New Melanoma Incidence, by Marc Sorenson, EdD
New melanoma incidence, first of all, should be highest in states with the highest sun exposure. That is, of course, if we listen to the dermatological organizations and sunscreen manufacturers. Those organizations state ad nauseam that new melanoma is caused by sun exposure, and the facts be damned. Because both of these sunscreen pushers are financially involved in the anti-sun message, they seem little interested in the truth. Why? Because the truth sells few sunscreens.
Insurance companies should be a good source for information on new melanoma rates and risks.
However, new information, which refutes the anti-sun message, continues to emerge and throw a wrench into the works. Insurance companies, who must pay a fortune in insurance costs for new melanoma, probably know the truth about the disease. So, let’s look at one of those latest assessments. Quote wizard Insurance news released a study on new melanoma rates by state, and it probably stunned the anti-sun lobby. Furthermore, they stunned themselves with what they discovered. So, here are their major findings as listed in their report:
- Opposite of what was expected, cooler, northern states have the highest rate of new melanoma cases.
- In addition, warmer, southern states actually have lower rates.
- Furthermore, behaviors in sun protection are likely the biggest factor inmelanoma cases (I vehemently disagree!).
- Finally, males are disproportionately affected compared to women.
Don’t mess with Texas when it comes to new melanoma cases.
Another stunner was that the fewest cases were in Texas. The highest number of cases were in Utah, followed closely by Vermont, Minnesota and New Hampshire.
It is rather interesting that the authors tied themselves in knots trying to explain away their findings. Hence, they tried to make the case that people residing in warmer areas had learned to avoid the sun. And, they had also learned to use protective measures to a greater extent than those who dwelt in cooler areas. That is rather silly. Why? Because we know that sunscreen use increased 400% in the past four decades, while melanoma also increased by 400%. And even more impressive, go back a few more years to 1935. We find that since 1935, sun exposure decreased by 90%, while melanoma increased by 3,000%!
The bottom line regarding new melanoma:
So let’s face the facts: regular, non-burning sun exposure protects against melanoma, new or otherwise. Only occasional blasts of sun to an unprepared body (a practice that is rather mindless), can lead to the disease. Consequently, be sure to gradually work into regular, safe, non-burning sun exposure to protect against becoming a melanoma case.
Save the children with sunlight. by Marc Sorenson, EdD
Save the children is a refrain heard throughout the world, and a great refrain it is. It truly is time to save the children. There is so much child abuse and so many childhood health disasters that it is a burden we cannot ignore. It is especially relevant that our children are addicted to noxious foods and sedentary lives. And, the sun robbery they experience is equally harmful. This article is the first of several discussing the necessity for sun exposure if we are to save the children.
Save the children from myopia.
First of all, myopia (nearsightedness) among children is pandemic and increasing at an alarming rate. And, researchers demonstrated as early as 2008 that the lowest myopia risk was among those with highest outdoor activity. Some have surmised that the key ingredient that could save the children from myopia was exercise. But, the researchers refuted that idea because they also demonstrated that indoor exercise did not reduce myopia risk.
Most noteworthy, the same research showed the prevalence of myopia among Chinese children living in Singapore was 29.1%. Furthermore, the prevalence among Chinese children living in Sydney, Australia was only 3.3%. Is this because the Sydney children spent about 13.8 hours per week outdoors compared to 3.1 hours in Singapore? Hence, the children who spent most of their lives indoors had 9.5 times the risk of developing myopia! So adults in Sidney who let their kids play in the sun, certainly knew how to save them from myopia.
How much sunshine does it take?
Children under six should spend three hours daily in sunshine, according to other researchers who want to save them. So what could be a more natural? Just be sure the children do not burn.
Consequently, the next time someone tells you that it is not good for children to play outside, tell them the facts. Outdoor activity in the sunlight is absolutely necessary to save them from myopia. For more information: sunlightinstitute.org, and read my book, Embrace the Sun.
Sunlight and obesity, by Marc Sorenson, EdD
Sunlight and obesity have a very interesting association, according to recent research. Hence, if the relationship is inverse (more sunlight=less obesity), it is time to add sun exposure to weight control programs. And, sunlight deprivation is also associated with other problems such as cardiovascular disease, according to the study’s authors.
The authors’ important statement regarding sunlight and obesity.
