Recent research claims we're getting more sun savvy. If you believe the hype, we're slapping on the high-factor sunscreen, leaving the midday sun to the mad dogs, and carefully covering up.
Except we're not, are we? We might be telling market researchers, and even ourselves, that that's what we're doing.
But, in fact, we're being just as irresponsible in the sun as we Brits have always been.
Take Phoebe Richards, 17, whose face - and body - hit the headlines a few weeks ago when her skin erupted into huge blisters on a flight back from Portugal.
Sun lovers: Sandra Richards and Debbie Banks show off their tans
She insisted she'd been careful in the sun during her two-week holiday in the Algarve.
And despite admitting she had been 'a little bit burnt', she attributed the blisters to the pressure in the cabin, or an allergic reaction to the sun.
Cosmetic dermatologist Dr Sam Bunting is utterly unconvinced. 'I don't think there is anything in these images to indicate an allergic reaction to the sun, nor do I think that cabin pressure played a role in the development of blisters.
'I think it more likely that this is simply bad, blistering sunburn.'
But what about Phoebe's claims that she had stayed out of the sun between the hours of 12 and 4pm? That she'd religiously plastered her body in factor 15 and 20 suncream?
'Either she wasn't using sun protection properly, or she's kidding herself about her behaviour in the sun.'
The thing is, she's not the only one. Last week, I travelled to the Costa Del Sol with Dr Bunting to see whether Britons really are getting the message about safety in the sun. What we found was genuinely shocking.
In the course of a single day on the beaches around the popular resorts of Fuengirola, Marbella and Puerto Banus, we came across teenagers so desperate to get a tan that they were basting themselves in cooking oil; seasoned sun-worshippers scorching themselves for spurious health reasons; and even well-intentioned parents, whose attempts at protecting their children could actually be storing up serious problems for the future.
Our trip coincided with the first full week of the school summer holidays and, despite recommendations that people avoid the sun when it's at its hottest - between 11am and 3pm - at midday, with the temperature at around 31C, the beaches were packed with families soaking up the sun.
Feeling the burn: Tim Lloyd from Hitchin with his three children Thomas, Thillana and Naomi with their nanny Mandy Skeet
Among the first people we spoke to were Debbie Banks, 50, and Sandra Richards, 57, friends from North Wales.
They've been visiting this part of Spain for the past 25 years and, eight years ago, bought property in the area.
They now visit around ten times a year and, as their deep mahogany tans suggest, they're dedicated sun-worshippers.
'I love sunbathing and I do put cream on,' says Debbie. 'But the highest I'll go is a factor ten, and I suppose I'm not very good about putting it on over and over again.
'Still, my skin's used to the sun and if I had anything sinister, like a mole or anything, I'd get it looked at.'
Dr Bunting is unimpressed. 'Her skin's not used to the sun, it's actually suffering from what's called actinic bronzing, chronic sun exposure over long periods of time which leads to this sort of permanently heavily pigmented, weathered appearance - a sign of extensive sun damage.'
RED ALERT
Malignant melanoma is the second most common cancer among young adults
The British Association of Dermatologists recommends using a minimum of SPF 30, and how you apply it is crucial.
Most people don't use anything like enough lotion (use at least two tablespoons worth to cover the whole body).
'You sweat, you're in and out of the water and, even if it's water resistant, it's not always towel resistant,' Dr Bunting explains, adding that you should aim to reapply every 90 minutes.
Sandra thinks she's become more sun savvy with age, although she, like Debbie, doesn't tend to use much above SPF 10.
'I think you bury your head in the sand about the risks when you're younger,' says Sandra.
'Now I use suncream more than ever because I am worried about skin cancer.
She adds: 'One summer, I did decide not to go out in the sun at all, but I was just miserable. I feel sad when I don't get a dose of sunshine.
'Now, if the sun's out, I sit in it.' 'Besides, the sun's good for you, isn't it?' Debbie adds. 'It gives you vitamins.'
In fact, if you're suffering from Seasonal Affective Disorder (a condition that leads to depression in the winter months) you don't have to sit in direct sunlight to benefit from it and, while the body does need sunlight to produce vitamin D, you only need to have your face in the sun for 10 to 15 minutes, twice a week, to get all the vitamins you need.
Ouch: A woman sits in the midday sun, seemingly oblivious to the damage it is doing to her skin
But Debbie and Sandra were quite typical of the holidaymakers we encountered. They knew that they were endangering their health with their behaviour in the sun, but glossed over this with a combination of a perfunctory application of sunscreen and selectively remembered facts about the sun's benefits.
Further along the beach we met Nicola Cordt, 38, and her husband Simon, 37, from Luton, taking a long weekend break without their children.
Nicola admitted that while she was careful to make sure her children never burnt in the sun, she was less diligent with her own body.
'I start off with factor six and then when I get burnt I put on a higher factor. I know it's silly, but I feel better with a suntan,' she says. 'Of course I worry about skin cancer, but not enough to change.'
However, even she admitted that the strong July sun had caught her off guard. 'We normally come a bit later when it's not quite so hot and then I'll happily bake in the sun from 9am to 9pm.'
Simon, on the other hand, says he doesn't actively seek a tan, usually applies factor 20 and stays in the shade, yet he was also obviously sunburnt.
FAIR LADIES
Pale skin was once prized: Elizabethan women painted blue lines on their foreheads to make skin look translucent
'Again, Nicola knows that she's not being sensible in the sun, but the worry is that Simon thinks he is,' says Dr Bunting.
'There's a real disjunct between his perceived behaviour in the sun and his actual behaviour.'
Many parents we spoke to, like Nicola, were conscientious about keeping their children protected from the sun, even if they would happily burn themselves.
It remains to be seen whether, as this generation grows up, they will continue to protect themselves in the sun or imitate their parents' cavalier attitude to it.
But sun protection is a complicated business - and even with the best intentions, we don't always get it right.
Like many parents we met, Tim Lloyd, from Hitchin, Herts, uses the once-a-day sunscreen, P20, on his three children Thomas, eight, Thillana, four, and Naomi, three.
'They say you can put it on once a day, but we usually apply it once in the morning and once after lunch.
'The children don't like having suncream on, so the fewer times you have to do it, the better. And it works, they've never been burnt.'
But Dr Bunting has serious reservations about once- a- day sunscreens. 'There are two main types of skin cancer. 'The most serious is melanoma, or mole cancer. Less serious, and more common, are nonmelanoma cancers.
'We know that sunburn, which is caused by the UVB rays of the sun, increases your risk for both types of cancer, and as a result, suncream has, historically, concentrated on protecting against UVB rays.'
However, more recent research suggests that a different type of radiation, UVA, could be a ticking timebomb.
Long-term problems: Skin cancer is the most devastating result of exposure to the sun, but leathery aged skin is also a problem
'Unlike UVB, you can't actually see the damage it causes immediately, but it's believed to play a significant role in melanoma. Studies show that exposure to UVA-emitting sunbeds is related to an increase in melanoma risk, so unwitting exposure to UVA radiation now could lead to serious problems later.'
The SPF figure on sunscreen relates only to UVB, and while P20 and other similar products do claim to offer some UVA protection, Dr Bunting's concern is that they simply don't provide enough.
'In a way, it's almost worse because it lulls people into a false sense of security,' she says.
'At least if you're burning, you're forced to cover up, or stay out of the sun.'
Well, that's what you'd think. We came across Kate, 16, and a friend from Northern Ireland, holidaying with their parents. I was impressed to see Kate's 15-year-old friend was spritzing herself with factor 50.
FIVE GOLDEN RULES TO STAY SAFE IN THE SUN
- A tan is a sign your skin is damaged so if you want to be brown, fake it
- Avoid the sun between 11am and 3pm
- Wear at least SPF 30, reapply every 90 minutes, and use at least 2 tbsp worth to cover your body
- Look for a product with high UVA protection, as the SPF only relates to UVB. If you want to be sure of the best protection, buy an Australian product, such as SunSense (sunsense.co.uk), here, suncream is assessed from a medical, not cosmetic, perspective.
- Sitting under a shade or parasol alone will not stop you from getting burnt, so ensure you still apply sunscreen. Up to a third of UV rays still penetrate through an umbrella.
But as we got closer, it seemed that despite the high factor, she was noticeably sunburnt.
'I'm only using factor 50 because I burnt yesterday,' she explains.
We ask her what factor she was using yesterday and I'm truly shocked by her response.
'Cooking oil,' she tells us, showing us a bottle of lotion that they've emptied and filled with oil.
'My parents would kill me if they knew what we were doing. They think we're wearing factor 15, not cooking oil.'
'It gives you cancer, but it makes you tan,' says Kate, shrugging her shoulders.
So today they're using factor 50 on the bits they burnt yesterday, and cooking oil on the bits that aren't yet burnt. 'I think you tan quicker if you burn first,' says Kate.
She's not alone. A recent poll by the Teenage Cancer Trust discovered that more than a quarter of 13 to 19 year olds deliberately get sunburnt in the belief their burn will turn into a tan later.
Kate has a sprinkle of freckles across her nose and I ask if she finds that her freckles get worse when she sits in the sun with cooking oil on her face.
'Oh I don't use cooking oil on my face,' she tells me. 'I use lemon juice. We did our research on the internet and found what would get us tanned quicker and what would get rid of the freckles,' she adds.
'We'll worry about skin cancer later if it happens, we just prefer the way we look when we're tanned.'
Given just how many people cited improving their physical appearance as their reason for wanting a tan, it was staggering how few made the connection between things such as wrinkles and age spots, and their exposure to the sun.
We were frequently told: 'That's just part of getting old, it happens to everyone.'
In fact, according to Dr Bunting, around 70 per cent of the signs of ' ageing' that we saw were attributable to sun exposure.
'It might be natural, but it's also totally preventable,' she says.
But the real stumbling point is that a tan is still perceived as healthy. From a medical perspective, that notion is as ludicrous as suggesting walking around with bruises from head-to-toe is desirable.
'A tan is a sign your skin is damaged,' says Dr Bunting. 'But it seems people aren't getting that message.'
Costa Del Sol holiday: Nicola and Simon Cordt were keen to protect their children but less worried about themselves
Perhaps, more worryingly, I feel that people are getting that message but are choosing to ignore it. According to Cancer Research UK, skin cancer is not only the most common form of cancer in the UK, with six people a day dying from the disease, but also one of the fastest growing.
However, because of the length of time it takes for these cancers to develop, what we're seeing now reflects what we did in the Seventies and Eighties.
It will be some decades before we see how our current sun behaviour translates into cancer statistics. But judging from our trip, things aren't going to improve.
The sun damage that we witnessed on the Costa Del Sol is just a short-lived, superficial souvenir of a combination of self-delusion and confusion.
What's more concerning is that it could be the predictor of a lethal legacy in the future.
Because, in many ways the situation is worse than it was in the Seventies. At least a generation ago, we genuinely had the excuse that we didn't know any better. These days it seems we're wilfully playing Russian roulette with our health.
Somehow, dying of ignorance is less shocking than the prospect of dying of vanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment