Could sunscreen be dangerous?

Thanks to the brutal heat washing over much of the nation today, many people are thinking about sun protection, including writers at The New York Times. They’ve opened up debate about the safety of sunscreen itself, whether chemicals in the stuff we dutifully cover our skin with each summer could hurt us.

Policy makers and scientists approved chemicals in sunscreen back in the ’70s before subsequent studies found they might not be so safe. Some say there’s reason to worry that sunscreen could cause exactly what we’re trying to prevent: skin cancer. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), according to the piece, is pushing for more FDA research on the possible link between skin cancer and retinyl palmitate found in much sunscreen. Vitamin A, an active ingredient in more than 40 percent of all sunscreens, might stimulate gowth of skin tumors and lesions when applied in the sun, said Sonya Lunder. It’s bad news for cosmetics companies who champion the vitamin’s health value. Said Lunder:

The cosmetics industry aggressively markets products with Vitamin A ingredients claiming they rejuvenate skin. This may be safe for products used indoors, but there is a real possibility of harm when used on sun-exposed skin. In the study, tumors and lesions developed up to 21 percent sooner in sun-exposed lab animals coated with a vitamin A-laced cream than among animals treated with a vitamin-free cream.

Jennife Parrish of the Santa Cruz Sentinel wrote last week that the FDA still has yet to enact sunscreen safety regulations dafted in 2007, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer reported users of sunscreen have show a higher isk of melanoma than non-users — in other words, it may be that while sunscreen prevents sunburn and reduces the risk of squamous cell carcinoma, the most common form of skin cancer, it might increase the risk of developing deadly melanoma. This may be related to the behavior of those who use sunscreen most — serious sun bathers who may have a false sense of security — than of sunscreen itself, but some health officials say the jury’s still out.

It sounds like we’re darned if we do, darned if we don’t. It seems especially critical then that the FDA work to develop new, safe, advanced forms of sunscreen, as some of the Times’ other guests suggest. A few argue for clearer labels and improved consumer education of the harmful effects of UVA rays in addition to UVB rays, which is what we mostly pay attention to now. Until then, umbrella and straw hat, anyone?

Thanks to the brutal heat washing over

Reality nursing: “Boston Med” and representation

Mainstream media and culture have never been too kind to nurses. Instead of appearing as the competent multi-tasking superwomen (or men) they are, they’re portrayed as anything but. The most common trope: women nurses as sexy-naughty fantasies (see Kate Beckinsale in “Pearl Harbor” or this TAG body spray ad). One British study found nurses top men’s sexual fantasy list. The Center for Nursing Advocacy suggests this may be based in our gender norms and constructs in which men idealize women offering “care-taking or service — a classic dominant-submissive division.” On America’s favorite fantasy holiday, Halloween, stores brim with skimpy nurse costumes. Lingerie brand Frederick’s of Hollywood now plans to propogate and profit from the fantasy year-round.

If not playing sexy, nurses are simply invisible — few nurses ever cross the set on Grey’s Anatomy and House. Both shows worship surgeons and other doctors, ignoring the critical routine work performed not by doctors but by nurses, such as drawing blood, checking blood pressure, taking temperature and clearing away food. Why be a nurse? Doctors are the real star.

No surprise then that nursing community is abuzz over a new reality show, “Boston Med.” Nurses appear as complex, thoughtful, real characters. Writes The New York Times:

“Among the health professionals it is the nurses to whom we are drawn most. The doctors are too often presented as stock characters — the cocky male cardiothoracic surgeon with the ‘Bachelor’ nickname; the overworked Southern OB-GYN named Rachel who keeps telling us how committed she is to her career and how her doting boyfriend, Jeff, should just dump her. The nurses must constantly endure the self-certainty of young residents who are entirely new to the world of the hospital.”

It echoes the experience of another new popular, albeit more controversial, show: Showtime’s Nurse Jackie, which debuted last year. It features a realistic, super-smart nurse protagonist (Edie Falco) who struggles with addiction, has an affair with a pharmacist and manages the wacky politics of an urban hospital. Some members of the medical community, including the New York State Nurses Association, disprove of her potrayal. Others praise the show, arguing that while Jackie is flawed, those flaws create a complex, more realistic representation of nurses and their hard work, including their struggle to balance their professional and personal lives — much like the rest of us. Writes Suzanne Gordon in The Atlantic:

“Nurse Jackie finds a way to catalogue every major problem afflicting nurses, while skillfully illuminating common ethical dilemmas and public policy questions involving end-of-life care, assisted suicide, and organ transplant donation. The series depicts workplace violence against nurses, disrespect from doctors, the breakdown of MD-RN communication that puts patients at risk, plus the forced overtime, understaffing, job stress and occupational hazards that drive so many RNs to burn-out, drop out, gain weight, or even self-medicate.”

While television rarely portrays any major industry with loads of accuracy, Boston Med and Nurse Jackie offer at least some relief to those looking for insight to a vocation full of hard work, stress and scrubs, far from subservient-sexy or invisible.

Mainstream media and culture have never been