Sunbathing: good or bad?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Is it better to bask in the sun and boost your production of Vitamin D or hide from its rays and the potential skin cancer they cause? A new study leans toward the former, at least for those from the high latitudes, like Scandinavia. Quoting from the press release: "We know that solar radiation is the leading cause of skin cancer," said biophysicist Richard Setlow of Brookhaven National Laboratory and a well-known expert on the link between solar radiation and skin cancer. But "since vitamin D has been shown to play a protective role in a number of internal cancers and possibly a range of other diseases, it is important to study the relative risks to determine whether advice to avoid sun exposure may be causing more harm than good in some populations." According to their results (which involve modeling human exposure to sunlight by treating us as cylinders), skin cancers go up with increased sun exposure but deaths from internal cancers--such as colon, lung, breast and prostate--go down. The researchers proposed solution is to reformulate sunscreens so that cancer-causing ultraviolet A light is filtered out while Vitamin D producing UVB light is allowed through. But research has fingered UVB in cancer production as well. A feature article in our November issue weighed the conundrum as well, arguing for more Vitamin D, whether through sun exposure or diet. So if you're still afraid of the sun (like pale, pale me), drink more milk.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe