sun. So for vitamin D, early in the morning or late in the afternoon, it might be fine to go out without protection but in the middle of the day, it usually isn't."

Professor Olver said despite these campaigns, Australia still had high rates of skin cancer. There were still more than 12,000 melanomas and 430,000 non-melanoma skin cancers diagnosed each year and about 2000 people died from the disease annually, he said.

Bill Bowser - Cincinnati
Not lewd, not crude, just nude.

Nudists are everywhere, but they're hard to identify with their clothes on.

Country: USA | Posts: 323 Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Topic Next Topic: Best UV Defense For Suffers Of Rosacea?  
 New Topic |   Reply to Topic |   Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Jump To:
Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches © 2002-2017 SUN Go To Top Of Page
This page was down to skin in 0.22 seconds.


General Rules and Terms of Service

Membership in the Nudist-Resorts.Org discussion forum is free, can be anonymous, and requires only a working email address. All email links to members are cloaked. You can disable your email link. Nude photos can be posted, if within our posting rules. No erotica, spam or solicitation is allowed here. References to sex or genitals in your username or profile will result in removal from the forum. Information and opinions regarding anything related to nudism are encouraged, including discussions concerning the confusion between nudism and eroticism if discussed maturely. All posts in this forum are moderated. Read our POSTING RULES here and here. All information appearing on this website is copyright and intellectual property of the Society for Understanding Nudism unless otherwise noted. The views expressed on these forums by participants are not necessarily representative of the Society for Understanding Nudism. Administrators reserve the right to delete anything outside the posting rules, or anything in their opinion not appropriate. To post, you must have cookies enabled and be at least 18 years of age.

Email the Webmaster | Legal Information

Copyright © 2002-2015 SUN - Society for Understanding Nudism
All Rights Reserved

Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000