Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Vitamin D casts cancer prevention in new light

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:05 PM EDT 30/04/07

Bombshell U.S. study will tie incidence rate to lack of sunshine rather than pollutants ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. JD Wood from Toronto, Canada writes: Everything our parents said was good for is, is bad... the sun, milk, meat, college...
  2. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: ....and probably reading the G&M is too.If this is true there is going to be an awful lot of doomsayers looking for work,or something new to scare us with.
  3. Lauren H from Canada writes: still, I hope they're right. This cancer-everywhere thing is getting to be a bit much. If this will mean we can easily protect ourselves then maybe we can reduce the decibel level and not stress so much about our health.
  4. D. Sadoway from Hong Kong writes: It has never felt right slathering on sunscreens that contain a lengthy list of nasty ingredients (look at the back of the bottle next time you apply them) every time one makes the slightest appearance in the sun.

    While there are valid reasons to use sunscreens, it would seem a blind adherance to "professional advice" flies in the face of our own personal ecological literacy. Doesn't it make sense that each person knows best how to adapt to the sun's power depending on their skin type and their locale?
  5. Helen Pettingill from Canada writes: Well if one thing doesn't get us in the end, another thing surely will.
    Still, this article actually makes a lot of sense to me. The sun is part of nature after all despite the skin cancer it causes. I've never been one to use much sunscreen because of its ingredients - as D. Sadoway suggests. Of course I don't spend my days working outside either so I don't need as much as some. I will now make it a point to spend more time in direct summer sunshine for the Vitamin D effects. Moderation, as usual is the way to go of course.
    I wonder if Canadians who travel south every winter have lower incidences of "bad" cancers. That little boost they get might be just the ticket if that's the case.
  6. Sunny Singh Sandhu ancestor of the Kamagata Maru 1914 from vancouver, Canada writes: Brown people can feel happy about this. However this research could be all bs. Its obvious we in Canada sometimes dont get enough sunshine. I urge all to take a trip to Mexico and Cuba and meet some real nice people.
  7. Lauren H from Canada writes: I definitely agree, D. Sadoway. There's a good reason so many people have an odd abhorrence of sunscreen and never wear it. The chemicals and weird "hawaiian" scents don't feel healthy at all. I certainly feel that myself.

    You know when I was a child, I used to think everything around me must have been thoroughly tested for health effects or we wouldn't use it. Only common sense right? Things like dishwashing detergent with harsh chemicals in it--we have a film of it dried onto every dish that comes out of there. Then when we have a bowl of cereal we get chemicals diluted in milk. I figured people and "scientists" were obviously very smart and testing these things. You grow up and find out--nope, even if we did know enough about the human body, for whatever reason no one's ever bothered checking into whether these things will hurt you or not. I have a similar suspicion of sunscreen I guess--dermatologist association certified or not. People are idiots in many ways. I'm glad to know I shouldn't feel guilty for all those years I substantially avoided the sunscreen and hid out in slivers of shadows at the bus stop ;)
  8. p m from vancouver, Canada writes: Only brief full-body exposures to bright summer sunshine — of 10 or 15 minutes a day — are needed to make high amounts of the vitamin. But most authorities, including Health Canada, have urged a total avoidance of strong sunlight or, alternatively, heavy use of sunscreen. Both recommendations will block almost all vitamin D synthesis.

    Health Canada strikes again.....
  9. stephen ottridge from vancouver, Canada writes: Yet another reason why people who garden are healthier than those who don't. All of that planting, weeding, pruning and grass cutting outside in fresh air and sunshine. Add to that the benefits from the enzymes, bacteria etc in good garden dirt. If you live in an apartment get an allotment and enjoy gardening that way.
  10. Truth Seeker from Canada writes: The link between Vitamin D and cancer prevention has been known for a few years. So what the researchers have said about Vitamin D is probably right and should be taken seriously. But it concerns me when the medical research community treats a vitamin, mineral or nutrient like a ‘drug’ to be taken in isolation when most need to be taken in combination with other vitamins, minerals or nutrients. In any case, for most healthy adults, 400-800 IU per day of Vitamin D through foods and supplements is considered safe. Some nutritional scientists are now recommending increasing Vitamin D intake to 1000 IU per day and higher. Talk with an integrated medical doctor who is also qualified in orthomolecular medicine before taking over 1000 IU per day on a regular basis. There are tests available that can help determine if you would benefit from taking higher doses. Some articles, if interested: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/mar2006_report_vitamind_01.htm http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/bestNewsArticles.shtml http://www.imakenews.com/vitalchoiceseafood/e_article000409223.cfm?x=b3B8T9N,b1WDcdgD,w http://www.alive.com/1587a4a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=116 http://www.alternativemedicine.com/common/news/news_results.asp?task=Features&id=9038&storeID=02AD61F001A74B5887D3BD11F6C28169 http://www.alternativemedicine.com/common/news/news_results.asp?task=Features&id=6940&storeID=02AD61F001A74B5887D3BD11F6C28169 http://www.alternativemedicine.com/common/news/news_results.asp?task=Features&id=9051&storeID=02AD61F001A74B5887D3BD11F6C28169 http://www.alternativemedicine.com/common/news/news_results.asp?task=Features&id=6941&storeID=02AD61F001A74B5887D3BD11F6C28169 http://www.alternativemedicine.com/common/news/news_results.asp?task=Features&id=9099&storeID=02AD61F001A74B5887D3BD11F6C28169 http://www.alternativemedicine.com/common/news/news_results.asp?task=Features&id=8851&storeID=02AD61F001A74B5887D3BD11F6C28169
  11. Truth Seeker from Canada writes: Further useful information on the topic is available from the Vitamin D Council, which includes a few interested physicians and has the goal of educating the public and professionals about Vitamin D deficiency and its associated diseases.