“Animal studies have confirmed that ultraviolet (UV)-B radiation, independently of vitamin D, can limit diet-induced obesity, metabolic syndrome and atherosclerosis.”
Furthermore, all of those conditions can lead to severe disability and death. So, the relationship between sunlight and disease is transcendentally important.
In this study, mice were the subjects, because, I suppose, most humans do not have time to spend being researched.
The important takeaway regarding sunlight and obesity
First of all, the mice were subjected to a diet high in fat and sugar. Then, the effect of sunlight was determined by irradiating one group of mice with UV light. UV light, of course, is also found in sunlight. As a result, the researchers determined that “solar-simulated UV can significantly limit diet-induced obesity.” This is most noteworthy. There is probably no bariatric physician who knows about the inverse relationship between sunlight and obesity.
In addition, another important finding coupling sunlight and obesity to vascular diseases.
It is especially relevant that another exceptionally important finding emerged in the irradiated mice. The development of atheromas, plaques that indicate cardiovascular disease, was remarkably reduced due to the “sunlight.” Rather important, don’t you think?
When we study sunlight and obesity (or another topic), remember it is not always possible to extrapolate from mice. Usually, however, the research is sound and can be used to simulate outcomes among humans. That is particularly true for humans who eat the same diet that the mice ate: filled with fat and sugar. But in conclusion, humans who believe that sunning will overcome or prevent all maladies of junk nutrition are sadly mistaken. So, sun exposure is a marvelous help, but in this case serves as an antidote to the nutritional poison. Lack of sunlight itself is not the cause of obesity, even though sunlight and obesity have a strong inverse relationship. It almost makes one want to sunbathe, does it not?
To read much more on the relationship of sunlight and obesity, use the following links:
Also, read the new book, Embrace the Sun. https://www.amazon.com/Embrace-Sun-Marc-B-Sorenson/dp/069207600X
Sunshine and gut inflammation by Marc Sorenson, EdD
Sunshine dampens chronic gut inflammation: Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis.
Sunshine helps to reduce chronic gut inflammation, which is usually due to two diseases: Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis. These two diseases are known as inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), and worldwide, there are 800,000 people who live with those two life-long disorders. And, these diseases are autoimmune diseases, where the body attacks itself.
In addition, these diseases are hard to live with because they cause diarrhea, abdominal pain, inflammation and general misery. Each year more children contract IBD and each year, they contract it at younger ages. Most noteworthy, in my opinion, is the fact that IBD is, to a great extent, a sunshine deprivation disease. Children’s sunshine deprivation is horrific because it is child abuse, due to erroneous messages of dermatologists, AKA the Powers of Darkness.
Especially relevant is the fact that sunshine may profoundly decrease IBD. And, new research shows that the anti-inflammatory effects of sunshine are remarkably helpful.
And here are the salient messages of this new sunshine research:
- First of all, children who were outside and exposed to sunshine for an extra half hour a day were protected. Thus, they had a 20% lower risk of developing IBD.
- Another finding was reported by Dr. Robyn Lucas, the lead researcher. Each 10 minutes of sun exposure was associated with a six% lower risk of developing IBD, [so do you want to deprive your children of sun exposure?]
- She also stated: “At this stage what we have shown is there is a link between lack of sun exposure and increased risk of IBD…”
- Furthermore, Dr. Lucas made this observation: “Taking children to play outside in the sun could be life-changing.”
Also, I should add that what is true for these children is also true for adults. Read more in the new book, Embrace the Sun, by Marc Sorenson and William Grant. https://www.amazon.com/Embrace-Sun-Marc-B-Sorenson/dp/069207600X
Find more information on http://sunlightinstitute.org/, particularly at this link: http://sunlightinstitute.org/low-levels-of-sunlight-exposure-predispose-to-inflammatory-bowel-disease-and-fractures/
So be sure to obtain regular, non-burning sunshine, whether for yourselves or your children. Happy sunning!
 Holmes EA, Ponsonby AL, Pezic A, Ellis JA, Kirkwood CD, Lucas RM. Higher Sun Exposure is Associated with Lower Risk of Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Matched Case-Control Study. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 2019; May 15 (Epub ahead of print).
Sunlight and Cancer. By Marc Sorenson, Ed.D
Sunlight and cancer are subjects that are misunderstood by most of the populace, and the press. Furthermore, sunlight and cancer are believed by most to have a cause and effect relationship. Thus, sunlight exposure to humans is thought to be dangerous and deadly, and is deemed carcinogenic by many health organizations. Yet, the research continues to indicate that sunlight and cancer have an entirely different relationship than the pundits propose. Let’s examine and comment on important sunlight and cancer research that belies the idea that more sun equals more cancer.
