"Scots scientists find benefits of sunshine outweigh the risks" is a dramatic headline to publicise the international conference on dermatological research currently taking place in Edinburgh, but is not justified by research findings, important as they are (The Herald, May 8).
We understand Dr Richard Weller and his colleagues are about to report a study that demonstrates a temporary reduction in blood pressure occurs for an hour or so after ultra-violet exposure and that it is due to nitric oxide not to vitamin D. It remains to be shown whether there might be a long-term beneficial effect on risk of heart disease, but the link between excessive exposures to ultra-violet light, natural or artificial, and skin cancer is proven, and is part in the rapid increase in skin cancer of all types in recent years in Scotland is not in doubt.
The public health question that needs to be asked in the light of these findings is not "do the health benefits of sunlight outweigh the risks?", but "how does ultra-violet light compare in effectiveness and safety in reducing blood pressure with other ways of doing so?" Regular exercise as advocated by the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Harry Burns, is known to reduce blood pressure in addition to having other beneficial effects on heart disease, mental health, bone and joint problems and probably cancer.
It is also important for people with psoriasis to know more about ultra-violet light and blood pressure. We recognise an increased risk of heart disease in people with psoriasis, but do not know whether it is reduced by the ultra-violet light that is commonly used in its treatment.
It is important we should not abandon the approach to sun exposure mentioned by Stephen Naysmith ("A common-sense approach to health", The Herald, May 8) and ensure children are protected from sunburn.
Stewart Douglas,
Director, Skin Conditions Campaign Scotland, 349 Bath Street, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article