Teresa Pitman wrote:
> Okay, I don't understand this. If it's impossible to get enough 
> Vitamin D from the sun, how did people survive all these generations?
>
Biologically, it's a 'new' issue.

We only left Africa approx 70 000 years ago.   For much of that 70 000 
years, Vit D wasn't a major issue, as we migrated very slowly, and our 
skin (presumably) lightened to capture more Vit D from the weakening 
sun, as we walked a bit, stayed put, had babies, walked a bit more.  It 
wasn't until we hit the very Northern Climes, with overcast skies much 
of the year, and the need to wear clothing and shelter from the elements 
all day long, that we ended up having to have exceptionally fair skins, 
to capture as much Vitamin D as we possibly could.

We've only been into agriculture and towns and town living, for about 12 
000 years.  So we've only been able to survive in numbers from stored 
food, in very cold climates, for about 6 - 8 000 years. Then we added in 
transport, to move us about a lot, and then we worked on building the 
sorts of homes we didn't like leaving, and in fact, only leave them to 
work in buildings.  Moving so fast that skin no longer adapted, is a 
major problem - hence having dark skin in Northern climes means.. the 
sun is too weak.

Biologically speaking, this is a very very new problem.  Some areas of 
the world, do have significant problems, such as Scotland, where they 
are linking the highest MS rates in the world to chronic Vit D 
deficiency.  Scotland is cold, wet and windy much of the year.  It has 
overcast cloud cover for large parts of the year - part and parcel of 
all that rain.  It does not have a culture of being outdoors, bar for a 
few weeks in the Summer, where, traditionally, you burn yourself red raw 
as your skin as not touched natural daylight for the rest of the year. 

Now, of course, the kids don't even get that, as they are slathered in 
sun screen.

I'm pretty sure the more Northerly mainland European countries have less 
of a problem with Vit D deficiency, as they have less cloud cover most 
of the year, and light actually reflects off snow.  Also, most of the 
'snow' countries have an active tradition of getting out into it.  The 
UK is pretty dire about getting out and about: a sign of our massive 
industrial expansion, no doubt.

Rickets from complete lack of sunshine at all, was common in UK 
industrial slums in past generations.  Coming back, as we only got out 
into the sun for a very short sliver of time, culturally speaking.

And goodness knows what we've put into the sky, and how that affects 
absorption.

Rickets has always been a problem whilst we've moved about - you can see 
it in the bones records.  But women with rickets didn't tend to birth, 
as their pelvis twisting would hinder birthing.   So severe rickets is 
self-terminating.  Since the Industrial revolution, they've also tended 
to be the poorest women, stuck in factories in daylight hours.  Which is 
hilarious funny, as once only the rich, could be pale.  Look at 
classical art, and the most beautiful woman is always the one with ghost 
white skin, highlighted as the palest of the pale.  Everyone else worked 
in the sun: pale skin was a sign of wealth and privilege.  Until the 
poor got to be pale, of course!  Then you had to have a tan to be rich.

So, in terms of 'generations'.... modern travel and very large distance 
migration is actually only 3-4 hundred years old, with most of it taking 
place in the past 150 years.   The culture of living and working 
indoors, likewise.

Just like a lot of the foods we now eat, not having enough sunshine on 
our skin, is pretty 'new' stuff for most of us.  Biologically, a very 
modern problem.  And, of course, it's not impossible to get what you 
need from the sun - if you have the right sun for the right skin and the 
right lifestyle.  But that requires _thinking_ about!  We like quick 
fixes, we humans.  :-)

Also, when this debate is taking place, most people forget what the 
'real' reason for wearing sun screen is for most people - especially 
women.  We like to bang on about it being for skin cancer, but that's 
not actually correct.  That's the reason we feel _safe_ in wearing it - 
it's our 'protection from criticism' filter.  The more pertinent reason 
is vanity.  Sun ages skin.  I've worn sun screen on my face for over 25 
years - and vanity is the reason, pure and simple.  Originally, I wore 
it all over, now I let the rest of my body have sun - even 'tho I hate 
it.  I like being pale and Gothic.  But as for my face... I'm simply 
vain about ageing.  Next time you're talking to a woman about sun 
screen... scratch the surface about why she's wearing it...  ;-)

Morgan Gallagher

(Expecting a confrontation at Nursery any day now.  My 4 year old does 
not wear sunscreen, as I prefer to control the dangers of actually 
burning, with shade and clothing, whilst actually letting THE SUN TOUCH 
HIS SKIN!  Currently, after a wonderful holiday in Fife, where THE SUN 
came out, my 4 year old has a light touch of golden sun kiss.  I'm 
expecting Child Protection will be called any second now. ;-) )

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome