(A decade old article still vindicated by current research)

Not only are these products bogus science and easy revenue hype for various collaborating industries, including the certification labs and plastic surgeons, but also criminal perpetuation of same by actively contributing to photo-ageing and even more atrociously, actually criminally increasing the risk of the deeper and far more deadly skin cancers, as well as critically suppressing other essential factors reliant on natural sun exposure for optimum health and prevention of not only skin cancer, but also eg. menopausal complications, seasonal depression, both high blood cholesterol and blood pressure, vitamin D deficiency, osteoporosis and even cancers other than that of the skin, especially prostate cancer (Cancer, Dec. 1992 & Anticancer Research, Sept./Oct. 1990) and breast cancer (International Journal of Epidemiology, Dec. 1990), the fastest growing cancer epidemics amongst males and females respectively. SPF products are risk-laden beyond your wildest imagination - causing all skin cancers!

Increasing chemical sunscreen use is scientifically linked not only to greater risk of chemical carcinogenesis (chemically induced cancer - higher SPF’s = more chemical ingredients = increased likelihood of carcinogenicity) (and allergic reactions - Archives of Dermatology, Nov. 1992)], but also directly to increased more serious basal cell carcinoma and especially deadly malignant melanoma (Annals of Epidemiology, Jan. 1993), due to criminally misleading photo-dynamics propaganda by so-called university and medical “experts”, who in spite of knowing that SPF’s relate only to UV-B (burning & superficial cancer) and minimally, if at all to UV-A (ageing & deep cancers), still falsely promote these as enabling prolonged safe exposure as a multiple of the Sun Protection Factor (SPF) and also exaggerate the pitiful protection potential of such products against skin cancers generally.

In reality these sunscreen promoting pseudo-experts are actually irresponsibly encouraging severely increased and imbalanced deadly UV-A exposure, which they should know significantly comprises more than 90% of the total UV spectrum and which excessive exposure only such mal-applied chemical cocktails render not only possible, but also probable by artificially delaying the natural inflammatory erythematous (reddening) warning signals which would otherwise alert one to the fact that one’s evolutionary/ethnic/medical tolerance level for solar exposure was being exceeded (Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Jan. 1994). SPFs represent false security.

A maximally achievable chemical UV-A sunscreen, in spite of the “broad spectrum” promotional hype, would only have an extrapolated SPF of about 4, which would in any event be comparable to a light tan, which tan significantly, in terms of UV-B protection, would amount to as much as 75% of the only 5-10% of the UV spectrum comprised of UV-B and the remaining 25% of which, if not screened, would contribute important biological protective factors, since it photo-activates vitamin D precursors having anti-tumor effects, which if blocked by sunscreen, could allow UV-A induced deadly melanoma to develop more readily (Medical Chronicle, Jun. 1993). UV-B also excites cells into producing immuno-alerting interleukins and even mild UV-B induced sunburn flaking is a critical protective response whereby UV genetically damaged cells commit suicide (apoptosis) and are safely sloughed-off (Nature, Dec. 22, 1994). UV-B damage is generally superficial and self-heals, UV-A is the opposite.

UV-B sunscreen protection does not imply immuno-protection (Dermatology, Mar. 1993) and since the activation of melanocytes by UV-A alone takes considerably longer and exerts greater direct immuo-suppressive effects (Photochemistry and Photobiology, Feb. 1993), the longer exposures needed to develop a healthy & protective tan pose about the same cancer risk for superficial cancers and five times that for deeper cancers, since what is vulnerable to carcinogenic transformation is not the surface skin but the proliferating cells below (Health Physics, Oct. 1994). UV-B exposure is needed to trigger biological cancer protection pathways against UV-A exposure.

Sunburn protection does not imply skin cancer protection and yet industries and organisations reliant on cancer for their prosperity, including medical and cancer associations, perpetuate the lie of cancer protection from sunscreen use, despite the absence of evidence for this position (New England Journal of Medicine, Oct. 1993) and considerable evidence to the contrary, namely that increased skin cancers are associated with increased chemical sunscreen use (Garland C, et al, American Journal of Public Health, 82(4): 614, 1992), (Wolf P, et al, Journal of the National cancer Institute, 86(2): 99, 1994), (Autier P, et al, International Journal of Cancer, 61(6): 749, 1995), (Sabri K & Harvey I, Public Health, 110(6): 347, 1996), (Autier P, et al Melanoma Research, 7(S2): S115, 1997), (Davenport V, et al, Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 108(8): 859, 1997). SPF rated products decrease superficial UV-B burning, but clearly increases the risk of developing deadly UV-A induced skin cancers.