Skin's Real Hazard: How Artificial Light and Sunscreen are Fuelling the Skin Cancer Epidemic

Introduction

In the 1970’s the average American spent approximately 25% of their day outdoors which translates to 6 hours or half of the daylight hours. In 2024, the average American spends about 7% of their day outside, which translates to roughly 1.7 hours per day, including weekends. The most surprising shift was amongst children and teenagers with a 30% outdoor lifestyle per day in 1970’s compared to 4% or 1 hour per day in 2024. That is a 26% reduction in time spent outdoors for persons under 18 years of age. These percentages are based on surveys and studies that track daily activities and time use, such as those conducted by the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) and National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). So, it would be a false claim to say that people in 2024 are spending more time in the sun in the USA compared to in 1970. Additionally, people in 2024 are using much more sunscreen with a higher sun protection factor (SPF) than back in 1970. Compared to men, women use sunscreen twice as much, yet somehow, they have significantly higher rates of skin cancer. But dermatologists and oncologists have told the public that the ultraviolet light in sunlight causes skin cancer. Sun exposure rates are at all time lows, especially for children, sunscreen and sunglasses use are at all time highs globally and yet all forms of skin cancer continue to rise globally, when will the real culprit be revealed? If it were sunlight that caused cancer, wouldn’t it be much more prevalent throughout human history before SPF50 was invented and why would rates get worse now that SPF50 is readily available and used… And why do so many skin cancers, including melanoma, occur on areas of the body not exposed to sunlight such as the base of the feet/hands, behind ears, armpits or lower back… And we know when melanoma is detected it occurs on skin areas that have the least melanin production, hence the least UV solar irradiated… Oh and a study from 2005 has stated that even sunburn is inversely associated with melanoma… Are humans meant to live in a box indoors or outdoors?

Could it be that the problem lies in our daily use of artificial, unbalanced light sources and technology screens, which notably lack infrared light—the predominant wavelength in natural outdoor illumination bombarding our skin and eyes? Could it also stem from the window glass in our homes, cars, and offices that blocks large portions of the solar spectrum, exposing us to a spectrum of light never seen before in nature? Add to this the use of biophysically unintelligent sunscreens and sunglasses, as well as our increasingly indoor lifestyle that hides us from the sun, leaving us overly sensitive to sunlight and unable to roam freely on the planet we were designed to thrive on. Has the sun really changed throughout human history, or have our lifestyle habits shifted instead? If that’s the case, who’s truly to blame—the sun, or our beliefs?

What a mess centralized medicine and big pharma have created, ignoring direct evidence of contradictions while relentlessly pushing the same marketing narratives to sustain their specialties and grow industry profits year after year. The global sunscreen and sunglasses market generates over $50 billion annually, with dermatological checkups related to skin cancer screening adding another $15 billion per year.

Now imagine, just for a moment, if humans realized that the sun was actually good for them. If they had the education to seek shade, wear hats, or put on clothes when the sun became too intense for their unique skin predisposition. Imagine if they understood that full-spectrum light—including ultraviolet—on skin and eyes could lower all-cause mortality and prevent cancer through its many benefits, including stimulating melatonin production via the UV and infrared spectrum in sunlight. Imagine if this knowledge eliminated the need for sunscreen, sunglasses, dermatologists, or topical creams altogether.

Such a shift wouldn’t just empower individuals and reduce the burden of chronic disease; it would free up tens of billions of dollars annually to be invested in more productive areas, enriching lives far more profoundly. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. First, we must explore the real culprit behind the modern epidemic of skin cancer.

While indoors, humans are primarily exposed to artificial lighting from fluorescent or LED sources, which emit significant amounts of blue light in the form of an unnatural spike in 435nm-455nm range. This light predominantly reaches the face, hands, and, if bald, the top of the head. It follows that skin cancer rates are 3 times higher in the US in 2020 than they were in 1970. In the UK, they are 5 times higher than they were in the 1970’s. Australian basal cell carcinoma (BCC) rates increased 6.3X from 1970-2022 and Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), the skin cancer of the keratinocytes, increased 5.8X from 1970-2022. Melanoma increased 2.5X from 1970-2022. …And guess when the famous Slip-Slop-Slap Sun Smart Campaign” was launched in Australia building mass awareness of harmful sun exposure and an obedient nation radical adopting all safe strategies? 1981! Are you beginning to connect the dots yet that your dermatologists have ignored?!

