Scientists
have sometimes put forward the theory that exposure to ultraviolet
radiation from the sun might be a risk factor for the development
of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) (Bentham 1996). Here was yet another
argument, they suggested, for avoiding prolonged contact with Old
Sol. While blistering sun exposure is undoubtedly associated with
an increased risk of several types of skin cancer, a solid link
between sunlight and NHL has never yet been proven. And indeed,
a recent report from the University of Sydney, Australia, has turned
this theory on its head, demonstrating that far from inducing NHL,
sunlight may in fact offer protection from the disease.
Published
in December 2004, this is the first epidemiological study to examine
the association between sunlight and NHL using direct measurements
of sun exposure in individual subjects. The study, which reviews
sun exposure over a time span of six decades, compares 704 Australian
adults (between the ages of 20 and 74) who had a confirmed diagnosis
of NHL, to 694 control subjects without NHL. The control subjects
were randomly selected and then matched to the NHL patients by age,
sex and place of residence. A questionnaire and telephone interview
were used to determine the number of hours spent outdoors on working
and nonworking days and vacations.
Contrary
to expectations, the risk of NHL fell with increasing hours of sun
exposure. The chance of getting NHL was 35 percent less in that
portion of the study population that had the most sun exposure compared
to the portion that had the least. The impact was even greater when
the scientists looked at sun exposure on non-working days. People
who got a lot of sun exposure on weekends and holidays had less
than half the incidence of NHL compared to those who stayed indoors
on their days off. It was a remarkable difference.
"Our
results provide strong statistical evidence for an inverse association
between sun exposure and NHL," Prof. Anne Kricker and her School
of Public Health coauthors wrote in the International Journal of
Cancer (Hughes 2004). Since sun exposure produces vitamin D in the
skin, these findings suggest that this essential vitamin, best known
for preventing rickets (a deficiency disease resulting in a weakening
of the bones), may also protect against some deadly forms of cancer,
including lymphoma. In scientific terms, the authors say that it
makes "UV-mediated synthesis of vitamin D a plausible mechanism
whereby sun exposure might protect against NHL."
Grant's
Study
These
results were anticipated in a previous ecologic study of NHL mortality
rates in the US carried out by William B. Grant, PhD, of the Sunlight,
Nutrition And Health Research Center of San Francisco (Grant, 2002).
(An ecologic study investigates the characteristics of a disease
in a whole population.) In that study, NHL mortality rates were
also found to be inversely correlated with ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation
from the sun. Grant's most recent work indicates that not only is
solar UVB radiation dose an important risk reduction factor, but
also that city living is itself a risk factor, attributable to reduced
UVB doses received by urban dwellers (Grant and Garland, in preparation).
In November, 2004, the results of Dr. Grant's 2002 published study
were confirmed by Japanese researchers who analyzed the effect of
sunlight on the incidence of digestive tract cancers (Mizoue, 2004).
This adds additional support to the idea that solar UVB radiation,
through the production of vitamin D, might be an important
"While
NHL is often found associated with basal cell carcinoma, squamous
cell carcinoma, and malignant melanoma, the reason for this association
is not fully understood," said Dr. Grant, "although it
could be that systemic immunosuppression is involved" (Grant
2004). Nevertheless, the inverse relationship between UVB radiation
and NHL indicates that vitamin D most likely plays an important
role in preventing cancer.
Grant
emphasizes, however, that those who receive excessive UV radiation
doses, beyond the amount required for adequate vitamin D production,
may be putting themselves at increased risk for NHL. This points
to the need for moderation in all things, including sun exposure.
Major
Importance
The
issue is of considerable importance. There will be 54,370 new cases
of NHL in the US in 2004. Although there are some modestly effective
treatments available for NHL, the annual number of US deaths from
the disease is 19,410 (ACS 2004). Between 1973 and 1996 the incidence
of NHL increased by 81 percent.
Nor
is the US alone: 286,000 people are diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma worldwide every year and approximately 161,000 die from
the disease, according to International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) estimates for the year 2000. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is the
most rapidly increasing kind of cancer, after lung cancer and non-melanoma
skin cancer.
The
NCI has attributed this increase variously to genetic and treatment-related
immunodeficiencies, exposure to viruses, pesticides and occupational
chemicals (JNCI 1999). Should we now add watching TV instead of
getting some sun in the park as a new risk factor for NHL?
Dermatologists'
Stance
Unfortunately,
while the evidence of the benefits of sunlight daily becomes more
persuasive, the dermatology profession continues vigorously to promote
a policy of sunlight avoidance. Dermatologists tend to regard unprotected
sun exposure as a grave danger, analogous in scale and seriousness
to the risks of unprotected sex. The NCI enthusiastically endorses
this wrong-headed policy, stating that "[I]n general, increased
exposure to the sunespecially without adequate use of sunscreen
and protective clothingincreases the chances of getting skin
cancer." While it is true that excessive amounts of sunlight
do increase the risk of skin cancer, moderate amounts are not dangerous.
The NCI also ignores the bigger point: a moderate amount of sunlight
protects against some of the most dangerous internal cancers, including
NHL.
The
US government has even set a "Healthy People 2010 Target"
to increase to 75 percent the proportion of adults who are very
likely to use sunscreen with an SPF of 15 or higher, wear protective
clothing, or seek shade (NCI 2004). In this topsy-turvy world, the
sun (which, after all, is the source of all life on this planet)
is seen as a health threat. Since the government cannot ban sunlight,
it tells us to save ourselves from the Great Carcinogen in the Sky
by slathering on sunscreens and scurrying for the shade.
Yet
commercial sunscreens are not without potential dangers themselves.
Most
American sunscreens contain synthetic chemicals such as benzophenones
(dixoybenzone, oxybenzone), PABA and PABA esters (ethyl dihydroxypropyl
PABA, glyceryl PABA, p-aminobenzoic acid, padimate-O or octyl dimethyl
PABA), cinnamates (cinoxate, ethylhexyl p-methoxycinnamate, octocrylene,
octyl methoxycinnamate), salicylates (ethylhexyl salicylate, homosalate,
octyl salicylate), digalloyl trioleate, menthyl anthranilate and
avobenzone [butyl-methyoxydibenzoylmethane). According to the skinbiology.com
website, most of these chemicals generate harmful free radicals
and have estrogenic (i.e., female hormonal) activity. With the exception
of avobenzone, they are banned by the European Union. Yet this potential
danger does not concern the National Cancer Institute one whit.
Despite
increasing evidence that there is no scientific basis for a policy
of strict sunlight avoidance, some in the dermatology profession
have stubbornly continued to cling to their 'sunlight is dangerous'
dogma, and to punish those mavericks who have dared to challenge
the status quo. Early in 2004, Michael F. Holick, MD, PhD (who has
written 210 PubMed-listed articles on vitamin D) was fired from
his position in the Department of Dermatology of Boston University
for stating that people in northern latitudes could benefit from
15 minutes of unprotected sun exposure three times per week. Prof.
Holick's position was based on the best scientific evidence available
today, while his critics are still defending outdated and largely
disproven concepts. This firing was an outrage against academic
freedom and a stain on the reputation of a great academic institution.
Professor Holick's dismissal, and the whole topic of sunlight's
relationship to cancer, is worthy of a Congressional investigation.
Previous
Moss Reports articles on Dr. Holick's firing:
Acknowledgement:
Special thanks to Dr. William B. Grant for his help with the facts
in this article. All opinions expressed are my own.
--Ralph
W. Moss, PhD
CancerDecisions.com
is directed by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. Dr. Moss is the author of eleven
acclaimed books including Antioxidants Against Cancer, Herbs Against
Cancer, Questioning Chemotherapy, and Cancer Therapy. He consults
for thousands of clients through his Moss Reports service. The
Moss Reports specializes in educating cancer patients about
the most promising alternative treatments for their condition.
References
American
Cancer Society (ACS), Cancer Facts & Figures 2004. Retrieved
December 6, 2004 from:
http://www.cancer.org
Bentham
G. Association between incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and solar
ultraviolet radiation in England and Wales. Brit Med J 1996;312:1128-1131.
Grant
WB. An estimate of premature cancer mortality in the United States
due to inadequate doses of solar ultraviolet-B radiation, Cancer.2002;94:1867-75.
(See,
also, Dr. Grant's website at http://www.sunarc.org)
Grant
WB, personal communication, Dec. 6, 2004.
Hughes
AM, Armstrong BK, Vajdic CM, Turner J, Grulich AE, Fritschi L, Milliken
S, Kaldor J, Benke G, Kricker A. Sun exposure may protect against
non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a case-control study. Int J Cancer 2004;112:865-71.
JNCI
(Anonymous) Stat Bite: U.S. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma incidence, 1973-1996.
J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1109.
Mizoue
T. Ecological study of solar radiation and cancer mortality in Japan.
Health Phys 2004;87:532-8.
National
Cancer Institute (NCI), Cancer Progress Report2003.
Reuters.
Sunshine may ward off lymphoma. Dec. 3, 2004.
Sorensen
HT, Mellemkjaer L, Nielsen GL, et al. Skin cancers and non-hodgkin
lymphoma among users of systemic glucocorticoids: a population-based
cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:709-
11.
Click
Here to
share this page with your friends, website visitors, ezine readers, social followers
and other online contacts.
Disclaimer:
Throughout this website, statements are made pertaining to the properties and/or
functions of food and/or nutritional products. These statements have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and these materials and products
are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.