By: Marc Sorenson, EdD Sunlight Institute–
After so many years in which both dermatologists and beauty experts had recommended almost total sun abstinence, brave souls from each group are gingerly beginning to espouse the importance of a few minutes of regular, sun exposure, without sunscreen, to ensure good health.
The latest of these is Liz Earle, a beauty guru (and a beauty) who owns an extremely successful skin-care company, and who is concerned about bone health, suggests that women get some sun exposure between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. She chooses those times, because she understands that they are the times of greatest vitamin D production. She is now joining Gwyneth Paltrow and other luminaries in suggesting that some sun exposure is necessary for strong bones.
I congratulate MS Earle, and strongly suggest that you read the article in the Irish News.
By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
The evidence of the relationship of vitamin D deficiency to increased risk of breast cancer (BC) continues to mount. The latest indication of the crying need for sunshine was recently reported in the July 2013 issue American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.[1] In this research, the serum levels of vitamin D among 120 Saudi women with BC were compared to 120 controls who were BC-free. Questionnaires were given to each group to determine medical and dietary background so that those factors could also be considered as possible causes.
The research showed that women who serum levels were below 10 ng/ml had 6 times the risk of having BC as those whose levels were above 20 ng/ml. Interestingly, both 10 and 20 ng/ml indicate severe deficiency, and one must wonder if even higher levels of vitamin D could have correlated to an even lower risk of the disease. We may never know, since it unlikely that the lifestyles of these women could produce levels much higher than 20 ng/ml; they receive too little sunlight.
This is a result that should have been expected, as it has been known for some time that lack of sunlight and/or vitamin D has a profound predictive influence for increased breast-cancer risk. Remember that about 80-90% of vitamin D is produced by the skin in response to sunlight exposure; therefore, research on vitamin D deficiency and disease is really research on lack of sunlight.
Let’s stop the insanity and get back to regular, non-burning sunlight exposure.
[1] Yousef FM, Jacobs ET, Kang PT, Hakim IA, Going S, Yousef JM, Al-Raddadi RM, Kumosani TA, Thomson CA. Vitamin D status and breast cancer in Saudi Arabian women: case-control study. Am J Clin Nutr 2013;98(1):105-10.
By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
The positive effects of sunlight continue to mount; a study of 415 subjects showed that 16-year olds, who spent more than 4 hours per day in the sunlight during summer, had a significantly reduced risk of eczema and hay fever.[1] The researchers could not pinpoint the reason for the protective effect of sunlight, but surmised that it could be due to a change in the immune system.
There was no correlation of vitamin D levels to the risk of these two disorders, meaning that sunlight exposure worked independently of vitamin D. This is another in a growing list of sunlight benefits demonstrating that sunlight has splendid healing powers beyond its ability to stimulate vitamin D production in the skin. I expect many more such findings in the coming years.
The message is this: get plenty of regular, safe sunlight exposure, and don’t rely on vitamin D supplements to furnish all of Sun’s healing powers; it can’t. Remember also that if vitamin D is needed to improve health, sunlight is the most natural source.
[1] Andrew Stewart Kemp, Anne-Louise Ponsonby, Angela Pezic, Jennifer Ann Cochrane, Terence Dwyer, Graeme Jones. The influence of sun exposure in childhood and adolescence on atopic disease at adolescence. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, article first published online: 3 Jun2013.
–
By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
I have previously written that sunlight exposure correlates to a profoundly reduced risk of prostate cancer (PC). I also and noted that that sunlight exposure per se appeared to be much more important in reducing that cancer than was vitamin D. In fact, some vitamin D studies showed only weak correlations between vitamin D and a reduction in cancer, and the highest levels of serum vitamin D showed a J-shaped curve, meaning that the highest D levels actually correlated to a slightly increased risk. No such increase has been shown with the highest levels of sunlight exposure–quite the opposite. The highest levels of sunlight correlated to the highest levels of protection against PC.
This would indicate that sunlight has protective effects beyond the production of vitamin D. Such effects may be due to the production of serotonin, endorphins and nitric oxide, substances other than vitamin D that are produced by the skin in response to sunlight.
It was with interest, therefore, that I read a recent article describing the effect of sunlight on PC, called “Sunlight could decrease prostate cancer risk.” After reading that sunlight exposure could reduce the risk of PC by 50%, the author unfortunately stated that “this does not mean that men should deliberately sunbathe to reduce their risk of prostate cancer. Outdoor exercise and an adequate amount of vitamin D from diet should be sufficient to afford protection from the disease.” This is not a statement based on science.
