Cancer Archives

UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know"

[ Cancer Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!
 
        

UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know"

Posted by Tim on March 15, 2002 at 18:22:59:

When it comes to ultraviolet light exposure (UV), like with everything natural, balance is the key. This is such a big subject, especially relevant to those of us struggling to re-balance our imbalanced immunity. Despite all the scares about melanomas, we all need some UV exposure for optimal health. Too much is bad as is too little. The question is how much exposure, and which spectrum (UVA, UVB) does what? According to a well-known natural AIDS/CFIDS researcher, Mark Konlee, UVB light depresses immunity, and UVB stimulates it. (see: http://www.execpc.com/~keephope/report18.html)

"UVA induces Th1 while UVB induces Th2

Sunlight has been blamed for skin cancer in many published studies. For years persons with HIV have been told to stay out of the sun on the assumption that it activates HIV. Controlled studies have contradicted these earlier beliefs and showed that sun tanning did not increase HIV viral loads. My position for years is that sunlight is healthy for most persons. It increases white blood cell counts, improves delayed type hypersensitivity (DTH), improves calcium absorption and stimulates deeper restful states of sleep.

Sunlight is a source of ultraviolet light, UVA primarily with some UVB and a small amount of UVC. Kondo S and Jimbow K report in the Journal of Cell Physiology (1) that UVA promotes Il-12 but not IL-10. They state:

“Considering that IL-12 promotes activation of Th1 cells and prevents activation of Th2 cells...our results suggest that UVA modulates skin immune function distinctively from UVB.”
Other researchers have pointed out the difference between UVA and UVB in terms of cytokine production. Skov L et al report that exposure of the skin to ultraviolet B (UVB) light causes immunosuppression which is relevant to the induction of skin cancer. They studied both UVA and UVB light on the skin and found their cytokine effects were opposite(2). They found UVB increased Il-10 significantly. They did not find this with UVA. With UVA, they found a decrease in TNF-alpha while they found a significant increase in TNF-alpha with UVB. Other researchers have found an increase in skin cancer in persons with psoriasis who undergo extensive UVB light treatments.

In my opinion, exposure to sunlight is safe and healthy if you eat a wholesome diet rich in antioxidants and one that does contain lots of immunosuppressive vegetable oils high in polyunsaturated linoleic acid. Persons who rarely eat fruits and vegetables and consume significant quantities of foods fried with liquid or hydrogenated vegetable oils should stay out of the sun. A small quantity of UVB in sun light could place at risk for skin cancer as their diet has already placed them at risk for cancer. If they don’t get skin cancer, they probably will some other type. With indoor sun tanning salons that exclusively use UVA light, I see not only no problem, but rather a lot health benefits."

He therefore advocates avoiding UVB, and suggests using UVA lamps to stimulate the Th1, the arm of the immune system many of us are depressed in.

Naturally, being skeptical, and knowing for every positive report, there is a downside as well, HOW DO WE REALLY KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT? What info do we trust in for such an important topic?

I'd like to hear experiences, opinions and/or facts from our experts on the subject!




Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know"

Posted by R. on March 15, 2002 at 23:13:38:

In Reply to: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" posted by Tim on March 15, 2002 at 18:22:59:

"...if you eat a wholesome diet rich in antioxidants and one that does contain lots of immunosuppressive vegetable oils high in polyunsaturated linoleic acid."

Did you mean to say does not? Or was it Marc Konlee?


UVB is needed for production of Vitamin D (http://sunlightandvitamind.com/)

Other sources:
- Seeing the Light
- The Healing Power of Full-Spectrum Light



Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know"

Posted by Tim on March 16, 2002 at 05:50:27:

In Reply to: Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" posted by R. on March 15, 2002 at 23:13:38:

Yes, that was from Konlee and thanks for the links, however, the research I've dug up is totally contradictory at best.

I very much respect all the research Konlee's done with regard to immune dysfunction, however, it seems when it comes to photoimmunology, there is a wide degree of confusion in my research. As it states in one of the research excerpts below, ultraviolet radiation (UVR) may be the most prevalent agent that man encounters in his environment. A very big issue with me since I have had much UV exposure during the last 10 years (obviously like to tan & have my own bed, now with 99% UVA bulbs). Hopefully, someone can help me navigate through the confusion and altogether very conflicting following research. According to several studies I've listed below from PubMed, there IS significant evidence that UVA may have equivalent or greater direct immunosuppressive effects than UVB!

I went ahead and categorized the research papers as follows:

PRO-UVA STUDIES:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11252816&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10430940&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10383743&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10084309&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9067537&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11390207&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9337619&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2932681&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3149987&dopt=Abstract

ANTI-UVA STUDIES
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11079476&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9886258&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8972640&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8745890&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2470820&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11488707&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11453907&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11422036&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11411597&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10383742&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9920438&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9623124&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8367531&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8451290&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2468613&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2221980&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2203438&dopt=Abstract

MORE ANTI-UVA:
"Through less likely to cause an angry red burn, UVA light may do subtler kinds of damage: less lethal, localized cancer of the skin, eye damage, the possibility of weakened immunity, severe reactions if a tanning booth patron is on certain medications, such



Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" (Archive in cancer.)

