Consider leaving the kids with Grandma instead of taking them on that trip to Cancún. Or at least fill the suitcase with long-sleeved swim shirts, floppy hats and a shade umbrella.
The number of beach, poolside and water-park vacations children take before age 6 is directly related to the number of moles on their little bodies.
A study of 681 white children in Colorado found that for each water-themed vacation, kids had 5 percent more moles — raising the risk for skin cancer later in life.
The results are startling enough that study author Lori Crane, a professor at the Colorado School of Public Health, is advising parents to rethink sun-soaking vacations for children.
“I’m not sure how much they appreciate an expensive trip,” said Crane, chairwoman of the department of community and behavioral health. “The kids would enjoy being with their grandparents for a week.”
Kids examined yearly
Children involved in the study were examined once each year for moles, freckles and other sun damage. Their parents answered detailed questions about sun exposure, vacations and sunscreen use. The study involved only white children because African-Americans and other people of color are better protected from sunburn by melanin in their skin that helps block UV rays.
For the kids in the study, it didn’t matter how many days the vacations lasted or whether the kids wore sunscreen — 90 percent of families reported using sunscreen all or most of the time. The number of moles correlated with the number of times they went on trips next to water.
That means sun damage is happening during the first days of a tropical or lakeside vacation, Crane said.
She cautioned against relying only on sunscreen, which she said works well at preventing sunburn but doesn’t eliminate the risk of skin damage or melanoma, the deadliest type of skin cancer.
“People don’t put it on as thick as is recommended or put it on as often as recommended,” she said. “Even if they were, it’s not clear that it would be preventing skin cancer.”
Crane recommends kids stay out of the sun from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., when rays are the harshest.
Dr. Martin Weinstock, a Brown University dermatology professor who was not involved in the study, said the new research reinforces evidence that intense ultraviolet exposure leads to skin damage. Sunscreen, he said, is the most practical solution on a beach vacation.
“They can take their child on vacation, they’ve just got to protect the kid,” said Weinstock, also chairman of the American Cancer Society’s skin-cancer advisory group.
Beth Hafner — whose 10-year-old daughter, Emily Bedinger, was in the study — said she has become more vigilant about sun exposure after listening to her daughter’s mole count each year.
“It just freaks you out. Every year, she had more,” the Golden mom said. “I grew up where you put baby oil on your body and laid out for hours. My kids would never do that.”
The family goes to Newport Beach, Calif., every July, and Hafner packs swim shirts, hats and UV-proof umbrellas to protect them at the beach.
Karen Cassidy’s son Finn always seems to have about 10 more moles than average for kids his age. The fifth-grader’s annual mole count has heightened her awareness too.
Colorado rates higher
Each summer, when the Thornton family relaxes at Two Rivers park in Nebraska, she makes the kids wear shirts over their swimsuits. “They just live outdoors when we are there,” said Cassidy.
All the kids in the study were born in 1998 and are about 10 years old.
For U.S. children born that year, the likelihood of developing melanoma later in life is about 1 in 93. But for Colorado kids, the rate is even higher — about 1 in 70 — because of the state’s sunshine and high elevation, Crane said.
Men have higher rates of melanoma than women, and the study suggests that risk might start early in life.
Boys had 19% more
Boys in the study had 19 percent more moles than girls at age 6, even with similar sun exposure.
It’s possible boys are wearing less clothing to protect them from the sun because parents think they are “tougher,” Crane said. Or it may be that biologically, boys are more susceptible to skin damage, she said.
The study was published this month in the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.
Jennifer Brown: 303-954-1593 or jenbrown@denverpost.com