The author assumed, of course, that it was vitamin D that caused the correlation of sunlight exposure to reduced risk of PC—a conclusion that may be wholly in error. What we can glean from the research is only that Sunlight exposure correlates to reduced risk of PC. There is no proof whatsoever that the correlation was caused by vitamin D, which is only one of several metabolites produced in the body after stimulation by sunlight.
I have not as yet been able to find the original research on which the article was based and cannot provide a reference at this time. However, you can read the article by going to: http://www.newsfix.ca/2013/05/06/sunlight-could-decrease-prostate-cancer-risk/.
Rekha Sharma, president of the Indian Dietetic Association, states that “Close to 40 per cent of Indians are vitamin D deficient.” He blames the condition on the modern lifestyle that is becoming more and more common. Dr. Sharma then goes on to list a few of the causes, including lack of sunlight, that are correlated to vitamin D. He is doing a great service with this article, but states that exposing the face and arms for a few minutes per day is adequate to optimize blood levels of D. He is totally wrong on that statement.
Another Dr. in the article states that those with dark skin may need 10-30 times the exposure time to sunlight to produce the same amount of vitamin D that a light skinned person would require. There is a large disconnect between the statement that a bit of exposure to the arms and face is sufficient, compared to the idea that dark-skinned people need profoundly large quantities of sunlight to make sufficient vitamin D. Notwithstanding the differences between these two docs, It is an interesting an worthwhile article.
By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
It has been known for decades that those who live closer to the equator have a lower risk of multiple sclerosis (MS).[1] In various pieces of research, Vitamin D produced by sunlight, has been suggested as the factor responsible for the decreasing risk of MS based on proximity to the equator. However, a recent study shows that sunlight, while obviously being critical in the production of vitamin D, has its own profound influence in lessening the degeneration of nerves (neurodegeneration) in those with MS.[2]
By measuring whole brain volume (WBV) and grey-matter volume (GMV) by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the scientists determined that greater summer sunlight exposure predicted greater WBV and GMV in MS patients. Interestingly though, when vitamin D levels were measured, they had no influence on the positive effects of sunlight exposure with WBV or GMV. The researchers concluded: “Sun exposure may have direct effects on MRI measures of neurodegeneration in MS, independently of vitamin D.”
This research opens the door to a whole new area of research on vitamin D. The idea that brain volume is correlated to sunlight exposure independently of vitamin D blood levels causes one to wonder how many other research papers, touting the benefits of vitamin D, might be reassessed to determine if sunlight exposure had its own benefits beyond its ability to cause the production of vitamin D in skin.
The idea that WBV and GMV are greater in those exposed to sunlight also brings up the possibility that IQ could be influenced positively by sunlight exposure. It has also been shown that autism is more prevalent in areas of less sunlight exposure and more common to occur in children with wintertime births. Could the pregnant mother’s sunlight exposure have an influence on fetal-brain development beyond the level of vitamin D produced in her body? Could that influence improve IQ? Could factors such as nitric-oxide production by the UVA portion of sunlight play a role? And, beyond brain and nerve protection and development, could there be independent protective influences of sunlight on the myriad diseases correlated to vitamin D deficiency—diseases such as heart disease, hypertension and cancer?
As Dr. Bernard Ackerman once stated, “the sun, now incriminated as the major culprit responsible for an “epidemic” of melanoma, will be rehabilitated from its status current of pariah, our worst enemy, to its place rightful, all things considered, namely, humankind’s best friend.”[3]
The fact—that research is proving sunlight has beneficial effects beyond vitamin D production—shows that the rehabilitation has begun.
[1] Acheson ED. Some comments on the relationship of the distribution of multiple sclerosis to latitude, solar radiation, and other variables. Acta Neurol Scand 1960;35:132-47.
[2] Zivadinov R, Treu CN, Weinstock-Guttman B, Turner C, Bergsland N, O’Connor K, Dwyer MG, Carl E, Ramasamy DP, Qu J, Ramanathan M. Interdependence and contributions of sun exposure and vitamin D to MRI measures in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013 Feb 5. [Epub ahead of print]<?xml:namespace prefix = o />
[3] A Bernard Ackerman, dermatologist. The Sun and the “Epidemic” of Melanoma: Myth on Myth! 2008.
By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
An excellent article from Science Daily discusses a new piece of research from the journal, Endocrine Abstracts, which has provided evidence that vitamin D supplementation (in persons who are deficient) can provide increased muscle efficiency. The mechanism occurs in the mitochondria, which are the power-generating engines in all body cells. Vitamin D replenishment may help the mitochondria to use glucose and oxygen to make the ATP, which is a ready source of energy. Part of the process of producing ATP is accomplished by a chemical called phosphocreatine. If phosphocreatine cannot be replenished quickly after muscle work, then recovery from muscle fatigue will be slow, and the person experiencing this slow recovery will experience an inability to feel energetic.
This research showed that after 10-12 weeks of vitamin D treatment among patients with muscle fatigue, the replenishment of phosphocreatine occurred about 20% faster, and all patients reported improvement in symptoms of fatigue. The article also mentioned that a parallel study, the group demonstrated that low vitamin D levels were associated with reduced mitochondrial function. The takeaway from this research is that chronic fatigue may be lessened by optimizing vitamin D levels.
The authors of the Science Daily article described vitamin D as “…a hormone produced in the skin using energy from sunlight, and to a lesser extent derived from dietary sources.” We all know that sunlight is the only natural way to produce vitamin D, so it was good to see them give sunlight its due. In the future, I believe it will be confirmed that chronic fatigue can be relieved in people who are deficient in vitamin D, simply by getting in the sunlight!
By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
Vitamin D has a multitude of health benefits, and the only natural way to obtain vitamin D is from sunlight exposure, which causes the skin to produce vitamin D3. The D3 is then is converted to a potent hormone that “turns on” more than 1,000 genes in the genetic engine. As I studied the scientific literature regarding vitamin D and sunlight, I noticed, however, that the strongest and most consistent health benefits were often related more closely to sunlight exposure per se, than to vitamin D supplementation or vitamin D blood levels. Some of my earliest observations regarded prostate cancer and osteoporosis, where vitamin D supplementation and high blood levels of vitamin D seemed generally effective, but exposure to sunlight was profoundly effective.
I also noted that vitamin D supplementation seemed to decrease osteoporotic fractures, but sunlight exposure could actually reverse the disease. (See my previous post). And of course, we know that sunlight or other ultraviolet light exposure dramatically enhances mood.
One of the latest studies to corroborate my observations was published in the European Journal of Cancer in December, 2012, and was entitled, is prevention of cancer by sun exposure more than just the effect of vitamin D? A systematic review of epidemiological studies.[i] In their review, the authors noted that regular sunlight exposure correlated to a reduced risk of colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). However, vitamin D levels correlated to a reduced risk of colorectal, and to a lesser extent, breast cancer, but were not correlated to a significant risk reduction in prostate cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The authors concluded with this statement: “Particularly in prostate cancer and NHL, other sunlight-potentiated and vitamin D-independent pathways, such as modulation of the immune system and the circadian rhythm, and the degradation of folic acid, might play a role in reduced cancer risk as well.”
The authors could have also mentioned the effect of sunlight on vasodilation, mediated by the production of nitric oxide (produced by the skin after sunlight exposure). They could also have discussed the influence of sunlight on production of serotonin and endorphins. These effects have nothing to do with vitamin D, and future research will determine whether these “beyond-vitamin D” effects also reduce the risk of various cancers.
Vitamin D is an exceptionally important product of sunlight, but it is hardly the only product. I predict that a whole new field of research on other photoproducts of sunlight exposure will soon emerge and provide impressive new knowledge regarding the life-and-health giving benefits of our most precious friend, the sun.
[i] van der Rhee H, Coebergh JW, de Vries E. Is prevention of cancer by sun exposure more than just the effect of vitamin D? A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Eur J Cancer. 2012 Dec 10. pii: S0959-8049(12)00885-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.11.001. [Epub ahead of print] <?xml:namespace prefix = o />
The Institute of Medicine (IOM), in 2010, put forth its recommendations for daily supplementation of vitamin D. They suggested that infants under a year old ingest 400 IU per day, that adults ingest 600 IU per day and that those over 70 years of age take 800 IU per day. Since the sunlight can stimulate the production of up to 20,000 IU per day, it can easily be seen that such recommendations are abysmally low for those addults who are not receiving any sunlight, or where winter conditions prevent any vitamin D production by the sun.