    http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/

    http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/cancerMain.shtml

    http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/vitaminDPharmacology.shtml

    http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/treatment.shtml
  12. evelyn robinson from Canada writes: Sounds like a scientist on the payroll of the right.
    But oh/ you will believe him
  13. Jeff K from vancouver, Canada writes: Oh my! No exposure to sunshine actually turns out to be worse for you... shocking! (not).
  14. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Avoid Global Warming.....Drink MILK!!
  15. Jeff K from vancouver, Canada writes: And the sunscreen Nazi's will not be happy with this.
  16. Jeff Gulley from Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic, Canada writes: I guess I'd best be moving my computer outside now!
  17. Randal Oulton from Toronto, Canada writes: >> As it is, the 400 IU dosage included in most multivitamins is too low to be an effective cancer fighter.

    My Boots Multi-vitamins say their 500 IU dosage is the Recommended Daily Allowance in the UK.
  18. Tinfoil Hatt from Wreck Beach, Canada writes: Get naked Canada! Turn your butt into a vitamin factory!
  19. Michael Sharp from Island Paradise, Canada writes:

    I'm outside, year 'round here.

    Sail all summer, it's great being me.

    I'm gonna live forever!

    Ya think?
  20. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    So the new flavour of the day is "Vitamin D?" Whoopee! We've found the promised land AGAIN!

    I guess my parents were right.

    " Get some sun and fresh air everyday-eat a lot of fish and fowl, meat once in a while-if it grows in the ground (and proven safe) it can never be bad for you-couple of glasses or red wine will never kill you-stay away from the aisle of frozen prepared foods in the grocery store-and when you pick up a box or a can of food, read the label-if you can't pronounce the words on the label, leave it on the shelf! Sodium whatever will hurt you in the end.....-not bad advice!

    ......wonder if these research folks have any shares in drug/vitamin suppement companies......
  21. Frequent Reader from London, Canada writes: Dog's are smarter than. us. Every dog I have owned would always find a spot in the house where the sun shines in and lay in that spot They would also move to other spots as the sun shifted. I always thought that they must know something we don't and it wasn't just for warmth.....they are inside.
    P.S - They also don't use sunscreen. Ha, Ha Ha!
  22. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Frequent Reader from London,: Good Morning! That was a funny post as it reminds me of my wife's cat who moves around the house all day looking for those slivers of sun that poke through the windows and basically follows them around the house all day.........Hmmm
  23. John Brown from Maritimes, Canada writes: Well then, it appears as if all the anti-smoking advocates have done smokers a favour by forcing their wishes upon smokers to have the nasty habit moved out doors. From the research discoveries it seems sun is good and perhaps smokers will be less likely to contract cancer from being outdoors and the couch-potatoe is more prone to contracting cancer from not enough outdoors. I know, why not institute taxes against couch-potatoes to help offset the burdgeoning costs of cancer treatment and pallative care facilities for cancer victims. Let us sue furniture manufacturers for making furniture so comfortable we can't bare to leave the house. The fact is that we all have the gene, what triggers it is the mystery here, smoking, pollutants, lack of sunshine are all contributors but what really triggers it? Somebody had a valid point, start looking at Canada's Snowbirds, the ones making the annual trek to the warmer climes during the winter and see where they rank among this, remember that once upon a time researchers told us that exposure to sunlight causes skin cancer and we should cover up outdoors, now they want us to get naked and enjoy the effects!
  24. Jorly fuster from Canada writes: Don't believe a word. Sunshine may be one cause of Cancer, but it you think all the perversion of our water air and food had nothing to do with Cancer you'll probably wind up getting it anyway.

    I suppose you'll die of skin cancer while preventing internal organ cancer.
  25. L.B. MURRAY from Canada writes: Well, well, well, I guess my dad was right after all when giving us our daily dose of COD LIVER OIL mixed with our fresly squeezed orange juice every single morning of the year...

    Perhaps this ritual saved us from horrible cancers (except a few patches of skin cancer treated early). So many of our high school friends have died of cancer in the last 7 years, in their late 50's or early 60's and I doubt they were taking their daily dose of that horrible cod liver oil... My sister and I couldn't avoid it since dad was watching us like a hawk...

    Thank you dad.
  26. El Kabong from Average, United States writes: It just goes to show you - most science is junk, fuelled mostly by a quest for research grants and political correctness.
  27. T. Braithwaite from Canada writes: There is a disappointing aspect to scientific discoveries that overturn the basis for moralistic lifestyle prescriptions--people enjoy prescribing other people's lifestyles. Discoveries such as these, typically (as made evident by some comments here and after related discoveries) are either understandbly disappointing to the lifestyle nannies or result in confirmation bias (against pharmacies, the right, science, industry, etc.). I would have thought advances in knowledge such as this would have been occasions of clebration.
  28. Mike Quinlan from Gatineau QC, Canada writes: So please educate us El Kabong, what do you propose as a better model for knowledge production and validation? Yours and the earlier comment about sounds like a comment from a scientist on the right, are more than a bit much. Clearly the products of sundeprived, bleak and empty lives. But that is just my opinion.
  29. Basser Basser from Canada writes: So, then, I guess the people living in the Southern United States Would have lower cancer rates than those living in the North-East U.S.A , Right?. Or do a 6.5 Billion of us have to cram the equator region for the lowered effect?. I'm thinking "more research is needed" on this topic. I'm also a little suspicious of the timing of such a release ( with our current issues of Pollutants threatening to cost Industry billions). What was the sample size?, was it a random double blinded study?, Is the intervention clearly linked?. Hey Crustly Lufty!. You must have a thought on this?
  30. Basser Basser from Canada writes: Frequent Reader... My dog died of cancer.. Loved lying in the sun... Go Figure !
  31. Terry Quinn from Canada writes: I've always been a believer of letting nature do its work and have never used sun tan lotion or avoided the sun but have used it with common sense.

    I do believe a lot of cancers are a result of changed lifestyles as opposed to that of our more agrarian ancestors.

  32. B M from Ottawa, Canada writes: What I really want to know is

    WHAT IS THE VIT D SUPPLEMENT THAT COSTS PENNIES A DAY THAT THEY TALK ABOUT BUT DON'T NAME??
  33. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: B M: It's called.....wait for it....."Vitamin D".
  34. Helen Pettingill from Canada writes: The vitamin D effect is lost when the sun shines through windows so your pets aren't as smart as you think. They're only seeking the warmth from it.
  35. Political Junkie from Canada writes: The problem is that if you go for the full body exposure they'll put you where the sun don't shine.

    But now we have a charter case against cruel and unusual punishment; the government is inducing cancer by locking you up! Look for this on the Supreme Court calendar.
  36. Sandi Pniauskas from Canada writes: The vitamin D (sunshine) connection is not new news nor is it a 'bombshell'. Given the somewhat imperfections of the SEER stats, geographical maps are available which indicates the connection. There was (not sure if it still exists on the site) the same maps but as it related to concentration(s) of industry. It would be interesting to see an overlay of the two maps.
    Is Vitamin D the only connection - of course not but there is good quality evidence that it is a factor.
  37. Peter Symons from Canada writes: Sandi Pniauskas from Canada writes: The vitamin D (sunshine) connection is not new news nor is it a 'bombshell'

    Sandi, you may well be right but I think it should bring some sober second thought to all "science hysteria" including the current global warming rant. Maybe, just maybe there are other factors at work as well. Note: I'm not suggesting pumping great amounts of CO2 into the air is a good thing but any debate that gets to the emotional level that global warming has needs to be hosed off and rethought and this study is an excellent example as to why.
  38. SusanAFoster Foster from Toronto, writes:
    While on vacation in Finland over 10 years ago, the subject of cancer came up one eveing at a dinner party hosted by friends. A Finnish doctor present said quietly to us "Vitamin D - be sure you are taking plenty of Vitamin D, it's the single most important key to cancer prevention." SO, this is not new news (except in North America). I think we could learn from many other cultures and countries that seem to be ahead of us in health care.
  39. Ratherbe Golfing from dartmouth, Canada writes: Do you get vit D when using tanning beds? As the winter lingers on I feel I have less energy, simply put, I just feel and look crappy. I often go to the tanning beds late in the winter, March to April, and I honestly feel better. Society has made tanners feel like the 2 pack a day guy; it's time to put this fearmonger to bed.
  40. peter green from Canada writes:
    The statement on skin cancer in this article " ... is easy to detect and treat and seldom fatal" fails the editor's rules for posting on this website "comments that make obviously false or unsubstantiated allegations"
    I suspect none of us will be making an appointment with MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT when we have an abnormal mole or growth of concern on our skin so I would encourage you to re-evaluate this statement carefully ; his assesment of skin cancer risk is misguided and irresponsbile. Dermatologists like myself will continue to encourage safe practices for our patients and treat potentially life threatening skin cancers such as melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma. Aside from mortality, these cancers cause significant morbity i.e may not kill but cause considerable damage .
    Bill Casey, M.P. for Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley had a melanoma discovered on his back during a routine screening event on parliament hill. Having met him, I can attest he felt very fortunate to have had this picked up early and he would likely agree it was not obvious to him that this mole appeared malignant. Chuck Cadman is an example of a patient not so fortunate who, as we all know, lost his life to malignant melanoma . Safe sun practices are sensible and need not jeopardize ones health. Please consult the experts on skin cancer the Canadian Dermatology Association website for more information on skin cancer and prevention
  41. dennis Harris from stpaul, United States writes: Read labels and search-engine those food additives. You will be amazed at what we are being fed. Also, consider this, viruses are used as as the vehicle to insert pesticide genes and other genes into genetically modified foods and none of the GMO's are labelled. It is getting increasingly harder to know exactly what we are eating. Many foods could contain carcinogenic substances such as the erucic acid in canola (another GMO) oil. I do not buy into this sunshine and vitamin D theory, although they may be helpful.
  42. Joan Forsey from Toronto, Canada writes: Adelle Davis wrote about the importance of Vitamin D in her book, "Let's Eat Right to Keep Fit," more than half a century ago -- in 1954 to be exact. She pointed out, "Most medical textbooks say that vitamin D is formed by sunlight on the oils IN the skin although it was proved 16 years ago that the oils must first be ON the skin, then exposed to ultraviolet light, and later absorbed back into the body. If persons take a bath before going into the sunshine, the oils are washed off, and no vitamin D is formed; if they do not bathe before exposure to sunshine but bathe immediately afterward, the oils are removed before the vitamiin can be absorbed by the body. Most of the oils appear to be washed off by cold water, and still larger quantities by warm water; warm, soapy water does the job thoroughly."
  43. Time Out from Canada writes: Sunny Singh Sandhu - Thanks for the travel advice, but I think Ill stick to my favourite travel destination, the good ol US of A. Americans are the friendliest people in the world.
  44. Hart Oldenburg from Winnipeg, Canada writes: The human race, through history, has shown an enormus resilience to deal with natures vagarities. Man made pollutants the recent challenge. Fortitude and medical props guarantee extended life, so far. What promise does the future hold? Not a hell of a lot when science persists in modifying traditional values in haphazard fashion and persist in admitting failure. The food guides a prime example.
    While I have never taken vitamins, the article's implications make sense, if for no other reason---its positive side effect--- exposing doomsters as fake scientists.
    An anti-sun stance?
    Health Canada is due for an overhaul, a fresh start, a new minister, common sense to be re-invented.

  45. Jeremy F from Alberta, Canada writes: So basically this means that everyone should come live in Alberta because we get the most sunshine days than any other province! How about it guys, wanna reduce your cancer risk, come live out here with us cowboy folk and vote conservative, yeehaw;) Haha.
  46. J R from Vancouver, Canada writes: I already spend lots of time outside, and eat well. I am happy to hear the results of this study. However, given the history and lack of credibility of tobacco-sponsored so-called research, I would be interested in the source of funding for this study. The conclusion that pollutants are not so responsible for cancer seems far-fetched, and driven by something other than the data. Yeah, maybe we are more resistant to cancer with Vitamin D. But that does not mean that the cause of cancer is the lack of vitamin D, or that you'll be free from cancer caused by poisons such as tobacco because you go outside to smoke (which in the more urbane jurisdictions, it is usually the case by law). Then there are melanomas which seem to happen primarily to people who get plenty vitamin D.
  47. Jay Em from Canada writes: Oh boy! Now I can justify being a little obese. More skin to expose to make vitamin D in our short northern sunshine season. I don't have to go on a diet after all.
  48. mogens bay from Canada writes: What a front page bmbshell? I heard that in 1937 - 43? and stedily on and off
    since Did you hear about Y2K/ dying of starvation in the 1970 to 1980 Or is it gloabal warming? I cannot sleep
  49. jiri Z from Canada writes: That should help to get rid of those pesky hijabs.
  50. Pat Gesner from Canada writes: Basser Basser there has been a lot of ongoing studies and for years.collerating it takes time. with computers and serch engines, there is no reason why you cannot check in general if there is back up(lots of previous studies pointing to that direction)
    try for stuff that is easily studied(effects on children -less variables- also a good parent will remember well the diet they provided)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5299184.stm,
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4313096.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/5116438.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/221100.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/889890.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1936208.stm

    for cancer

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3542344.stm


    Also came across this serching for vit d on BBC site

    Did you know...?
    Vitamin D is so scarce in a normal human diet that it shouldn't really be called a vitamin. In fact, because it's produced largely by a chemical reaction of sunlight on your skin, it should be known as a hormone. However, because nutritional research is a relatively new scientific field, the name 'vitamin D' was chosen and has stuck.
  51. Joe Calgarian from Calgary, Canada writes: My wife has MS, and when I asked the MS doctor on their opinion about whether she should be taking Vitamin D they essentially refused to answer.

    Bottom line they'd rather she be a guinea pig for some pharmaceutical company by taking injections which would cost $50,000 a year if it wasn't covered by insurance - rather than taking an over the counter vitamin.
  52. Ken DeLuca from Arnprior, Canada writes: Nanomoles? Sounds like some Beatrix Potter character.

    Nana Mole , decked out in her blue and white hoop skirt and bonnet, offered the mole children some tea and fresh baked bread and jam.

    "Don't stay out too long in the sun," she cried to her young charges, " You might develop spots on your skin that could turn into.... moles?"
  53. Tim Hollaar from Oakville, Canada writes: Thanks to Truth Seeker (comments above) for the excellent links to additional and more scientific information. Having read a couple of them, I am convinced to go get my Vitamin D supplement. From the reading it looks like 600-1000 IU of Vitamin D3 or Cholecalciferol (the same form your body synthesizes when skin is exposed to sunlight) daily is best. Have a read of 1 or 2 of them, it may just help you live longer so you can pay more taxes before the other certainty in life catches up with you.
  54. John Little from Canada writes: This whole issue can be blamed on global warming. Or just a minute! No. Global warming would allow more Canadians to spend more time in the sun. I know. It has to blamed on Bush and of course his lapdog Harper. But how? Oh, yes. Bush knew all along that the sun was good for you. After all his ranch is well in the sun counrtry but he KEPT IT A SECRET so that the left wing Democrats and the Liberals and NDPers would die from cancers and thus asure the domination of the right wingers for years.
  55. Paul Byer from ENNISMORE, Canada writes: Now this is what a forum should be. An informative exchange of sensible ideas. If only we could keep people like Evelyn Robinson out of it. Please go back to your political nonsense and stay out of common sense forums Evelyn. Much appreciated.
  56. paul heinila from Toronto, Canada writes: I would like to challenge the Vitamin-D and cancer connection. The scientist must accumulate statistic amongst the Inuit. Inuits are covered from head to toe. How do the cancer statistics and the exposure to Sun fit in with people in the North?
  57. jim in London from london, Canada writes: Now we know how to cure cancer-do not send your money to the endless claims of "Help Cure Cancer" lotteries- instead buy a ticket in January to Mexico and there you have done your bit!
  58. emilio D from Vancouver, Canada writes: The pendulum of medical research swung to the other side again. This is worse than watching pingpong. Most drug labels say ask your doctor if you are not sure. But if you ask your family doctor about the latest research on vit D, he does not know either. I guess he doesn't read G&M.
  59. Vite Amindee from Vancouver, Canada writes: Dion is an arcshole and needs sunshine on a rainy day
  60. Rain SCM from Vancouver, Canada writes: Highly skeptical of research that tries to find one single reason for a consequence. As a strong believer in multiple causation, I would recommend that this may have something to do with higher cancer rates in poorer nations, but I would certainly not think that it would be the only reason. Maybe it is a combination of pollutants reducing the ability of the body to absorb vitamin D. Keep looking because there is never one single smoking gun when it comes to these things.
  61. Owen Jones from Calgary, Canada writes: That's what happens when one adheres to Health Canada guidelines, I deal with the Federal Gov't in all areas and I have yet run into a competent person , their everywhere including Health Canada. Folks don't discredit common sense and what your Mom said was good for you.
  62. steve allan from Welland, Ontario, Canada writes: Funded by - the American oil and gas industry.
  63. Roland Neissinger from Oakville, Canada writes: A long time ago I accepted the fact that including myself we won't live forever. If we ever did, higher hands have changed our genetic chain makeup early in time humans existed.... Even my trusted wife warns me to stay out of the sun, most of the time. But it is many times to cold to live in the shade only...... Yet with my own self knitted philosophy that humans are like flies, some adapt, others perish under the onslaugh of all pollutants, bad air, bad water, bad overdoses of vitamins, civil unrest, crime, wars in addition to bad basically everything which gives us fun or pleasure (- so the experts say). My guess even the medical profession with all accumulated knowledge, now even more accumulated and accessible by computers is still scratching just the bottom of what we still need to know to fight cancers, illnesses and new diseases popping up in new varieties every minutenow and in future..... Thus we all have pending what we do with our brains and body, location where we choose or must live a varying shelf life, which indepnedent from what all the vitamin, medicine and advise spinners tell us. It is still our own..... So I will continue to windsurf in the sun in summer, and do the long bicycle rides, (mind you lathering on sunscreen, despite what it could do over time to your skin!?!) reaping loads of vitamin D, while some dwellers in their shaded enclaves, venturing out only in cars with tinted windows and run around sweating and fully clothed can go on buying their vitamin D-doses and hope for the best......
  64. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: An interesting article, but it overlooks a few details. Most interesting of which has to do with the planetary distribution of skin colour vs distance from the equator. Distance from the equator being directly related to sunlight intensity and temperature. Another interesting aspect here is looking at the distribution of skin colour along the equatorial zone. The closer to the polar regions, the lighter the skin colour. This is due to light intensity, including UV radiation. It is the UV that is actually necessary to form the Vitamin D. And the first consequence of spending a lot of time outdoors in the summer is? A tan. As in: the skin produces more melanin to absorb the increased UV radiation one is exposed to. A sunburn is caused by UV rays. Funny how people living in equatorial regions tend to have brown or black skin, while those living in jungled areas tend not to be as dark. Africa excepted. The obsession with sunscreens is a direct result of concerns about skin cancer due to UV eposure. That Ozone Layer thing and the hole in it we helped create. Skin cancer is called melanoma for a reason. Increasing vitamin intake is a risky proposition. Vitamins are either water or fat soluble. Water soluble vitamins include C and and the B series. Vitamin overdoses are bad. C will cause diahorea. A and the B vitamins are lethally toxic at very high concentrations. Many of the high strength B-complex stress-pills are pretty close to the edge of toxic effects. D is a fat soluble vitamin. Excessive intake is not healthy, and will have serious side effects. The contention made in the article that all those chemicals we are exposed to, especially pesticides, have little if anything to do with cancers is dubious at best, a deliberate lie at worst. I wonder who sponsored these studies? There are enough examples of fixed chemical safety studies to make this a legitimate question. It's far too simple to say that the cure for cancer is vitamin D. Biochem doesn't work like that.
  65. Josh Cohen from Toronto, Canada writes: Go figure- the Sun, the source of all life on this planet is actually GOOD for us!