An impressive recent study on the protective influence of sunlight on cancer.
First of all, consider this sunlight and cancer association: sun exposure’s association to gastrointestinal cancers (esophagus, stomach, and colon). A sunlight and cancer from Iran study shows a strong negative correlation between sun exposure and the risk of these cancers. A strong negative correlation means that these cancers are profoundly decreased due to sunlight. And, a salient point of this research was that for each increment of sun exposure increase, there was a corresponding drop in the risk of cancer. As regards sunlight and cancer, then, it is probably not a great idea to excessively limit sun exposure. This research, therefore may cause many people to alter their misconceptions regarding the sunlight and cancer relationship.
Another notable indication that sunlight and cancer work in opposition: more sunlight, less breast cancer.
Because of the sunlight and cancer relationship just established, we would expect more confirming research. Probably the most jaw-dropping study showed that women who were always covered had 10 times the risk of breast cancer. That is, compared to women who were out and about in the sun.
More on sunlight and cancer, particularly exposure to sunlight among young girls
Also, another investigation regarding sunlight and cancer showed and interesting relationship. The influence of sunlight on breast cancer may start early in life. It is most noteworthy that girls who had the greatest sun exposure during the ages of 10-19 were strongly protected against breast cancer. And due to their sun habits, they had a 35% decrease in the risk of breast cancer as adults, compared to those who had the least sun exposure. So, what do you think now about sunlight and cancer?
The sunlight and cancer relationship as regards prostate cancer
Another group of researchers used childhood sunburn as a measure of sun exposure. They determined that men who had the most sunburns as children had one-fifth the risk of contracting prostate cancer as those who had fewer sunburns! Also realize I am not advocating sunburns to prevent prostate cancer. Sunburns were used as a way to measure sun exposure and another measurement would have worked as well to show the sunlight and cancer relationship.
Finally, there are approximately 18 major cancers that have a negative correlation with sunlight. Read about all of them in the book, Embrace the Sun. Also, be sure to follow my blogs at sunlightinstitute.org.
Enjoy your regular, non-burning sun exposure.
 Najafi E, Khanjani N, Ghotbi MR, Masinaei Nejad ME. The association of gastrointestinal cancers (esophagus, stomach, and colon) with solar ultraviolet radiation.
 Bidgoli SA, Azarshab H. Role of vitamin D deficiency and lack of sun exposure in the incidence of premenopausal breast cancer: a case control study in Sabzevar, Iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(8):3391-6.
 Knight JA, Lesosky M, Barnett H, Raboud JM, Vieth R. Vitamin D and reduced risk of breast cancer: a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(3):422-9.
 Moon SJ, Fryer AA, Strange RC. Ultraviolet radiation: effects on risks of prostate cancer and other internal cancers. Mutat Res 2005;571(1-2):207-19.
Flesh-eating Bacteria and genitals. The drug companies strike again. By Marc Sorenson, EdD.
What is flesh-eating bacteria of the genitals?
Flesh-eating bacteria of the genitals is a rare, alarming disease associated with a class of type-two diabetes drugs (SGLT2 inhibitors). While many people take these drugs, only a few are unfortunate enough to contract the disease. So the publication, Medical Express, states, “one day you notice pain, redness and a foul odor in your genital area.” As much as I wanted to include an image of this disease, it was too nauseating for me to do it.
Do flesh-eating bacteria really eat flesh?
Of course, bacteria infect, and they don’t eat flesh. The term flesh-eating bacteria is probably used as a description for the rapidity of the infection.
There is a better way to stop diabetes than using a drug that could cause flesh-eating bacteria.
First of all, the real tragedy of this finding is that type-two diabetes is the easiest of all degenerative diseases to reverse. And, I might say, the easiest to prevent. So we don’t need a diabetes drug that could cause flesh-eating bacteria of the genitals. In the health resort that my wife, Vicki and I founded, we had spectacular results. Two-thirds of diabetic clients ceased all medications in about 11.6 days (and no flesh eating bacteria occurred). And if the clients stayed for a month, 85% were off all medication. Furthermore, most of the remaining 15% dramatically reduced their medication. The people became well due to proper nutrition, exercise and plenty of sunshine. So, knowing that, why would the medical community not use that simple method? The answer: there is no money to be made by pharmaceuticals when diabetics heal themselves because of changed lifestyles.
Is flesh-eating bacteria a new phenomenon?
Flesh-eating bacteria have been around for some time, but until the advent of these drugs, diabetes has not been involved. The “old” flesh-eating bacteria disease was called necrotizing fasciitis–another rarity due to strep bacteria. It is most noteworthy that the disease is most common in seasons of low sun exposure, with the highest incidence in winter. Probably, sun-stimulated vitamin D produces the cathelicidins (an antimicrobial peptide) necessary to keep the disease at bay during the summer.
A great new book.
In our book, Embrace the Sun, Dr. William Grant and I make a calculation. For each death caused by diseases associated with sun exposure, there are 328 deaths because of diseases associated with sun deprivation. And two of the diseases associated with sun deprivation are type-two diabetes and necrotizing fasciitis.
The message for preventing diabetes stopping the use of flesh-eating drugs is this: Stop eating junk foods and start getting some regular, non-burning sun exposure (without noxious sunscreens). Happy sunning!For more information on the marvels of sun exposure, visit http://sunlightinstitute.org/ Also read the new book, Embrace the Sun.
Sepsis and septicemia, major killers that associate with sun deprivation. By Marc Sorenson, EdD
Sepsis is an infection of tissues by bacteria, and septicemia is a form of sepsis that infects the blood. Septicemia is a severe and often deadly blood infection. Noxious bacteria attack tissue or blood, and when they die or when their cell walls rupture, they release poison (endotoxin). So, these dying organisms may do more harm than the bacterial attack itself. In addition, the disease accounts for 500,000 emergency-room hospital visits per year in the USA. And, it is followed by a typical stay of 6 to 9 days. As a result, it is one of the worst medical conditions. And, it often results in multiple organ failure and death. There are about 750,000 cases per year, and about 3% of all hospital admissions result in a case of sepsis. Read more.
Sepsis and hospitals
Hospitals are hotbeds of antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” and other infectious agents. In cases of severe sepsis, antibiotics have not improved survival. In fact, antibiotics may produce molecules that exacerbate sepsis. Therefore, the health system must urgently find and implement non-antibiotic solutions to this crisis.
Also, it should be remembered that sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant. The annual cost of care for sepsis is about $17 billion. And, in the case of severe sepsis, antibiotics have not improved survival. In fact, it is especially relevant that antibiotics may produce molecules that exacerbate it. Sepsis is one of the top-ten causes of death and the second leading cause of hospital-associated deaths. So only coronary intensive care units end up having more deaths. In North America, sepsis and its related disorders kill more hospitalized people than heart attacks, colon cancer, breast cancer or AIDS.
Dr. William B. Grant’s research with sepsis and septicemia.
Dr. William Grant hypothesized that vitamin D deficiency, due to inadequate sun exposure, is a risk factor. That is true for both sepsis and septicemia. He points out that septicemia incidence is also highest in winter and lowest in the autumn. Another point is that rates are highest in the Northeast (low sunlight) and lowest in the Southwest (high sunlight). Therefore, all of this leads to the idea that sun deficiency is a major cause this disorder.
Consequently, sun deficiency could play a strong causal role in the disease, since deficiency inhibits the production of cathelicidins. Cathelicidins are antimicrobial peptides which facilitate the destruction of pathogenic germs’ cell walls, leading to their death. In addition, these peptides also help inactivate the endotoxins released as a result of that destruction., , 
Stay well and thereby avoid hospitals (and sepsis).
Finally, it would be best to avoid hospitals and their superbugs. The formula? Obtain some regular, non-screened, non-burning sunlight around noon when available. Happy sunning! And be sure to read my new book, Embrace the Sun.
 Mookherjee N, Rehaume LM, Hancock RE. Cathelicidins and functional analogues as antisepsis molecules. Expert Opinions on Therapeutic Targets 2007;11:993-1004
 Mookherjee N, Rehaume LM, Hancock RE. Cathelicidins and functional analogues as antisepsis molecules. Expert Opinions on Therapeutic Targets 2007;11:993-1004.
 Grant, WB. Solar ultraviolet-B irradiance and vitamin D reduce the risk of septicemia. Dermatoendocrinol 2009;1:37-42.
 Danai PA, Sinha S, Moss M, Haber MJ, Martin GS. Seasonal variation in the epidemiology of sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:410–15.
 Giacometti A, Cirioni O, Ghiselli R, Mocchegiani F, D’Amato G, Circo R, Orlando F, Skerlavaj B, Silvestri C, Saba V, Zanetti M, Scalise G. Cathelicidin peptide sheep myeloid antimicrobial peptide-29 prevents endotoxin-induced mortality in rat models of septic shock. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004;169:187-94.
 Giacometti A, Cirioni O, Ghiselli R, Bergnach C, Orlando F, D’Amato G, Mocchegiani F, Silvestri C, Del Prete MS, Skerlavaj B, Saba V, Zanetti M, Scalise G. The antimicrobial peptide BMAP-28 reduces lethality in mouse models of staphylococcal sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:2485–90.
 Cirioni O, Giacometti A, Ghiselli R, Bergnach C, Orlando F, Silvestri C, Mocchegiani F, Licci A, Skerlavaj B, Rocchi M, Saba V, Zanetti M, Scalise G. LL-37 protects rats against lethal sepsis caused by gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50:1672–9
Melanoma risk is prevented by sun exposure. Case closed! -By Marc Sorenson, EdD
Melanoma risk between persons with high and low vitamin D levels
Melanoma risk is probably the most misunderstood topic in medicine. I recently wrote about the inverse association between vitamin D and melanoma. But I finally decided that my case had insufficient passion and surety. Consequently, I decided to write this addition and provide some new and restated information.
Melanoma risk is directly associated with low levels of vitamin D. That is the conclusion of recent study published in the European Journal of Cancer. The investigators measured the blood vitamin D levels of 137 subjects who had been diagnosed with melanoma. They collected the blood samples at the time of diagnosis of the disease. Another group of 99 healthy subjects served as the control group. The investigators collected the samples of the control group between October and April. The scientists then compared the blood collections of the melanoma group with those of the control group. They then determined whether vitamin D levels had an association with melanoma risk.
The study produced convincing results regarding vitamin D and melanoma risk.
The results were as follows:
- The controls (no melanoma) had vitamin D levels 50% higher than the melanoma group (27.8 ng/ml vs. 18 ng/ml).
- 66.2% of the melanoma group had vitamin D “deficiency,” compared to only 15.2% of the health controls. The scientists defined vitamin D deficiency as being equal to or less than 20 ng/ml. So, the melanoma group had more than four-times the risk of deficiency.
- The scientists defined vitamin D “sufficiency” as being equal to or greater than 30 ng/ml. They found that only 7.4% of melanoma patients were sufficient, compared to 37.4% of healthy controls. Hence, the melanoma group had about one-fifth the likelihood of having sufficient D levels.
More scientific analysis on vitamin D measurements vs. melanoma risk
The scientists then adjusted the data for possible confounding factors such as age, sex and body mass. Then, they performed an analysis that showed the following:
- First of all, a significant inverse association was demonstrated with vitamin D sufficiency versus deficiency. Those who had sufficient levels had only 4% of the melanoma risk when compared to those who were deficient! Hence, this would indicate that those with the lowest vitamin D levels (after adjusting for confounding factors) had 25-times the melanoma risk!
- And, vitamin D insufficiency vs. deficiency was significantly inversely associated with melanoma. Those who were insufficient had a definite advantage over those who were deficient. They had only 13% of the melanoma risk.
Now, let’s get to the most important point about melanoma risk:
In addition, this research proves conclusively that sun deprivation is a major cause of melanoma. Therefore, vitamin D levels are surrogate measurements for sun exposure in nearly every case. And why do I say than this research conclusively proves that sun exposure reduces melanoma risk? Because about 90% of serum vitamin D is produced by sun exposure to the skin. So, the aforementioned research is really research on sun exposure. It indicates that regular sun exposure leads to a profoundly higher vitamin D levels and therefore a profoundly reduced melanoma risk. So, let’s restate the facts about vitamin D, sunlight and melanoma.
- First of all, sunlight exposure to skin produces 90% of the vitamin D levels in the public.
- Secondly, the higher the vitamin D levels, the lower is the risk of melanoma.
- Therefore, high sun exposure reduces melanoma risk.
- Case closed!
Nevertheless, there is more corroborating evidence for the case.
