Talk:Health effects of sunlight exposure/Archive 1

January 2010
Below is a list of the current Wikipedia articles that link to this article.

This represents a broad range of seemingly unrelated topics, however taken together

they demonstrate a pattern. What is very obvious is the concept of "liability".

How can sunlight both be a carcinogen AND essential to health? Clearly, what is missing

is some kind of statement on recommendations for achieving healthy levels of Vitamin D.

Instead, for over 30 years we have been scared silly out of the sun, while still we see in

the media that "tanned and fit" is how persons are to be shown on television, movies, and magazines.

Carcinogen (links)

Skin (links)

Sunlight (links)

Ultraviolet (links)

Human skin color (links)

Melanin (links)

Skin cancer (links)

Seasonal affective disorder (links)

Melatonin (links)

Sunscreen (links)

Sun tanning (links)

Tanning bed (links)

Outdoor activity (links)

Vitamin D (links)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.127.195 (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: much of this article was originally taken from the public domain document, which is in the public domain as a work of the U.S. Federal Government. -- The Anome (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

-

Although the original title of this article was "Vitamin D Dilemma", I am happy that it has been accepted, edited, and changed to "Risks and benefits of sun exposure".

There is still a great deal of information that did not get transferred over from Vitamin D Dilemma, however over time I am sure this will occur.

Thanks

---

I had to correct the "UVB is a carcinogen" line. Sunlight is a carcinogen, UVB is only thought to be. I have provided the link to the National Toxicology Program database with this information as reference.

- Update: I retract this comment, UVR (broad spectrum) is a carcinogen. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=BD4CD88D-F1F6-975E-792094AC1CE4B062


 * See this quote from the peer-reviewed paper by Wolpowitz now cited in the article text: "UV radiation is a well-documented human carcinogen", This Google search gives lots of other similar cites. -- The Anome (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

- look, I don't know who you are or who you work for. But the United States Goverment does not say that Ultraviolet Radiation is a carcinogen. The US position is very clear, that UVR is NOT a carcinogen, only a "probable one". What is clear is that very special interests are now at work on this article, to shape the truth as they see fit.

- Update: I retract this comment, this controversy is very important and as it turns out UVR is listed as a carcinogen. This has profound effects for the strategies that will be taken to deal with the Vitamin D deficiency epidemic out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.10.253 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the term "sun" to "sunlight" to make the article more consistent. Sunlight is a form of light energy which is full-spectrum, and is considered to be cancer causing. Ultraviolet radiation, on the other hand, has not been conclusively shown to be cancer-causing.

Update: I retract this comment, UVR is listed as a carcinogen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.10.253 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted some of the more journalistic additions. Material in articles needs to be directly relevant to the article's topic; indirectly related discussions about sport or vitamin D deficiency do not belong here. -- The Anome (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've now added all the references in the relevant bits from the original public domain article, so that the exact wording of the original document can be backed up with the original references. -- The Anome (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

-

The section on an Olympic Athlete being Vitamin D deficient was also removed. This shows that special interests are at work "protecting" this article from editing, even though the article is only 72 hours old (and has already had the title changed from "Vitamin D Dilemma"). What is very clear is that the "Dilemma" is about the constant stream of misinformation to the American People about Vitamin D, and the constant fear-mongering about sunlight. Now the statement (in total disagreement with the Toxicology) that UVR is carcinogenic shows just how "special" everyone's interests are.

Thank you again to the special interests for revealing your total position on this issue, which is that any information of an encyclopedic nature that is meant to help inform the American People about healthy decisions is to be provided solely by special interests, and there is absolutely no "health freedom" to be allowed. Congratulations, and I hope your medical stocks pay you handsome dividends and stock splits.

There will be no more "free contributions" to the "risks and benefits of sun exposure", as the special interests have made it clear that they have unlimited funding and staff to continue to "edit" this article to remove any actual references to the truth.

Update: I retract the comment about "Special Interests", updated research has shown UVR is a carcinogen. This article "Risks and benefits of sun exposure" is the most important new article on Wikipedia, due to the massive controversy surrounding Vitamin D currently in the media. Clearly, all sides are making an effort to come up with a consistent story.

--

Update: Broad Spectrum UVR (Ultraviolet Radiation) is clearly listed as a carcinogen, while UVA, UBC, and UVC are thought to be but not proven. This can be found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=BD4CD88D-F1F6-975E-792094AC1CE4B062.

As a result, the current widespread epidemic of Vitamin D Deficiency does have a real cause, as over-exposure to sunlight is carcinogenic, while underexposure causes Vitamin D Deficiency. It is now up to everyone to know their own Vitamin D Status.

