While it is beyond dispute that sun exposure to the skin is the natural, intended and most-efficient source of vitamin D production, dermatology\u2019s leaders continue to suggest that nature was wrong by promoting vitamin D supplements to the exclusion of sun exposure.<\/p>\n
“We don’t like to advocate UV exposure as a way to get Vitamin D. Why would you expose yourself to the sun and its carcinogens when you don’t have to?” \u2014 Dr. Lynn Cornelius, chief of dermatology at Washington University in St. Louis, in an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch this week.<\/p>\n
Could that sentence be any more ludicrous? \u201cThe sun and its carcinogens.\u201d No acknowledgement that sun exposure is necessary for all life on earth \u2014 calling it dangerous is akin to saying that water causes drowning, and therefore people should avoid all water. No acknowledgement that sunlight deprivation has other effects on the body besides vitamin D deficiency. Just a simple one-sided sentence.<\/p>\n
And what is meant by \u201cits carcinogens\u201d \u2014 a statement that makes it sound like sunlight comes packed with a cadre of bad guys. Look at the U.S. government\u2019s definition of \u201ccarcinogen\u201d and you see that things called carcinogens are not necessarily carcinogenic to people in everyday dosages. Such is the case with sunshine. Since all life would cease without it, there\u2019s obviously an intended dosage of it. And dermatology leaders \u2014 despite insisting you avoid it \u2014 can\u2019t point to solid data saying how much you actually need to be healthy.<\/p>\n
Vitamin D researchers, on the other hand, know that human vitamin D levels have plummeted in the last generation, according to the government\u2019s own data. Misuse-through-overuse of sunscreen is the only plausible explanation for that one-generation decrease. Dermatology has countered that the now-lower levels we\u2019ve arrived at are still healthy \u2014 despite the fact that vitamin D researchers universally disagree.<\/p>\n
Vitamin D is almost completely absent in diet \u2014 unless you catch fresh fatty fish and eat it several times a week. Dermatology, in telling people to turn to diet and to take a pill, is still in the dark when it comes to vitamin D.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
SmartTan.com news articles regularly report medical and scientific information to keep you abreast of current events related to UV light. This information is not intended to be used by any party to make unwarranted health claims to promote sunbed usage. Indoor tanning businesses are obligated to communicate a fair and balanced message to all clients about your products and services including the potential risks associated with indoor tanning. Contact your Smart Tan representative to find out more about what you can and can\u2019t say in your tanning salon business.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a9 2012 International Smart Tan Network. All rights reserved.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" While it is beyond dispute that sun exposure to the skin is the natural, intended and most-efficient source of vitamin D production, dermatology\u2019s leaders continue to suggest that nature was wrong by promoting vitamin D supplements to the exclusion of sun exposure. “We don’t like to advocate UV exposure as a way to get Vitamin […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10783","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\n