In addition, here are a few more facts indicative of sun exposure’s protective effect against melanoma risk:
- Another supporting fact: 75% of melanomas occur on body areas that are seldom if never exposed to sunlight.
- In addition, sun exposure decreased by 90% since 1935, while melanoma increased by 3,000%.
- Also, in the past four decades, melanoma has increased 400% while sunscreen use also increased 400%.
- Furthermore, sunburn is said to increase melanoma risk. And recent research shows that sunscreen use increases the risk of sunburn from 300-600%.
Could sunlight reduce melanoma through photoproducts beyond vitamin D?
In conclusion: In my new book, Embrace the Sun (coauthored by Dr. William Grant), we note that sun exposure provides more than vitamin D. It also provides other photoproducts such as nitric oxide, serotonin, endorphin, and brain-derived neurotropic factor (BDNF). All of these photoproducts are vital to human health. Could these photoproducts have a positive and protective effect against melanoma risk beyond vitamin D? And, who is to say that the vitamin D produced by sunlight is not superior to that given in pill form?
Finally, this research gives us one more reason to embrace the sun safely without burning. And who would have thought that safe sunlight could be one of the best prophylactics against melanoma risk?
Happy sunning! Do not burn.
The book is available at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Embrace-Sun-Marc-B-Sorenson/dp/069207600X
 Cattaruzza MS, Pisani D, Fidanza L, Gandini S, Marmo G, Narcisi A, Bartolazzi A, Carlesimo M. 25-Hydroxyvitamin D serum levels and melanoma risk: a case-control study and evidence synthesis of clinical epidemiological studies. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2018 Feb 12. [Epub ahead of print]
 Reichrath J. The challenge resulting from positive and negative effects of sun: how much solar UV exposure is appropriate to balance between risks of vitamin D deficiency and skin cancer? Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2006;92(1):9-16
 Crombie IK. Distribution of malignant melanoma on the body surface.Br J Cancer. 1981 Jun;43(6):842-9.
 Melanoma International Foundation, 2007 Facts about melanoma. Sources: National Cancer Institute 2007 SEER Database, American Cancer Society’s 2007 Facts and Figures, The Skin Cancer Foundation, The American Academy of Dermatology.
 Joseph C DiNardo and Craig A Downs. Should We Use Products Containing Chemical UV Absorbing Sunscreen Actives on Children? Clin Dermatol Res J 2019, 4:1.
 Kasey L. Morris, PhD; Frank M. Perna, EdD, PhD. Decision Tree Model vs Traditional Measures to Identify Patterns of Sun-Protective Behaviors and Sun Sensitivity Associated With Sunburn. JAMA Dermatol. Published online June 27, 2018.
Chemical sunscreen is toxic and hazardous. By Marc Sorenson, EdD
Chemical sunscreen has been mentioned in new medical and scientific papers lately, and the research is alarming. Yet, many governments and medical associations have not gotten the message. Consequently, I lately blogged about the idea being promoted in Australia and New Zealand, that sunscreen use is absolutely indispensable. Due to this promotion, a major Australian newspaper stated, “Make it like brushing your teeth.” That seems like a terrific slogan to line the pockets of chemical sunscreen manufacturers, no? But, it is most noteworthy that sunscreen use may lead to disability and even death.
A dermatology journal study takes chemical sunscreens to task.
But maybe the dermatology profession is starting to catch on. And Surprisingly, one of the best treatises on chemical sunscreen was written by dermatologists. It is rather interesting that they were strongly questioning the wisdom of chemical sunscreens. Furthermore, the study was published by the Clinical Dermatology Research Journal and was entitled, Should We Use Products Containing Chemical UV Absorbing Sunscreen Actives on Children? This is amazing, because most dermatologists are loath to say anything about sunscreen that is not positive.
The salient points on chemical sunscreens from this research paper:
- A 2018 report from the American Cancer Society demonstrated the following: after 40 years of sunscreen use (1975-2014) melanoma increased 4 fold in men and 3 fold in women. (So how does that information lead to the usual mantra that we should always be covered in sunscreen?)
- Also, all six sunscreen chemicals (chemical UV absorbers) considered in this paper are known to be endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). And oxybenzone, one of the worst offenders, has been shown to cause a significant decrease in sperm density. (Since sperm counts have dropped rapidly in the past few decades among men, could it be due to chemical sunscreen use?)
More facts about chemical sunscreens:
- Also, environmental exposure to chemical sunscreen in adolescent boys (ages 12-19) was associated with significantly lower total serum testosterone. Therefore, these chemicals would, as mentioned, produce lower sperm density.
- In addition, chemical sunscreen passes through human skin. (About 8% of Oxybenzone finds its way through the skin. It seems like using these noxious products is something most of us would want to avoid!)
Other research on chemical sunscreens that may interest you:
Another important study demonstrates that chemical sunscreen does not help prevent melanoma, and, it could be a cause.  Rather surprising, no? Most of all, the researchers’ goal was to determine the efficacy of sunscreens in preventing melanoma. Hence, they compared melanoma rates with sales in 24 countries in Europe, during the period of 1997-1999 to 2008 and 2012. They thus found that higher income people had significantly higher melanoma incidence. And, increased use of chemical sunscreens had not prevented higher income populations from being at higher risk of melanoma. Consequently, we see this equation: Higher sunscreen use=higher melanoma risk and therefore higher melanoma death risk!
But does chemical sunscreen prevent skin cancer?
So, the following research probably deflated the egos of chemical sunscreen manufacturers. A meta-analysis of 20 studies showed what many probably not expect. Because, both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers were not prevented by chemical sunscreens. It is especially relevant that they were associated with a slight increase in risk, though this increase was not considered significant. We could probably say, from the information presented, that sunscreens are worthless at best, and dangerous at worst. So, who benefits? The manufacturers and distributors. And who suffers? The people, because they use the noxious products.
Does chemical sunscreen even prevent sunburns?
And now, another recent scientific study corroborates this conclusion (worthless at best, dangerous at worst) regarding chemical sunscreen. The authors expected a different outcome—an outcome exactly opposite of what they found. The goal was to discover which sun-protection behavior was most effective in preventing sunburn. Hence, they designed a cross-sectional investigation using a nationally representative sample of about 32,000 US adults.
Excellent research method on chemical sunscreens
The researchers interviewed each participant, and they did it in person. This is especially relevant when attempting to achieve the most accurate results possible. We can conclude, therefore, that their findings regarding sunscreen use and other “sun-protective” behaviors have validity. The measured behaviors (beyond sunscreen use) were seeking shade, wearing a hat or visor, and wearing long sleeves and/or pants.
Results of the sunburn and chemical sunscreen study.
In addition, the researchers identified the subjects as sun-sensitive individuals or non-sun-sensitive individuals. Fifty-four percent of the subjects were women, and 15,992 of all individuals were considered sun-sensitive (fair skinned). Those who used only sunscreen had the highest sunburn likelihood (62.4%). The group with lowest likelihood of sunburn did not use chemical sunscreen but engaged in the other protective behaviors (24.3% sunburned).
A surprising conclusion that using chemical sunscreens was the worst choice!
In addition, among 12,566 non–sun-sensitive individuals, those engaged in all 4 protective behaviors had the lowest sunburn risk (6.6%). The highest likelihood of sunburn was among those who only used sunscreen (26.2%). Dr. Kasey Morris, the study leader, was stunned. She made the following statement: “The most surprising and counterintuitive finding was that regular sunscreen use, in the absence of other protective behaviors, was associated with the highest likelihood of sunburn.”
The bottom line regarding chemical sunscreen and sunburns
So, you should now understand this fact: chemical sunscreen use associates closely with sunburning.  That fact has actually been known since 2014. Therefore, sunscreen is not a good product. Of course, we should protect ourselves from overexposure to sunlight. But, we should do it the way God (or Mother Nature, if you prefer) intended it: 1. Cover up with clothing when you start to redden, 2. Seek shade. 3. Go indoors for awhile. And remember that good health depends on obtaining regular, non-burning sun exposure. Happy sunning!
Read more on sunscreens and toxicity in my new book, Embrace the Sun, available at Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Embrace-Sun-Marc-B-Sorenson/dp/069207600X
 DiNardo JC and Downs CA, Should We Use Products Containing Chemical UV-Absorbing Sunscreen Actives on Children? Clin Dermatol Res J 2019, 4:1.
 Williams SN, Dienes KA. Sunscreen Sales, Socio-Economic Factors, and Melanoma Incidence in Northern Europe: A Population-Based Ecological Study. SAGE Open October-December 2014: 1–6.