This behavior is not just prevalent in the USA or Australia but also became common practice in Canada, the UK and across the world. At the same time, the world began adopting an indoor lifestyle similar to that of the USA. On average, people in the UK, Canada, and Australia now spend only 7% to 10% of their days outdoors. This equates to just about two hours of sunlight exposure daily, which dramatically limits humans living like this from receiving adequate light nutrition required to maintain their health. More direct/indirect sunlight exposure is needed as it’s crucial for numerous proven physiological benefits and processes. These benefits include generating neurotransmitters, lowering blood pressure, stimulating circulation through the release of nitric oxide, enhancing oxygen uptake and waste removal by the blood, regulating circadian rhythms, improving skin conditions like eczema, psoriasis, and acne, boosting immunity, improving visual function, and generating vitamin D, among others. But all these health supporting processes were impeded due to consistent application of sunscreen filtering the full spectrum and blunting the body’s ability to have these myriads of positive effects to the already restricted time window of daylight exposure available. And so, it follows that according to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data approximately 45% (150 million) Americans are vitamin D deficient, meaning they are ultraviolet light deficient and the 15 minutes of ultraviolet light exposure per day is clearly not enough. 10% (32 million) Americans experience seasonal affective disorder (SAD) a disease resulting from lack of sunlight, and according to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) approximately 20% (67 million) Americans suffer with a diagnosed mental health condition relating to a lack of serotonin and dopamine which are well-known to be produced by sunlight exposure when ultraviolet light is present-.

We live in an era dominated by fear of the sun, yet skin cancer rates continue to climb year after year. Australia, with the highest skin cancer rates in the world, epitomizes this paradox. Since the early 2000s, a trip to an Australian beach has transformed—gone is the simple joy of sitting on your towel and taking in the salty ocean breeze. Instead, the air is thick with the unmistakable scent of sunscreen, as beachgoers generously offer bottles of it as though it’s a lifeline. But the reliance on sunscreen extends far beyond the beach. It’s become so ingrained in the culture that it’s applied before morning walks, while hanging laundry on the clothesline, or even for the brief stroll from the car to the supermarket parked just steps awa Children in schools across Australia including into high school are banned from playing outdoors without a Legionnaires hat (hat with neck covering at back) and sunscreen or protective clothing. And yet skin cancer rates amongst Australian children skyrockets. If conventional wisdom was correct and the interventions of sunglasses, sunscreen, safe sun habits and limiting sunlight exposure especially to the UV spectrum works, we should have seen a reduction in skin cancer incidence over the past 40 years, but we haven’t, we’ve seen the absolute opposite with skin cancer rates rocketing higher with no reduction in sight. So, what is really going on? Could it be that we’ve been looking for answers in the wrong place?

What light is emitted by our sun to us on earth?

The sun is made up of 42% infrared light, which promotes cellular regeneration and tissue repair; 16% red light, which enhances cellular energy production and collagen synthesis; 18% green light, which aids in visual acuity and depth perception; 16% blue light, which regulates circadian rhythms and mood and contributes to alertness; and 8% UV light (when the sun is above a 30-degree angle to the horizon), which stimulates the production of vitamin D, dopamine, melatonin, and serotonin, just to name a few. However, all these benefits are only achieved to their fullest potential when light is received in the appropriate balance throughout the day as delivered by the sun. Isolating any of these wavelengths from the full spectrum results in imbalances within biochemistry, and if for long enough, it will resemble what we refer to as disease.

The Truth About Skin Cancer

Only 5% of all skin cancers are melanoma, which is deadly and metastatic (capable of spreading). The majority—89%—are basal cell carcinoma, and 6% are squamous cell carcinoma, neither of which are deadly or able to spread. This means 95% of all skin cancers are not life-threatening and remain a localized issue of the skin, rather than a systemic problem manifesting on the skin. While the term "skin cancer" is often used broadly, the likelihood of experiencing a fatal case is as rare as choking to death on your food during a meal—and eating is something most of us do daily without giving it much thought." That being said, it’s quite easy to eliminate this risk completely once you understand and internalize the knowledge in this paper. Let’s go!

Historical Context of Full-Spectrum Light Therapy

Before the 1950s, full-spectrum light therapy, including ultraviolet (UV) light, was widely used to treat conditions such as jaundice effectively. Sunlight, with its naturally balanced spectrum of light, played a vital role in health treatments because it includes approximately 60% red and infrared light, which are anti-inflammatory, anti-sunburn, anti-cancer, and skin-rejuvenating. These wavelengths work synergistically with UV light to enhance its beneficial effects while reducing harm. For example, sunlight therapy addressed neonatal jaundice by breaking down toxic bilirubin efficiently and safely.

However, a significant shift occurred in the mid-20th century. In the 1940s, artificial UV light replaced sunlight in jaundice treatment, and while it was effective, it lacked the infrared and red wavelengths present in sunlight. By the 1950s, treatments further shifted to isolated blue light (434–475 nm), which was even less effective and introduced new risks. This change was largely driven by a flawed 1959 study that linked artificial UV lamps to rare occurrences of retrolental hyperplasia in jaundiced infants. This single study led to the demonization of UV light in medical treatments, despite the fact that artificial isolated UV light used in the study was not equivalent to the naturally balanced full-spectrum light of the sun. This was documented back in the late 1960’s in John Ott’s book Health and Light; we’ve known about this flawed study for over half a century and yet dermatologists continue to ignore the obvious.

The flawed extrapolation was that since UV light exists in sunlight and had rare risks when used artificially, sunlight must also be harmful. This misconception has persisted, despite the fact that UV light, when accompanied by red and infrared light as in sunlight, is far less harmful and even nourishing in the right context. For instance, natural sunlight therapy pre-1950s was more effective and safer for treating jaundice than blue light therapy used today, which is linked to increasing risks like ocular melanoma.

The False Sunlight Connection to Melanoma

Similarly, the case of melanoma reflects a misunderstanding of UV light. UV light is not inherently harmful when it exists in the balanced spectrum of natural sunlight. The sun's infrared and red wavelengths protect the skin from the oxidative stress and inflammation that isolated UV light can cause. By contrast, artificial lighting such as LED and fluorescent bulbs lacks these protective wavelengths, creating a biologically stressful environment.

Studies now show that modern blue light exposure (434–475 nm), ubiquitous in technology, contributes to emerging conditions like ocular melanoma, the fastest-growing cancer of the eye. This is especially problematic in environments where humans spend significant time under artificial lighting and away from sunlight, such as hospitals, offices, or homes. Furthermore, mothers with high exposure to artificial blue light and electromagnetic frequencies (nnEMF) such as Wi-Fi, cell phone and Bluetooth radiation pre-pregnancy are more likely to give birth to jaundiced babies who are treated under blue light in IICU’s, further compounding the risks.

Summary

The history of light therapy highlights how misunderstandings about light exposure have shaped modern health practices. Before the 1950s, sunlight’s full spectrum was recognized for its healing properties, particularly in treating jaundice. The transition to artificial UV and later blue light therapies overlooked the critical role of sunlight’s balanced spectrum. These historical shifts contributed to the demonization of UV light, which persists today despite evidence that natural sunlight, in appropriate amounts, is vital for optimal health. By embracing sunlight responsibly, we can harness its benefits while avoiding the pitfalls of excessive artificial light exposure and misinformation.

Vitamin D and Melanoma

“Vitamin D deficiency at the time of melanoma diagnosis is associated with thicker tumours that are likely to have a poorer prognosis.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4430535/ 

The problem with sun-avoidance and “protection”

Sunscreen and Light Spectrum

Sunscreens typically block UV rays but do little to protect against blue light. Moreover, some chemical sunscreens can lower the voltage in facial skin, potentially exacerbating conditions like melasma. Alternatively, pre-treating the skin with infrared (which is abundant in morning sunlight) light before UV exposure has been shown to help manage melasma more effectively and precondition the skin stretching it to handle stronger sunlight containing ultraviolet later in the day. This approach supports the structuring of water in the skin (an effect of infrared light treatment – often referred to as building the first layer of your solar callus) and enhances cellular resilience against UV damage. Slowly acclimating your skin to stronger UV light via consistent tanning allows the body to produce melanin on the skin which acts as the second layer of your solar callus absorbing and utilizing UV light and acting as a primary defence antioxidant against UV induced oxidative damage.

In the skin layer keratinocytes are designed to recycle within 24-48 hours so the skin always cleans itself and refreshes itself. Squamous cell carcinoma (SC) is evidence of this skin layer being prevented from being turned over for some reason. This could indicate toxicity within the layer induced by isolated spectral exposure such as the application of oils, creams, make-up other full spectrum solar filtering substances, or internal toxicity. Although associated with sunlight exposure, the solution is found in keratinocyte apoptosis inhibition which is always linked to a poorly functioning immune system in the skin such as T-regulatory cells and low Vitamin D (UV light deficiency). With respect to melanoma there are types of melanomas completely unrelated to sunlight exposure such as those which occur on the palms and base of feet, this should provide perspective on the fact that some melanomas have absolutely nothing to do with sun burn. And traditional melanoma which most are afraid of is not related to sunlight exposure, but sun burn instead. When following the 2-layer solar callus suggestion to build your skins natural sunscreen, burns are much harder to come by and dramatically reduce any risks of all types of skin cancers across the board.

So, you’re left with a choice: either use sunscreen, which introduces chemicals into your bloodstream, selectively filters the full spectrum of sunlight (thinking your smarter than nature), and can lead to blue light toxicity in the basal cell layer resulting in skin cancer; or harness morning sunlight, as nature intended, to precondition your skin and make productive use of the ultraviolet light available in your environment naturally. This natural approach builds resilience, allowing your skin to capture more UV without burning, thereby enhancing your system's power and biological complexity. If outdoor morning sun isn't accessible, red-light treatment can serve as a photonic sunscreen alternative.

I am well aware that there is a subset of the population that cannot be in very strong UV light for long without preconditioning their skin first, but it's essential not to overlook the myriad of broad benefits of full-spectrum sunlight exposure and to understand how the combination of ultraviolet + infrared + the rainbow of visible light function together to orchestrate a symphony of biochemical reactions within the human living system pointing at optimal coherence, harmony, and health.

For individuals with red hair and light skin, such as those with Fitzpatrick skin type 1, nature’s adaptation of pheomelanin served well in northern latitudes with low-intensity light. However, this adaptation becomes a liability under strong sunlight or artificial lighting, such as light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), and technology screens, which emit unbalanced blue wavelengths. These artificial sources lack the infrared light found in natural sunlight, which helps balance UV and blue light exposure and mitigate oxidative stress. Fair-skinned individuals are particularly sensitive to these artificial light environments, and prolonged exposure—such as in office settings, while gaming, or during screen-based school activities—can dramatically increase their risk of skin cancer. This sensitivity to artificial blue light is a critical yet often overlooked factor in the rise of melanoma among these populations.

If these individuals visit environments with strong sunlight, they must take precautions to avoid intermittent burning, which is a major factor in increasing the risk of skin cancer. The simple rule is: don’t get burned. Using shade, protective clothing, and gradually preconditioning the skin will build resilience to UV exposure. I know red-haired, freckled friends who can sit for over an hour in strong UV sunlight without burning once they’ve adapted gradually. This highlights the capacity for fair-skinned individuals to thrive with sunlight when approached intelligently. However, their biology remains uniquely vulnerable to unbalanced artificial blue light. Pheomelanin, the pigment predominant in fair skin, not only lacks efficient UV and blue light shielding but actively generates reactive oxygen species (ROS) and RNA damage in response to blue light exposure. This photosensitivity, manageable in natural sunlight with infrared and UV balance, becomes harmful under artificial conditions, exacerbating melanoma risk. (Study reference)

Over 80% of individuals with fair skin and red hair carry dysfunctional MC1R variants, which reduce tyrosinase activity and promote pheomelanin production. This evolutionary adaptation, effective in northern latitudes, is poorly suited for today’s artificial light environments and global mobility, where they encounter a large amount of unbalanced artificial light. For these individuals, prioritizing natural full spectrum light exposure, increased red and infrared light exposure and minimizing time under artificial sources are crucial to mitigating their heightened risks.

There are now 17 different meta-analyses demonstrating a clear association between higher levels of vitamin D in the blood and a reduction in all-cause mortality. Vitamin D is primarily synthesized through exposure to UV light within the full solar spectrum, as dietary sources alone are insufficient to maintain healthy vitamin D levels, even if someone eats fisheyes for breakfast, Alaskan salmon skin for lunch, and polar bear liver for dinner. Many people, driven by a general fear of sunlight, turn to supplementation as an alternative. However, this approach is akin to heading to the gym and expecting your personal trainer to do the push-ups for you, hoping to build muscle. This analogy becomes clear upon understanding that vitamin D, much like cholesterol, undergoes a conversion process to become the active steroid hormone within living systems. This transformation is catalyzed by UV light exposure, making vitamin D levels in the body a direct reflection of absorbed UV light. While vitamin D can be synthesized in a lab, this method creates a false sense of sunlight absorption, leading to a cascade of unbalanced physiological responses downstream.

The only way to obtain a long-term healthy level of vitamin D power within your living system is to ensure adequate sunlight exposure when the sun is at or above a UV index (UVI) of 3 with as much skin exposed as possible. Ironically, this is exactly when government cancer councils across the globe, including the Australian Cancer Council, say to use high sun protection factor (SPF) sunscreen to shield your cholesterol from UV excitation, limiting vitamin D synthesis to almost nothing. This conflicting guidance creates an opportunity for the vitamin D supplement industry to thrive while perpetuating a misconception about UV light exposure within the full solar spectrum and its association with skin cancer risk.

Beyond this key role of sunlight, there are also studies showing sun avoiders are much more likely to experience all-cause mortality; in fact, avoidance of sun exposure has mortality implications equivalent to smoking https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26992108/. Now let’s get into the biophysics of eye-covering from sun which explain these false beliefs and marketing campaigns around sun exposure:

1. Sunglasses – ~4 billion (50%) people worldwide own a pair of UV filtering sunglasses, with 250 million (75%) Americans owning at least 1 pair of sunglasses. This has been a very successful marketing campaign, instilling fear into the public of natural full-spectrum sunlight exposure, which humans evolved with over millions of years, on their eyes. Could it be that the sun hasn’t changed, but our lifestyles have and thus resilience to sunlight has dropped? Sunglasses often polarize the light entering, which optically causes harm to the eye, as we are designed to receive unpolarized light such as that from the sun. For example, when you’re on a boat and the sun reflects off the water, the light which reflects from the water to your eye is polarized, which is much harsher than the light from the sun. You’re essentially creating this situation with polarized sunglasses. Secondly, sunglasses block the ultraviolet light and much of the visible light. This altered signal tells your brain it’s evening time or morning time, and thus your hypothalamus doesn’t send a signal to the skin to create alpha-melanocyte stimulating hormone (a-MSH). a-MSH is designed to be created in the skin during sunlight exposure as an adaptive mechanism to build resilience to ultraviolet sunlight from creating free radicals, which can go on to damage DNA without adequate melanin protection if burning occurs. So instead of your natural protective response occurring, your skin becomes burned faster and leads to DNA damage in the skin, which is foundational for setting up the conditions for all three types of skin cancer. Wearing sunglasses is what we in biophysics call setting up the conditions for a circadian light mismatch from the brain to the skin. Since the eye is the front of the brain and the skin and brain are connected via their embryological origins called the neuroectoderm, these organs contain the same non-visual photoreceptors, including neuropsin (UV), cholesterol (UV), Encephalopsin (purple), melanopsin (blue), water, and mitochondria (red and infrared). Therefore, these light signals need to be synchronized. When you cover the skin or eyes for any reason, a circadian mismatch is present, and acute inflammation is instantly created. If this goes on long enough, such as wearing sunglasses for years, skin, eye, and brain conditions are the inevitable result. Keep in mind that when a human living system is dehydrated, it can also make you burn faster than you should, and according to most recent surveys in the USA, at any one point in time, up to 75% of Americans are considered chronically dehydrated. What’s the #1 environmental toxin which dehydrates the body? Non-native electromagnetic fields, including artificial blue light, wireless radiation (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, 5G, cell phones, smart electrical meters, etc.), and indoor living. So, if you spend 1.5-2 hours of your outdoors time each day wearing sunglasses and listening to music with a Bluetooth headset or making calls on your phone, you’re setting yourself up for a statistical certainty of experiencing skin cancer in the coming years.

2. Glasses, contact lenses, intraocular lenses, windows, tinted windows – In 1992, Energy Star was launched by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States. This was the beginning of the end for lighting indoors within US homes. ENERGY STAR does provide specifications for windows and skylights, which may include requirements related to visible light transmission, solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC), and ultraviolet (UV) transmission. While the ENERGY STAR program doesn't explicitly mention blocking specific wavelengths of light, products certified under ENERGY STAR often incorporate features such as low-emissivity coatings or spectrally selective coatings on windows to help block infrared heat and UV radiation while allowing visible light to pass through. These features contribute to energy efficiency by reducing the amount of heat gained in a building while maintaining natural lighting. At the same time, they filter the most important non-visible wavelengths within the solar spectrum. This means that if you are indoors behind glass, whether that be in your office, in your favorite café or restaurant, in your dining room or living room, or in your car, your biology is being exposed to an unbalanced blue light toxic signal from the sun. As mentioned before, this exposes you to not only vitamin D deficiency, sunlight deficiency, and antioxidant deficiency from lack of infrared light exposure, but also harms your eyes, brain, and skin, bringing you closer to disease in one of these areas.
   
   

Our eyes contain photoreceptors like cholesterol, neuropsin, aromatic amino acids (tyrosine, phenylalanine, tryptophan, histidine), deuterium, melanin, and much more, which selectively absorb light in the ultraviolet range. This means that for all of human history, UV light from the sun has reached our eyes, and our biochemistry has responded, utilizing this light to power our human living system in a myriad of ways, including balancing eye pressure, ensuring optimal light focusing onto the macula in the center of the retina, increasing blood flow to the eyes, and creating neurotransmitters like dopamine, melatonin, and epinephrine critical for eye and brain health, and powering the T and B immune cells within the eye. For perspective, prescription or plastic lens glasses and intraocular lenses have only existed for less than 100 years. And yet, globally, our eyesight is worse than ever, with 2.5 billion (35%) of people globally wearing prescription glasses or contact lenses, and 200 million (61%) Americans in this category. Indirect ocular exposure to ultraviolet light is essential for human health and longevity, which modern inventions disrupt.

Opening a window, taking off your glasses, or removing contact lenses throughout the day when outdoors can reduce the harm of the otherwise filtered/unbalanced light spectrum, but it is not always possible and cannot always be a reliable strategy. Think about times when your skin or eyes are behind glass: in your office, eating a meal or having a drink indoors at your favorite café/restaurant as you look out the window, in your living or dining area of your home, in a car with the windows up, or wearing glasses when you read, work, or every day, putting in your contact lenses for the day, deciding on a cataract operation where they will surgically implant an acrylic clear yet light filtering or tinted lens within your eye. All these situations have just created an alien light signal never seen before in human history to signal your biochemistry out of balance and towards disease. So, it’s not the time you spend out in nature that is a ticking time bomb for skin cancer; it’s the time you spend disconnected from or filtering the full spectrum of sunlight that is the ticking time bomb in your life.

Sunlight, Vitamin D, and the Limitations of Supplementation in Skin Cancer Prevention

If Vitamin D is so protective of skin cancer, why can’t I just supplement it and avoid the risk of getting burned? Because supplemental Vitamin D is not even close to delivering the same benefits as producing it endogenously for free via sunlight interacting with your skin. Let me explain.

Dr. Richard Weller, a UK dermatologist, provides compelling evidence highlighting the critical role of sunlight exposure in preventing skin cancer and improving overall health. Drawing from numerous research studies, he emphasizes that individuals who receive more sunlight exposure are less likely to die from heart disease, cancer (including skin cancer), and other causes, showcasing a reduced all-cause mortality rate.

According to Dr. Weller, vitamin D levels serve as an excellent biomarker for ultraviolet (UV) light exposure. Sun-seekers have been shown to experience a 13% reduction in cardiovascular mortality, a 10% reduction in cancer mortality (including skin cancer), and overall lower mortality rates compared to non-sun-seekers. Additionally, individuals with higher vitamin D levels at the time of a skin cancer diagnosis tend to have better prognoses. However, studies examining vitamin D supplementation in cases of skin cancer reveal minimal benefits, underscoring the distinction between vitamin D produced through sun exposure and vitamin D obtained from supplements.

Dr. Weller highlights that vitamin D generated via sulfated cholesterol through sunlight exposure appears to offer significantly greater health benefits than supplementing with the hormone. Furthermore, he notes that proximity to the equator is associated with lower all-cause mortality and lower skin cancer rates, as seen in regions like North America, the UK, and Scandinavia. His conclusion is clear: “The more sunlight exposure someone has without burning—the lower their all-cause mortality, including from skin cancer.”

So what is a safe amount of sun for me? And, how do I use the sun to lower my risk of skin cancer?

Contrary to the flawed narrative that sunlight is dangerous, UV light from the sun, when accompanied by its full spectrum, is a powerful nutrient. It plays essential roles in circadian regulation, melanin production, nitric oxide regulation and vitamin D synthesis. The sun's balanced light spectrum harmonizes the body's circadian rhythms, melanin signaling, and mitochondrial health, offering protection and resilience against oxidative damage.

Ultraviolet light from the sun is a powerful nutrient that, like any essential nutrient, is absolutely needed—just not in excess. What constitutes excess? The short answer is, get as much full spectrum sunlight exposure as you can without burning your skin so you avoid skin peeling. That level will be different for everyone, and it’s a moving target because the more sun you get the more resilient you’ll get as you become adapted and able to capture more energy inside your body. With that in mind, is it worth training your body to accept sunlight because you want more energy in your body to do more work and perform better? Absolutely! So your next question, but is 15 minutes enough? If you want to live a mediocre life with low energy, yes, it’s enough. But if you want to be part of the BioSpectral tribe you aim to collect the most you can without burning and watch your risk of skin cancer gradually drop to virtually zero.

If your next question is, so then how do I really know my skin’s tolerance and light capturing ability right now? That depends on factors such as your skin type, solar callus (your skin’s UV adaptation), hydration status, melanin pigmentation, omega-3 and cholesterol intake, and even the quality of sleep you got the night before. All these variables must be carefully considered to determine how much sunlight is optimal for beginning to assess your unique context and planning your solar resilience path forward.

Understanding Melasma and Light Exposure

Melasma, characterized by dark, patchy discoloration of the skin, is indeed influenced by various factors, including hormonal imbalances and light exposure. One significant factor often overlooked is the impact of different light wavelengths on skin health. Let’s dig in…

The Role of Blue Light

Recent studies have shown that blue light, particularly from artificial sources such as screens and indoor lighting, can exacerbate melasma. Blue light penetrates the skin and reflects off dense tissues, increasing pigmentation. This phenomenon can be more pronounced in areas like the face, which are frequently exposed to artificial blue light from devices and indoor environments.

Unbalanced (isolated) blue light exposure, especially around 450nm, has also been linked to hormonal disruptions, which can further exacerbate melasma. For instance, blue light stimulates the release of estrogen and testosterone, leading to increased free iron in the bloodstream and promoting uneven pigmentation. In contrast, full-spectrum sunlight helps regulate these hormones, supporting overall skin health. For women, the progesterone to estradiol (Pg) ratio is very indicative of total body function. When either hormone is dysregulated for any reason, a myriad of issues can arise, including melasma.

If you’re struggling with this, it might be wise to assess your sex hormone panel and trace it back to how you produce these hormones. Consider factors such as cholesterol levels, your beliefs about cholesterol, the state of your liver (which produces the majority of your cholesterol), and your light exposure. Full-spectrum light converts cholesterol into steroid hormones (such as vitamin D), while artificial blue light degrades cholesterol photoreceptors in the first 50 microns of your skin (including your face). These factors provide clues to addressing the root cause of skin conditions like melasma.

The Impact of Makeup and chemical peels

Chemical peels and Makeup can alter the light spectrum reaching the skin, potentially worsening melasma. The pigments in makeup can reflect and scatter light in ways that enhance uneven pigmentation. Not to mention that many makeups now have a SPF in them making them even more toxic from an optical perspective. It’s no surprise that the term ‘natural beauty’ actually points to healthiest way to be as those who regularly use makeup will likely experience long-term skin issues.

Similar to the popularity of high heels among women, the pervasive societal expectation to wear makeup persists. However, if we allow ourselves to be dictated by societal norms and peer pressure, we risk losing touch with our inner strength, authenticity, and well-being.

With this context in mind, it becomes apparent that chemicals, artificial or altered, narrow band light (especially in the 435-455nm blue range), and poor cellular voltage can work together to set the stage for melasma creation and exacerbation, and balanced full spectrum light from our natural human environment is not the problem.

Conclusion

Most people get far too little sun exposure and huge amounts of artificial light and yet we fault the sun for skin disease, which delivers only a small set of natural balanced wavelengths of light (UV) alongside complimentary, antioxidative wavelengths of 58% red and infrared light. What’s more, this balanced spectrum of light from our sun is the primary source of energy for life on our planet, which has been around for 4.6 billion years with UV light being emitted for at least 2 billion years.  Yet humans survived and thrived for a very long time alongside the animals and plant kingdoms without sunglasses or sunscreen.

It is only in recent history that we've introduced a plethora of products and inventions such as makeup, chemical peels, skin lotions, moisturizers, sunscreen, sunglasses, glasses, contact lenses, intraocular lenses, synthetic fabric clothing, wide-brim hats, tinted window glass, and artificial light sources. Yet, we often overlook the potential impact of these barriers and filters on the transmission of coherent energy and information signals from our environment to our biology. It's crucial to consider whether these factors could be significant contributors to various skin conditions and cancers as the metaphorical elephant in the room.

It can be difficult to question and look behind the veil of rapid and progressive industrialization of our societies to discover the emperor wears no clothes. However, this is a reality that must be faced broadly across the ‘Disease Care’ industry. My passion is to bring to light the flaws in these gigantically successful marketing campaigns based upon false ideas and dodgy science.

The challenge we face is that we struggle to recognize that the way we have been living the past 40 years with a trend towards less and less time outdoors is vastly different from the way we have lived throughout human history. Yet somehow, we still believe diet and exercise are the most important dictators of health and that the sun is bad, even though we feel so good when we are out under its rays. Melasma, vitiligo, skin cancer…. Might they all be completely misunderstood and blaming the wrong root cause? I hope this information provides a different perspective on managing melasma and the role of light in skin health. Let’s continue this important conversation!

Final thought… I understand we're discussing skin cancer here, but if we examine the broader trend of diseases over the past three decades, we see a significant escalation to epidemic levels. There's been a surge in pills, doctors, procedures, prescriptions and pharmacies. Sloan Kettering is currently airing commercials stating that 50% of the population will experience cancer, with skin cancer being the most prevalent in the United States. In my area of North Carolina, Atrium facilities are sprouting up on every corner. At what juncture do we stop normalizing these skyrocketing rates of chronic illnesses and acknowledge that this isn't how we've historically lived? Until you understand how mitochondria function within our cells, you will never be able to solve the ‘mystery’ of cancer and the proliferation of chronic disease.

References

• Ultraviolet Light in sunlight lowers all-cause mortality https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X2400280X 

• Sunlight reverses melanoma https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15687362/

• Melanoma occurs in low melanin skin areas. More melanin less skin cancer. Tan is protective. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20601102 and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2029092 

• Indoor lighting is linked to more risk of skin cancer than outdoor lighting

• https://medium.com/@StillmanMD/indoor-lighting-causes-more-skin-cancer-than-the-sun-651f2a97464b 

• Blue Light caused skin cancer in mice via Neutraphills and type 1 macrophages https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2321 

• “Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma (CMM) may be initiated or promoted by UVA radiation because people are exposed to it indoors through windows and outdoors through some sunscreen formulations.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28924456/ 

• January 2019 – Space Station Engineers says Artificial Light is killing them

• https://m.medicalxpress.com/news/2019-01-space-station-indoor-sick.html?fbclid=IwAR1rb4tisQRus_OflhLDAklcWP7ZvknZ0FF2-pcL0FDyv1pY1FeVCHvvDr4 

• Artificial Unbalanced Light after sunset can lead to cancer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20347530 and  https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/05/20/1901824116

• Red Hair and Fair Skin more vulnerable to artificial light https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5241673/ 

• Our circadian rhythm protects us from skin cancer https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1115249108 and https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax7621 and https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.24.21265348v1

• IR exposure helps prevent skin cancer – Haywood R, et al. (2007) Protein, lipid, and DNA radicals to measure skin UVA damage and modulation by melanin. Free Rad. Bio. Med. 44 (6): 990-1000.