    amazing!
  66. C. H. Oakley from Canada writes: AND STUDIES FINDING LINKS BETWEEN CANCER AND CIGARETTES ARE FUNDED BY ANTI-SMOKING GROUPS. THEREFORE CIGARETTES DON'T CAUSE CANCER, IT'S JUST A LIE... UH, RIGHT?
  67. Vite Amindee from Vancouver, Canada writes:
    If Sunshine prevents cancer then Muslims should all have cancer
  68. Thy Dinh from Ottawa, Canada writes: From an epidemiological perspective, I'm curious that a 4 year clinical trial would find enough differences in cancer incidence to make a causal link between vitamin D and cancer. A longitudinal study would provide more compelling results. Where can I get a hold of this study anyway?
  69. John Melnick from High River AB, Canada writes: This is why people question "consensus, peer reviewed science" which is trying to deal with that which we know so little about - like climate change. So many things which were once "for sure" have evaporated under closer scrutiny. Remember ulcers?
  70. Vite Amindee from Vancouver, Canada writes: Thy Dhing, I think you should get a hold of thyself.
  71. S Foley from Ottawa, Canada writes: All of you Kyoto bandwagon jumpers might wish to consider just how wrong all of the world's scientists have been, wrong about covering up and always wearing sunscreen to prevent cancer.
  72. Lynn Ehrle from Plymouth, Michigan, United States writes: Many cancer "experts" cling to the myth that lifestyle factors cause cancer. You eat too much red meat, are overweight, don't eat enough fruit and veggies, too much smoke and alcohol, don't exercise enough-- best described as Victimology Theology. It's your fault you got cancer! But what if you are a vegan, exercise regularly, maintain an average body weight, don't drink or smoke-- and still get cancer?
    Oh, well, you have to die from something!

    These "causes" have never been proven, but radiation has been measured and proven as the world's most potent mutagen, and its co-action with chemicals magnifies its affect upon internal organs, bone and DNA. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency refuses to conduct additive or synergistic studies, preferring to perform risk assessments on individual chemicals (80,000 in commerce), and it will take 3000 years to assess the 3000 most toxic chemicals.

    A recently published book provides insight into the numerous cancer and noncancer affects attributable to the Chernobyl accident in 1986.
    Many of its victims were exposed to low doses of radiation. On the home page of ECRR, the European Committee on Radiation Risk, you will find the title, "CHERNOBYL: 20 YEARS ON, and the full text. Several Russian studies are referenced. For years they have been in the files of the World Health Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, and International Commission on Radiological Protection, but they were never translated.

    It is time for concerned citizens to demand that their cancer societies set aside their lifestyle theories and tell the truth about the major environmental causes. We can then focus on primary prevention.

    Lynn Howard Ehrle, Senior Biomedical Policy Analyst,
    Organic Consumers Association
  73. No Kidding from Burlington, Canada writes: If they were wrong about the sun causing cancer...do you think they could be wrong about global warming too?
  74. Tova Jamernik from Vancouver, Canada writes: Before everyone jumps onto the ‘vitamin D&8217; bandwagon, which ties cancer &8220;incidence rate to lack of sunshine rather than pollutants&8221; I'd like to point out a few problems, which hopefully the researchers can explain:

    First of all, why do northern countries such as Canada that get less exposure to sunlight in winter not have higher rates of cancer then other developed countries? Maybe we do, but I've never heard that before.

    Also, why do generations prior to ours have lower rates of cancer than we have now, despite spending similar amounts of time indoors?

    It seems this 'fix all' strategy has a few flaws, with some serious repercussions.

    It plays down other factors such as 'pollutants' and 'radiation&8217; which exist in developed countries at greater levels today than ever before, as well as being more prevalent in &8216;developed&8217; than &8216;less&8217; developed countries.

    Just something to think about before we all go out and get tans, while letting pollution, pesticides, and radiation proliferate around us.

    Don't throw out the sunscreen just yet.
  75. steve allan from Welland, Ontario, Canada writes: Go to the CDC website and you'll find data that confirms that cancer rates in poor southern states is higher than in northern states.

    This study is bogus and will soon be repudiated by serious science.
  76. Winter Mute from toronto, Canada writes: The various charities involved in fundraising for cancer research (as well as any hospitals/universities focused on cancer) are not going to like hearing that a magic bullet (vitaminD) can shut down a significant portion of their business. Interesting times, LOL
  77. Vite Amindee from Vancouver, Canada writes:

    Buy a Hybrid with a sun roof and seatbelts and you'll live forever!
  78. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Can't be true.....the science is settled.
  79. Proud Canadian from United States writes: The sun advice has been misguided information "of just breathtaking proportions," said John Cannell, head of the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit, California-based organization.

    Can't wait to hear what they say about Global Warming in 20 years, how it was all a big mistake.
  80. Ranald Walton from Hamilton, Canada writes: Interesting, but let's not turn this into another fad. But I am going to go outside my office naked now.
  81. Vite Amindee from Vancouver, Canada writes:

    Global warming is here to stay, till October, then it starts cooling off.

    We get less sun in Winter, this is why we have more cancer around Christmas.
  82. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ Lynn Ehrle: You have a point - but only a partial one. Epidemiological studies of cancer types and rates in various parts of the world do show that aspects of lifestyle and diet are contributing factors to getting cancer. For instance, the rates of skin cancer in Australia are very high, the rates in the US are lower but still pretty high, and they are very low in Sandinavia and other northern latitude countries. And the correlation between skin cancer rates in the US and geography are interesting. The further south, and the sunnier the overall climate, the higher the rates And the higher the altitude the higher the rates. Breast cancer is almost unheard of in Japan, but they have lots of stomach cancer. And yet ethnic Japanese of the second generation living in California, get the same types of cancers - including breast cancer - at the same overall rate as the rest of the population. Stomach cancer is uncommon in California. Diet, lifestyle and environmental exposure to all sorts of chemicals are all contributing factors. The problem is that we really don't know enough about how the body works. I get really nervous when I see apparently simple solutions to very complex problems being pushed. Joe Jackson relaesed an album called "Night and Day" in 1982. There was a song called "Cancer" on the album. The chourus went like this: "Everything gives you cancer. There's no cure. There's no answer." A funny little song, very bouncy melody - but it contains a kernal of truth. Check it out.
  83. Vite Amindee from Vancouver, Canada writes: Therfore the more global warming, the less Cancer....
    Oh wait...
    It's warmer than ever...and we have more cancers than ever.....
    Oh wait...

    We need more fricking experts here.....
  84. Michel Lafrance from Somewhere in Quebec, Canada writes: This is why I have some trouble with the latest trend-du-jour, global warming. The "science" has been found wrong so many times before, only a True Believer will take the whole global warming schtick without question. Every now and again, a study comes out that turns all of conventional (scientific) wisdom on its ear, such as, perhaps, this one. True scientific and inquisitive minds will realize that what we are dealing with, are a series of hypotheses that are more or less supported by data, and that many years of study are required for anything resembling a "proof" to be assembled.