The Vitamin D Society (VDS) of Canada has just posted a press release that illustrates the incongruity of the IOM recommendations based on weight. Perry Holman, Executive Director of the Society, correctly points out that it is counterintuitive to recommend so much more vitamin D per pound to an infant than an adult. The IOM recommendations would provide a 10-pound baby 40 units of vitamin D per pound, whereas a 200-pound adult would receive only 3 IU per pound. Vitamin D scientists suggest that 1000 IU for every 25 pounds of bodyweight is best, so why should the IOM be so prejudicial as to allow adults only about one-thirteenth the amount of vitamin D per pound as an infant? These are supposed to be intelligent people, no?
In reality, The IOM recommendation of 400 IU is right on target for the 10-pound infant, considering the recommendation of the vitamin D scientists for 1,000 IU per 25 pounds of bodyweight. The problem lies in the fact that for the other two age groups, it is woefully inadequate. Thanks to Perry Holman and the VDS for pointing out the lack of consistency and clear thinking on the part of the IOM.
And remember, we do not need to worry about any of this nonsense if we simply get out in the summer sun, or, when sunlight is not available, use some other source of UVB light to produce our vitamin D. The body will self-regulate its production, and we will never need to worry about how many units are necessary. Just remember never to burn either the infant or the adult! Moderation and common sense is the key.
By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
The Skin Cancer Foundation recently posted a press release on their website stating that they have busted the “myths surrounding vitamin D and sun exposure.” In it they quote Perry Robins, president of the foundation, as saying, “The misconception that exposure to UVB radiation is the optimal source of vitamin D puts people at risk for potentially life-threatening skin cancer. Furthermore, in most cases the body stops producing vitamin D after just a few minutes of sun exposure.”[1]
The idea, that sunlight exposure is the optimal source of vitamin D, is not a misconception–as will be explained below. We will also discuss the fact, that while the skin may cease producing vitamin D after 20 minutes of full-body exposure, it is because it has produced all the vitamin D the body needs—up to an impressive 20,000 international units (IU). Since many multi-vitamin supplements contain only 400-600 IU, it is obviously best to make sunlight the primary source of vitamin D.
In addition, the SCF press release states that “About 86 percent of melanomas (the most dangerous form of skin cancer) and 90 percent of nonmelanoma skin cancers are associated with exposure to UV radiation.”[2] The citation, of course, comes from a dermatological journal, Archives of Dermatology. Here are a few facts the SCF should have considered: (a) Whereas common skin cancers such as squamous-cell carcinoma is more common among those who are regularly in the sunlight, the risk of the deadly melanoma is considerably reduced by regular sunlight exposure.[3] (b) In addition, it should be known that most melanoma occurs on areas of the body that are seldom or never exposed to sunlight.[4] [5] [6]
Other facts that belie the aforementioned statements made by the SCF in their press release are these: (a) Outdoor workers, while receiving 3-9-times the sunlight exposure as indoor workers, have had no increase in melanoma since 1940, (b)whereas melanoma in indoor workers has increased steadily and exponentially.[7] Quite obviously, if sunlight exposure led to melanoma, outdoor workers would have the greatest incidence of the disease and indoor workers would have a lesser incidence. That the opposite is the case is also manifested by numerous scientific papers showing that those with more regular exposure to sunlight have a lesser risk of melanoma.[8]
It should also be noted that sunlight exposure has profoundly decreased in the last hundred and ten years due to a population that has moved indoors. For example, indoor occupations such as “professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service workers (except private household service workers) grew from one-quarter to three-quarters of total employment between 1910 and 2000.” The outdoor occupation of farming decreased by 96%.[9] Yet, the Melanoma International Foundation (MIF) has stated that ultraviolet radiation from sunlight causes melanoma and should be avoided as a detriment to human health. They also state that melanoma incidence has increased by 3,000% since 1935.[10] Try to figure out that reasoning! Considering that the population has moved indoors, it becomes obvious that there is a terrible disconnect between the facts and the statements of both the SCF and the MIF. The SCF is closely allied with sunscreen manufacturers. Could this press release be nothing more than a ploy to increase sunscreen sales?
And speaking of sunscreens, the increase in sunscreen sales is dramatic,[11] [12] and the incidence of melanoma continues to skyrocket in spite of its use.[13] The blockage of sunlight by sunscreens correlates to an increased risk of melanoma, and yet the MIF and SCF state that we need to avoid the sunlight? Give me a break! Still, the SCF has stated that “for adequate protection against melanoma, non-melanoma skin cancers and photo-aging, everyone over the age of six months should use sunscreen daily year-round, in any weather.” Yes, they are suggesting that we use sunscreen even in cloudy weather in the winter! How convenient for an organization, which works closely with sunscreen manufacturers, to make such a statement. Could there be a conflict of interest here?
The SCF press release discusses three statements that they label as “myths.” Let’s look at these statements by the Skin Cancer Foundation to determine which are really myths, and which are really facts.
The Foundation lists the following statements as myths:
1. UVB radiation is a good source of vitamin D.
2. Sun exposure is the only source of vitamin D
3. Tanning beds are a healthy option for boosting vitamin D levels.
Let’s take a look at each statement and then look at the facts:
#1 UVB radiation is a good source of vitamin D. This is not a myth! UVB radiation from 10-15 minutes of full-body exposure to peak summer sunshine can stimulate the production of up to 20,000 IU of vitamin D.[14] Indeed, UVB radiation is an incredibly effective source of vitamin D, and that is no myth. Any statement to the contrary is false.
#2 Sun exposure is the only source of vitamin D. No such myth, to my knowledge, has been propagated. A myth is an unproved or false collective belief. There is no false collective belief that sun exposure is the only source of vitamin D. However, sunlight is certainly by far the best source of vitamin D. For example, cod liver oil has about 400 IU per teaspoon; salmon, 400 IU per 3.5 oz. serving; fortified milk, 100 IU per 8 oz. glass; and fortified orange juice 100 IU per 8 oz. glass. Compare this to 20,000 IU from sun exposure; it’s no contest.[15]
#3 Tanning beds are a healthy option for boosting vitamin D levels. This is not a myth!
An excellent study compared 50 people who used tanning beds regularly with 106 who did not. The tanning-bed group had 90% higher vitamin D levels and significantly higher bone density.[16] Other research has shown that (a) Women who use tanning beds have a reduced risk of endometrial cancer of 40-50%.[17] (b) There is a significantly lowered risk of venous thrombotic events among women who use tanning beds when compared with those who do not.[18] (c) Tanning-bed use is inversely correlated to breast-cancer risk.[19]
Fortunately, organizations beyond the SCF are “seeing the light.” Cancer Research UK has joined with other health organizations to make a consensus statement regarding sunlight and vitamin D.[20] Those organizations are British Association of Dermatologists, Cancer Research UK, Diabetes UK, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the National Heart Forum, the National Osteoporosis Society and the Primary Care Dermatology Society. Here is the first part of the statement: “Vitamin D is essential for good bone health, and for most people sunlight is the most important source of vitamin D. The time required to make sufficient vitamin D varies according to a number of environmental, physical and personal factors, but is typically short and less than the amount of time needed for skin to redden and burn. Enjoying the sun safely, while taking care not to burn, can help to provide the benefits of vitamin D without unduly raising the risk of skin cancer.”
The aforementioned dermatological and other health societies of the UK do not consider the health benefits of responsible sun exposure to be a myth. Why, then, does the SCF consider themselves so much more intelligent than these organizations? This may be the clue: There are 69 corporate sponsors of the SCF, each of which pays at least $10,000 per year for the privilege of belonging to the “Corporate Council.[21] If you look at the SCF Corporate-Council page, you will note that many of the members are involved in producing or selling products for skin protection, i.e. sunscreens. Is it any wonder that the SCF suggests year-round sunscreen use, even in cloudy, wintry weather? It certainly smacks of some quid pro quo, no?
Let’s get some safe sunlight as recommended by Cancer Research UK and other reputable organizations across the pond and forget about the biased and irresponsible SCF.
[1] http://www.skincancer.org/media-and-press/press-release-2013/vitamin-d
[2] Koh HK, Geller AC, Miller DR, Grossbart TA, Lew RA. Prevention and early detection strategies for melanoma and skin cancer: Current status. Archives of Dermatology 1996; 132: 436-442.
[3] Grant, WB. An ecologic study of cancer mortality rates in Spain with respect to indices of solar UVB irradiance and smoking. Int J Cancer. 2007 Mar 1;120(5):1123-8.
[4] Garland FC, White MR, Garland CF, Shaw E, Gorham ED. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the USA Navy. Arch Environ Health 1990; 45:261-67.
[5] Rivers, J. Is there more than one road to melanoma? Lancet 2004;363:728-30.
[6] Crombie, I. Racial differences in melanoma incidence. Br J Cancer 1979;40:185-93.
[7] Godar DE, Landry RJ, Lucas AD. Increased UVA exposures and decreased cutaneous Vitamin D3 levels may be responsible for the increasing incidence of melanoma. Med hypothesis (2009), doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.09.056
[8] Lee J. Melanoma and exposure to sunlight. Epidemiol Rev 1982;4:110–36.
Vågero D, Ringbäck G, Kiviranta H. Melanoma and other tumors of the skin among office, other indoor and outdoor workers in Sweden 1961–1979 Brit J Cancer 1986;53:507–12.
Kennedy C, Bajdik CD, Willemze R, De Gruijl FR, Bouwes Bavinck JN; Leiden Skin Cancer Study. The influence of painful sunburns and lifetime sun exposure on the risk of actinic keratoses, seborrheic warts, melanocytic nevi, atypical nevi, and skin cancer. Invest Dermatol 2003;120:1087–93.
Garland FC, White MR, Garland CF, Shaw E, Gorham ED. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the USA Navy. Arch Environ Health 1990; 45:261-67.
Kaskel P, Sander S, Kron M, Kind P, Peter RU, Krähn G. Outdoor activities in childhood: a protective factor for cutaneous melanoma? Results of a case-control study in 271 matched pairs. Br J Dermatol 2001;145:602-09.
Garsaud P, Boisseau-Garsaud AM, Ossondo M, Azaloux H, Escanmant P, Le Mab G. Epidemiology of cutaneous melanoma in the French West Indies (Martinique). Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:66-8.
Le Marchand l, Saltzman S, Hankin JH, Wilkens LR, Franke SJM, Kolonel N. Sun exposure, diet and melanoma in Hawaii Caucasians. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:232-45.
Armstong K, Kricker A. The epidemiology of UV induced skin cancer. J Photochem Biol 2001;63:8-18
Crombie IK. Distribution of malignant melanoma on the body surface. Br J Cancer 1981;43:842-9.
Crombie IK. Variation of melanoma incidence with latitude in North America and Europe. Br J Cancer 1979;40:774-81.
Weinstock MA, Colditz,BA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ. Bronstein, BR, Speizer FE. Nonfamilial cutaneous melanoma incidence in women associated with sun exposure before 20 years of age. Pediatrics 1989;84:199-204.
Tucker MA, Goldstein AM. Melanoma etiology: where are we? Oncogene 2003;22:3042-52.
Berwick M, Armstrong BK, Ben-Porat L, Fine J, Kricker A, Eberle C. Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Nat Cancer Inst 2005;97:95-199.
Veierød MB, Weiderpass E, Thörn M, Hansson J, Lund E, Armstrong B. A prospective study of pigmentation, sun exposure, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1530-8.
Oliveria SA, Saraiya M, Geller AC, Heneghan MK, Jorgensen C. Sun exposure and risk of melanoma. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:131-8.
Elwood JM, Gallagher RP, Hill GB, Pearson JCG. Cutaneous melanoma in relation to intermittent and constant sun exposure—the western Canada melanoma study. Int J Cancer 2006;35:427-33
[9] Ian D. Wyatt and Daniel E. Hecker. Occupational changes in the 20th century. Monthly Labor Review, March 2006 pp 35-57: Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[10] 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.
[11] Kline & Company’s Cosmetics & Toiletries USA Annual Service (1972 and 2008 editions).
[12] Fredonia market research group report, 2009.
[13] Melanoma incidence in Connecticut, 1936-1999. Source: Connecticut Tumor Registry.
[14] Hollis, BW. Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels indicative of vitamin D sufficiency: implications for establishing a new effective dietary intake recommendation for vitamin D. J Nutr 2005 Feb;135(2):317-22.
[15] Holick, MF. High Prevalence of Vitamin D Inadequacy and Implications for Health. MAYO CLIN PROC. 2006;81:353-373
[16] Tangpricha, V. et al. Tanning is associated with optimal vitamin D status (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration) and higher vitamin D levels. Am J Clin Nutr 2004:80:1645-49.
[17] Epstein E, et al. A population-based cohort study on sun habits and endometrial cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009 Aug 4;101(3):537-40.
[18] Lindqvist PG et al., Does an active sun exposure habit lower the risk of venous thrombotic events? A D-lightful hypothesis. J Thromb Haemost 2009;7:605-10.
[19] Yang L, et al. Prospective study of UV exposure and cancer incidence among Swedish women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Published Online May 6, 2011.
[20]http://www.sunsmart.org.uk/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@sun/documents/generalcontent/cr_052628.pdf.
[21] Corporate Council page, Skin Cancer Foundation. Accessible at http://www.skincancer.org/about-us/corporate-supporters/corporate-council.