Sunshine
is good for you and good for fighting all cancers including skin cancer! by Dr
Chris Barnes, Bangor Scientific and Educational Consultants http://drchrisbarnes.co.uk January 2015 (
revised December 2015) email manager@bsec-wales.co.uk
Abstract
The
study shows by way of geographic meta-analysis that sunshine, presumably as a source
of vitamin D3 is far more beneficial at fighting/preventing all cancers including
melanoma than previously acknowledged and could potentially prevent up to 20% of
cancers in general even some melanoma. The only possible causative factors which
appear to correlate melanoma incidence positively
in the present study are sunbed use and radon gas concentration.
Introduction
We have heard so much
misinterpreted news in the media about cancer recently, I couldn’t resist making an investigation
using one of the biggest established cancer cohorts in the world, see http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/
[1]. Two statements recently one by Dr Richard
Smith, a UK doctor, and one by a US
research group could, potentially and in my personal opinion set cancer
research back decades and we should not allow this to happen. First is Smith in the UK that says Cancer is a good way
to die [2] and we should give up
treating people. I watched my
mother-in-law die of cancer and I can assure Dr Smith he wouldn’t wish the same
on himself. Second is the US research
group including Tomaseeti and Vogelstein whose ‘test
tube’ stem cell study suggests cancer is all down to chance [3]. Well human being are not ‘test
tubes’ and yes they may have the chance
of inheriting faulty tumour repair and suppressor genes but mutations
aren’t just down to chance they are also down to being hit by radiation or
mutagens. Oh and to cap it all I get
frustrated when I hear both fellow academics and news media alike described how bad the sun is and advising that
if you slap on the sunscreen you will be fine.
This is because recently, I established just the contrary, i.e.
namely that people with lack of sun (low serum vitamin D
status) may be at extra risk of certain types of cancer. For example, it is well known the Black and
Asian women living in cold ,cloudy
climates such as the UK suffer from more ‘triple negative’ breast cancer than
those living in warmer, sunnier areas [4].
Hypothesis
The
hypothesis I propose is simplicity itself: if sunshine viz
a viz ultraviolet production of D3 is really
beneficial as a cancer prophylactic this ought to show in a geographic metal
analysis.
Method
I will be investigating
an entire cancer cohort by both traditional linear regression analyses and by geographic mapping visual
comparisons (human eye based meta-analysis.
The data pertaining to US
cancers is all available at http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/
[5], with
the exception of total incidence for the state of Nevada which was obtained
from http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/10/29/nevada-has-higher-cancer-rates-than-neighboring-states/
[6].
The
data pertaining to percentage sunshine is available at
http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-sunshine.php [7]
Solar u/v mapping is from
‘AVGLO’ , see also Tatalovitch [8].
A straight linear regression of total cancer incidence
rates state by state against annual percentage sunshine was made. Then a visual meta-analysis of the
geographic mapping of total cancer incidence rate and solar u/v was
attempted.
Results and Discussion
The
linear regression result is shown below, see figure 1
Figure 1 : Cancer Incidence versus total sunshine
Discussion
(sunshine)
A negative linear
correlation is observed, regression coefficient 0.68. The most aberrant single point or largest
residual is that at 41% total sunshine which is for the state of Alaska, where
cancer rates are apparently lower than predicted by the sunshine algorithm.
Alaska has significantly
less radon and significantly less pesticide use than mainland USA.
This result is highly significant. A regression coefficient of .68 is enormous
in epidemiology terms considering that say
the coefficient for smoking and cancer is of the order of 0.02. My P
Value Results r=.68 DF=20 yield s two-tailed P value equals 0.0005
By conventional criteria, this difference is
considered to be extremely
statistically significant.
In other words sunlight
is extremely good for
us. Vitamin D does far more than protect us from
rickets. It is a powerful antioxidant,
and increases anti-inflammatory cytokine and has great potential as an anti-
cancer agent, see for example Trump et al (2004) [9] and many others.
Furthermore, since
melatonin derives from serotonin, see B Claustrat (1984) [10]
, the more exposure to natural light we
get the better is the serotonin to melatonin balance in the brain and the more
able is the body to ramp up melatonin levels at night also needed for cancer
protection.
Results
( mapping)
Figure 2
In figure 2,
the solar u/v map and the cancer incidence map have purposely been
placed side by side. In the solar u/v map
dark blue represents least u/v and red is most.
In the cancer incidence map, dark blue represents most cancer and white
least.
The visual result of this meta analysis is blindingly
striking.
The Inference
from both the regression and the mapping analysis is that maybe 20% of
cancers could be prevented (possibly
cured) by sunshine alone (vitamin D!!!!!!!!)
But
what about melanoma skin cancer
I
have produced a similar correlation, see figure 3.
Figure
3
On the face of it, the correlation regression
coefficient is zero or close to zero.
Actually it is +.03.
Close inspection of the function tends to suggest
there are other factors at play here. For
example, when a quadratic fit is applied it can be seen that at very low and
very high percentage sunshine the rate seems significantly lower.
Only geographic mapping meta-analysis can properly
explain what is happening. One such
study has previously been done, see http://www.jaad.org/cms/attachment/2005408035/2023469760/gr1.jpg
Figure
4
but for some reason the authors ignored several states
in the USA.
I have included all the data and a very different
story emerges, see Figure 5.
FIGURE
5
I have
compared the geographic distribution of melanoma, solar u/v and radon gas in
the USA. A far stronger correlation can
be seen between radon gas and melanoma than solar u/v.
This is wholly
in line with the results of my recent UK analysis. Also in that study I came to the conclusion
that sun in spring and autumn gave protection from melanoma due to higher u/v
in summer.
It is also interesting to note that in 5 out of the 9
states with the worst melanoma incidence there are no restrictions on the
teenage use of sun tanning parlours. Sun beds are reckoned to be dangerous
because of the different balance of u/v A to u/v B compared with natural
sunlight furthermore they expose the user to high electric and magnetic fields
in themselves potential carcinogens.
Conclusions
Based on the above
statistics, sun is far better for us than previously thought and could
potentially prevent up to 20% of cancers in general even some melanoma. The
mechanism may be maintenance of adequate serum vitamin D3 but also even the
maintenance of adequate melatonin. Sun
bed use and living in high radon gas areas are potentially the greatest risks
for melanoma cancer and living in
areas with greater than about 72% annual sunshine may actually be protective
against melanoma, contrary to all traditionally established expectations.
References
1. http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/
3. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6217/78.short
4. http://www.drchrisbarnes.co.uk/blbr.htm
5. http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/
6. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/10/29/nevada-has-higher-cancer-rates-than-neighboring-states/
[
7. http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-sunshine.php
9. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076004001232
10. B
Claustrat, G Chazot, J Brun, D Jordan, G Sassolas - Biol Psychiatry, 1984 - gwern.net
11.