Response to MF Holick "Can you have your cake and eat it too? The sunlight D-lema".
| dc.contributor.author | Whiteman, D | |
| dc.contributor.author | Olsen, C | |
| dc.contributor.author | Green, Adèle C | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-07-30T16:00:27Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-07-30T16:00:27Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017-06-10 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Response to MF Holick "Can you have your cake and eat it too? The sunlight D-lema". 2017, Br J Dermatol | en |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1365-2133 | |
| dc.identifier.pmid | 28600814 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/bjd.15724 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10541/620471 | |
| dc.description.abstract | We read with interest the recent paper by Felton and colleagues (1) describing the effects of solar-simulated ultraviolet radiation (UVR) on cutaneous DNA damage and vitamin D production. However, we were disappointed by the accompanying editorial by Dr Holick (2) proclaiming that healthcare regulators (and by inference, doctors and the public) "could have their cake and eat it too". In particular, his assertion that "sensible sun exposure that does not cause burning" should raise "little concern" about skin cancer risk is at odds with the photodamage observed by Felton and colleagues in the epidermal cells of fair-skinned participants following repeated, low-level sun exposure. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en |
| dc.rights | Archived with thanks to The British journal of dermatology | en |
| dc.title | Response to MF Holick "Can you have your cake and eat it too? The sunlight D-lema". | en |
| dc.type | Article | en |
| dc.contributor.department | QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, 300 Herston Road, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia | en |
| dc.identifier.journal | The British Journal of Dermatology | en |
| html.description.abstract | We read with interest the recent paper by Felton and colleagues (1) describing the effects of solar-simulated ultraviolet radiation (UVR) on cutaneous DNA damage and vitamin D production. However, we were disappointed by the accompanying editorial by Dr Holick (2) proclaiming that healthcare regulators (and by inference, doctors and the public) "could have their cake and eat it too". In particular, his assertion that "sensible sun exposure that does not cause burning" should raise "little concern" about skin cancer risk is at odds with the photodamage observed by Felton and colleagues in the epidermal cells of fair-skinned participants following repeated, low-level sun exposure. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. |