    Until then, I will try to lead a balanced life, eating a balanced diet, and consuming wisely, but more for reasons of saving for approaching retirement in about 10 years. And I will sleep soundly at night, not fretting with guilt over every little morsel of meat that I eat or every time I get in my car.
  85. J. Schutz from Canada writes: When we appeared on this planet we were naked and certainly not equipped with sunscreen. For thousands and thousands of years we roamed the earth without sunscreen. Our bodies evolved from the get-go to need that sunlight. The sunscreen craze always seemed strange to me.
  86. evelyn robinson from Canada writes: Go ahead take your vitamin d and ignore the sun screen
    Don't come crying when you have skin cancer or dry wrinkled skin.
    Vitamin D has always known to be need as a supplement and is usually added to milk.
    Substituting Vitamin D as the "cause" of cancers/ not pollution is misleading and dangerous. Our problems do NOT only have one source. Sounds like a right wing study designed to slow down concerns with continuing pollution
  87. Ola S from Hamilton, Canada writes: Dr. Green, I am no dermatologist but from what I understand it is the non-melanoma cancers (basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas which are less agressive albeit still cancers) that are more associated/caused with (cumulative) sun exposure. The epidemiology of melonoma seem to be more genetically based and associated with early childhood sunburns - sunburns rather than moderate sun exposure. Thus I think your graphic descriptions of melanoma are overcalled wrt to the above article.
  88. Jamie Cool from Moncton, Canada writes:
    Folks, why are we surprised to learn that a strong daily dose of sunshine is necessary for health when our ancestors lived outside for much of the past 150 000 years? The human body has evolved in accordance with the elements and conditions found in our natural environment, and that included sunshine and lots of physical activity.
  89. John Cannell, MD from Atascadero, United States writes: “Always observe the physician with the same diligence as he the disease.” John Donne (1623) The current epidemic of autism may be iatrogenic, caused by medical and governmental advice to avoid the sun. Activated vitamin D is a potent neurosteroid hormone with critical roles in mammalian brain development and brain functioning after birth. The apparent dramatic increase in the prevalence of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders over the last 20 years corresponds with the increase in medical advice to avoid the sun during that same time, advice that has certainly lowered brain levels of activated vitamin D. Cognitive abilities are positively associated with 25(OH)D levels, even after correction for sun exposure. Multivitamins containing vitamin D reduce symptoms of autism and increase cognitive abilities in children. Consumption of vitamin D containing fish during pregnancy reduces autistic symptoms in children. Most studies show autistic births are higher in the winter, especially in March, when vitamin D levels are their lowest. Evidence suggests that autistic symptoms improve in the summer, when vitamin D levels are their highest. Activated vitamin D is a potent anti-inflammatory and nootropic neurosteroid that probably favorably affects brains after birth. Therefore, some autistic individuals may be helped by vitamin D, if supplementation occurs early enough in childhood, and is of sufficient dose and duration. I advise that all individuals afflicted with autism have a blood test, called a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D. Adequate levels are higher than 50 ng/ml or 125 nmol/L. Be sure to ask your doctor what the levels actually are and do not accept, "They are within normal limits." Infants and young children may need up to 1,000 IU per day while older children may need 2,000 IU per day. Many adults and pregnant women need even more. I cannot stress the importance of vitamin D and properly functioning brains enough.
  90. Rusty Waters from Canada writes: If you think about it the sun has a big influence on us. If the sun left us or died within eight minutes we would have total darkness and every living thing on earth would freeze to death. God has been gone for 18 billion years and other than communicating with a few skitso's like Moses and Peter he has bascially been the root of all evil. The christian god can't save us from cancer but the sun can. Sun god not a bad idea after all. I talked to the sun last night. The sun said, "Rusty", lie back on your chair on your patio, drink red wine, eat Bay d' Espoir salmon, have as much sex as your can with beautifull women (12 times a month provents prostate cancer) and listen to Jimmy Buffet music. Now that's sounds good to me. Contrast that to going to church with the smell of seniors pissing in their pants interlaced with lilac perfume. We have to make choices among the many gods and my choice is the sun. The natives had it right.
  91. Truth Seeker from Canada writes: The John Cannell, MD above is probably the head of the Vitamin D Council, whose website is an excellent source of information on this issue. Tim Hollaar: It’s certainly an excellent idea to take adequate Vitamin D3 supplementation, as long as you don’t exceed 1,000 IU for extended period unless under professional supervision (others say the upper limit is really 2000 IU or even more). Second, bear in mind that every individual body has a need for a different amount of any vitamin: some people may already have an adequate amount of vitamin D while others may need more than 1000 IU. There are tests for such things. Third, human bodies have evolved to take nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.) in combination so I would wonder about taking only one vitamin in isolation for an extended period without also taking a complement of other vitamins, minerals and cofactors. Fourth, I’m not sure about how much Vitamin D supplementation could be safely taken during pregnancy, so it’s important to check with an informed doctor on this. Fifth, taking such vitamins is quite cheap, so buy a good quality product (cheap products may use poor or inadequate ingredients, etc.). Shop Canadian as there are several excellent Canadian brands such as Natural Factors and AOR (Advanced Orthomolecular Research, see link), etc. which you can find in a good health food store specializing in such products. On a separate issue, it concerns me that some Vitamin D experts are already jumping to conclusions that those researching pollutants and other environmental factors as key factors behind cancer in the West are "looking for a bogeyman that doesn't exist." I hope we don’t get prematurely tunnel-visioned on a systems issue as cancer in the complex human body. Okay, I’ve gotta go: I’m busy inventing natural sunlight for home use. In a few days, you’ll all be able to buy this Truth Seeking Light product from me to extend your lives. http://www.aor.ca/int/products/vitamin_d3.php
  92. Johnson Manchester from Moncton, Canada writes: It's a little overwhelmin