The comments by Dr. Wang accurately portray the marketing message from the sunscreen industry.  As a scientist with a great deal of interest in sunscreen research (see below), I feel compelled to convey the other side of the story, brought to you by that portion of the science community without industry ties.  First, a short summary of sunscreen efficacy for those products currently on the market.  The vast majority of commercial sunscreens rely on organic compounds, such as octyl methoxycinnamate and avobenzone, to reduce UVB and UVA radiation reaching the skin.  I read the same peer-reviewed journals as the medical community and there is clear evidence that, while some improvements have been made over the years, these compounds are still unstable when exposed to UV radiation.  The instabilities not only reduce the efficacy of the sunscreens but, far worse, they change the chemical composition so that the sunscreen itself becomes toxic to the skin, causing DNA damage to skin cells, and possibly leading to skin cancer!  The industry continues to try to solve the problems, but their solutions to date simply create more problems.  Encapsulating the ingredients in liposomes has the effect of increasing skin penetration in many instances, which could lead to cell damage throughout the body.

Which brings us to the so called inorganic, mineral-based barrier sunscreens that rely on titanium dioxide or zinc oxide.  For cosmetic reasons, nanoparticles and micronizing is used, which leads to a whole host of potential medical problems for the user.  Titanium dioxide itself is unstable and becomes toxic in a UV environment, and nanoparticles are easily absorbed by the body.  Further, a portion of the population is allergic to titanium, and should be tested with the Melisa blood test before being exposed to this metal on an ongoing basis.  Zinc oxide is perhaps the lesser of the evils.  Then there is the environmental impact of sunscreens on our oceans and lakes.  Sunscreen from swimmers and from sewer discharge as we wash it off in our homes is wreaking havoc on the ocean environment, causing widespread destruction of coral reefs and harming other sea life.

Here is my solution, based on how nature protects living things from UV damage.  For humans, nature provides a mild sunscreen in the form of melanin, that darkens our skin, while letting through enough UV to produce a tan and a healthy amount of Vitamin D, a major anti-cancer hormone.  She also provides us with a strong immune system that stops and repairs the free-radical damage to our skin cells caused by UV, which halts cancer in its tracks.  Unfortunately, most humans have compromised immune systems from eating the wrong foods and from being exposed to a litany of other environmental toxins (including sunscreens!), so they can no longer tolerate the healing rays of the sun without subsequent damage.  Out of frustration, I designed and patented (US 6,783,754) a non-toxic plant-based sunscreen formula for use on humans, based on how nature protects plants and other living things from UV damage.  I funded university research at UC Santa Barbara’s Cellular Biology Department, and the results are extremely positive.  When tested on cancerous skin cells, it stops the proliferation of malignant cells without damaging healthy cells. Known as “The Blueberry Project” (anthocyanins from blueberries were used as a major ingredient), the results of the first study are in peer review and will be published shortly (see www.montecitowellness.com for an abstract).  It is my hope that this research will spur the introduction of skin protection products that mimic nature by providing a small amount of UV screening (allowing the skin to tan and to generate adequate amounts of Vitamin D), and also providing a local natural boost to the skin immune system to stop the proliferation of DNA damage.

Re: the letter "Veggie diet helps people and planet,'' as a holistic health practitioner, I treat vegans and vegetarians with a host of health problems. I also treat clients who follow the Standard American Diet with a host of similar problems. Years of research has shown me neither a vegetarian diet nor one that incorporates grain-fed feedlot and caged animal products is healthy, sustainable or natural.

To help themselves and the planet, one should follow what Nature intended: a diet of free-range grass and grub-fed animal products and ripe, sweet fruit. History's largest clinical trial, conducted by nature over 100,000 generations, has proven this diet is the healthiest and most ecologically sustainable.

There are no recent scientific studies based on this diet because there is no money in it and virtually nobody has eaten this way for generations because they've been brainwashed by the agri-giants and the feedlot meat production industries.

Rather than go on about the evils of planting annual monocrops, such as wheat, oats, corn and soy (all require huge amounts of fossil fuel and manmade chemical processing to produce) , and the benefits of raising animals on perennial grass (no planting, fertilizing or pesticides), I offer the following reading list:

"The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Keith and "Against the Grain" by Richard Manning (on ethical, political, ecological and nutritional deficits of vegetarian diet); "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollen on ecological and nutritional deficits of a feedlot, grain-based animal food system; and "The Whole Soy Story" by Kaayla Daniel on how soy foods like burgers and milk are created using horrific chemicals to produce frankenfoods.

"The Original Diet" by me (researches what Nature intended humans to eat to provide a healthy life in harmony with our environment.)

The Unhealthy-Food Tax Program (a comment to the article "Congress Plans Incentives for Healthy Habits" by Robert Pear in the NY Times)

As a holistic health practitioner and author of several books on illness prevention, I am a strong supporter of prevention as the solution to the healthcare crisis.  Actually, we have a health crisis - there just isn't enough health these days.  People are getting sicker sooner, and it is only getting worse.  From my 20 years of research on the subject, there is no doubt that poor dietary choices are a major contributor to illness.  My suggested solution is to place a very large tax on unhealthy foods.  The beauty of this solution is that only those who choose to eat these Frankenfoods will have to pay, and the tax money can go toward supporting a healthcare system for all.  The tax amount should be significant, say three to 10 times the basic price, and should be imposed on a good deal of the foods available today.  Will this ever happen?  Not likely in the present corporatocracy, where AgriGiants can lobby politicians to be sure the crappy foods they sell will not be taxed.  Here is a starter list of the foods I would like to see heavily taxed: all genetically modified foods, which would include most products containing corn and soy; all animal products which derive from animals fed antibiotics or hormones or grains, or who are raised in confinement; all pasteurized products; all bottled water and juices in plastic containers; all foods containing sugar or high fructose corn syrup or agave syrup; all non-organically grown fruits and vegetables; all foods containing any artificial ingredients or preservatives; all foods packaged in metal cans; all fried foods; and all non-whole grain products.  What’s left to eat?  Plenty. Read “The Original Diet” for the answers.

The Office Of Illness Prevention 

(Posted on www.change.gov, published in the Santa Barbara News Press and The Santa Barbara Independent)

On Economics and Ecology  – Each a House of Cards with a Common Flaw (published in the Wall Street Journal as a comment to an article by Al Gore)

The words economics and ecology share the same eco- prefix, which derives from the Greek word for house or household (oikos).  While it may seem that our current economic and ecological woes are unrelated, that is far from the truth.  In fact, the model upon which we have built our financial system and the model we have used to exploit our environment share a common flaw that makes both unsustainable.  That flaw is unfettered growth.  First, let’s take a look at the ecological house of cards we have created.  As most experts in the field of environmental studies are aware, an ecological model based on uncontrolled population growth is unsustainable for any species, including us.   As a retired rocket scientist, I can tell you it is not rocket science to reach the really inconvenient truth that over-population is at the root of human-caused environmental ills, from global warming to energy, food, and water shortages.  Population growth occurs at an exponential rate, in the same manner that interest on money grows when it is compounded (we will get to that shortly).

Estimates abound that about 2 billion people are the maximum sustainable in the world if every individual is to have a reasonable standard of living, as opposed to the 7 billion (and growing by the minute) soon to inhabit the planet.  For the US, population sustainability estimates based on a reasonable standard of living for everyone range from 150 million to 200 million, as opposed to our present population level of more than 300 million, also growing by the minute.  One need only take a look at how nature deals with such a situation to predict the fate of our species.  When other species (plant or animal) have exceeded their sustainable level, they begin to die off until they either reach sustainability or become extinct.  Unrestricted growth is unsustainable because growth requires raw materials of some form to fuel it, and those raw materials are not infinite.  In the case of population growth in any particular area of the world, that fuel is in the form of natural resources extracted from the environment, including food and water.  When those resources are depleted, reproduction ceases, leading to extinction.

Human history is filled with occurrences of starvation, wars, and illnesses (plagues) that have had a regulatory effect on population growth.  Nature is already hinting at how she will continue to deal with us in the future:  forced population reduction as a result of massive starvation and environmental disasters that kill millions; wars and genocide as we fight over shrinking food and water supplies that result from unfriendly climate conditions caused by us; untreatable illnesses as a result of increased population density; and an environment we have made so toxic it will no longer support the reproduction of our species.  It is a coin-toss as to whether this will result in sustainable population levels or, because the environment will be too far gone, to our extinction.  The classic ways to reduce population that are under our control (or should be) include the politically incorrect programs of contraception, abortion, and immigration control.  It fascinates me that, while all of these issues are in the headlines daily, the positions being taken are based on religion and ethnicity.  It seems that at some instinctual level we know these issues are important, but we have not made the connection to our very survival as a species.  The subject of population control is so politically (and ethically) incorrect that it is virtually ignored in any discussion relating to our environment.  This is really quite sad considering it is the key to solving these problems before Nature does it for us.

Now, let’s move from our ecological house of cards to our economic house of cards.  I am a diehard capitalist, but the unfettered growth problem discussed above in connection with ecology also plagues our present implementation of capitalism, so that it too is unsustainable.  Starting with the simple concept of compound interest, it is not rocket science to show that exponential growth of interest accumulating on even a modest sum of money over time would eventually exceed the entire net worth of our planet, if such could be measured.  You see, an exponential growth curve, whether it applies to population or money, quickly heads toward infinity.  The fuel for economic growth is debt, and uncontrolled growth leads to massive debt.  Debt can take the form of a monetary deficit as in the case of the financial markets.  It can also take the form of ecological debt, as in the case of any industry that exploits non-renewable raw materials from the earth to fuel its growth, such as fossil based energy companies (oil, coal, gas).  In either case, the bill finally comes due.

Our present form of capitalism is based on continuous year over year growth, whether it is measured in revenue, profit, property value, or GDP.  In the case of our ecological model, Nature eventually puts the brakes on growth, forcing population reduction in very undesirable ways, but reestablishing a sustainable setpoint.  How are the brakes put on our financial model to return it to sustainability?  Well, we have just seen such a financial reset take place during the last few weeks.  Capitalism in its present form has in the past (and will in the future) require periodic resetting - bailouts like those that occurred in 1792, 1907, 1929, 1986 and 2008.  These may take the form of debt forgiveness, taxpayer supported loans, government intervention, and other undesirable ways of bringing the economy back into balance.  As our economy grows, so does the size of the bailout, and it is only a matter of time when the magnitude of the bailout needed to reset the economy will decimate it, much like the occasional extinction of a species that has reproduced beyond sustainability.  As in the case of our ecological model, our economic model also needs to be revised in ways that will be viewed as politically incorrect, since it will surely have at least a short term negative impact on the economy, but result in a more sustainable financial model over the long term.  I suggest that the top US financial generals, once they finish with the current economic reset, establish a think tank to improve the capitalist model in ways that will benefit all of us, hopefully in conjunction with a shrinking population.   One recommendation is to include ecological debt on the books of every company.

Although I identified a common flaw in our current economic and ecological models, I have discussed them separately.  This might lead to the conclusion that remedial action could be applied to one while excluding the other.   Unfortunately, in addition to sharing a common flaw, these models are further deeply interdependent.  Here is the Catch-22: our existing capitalist model is based on population growth.

On Saving the Planet - The Survival of an Arrogant Species (published in the Santa Barbara Therapy News)

    If you Google the phrase “save the planet” you will get more than three million hits.  There are more than 4,500 books and other publications and more than 5000 videos posted on the web with “save the planet” as part of their title.  Even allowing for the obvious sci-fi take on this and similar phrases (e.g. “save the world”), there are an enormous number of serious publications, essays, videos, and other media content devoted to this subject, and the majority of them concern environmental issues.  Here is a smattering of book titles:

• The Plot to Save the Planet: How Visionary Entrepreneurs and Corporate Titans Are Creating Real Solutions to Global Warming

    As a science researcher I have spent a considerable amount of time exploring the fields of anthropology, zoology, ecology, and environmental science.  I and others believe that the human philosophy known as anthropocentrism (human-centeredness) is the root cause of the human-made ecological crisis, human overpopulation, and extinction of many non-human species.  This philosophy is based on the notion that humans are the central element of the universe, and that reality is interpreted exclusively in terms of human values and experience.  This is as opposed to the biocentric view where all living things have rights and values, and the primary emphasis is on the preservation of the natural order, where humanity is not the center of existence.

    The idea that the fate of our species is also the fate of the planet is clearly anthropocentric and I for one believe it has no place in the environmental movement.  Save our Planet?  Don’t you really mean Save our Species?  The planet will do just fine without us, thank you.  It is quite arrogant o think our planet needs our help to “save it”, or that its very existence is somehow under our control.  In our absence, Nature has billions of years to cleanse herself of our legacy, regenerate, create millions of new species, and perhaps evolve an improved human model. 

    If the words our species was substituted for the words the planet in the publications mentioned above, and in every other instance where planet appears in environmental literature, we would be dealing with the true reality of our situation.  We are at risk of extinction, not the planet.  Of course, it behooves us to protect from extinction other plant and animal species upon which we depend for existence – a self-serving act of preservation that is even practiced by insects and is a far cry from saving the planet.

    Whenever I get too full of myself, I re-establish my relationship with nature by going to the beach and standing in front of a large breaking wave.  Very humbling indeed, and a reminder of my place in the greater scheme of things.

    Here is another dose of humbling reality.  As a retired rocket scientist, I can tell you it is not rocket science to reach the really inconvenient truth that, given the present state of our sociological and technological evolution, over-population is the root cause of all of our self-made environmental ills, and its reduction is the fastest way to remedy the situation.  There are hundreds of examples of how a similar dilemma has occurred with other species.  For humans, estimates abound that about 2 billion people are the maximum sustainable in the world at a modest standard of living, as opposed to the 7 billion soon to inhabit the planet.  One need only take a quick look at how nature deals with such a situation to predict the fate of our species.  When other species (plant or animal) have exceeded their sustainable level, they begin to die off until they either reach sustainability or become extinct.

    Nature is already hinting at how this will play out for us:  forced population reduction as a result of mass starvation, wars and genocide, untreatable illnesses, and an environment so toxic it will no longer support the reproduction of our species.  It is a coin-toss as to whether this will result in a sustainable population level or, because the environment will be too far gone, to our extinction.  We are fortunate that our level of intellect may give us a possible choice in the matter.  Either we voluntarily devise what we consider humane methods to quickly reduce the population, or nature will do it for us.  The clock is ticking, and we are not the timekeeper.

On The Ethical Treatment of Plants (LA Times- Al Martinez column)

I am a great supporter of animal rights, which is one reason why I don’t eat vegetables.  I am a retired rocket scientist and student of anthropology, zoology, biology, ethnobotany, and agriculture, and author of a soon-to-be-published book on the subject of wellness.  I am quite amazed at the zealousness of some animal rights advocates, considering their apparent unawareness of the fact that they indirectly support what is one of the most heinous of animal abuse businesses – the planting and harvesting of vegetables.  By vegetables, I include plant leafs, stems, roots, tubers, flowers (including corn), seeds (including wheat, rye, barley, oats), and beans (including soybeans) grown from annually planted crops. Fruit is excluded from this definition. 

Perhaps some of these activists have never seen a commercial farm in operation (organic or otherwise), because if they did they would know that tens of millions of ground-living animals are brutally killed each year as a result of being horribly mangled and smashed by cultivators, tillers, and harvester machines used to produce the very foods that most animal rights activists covet - vegetables.  Perhaps they are unaware that the broccoli and spinach they are eating is likely to have been smeared with the guts of field mice, gophers, rabbits, and prairie dogs done in by the machinery of the vegetable-making industry.

Perhaps some of these activists are unaware that vegetables have emotions.  It is well documented that plants produce easily measurable electrical signals (perhaps analogous to screams) when they are cut, and if they survive they can even identify the predator that did the cutting!  It is also well known by botanists that plants have the ability to emit vapors to warn their neighbors when under attack, whereby the neighbor plant increases its level of natural toxins to discourage being eaten.  Doubters should watch The Secret Life of Plants, a 96 minute documentary (music by Stevie Wonder) at video.google.com.  It can make you choke on your salad.  Naysayers will contend that plants cannot have emotions because they do not have brains, which is the height of anthropocentrism (a human-centered view of the world).  They probably are not aware of the fact that the human gut is a fully functioning second brain, even though it does not look like the classic comic book picture of what a brain “should look like” (A Second Brain, by Michael Gershon, MD.)

Well, you say, if I shouldn’t eat vegetables, what’s left.  Ah, glad you asked.  As a self-proclaimed Plant Rights Activist, I eat ripe sweet fruit, the picking of which does not damage the plant and in fact contributes to its chances of reproduction.  As a certified nutritionist, I feel comfortable stating that, in general, fruit is much healthier that vegetables, which contain natural toxins.  I also eat meat from free-range grass-fed animals raised on small family farms that treat their animals in a humane manner.  Following this eating plan treats both animals and plants in a humane manner, as Nature intended.