Building Sun Resistance for a Bald Head

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of sun exposure on bald heads, particularly regarding the potential for building resistance to sun damage and the associated risks of skin cancer. Participants explore various aspects of skin protection, the role of melanin, and the implications of UV exposure.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that limited sun exposure might help build resistance to sunburn on a bald head.
  • Others argue that staying indoors or having lighter skin may provide better protection against UV rays.
  • One participant explains that melanin in the skin helps block UV light, potentially protecting living cells beneath the skin's surface.
  • Concerns are raised about the effectiveness of building a "base" tan, with personal anecdotes about skin cancer highlighting the risks of sun exposure.
  • Participants discuss the balance between developing protection through increased melanin and the cumulative damage that UV exposure can cause over a lifetime.
  • Some mention the concept of photoreactivation, suggesting it might play a role in skin cancer resistance, although the evidence remains inconclusive.
  • There is a distinction made between melanomas and non-melanomas, with discussions on their causes and the potential genetic links to skin cancer.
  • One participant references a study indicating that melanomas may occur in areas with little sun exposure, suggesting a complex relationship between UV exposure and skin cancer.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the benefits and risks of sun exposure, with no consensus on whether limited exposure is beneficial or harmful. The discussion includes competing perspectives on the relationship between skin cancer and UV exposure, as well as the role of genetics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include the lack of consensus on the effectiveness of sun exposure for building resistance, the ambiguity surrounding photoreactivation, and the complexities of skin cancer types and their causes.

Therian
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
okay I know my the top of my head hasnt been exposed to much sun so it will burn easily since I shaved it BUT isn't it good that it gets SOME exposure to sun so that it will build resistance to it?
Thanks
 
Biology news on Phys.org
You know what would really built a resistance to sun exposure? Staying indoors. Oh and try having a whiter (oh darn what's the politically correct word.. 'lighter'?) skin - the IR rays reflect from white surfaces more compared to dark ones

And why would a dark skin be more 'resistant' to Sun again?
 
cronxeh said:
And why would a dark skin be more 'resistant' to Sun again?

The uv light damages cells in the skin, the layer of pigment in the dead cells in the upper layer of the epidermis blocks the uv light so that it will not reach the living cells beneath it.
 
okay but will me exposing the skin on the top of my head to the skin make that skin more resistant to the sun...

thanks
 
Building up a "base" tan on your head will not prevent damage to your skin. My mother has skin cancer, and she tanned, as she thought wisely, a little at a time.
 
hypatia said:
Building up a "base" tan on your head will not prevent damage to your skin. My mother has skin cancer, and she tanned, as she thought wisely, a little at a time.
Short exposure of the skin to the sun is better, but will still damage some skin cells.

Sunlight (particularly the ultraviolet part) damages skin cells, which unfortunately can even lead to skin cancer. Blocking the light before it reaches the cells can prevent this damage. You can block the ultraviolet light with clothing or with sunscreen, but the body also has its own protection mechanism: increasing the amount of pigment (melanin) in the skin. The increased production of melanin will be induced by exposure to UV light. Obviously this does not work instantaneously. It takes some time for certain skin-cells called melanocytes to produce the extra melanin. This is why short exposure at a time is advised; it will activate the extra melanin production (giving better protection later) while minimizing the risk to the skin cells at the moment. Needles to say, you would minimize the risk more by simply avoiding contact with UV light.
 
At the same time that you are developing "protection" from the harmful uv rays, you will also be accumulating damage. Over the course of a lifetime this damage may win out and lead to the development of cancer. The most effective protection is going to be avoidance followed by blocking either by clothing or chemicals. Protection from sun damage afforded by adaptations such as increased melanin are probably more effective in the long term speaking along evolutionary lines. While it may overall protect a population of people, it will most likely not "pay off" in one person's lifetime.
 
Has anyone heard of photoreactivation? It's the simple little trick plants use to protect themselves from getting "leaf cancer". The debate over UV exposure and skin cancer in humans always seems to neglect this topic.

There have been several studies, funded by the NIH, on human photoreactivation though results are inconclusive to date. My opinion, based on the available studies, is the ambiguity in the data is is resolved if one concludes that people who have inherited the tendency to "get" skin cancer are also the most likely to have inherited photoreactivation traits. Likewise, those who are more resistant to skin cancer are less likely to be photoreactive.

But the ones who are don't know they are, what it is or how it works so they get no benefit from it. Ignorance isn't always bliss...
 
Reality_Patrol said:
Has anyone heard of photoreactivation? It's the simple little trick plants use to protect themselves from getting "leaf cancer".

Getting off-topic, but photoreactivation is also a method used by some bacteria (or was it viruses?...aw, crud...gotta dust off my textbooks) for DNA repair.
 
  • #10
Phobos said:
Getting off-topic, but photoreactivation is also a method used by some bacteria (or was it viruses?...aw, crud...gotta dust off my textbooks) for DNA repair.

It's bacteria, viruse are too simple for that type of system. if I remember correctly, some repair mechanism were found using E. coli infected with phages.
 
  • #11
Two other points re skin cancer. There are broadly two types: melanomas and non-melanomas. Non-melanomas are caused by UV induced DNA damage, or to be more exact they are caused by unrepaired UV induced DNA damage. However, the modern success rate of simple procedures that remove them exceeds 99%.

Melanomas on the other hand are usually lethal. Interestingly they occur most frequently on areas of the body that have received little to no sun exposure, i.e. they are not likely linked to UV exposure. In fact a study done in Cambridge reported a genetic link. So, the cloudy picture at the moment seems to indicate there is a genetic trait in some people that leads to melanomas and that it may be triggered by a chronic absence of sun exposure.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Irol
  • #12
British scientists have identified a gene involved in the deadliest form of skin cancer, in one of the first successes to emerge from the mapping of the human genome.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/10/health/main511698.shtml
Its a great article.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K