Posted by Walt Stoll on March 16, 2002 at 12:31:49:

In Reply to: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" posted by Tim on March 15, 2002 at 18:22:59:

Thanks, Tim.

Surprising new research: February 23rd, 2002 Issue of Science News, page 126.

"Indoor tanning ups all skin cancer rates."

This is from the Feb. 6th, 2002 Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Comments?

Walt



Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" (Archive in cancer.)

Posted by Tim on March 16, 2002 at 15:48:15:

In Reply to: Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" (Archive in cancer.) posted by Walt Stoll on March 16, 2002 at 12:31:49:

Yes, I'm not surprised, however, they're probably referring mostly to UVB, plus that's really only an issue in those that are low in antioxidants. Not really my concern.

I AM LOOKING AT USING UVR (specifically UVA)AS A THERAPEUTIC AGENT. Too much is no good asd is too little, right? So, the bottom line question is - is UVA good, as Konlee seems to think, or not?



Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know"

Posted by R. on March 16, 2002 at 18:07:08:

In Reply to: Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" posted by Tim on March 16, 2002 at 05:50:27:

I am not comfortable with a type of research that considers artificial conditions. E.g. cell cultures. There are many things that occur in vitro don't occur in vivo. There are two many factors, and some may compensate others. I prefer epidemiological studies.

Why don't ask Krispin, an author of an article I refered you to. She has been researching this issue. www.krispin.com



Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know"

Posted by Tim on March 16, 2002 at 21:02:19:

In Reply to: Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" posted by R. on March 16, 2002 at 18:07:08:

That is what my gut is telling me as well. I bet Mark Konlee would feel the same way and am waiting for his reponses.



Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" (Archive in EM Smog.)

Posted by Walt Stoll on March 17, 2002 at 08:42:28:

In Reply to: Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" posted by Tim on March 16, 2002 at 05:50:27:

Thanks, Tim.

Electromagnetic smog studies are in their infancy. Every new concept goes through this stage where there are many contradictory studies.

Look at the studies about lead toxicity for just one recent example. NOW, no one doubts that the healthiest level of lead in the bodymind is ZERO. Even the slightest trace produces measurable brain damage (among other things). The government, based upon flawed studies, have done their damndest to establish "safe" levels for more than 50 years.

Bring this back up in about 20 years.

Namaste`

Walt

Follow Ups:


Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" (Archive in cancer.)

Posted by Walt Stoll on March 17, 2002 at 10:08:46:

In Reply to: Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" (Archive in cancer.) posted by Tim on March 16, 2002 at 15:48:15:

Hi, Tim.

Se my previous note today about your articles.

I do not think there has been nearly enough research about this as yet to make a definitive decision.

Walt

Follow Ups:


Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know"

Posted by Tim on March 18, 2002 at 20:22:32:

In Reply to: Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" posted by Tim on March 16, 2002 at 21:02:19:

Here is what Konlee wrote back:

"When reading abstracts, you always need to distinguish between opinions and facts. Sometimes, scientists will endorse each others opinions without rolling up their sleeves and doing the basic research needed to find the truth. If UVA were so bad, then thousands of species of birds and animals, including apes and monkeys on the planet for the past millions of years should have developed skin cancer. Have you found any evidence of skin cancer in the wilds?
I can tell you from personal experience and those of friends that UVA or natural sun light enhances DTH responses to DNCB topical application. Increased DTH responses indicates increased antigen presentation and CMI.
Today, skin cancer and many other forms of cancer are caused by diets high in fat and low in selenium and other antioxidants. Wild animals and birds don't eat hydrogenated fats, white flour and white sugar and they don't get skin cancer and they live outdoors all the time and are exposed to UVA and all other forms of UV from the sun. Skin cancer is a disease of civilized and modern man. The DNA damage even to UVB from natural sunlight would not occur if the skin had natural antioxidants present.
There are reports of persons who strictly avoided sunlight all their life who develop skin cancer like many non-smokers who have developed lung cancer. That shouldn't be but it is. Do some research on fat and cancer and see what you turn up."

Makes sense, doesn't it....?




Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know"

Posted by Walt Stoll on March 19, 2002 at 15:04:00:

In Reply to: Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" posted by Tim on March 18, 2002 at 20:22:32:

Thanks, Tim.

More than 95% of smokers do not get lung cancer either (My % are not accurate but the point is valid.) However, less than 1% of non-smokers get lung cancer.

Walt

Follow Ups:


Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know"

Posted by R. on March 19, 2002 at 15:45:59:

In Reply to: Re: UVA vs. UVB LIGHT to Helping You, Dr. S, and any others "in the know" posted by Tim on March 18, 2002 at 20:22:32:

Yes, it does make sense. That's been my opinion, and it's shared by authors of the articles I cited.

I feel it's necessary to add here that when Konlee mentioned fat, he most likely meant unsaturated, and especially polyunsaturated, fats. He was specific about it in his statements you quoted earlier. Native people (those who are well nourished) are not known to have cancer, skin or any other types. And they eat lots of fat, but it's largely saturated fat, a very stable type. And of course, they didn't (or still don't) eat refined food of any kind.

Ray Peat is very adamant about avoiding unsaturated fats (especially PUFA) because they create lots of free radicals due to their instability, and they suppress immune system. Saturated fats, he says, stabilize unsaturated fats.

Follow Ups:


[ Cancer Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!