 Elizabet saes da SILVA, Roberto TAVARES, Felipe da silva PAULITSCH, Linjie ZHANG. Eur J Dermatol 2018; 28(2): 186-201.
 Kasey L. Morris, PhD; Frank M. Perna, EdD, PhD. Decision Tree Model vs Traditional Measures to Identify Patterns of Sun-Protective Behaviors and Sun Sensitivity Associated With Sunburn. JAMA Dermatol. Published online June 27, 2018.
Kidney cancer and sunlight. By Marc Sorenson, EdD
Kidney cancer is positively associated with vitamin D supplements—maybe.
There are 62,700 cases of kidney cancer and 14,240 deaths annually. Kidney cancer can be a killer, and maybe sunlight exposure can reduce its risk. And, it is not vitamin D and kidney cancer, but sunlight and kidney cancer, which really piques my interest. I am an advocate of vitamin D and health if vitamin D is obtained from sun exposure to the skin. So today, I was alerted to an article that D supplements—in one subject—was associated with kidney cancer. Consequently, my mind immediately travelled to the book I wrote with William Grant: Embrace the sun.
Kidney cancer studies compiled in Embrace the Sun:
We referenced several studies, which determined that sun exposure reduced many cancers, including kidney cancer, by 35% to 42%. Kidney cancer mortality rates were also found to be strongly inversely correlated with sunshine doses in Dr. Grant’s studies., 
Kidney cancer, sunlight and women
Recent research has also demonstrated that high levels of sun exposure in women significantly reduces kidney cancer. Those women with the highest fourth of sun exposure showed a 33% reduction in risk. Interestingly, the data was adjusted for vitamin D intake, and the results still showed sun exposure to have a stand-alone protective influence on kidney cancer—another indication that sun exposure has protective effects beyond the benefits of vitamin D.
Other studies on kidney cancer, using different designs, have produced comparable effects: A study of Swedish construction workers showed a significant 30% decrease in risk among men with the highest sun exposure.
Why would vitamin D supplementation be a negative for kidney cancer?
So why would vitamin D supplementation have deleterious effects on kidney cancer, when sunlight appears to have such salubrious effects on kidney cancer? First of all, one person does not research make! Secondly, the doses of vitamin D were also quite high, 8,000-12-000 IU per day. Thirdly, the vitamin was not produced by the sun, meaning that the subject’s kidney were not protected by the whole gamut of sun-stimulated photoproducts such as nitric oxide, serotonin, endorphin, dopamine, brain-derived neurotropic factor (BDNF) and many others that we have yet to discover.
All of the sun’s photoproducts have a place in the choir. Sun exposure should be used holistically. I have been beating that drum for some time. One cannot take a vitamin D pill and hope to achieve all the health benefits of whole-sun exposure.
It is also imperative to understand that toxic levels of
vitamin D are not produced by sun. The body self-regulates vitamin D levels
when they are produced in the skin by sun exposure. Sunlight is vital to human
life. Be sure to get your share of non-burning, safe sunlight and protect
yourself from kidney cancer. And while you are sunning, be sure to read the book,
the Sun. And for more information on Kidney cancer, sunlight and
vitamin D visit Sunlight
 Tuohimaa P, Pukkala E, Scélo G, Olsen JH, Brewster DH, Hemminki K, Tracey E, Weiderpass E, Kliewer EV, Pompe-Kirn V, McBride ML, Martos C, Chia KS, Tonita JM, Jonasson JG, Boffetta P, Brennan P. Does solar exposure, as indicated by the non-melanoma skin cancers, protect from solid cancers: vitamin D as a possible explanation. Eur J Cancer 2007;43(11):1701-12
 Grant WB. An estimate of premature cancer mortality in the US due to inadequate doses of solar ultraviolet-B radiation. Cancer. 2002 Mar 15;94(6):1867-75.
 Grant WB, Garland CF. The association of solar ultraviolet B (UVB) with reducing risk of cancer: multifactorial ecologic analysis of geographic variation in age-adjusted cancer mortality rates. Anticancer Res. 2006 Jul-Aug;26(4A):2687-99.
 Karami S, Colt JS, Stewart PA, Schwartz K, Davis FG, Ruterbusch JJ, Chow WH, Wacholder S, Graubard BI, Purdue MP, Moore LE. Short Report: A case-control study of occupational sun exposure and renal cancer risk. Int J Cancer. 2015 Oct 27.