The section on Eastern Health was deleted from the article. Eastern Health recently stopped Vitamin D testing in Newfoundland and Labrador, as everyone was deficient. This was costing $500,000 a year to the government, which now recommends everyone take 1000 IU of Vitamin D year-round.

So clearly, we can trace the Vitamin D deficiency epidemic to the UVR-Carcinogen warnings. This began around 30 years ago (late-1970s), prior to that time there were no recommended limits on sun exposure. It is only with new recent blood tests that the epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency has become known.

Thank you to Wikipedia's editors for accepting the article Vitamin D Dilemma, converting it to risks and benefits of Sun Exposure, and now we can begin to create an encyclopedic article tracking the Vitamin D Dilemma.

Comment moved to bottom of page
Indeed, we do not receive "between 50% and 80% of [our] lifetime sun exposure before the age of 18," as the article claims. The following (legitimate) source is from the journal "Photochemistry and Photobiology," and states otherwise: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1562/0031-8655(2003)077%3C0453:UDOYA%3E2.0.CO;2?journalCode=phot.

I'd ask a maintainer of this article (if there is one) to update it with the correct information, please. Otherwise I'll come back and do it in a possibly timely manner. panth0r (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do fix it yourself -- that's how things work. :-) Hordaland (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Relative risk compared to supplementing the diet is the key issue
The ultraviolet radiation in sunlight, though a principal source of vitamin D3 compared to diet, is mutagenic. . Taking vitamin D3 supplements supplies vitamin D without the mutagenic effect. Supplemental vitamin D thus has a very good risk-benefit ratio, relative to exposing skin to sunlight. Since sunlight exposure supplies vitamin D but is mutagenic, it presents both health benefits and health risks.

Osborne, Hutchinson; Vitamin D and systemic cancer: is this relevant to malignant melanoma? Br J Dermatol. 2002 Aug;147(2):197-213.


 * "As in other cancers, there is evidence of a protective effect of vitamin D3 in MM [malignant melanoma], but ultraviolet radiation, which is a principal source of vitamin D3, is mutagenic."

Osborne and Hutchinson suggests to take vitamin D supplements if staying out of the sun.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12174089 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.95.67 (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Topic
I have updated a new section called "Seasonal Variation", as well as having added the other sections on Lifetime exposure, Safe exposure, History of exposure, and Levels of exposure.

Taken together, the entire article shows the risks and benefits of exposure to sunlight. As we know from the media, sunlight is thought of as more dangerous than anything else we can be exposed to. If you ask an ordinary person what is safer, taking a trip on the space shuttle or spending 10 minutes in the sun, for many people a trip into outer space is safer. Tanning beds are being equated with cigarettes right now, and while there are clearly risks to using uncalibrated beds in an unmonitored fashion, and using tanning beds as a "slimming device" (since they suppress hunger) without eating properly, in the end there is something important in the light...UV Radiation.

This is what happens when we abandon ancient practices like spending time outdoors, and adopt technology like air conditioning without thinking there could be any side effects. Indoor time is not the same as outdoor time, and for many people who have access to this article you know I am talking to you....get off your PC and get some sunshine.

Thank You

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Emezei (talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Point of view bias has been noted. Boundarylayer (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Style
The whole article is a little bit confusing, with many bits of one topic mixed in differentchapters and the chapters title not always reflecting the actual content (or, if that title was intendet, then the content does not belong there). Also many information bits are redundant or outdated, and some are probably just irrelevant. Maybe, for the quoted argument or data, the sources should be reviewed. I believe this boils down to it have to be nearly rewritten from scratch. And btw please would you insert titles for discussion topics. I also suggest to just delete - with a short comment in the 'summary' - those arguments that you want to 'retract' since it reduces reading load. [Unsigned comment 20:40, 20 February 2011 by 78.49.132.38.]

I agree in part, as that discussed under the seasonal variation title is misleading, as whomever wrote it tried to conflate the rise in death rate in Winter with a lack of Sun exposure. Which is a point of view with no actual direct references to back it up.

I even had to add the note at the end of the seasonal variation chapter: ''The preceding details evidence that does not address direct sun exposure, but only seasonal variations in death rate. Factors involved in the observed increase in mortality events during winter months, such as lower temperatures in winter, must be kept in mind, as the corresponding increase in Hypothermia is a natural confounding mortality factor during the winter.[45] Another confounding factor in winter mortality events is a difference in atmospheric pressure.[46]''

Boundarylayer (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Tudor M08 (Crete, Greece).jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
Surely there should be a link to heat stroke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_stroke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.246.90.67 (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed template
Removed template (below) from article. It's from 2010 & doesn't specify a reasoning for it!

--Hordaland (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)