Is the current public health message on UV exposure correct?

Current sun safety messages stress the importance of sun protection in avoiding the consequences of excessive exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR), such as skin cancers, cataracts and other eye diseases, and viral infections caused by UV-induced immunosuppression. However, adequate exposure to UVR has an important role in human health, primarily through UV-induced production of vitamin D, a hormone essential to bone health. Vitamin D insufficiency may be associated with increased risks of some cancers, autoimmune diseases and mental health disorders such as schizophrenia. Here, we review the evolution of current sun exposure practices and sun-safe messages and consider not only the benefits, but also the detrimental effects that such messages may have. UVR-induced vitamin D production can be inhibited by factors such as deep skin pigmentation, indoor lifestyles, older age, sun avoidance behaviours and clothing habits that limit skin exposure, with deleterious consequences for health. There is some early evidence that sun-safe messages are beginning to cause a decrease in skin cancer rates in young people. After the widespread promotion of sun safety, it may now be appropriate to refine public health messages to take better account of variations between groups and their susceptibility to the dangers and benefits of sun exposure.

Developing policy in the face of scientific uncertainty: interpreting 0.3 microT or 0.4 microT cutpoints from EMF epidemiologic studies.

There has been considerable scientific effort to understand the potential link between exposures to power-frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMF) and the occurrence of cancer and other diseases. The combination of widespread exposures, established biological effects from acute, high-level exposures, and the possibility of leukemia in children from low-level, chronic exposures has made it both necessary and difficult to develop consistent public health policies. In this article we review the basis of both numeric standards and precautionary-based approaches. While we believe that policies regarding EMF should indeed be precautionary, this does not require or imply adoption of numeric exposure standards. We argue that cutpoints from epidemiologic studies, which are arbitrarily chosen, should not be used as the basis for making exposure limits due to a number of uncertainties. Establishment of arbitrary numeric exposure limits undermines the value of both the science-based numeric EMF exposure standards for acute exposures and precautionary approaches. The World Health Organization's draft Precautionary Framework provides guidance for establishing appropriate public health policies for power-frequency EMF.