Health knowledge made personal
Join this community!
› Share page:
Go
Search posts:

Unintended Consequence of IoM Vitamin D Levels

Posted Dec 09 2010 7:12pm

I suspect business considerations were not made by the panel for vitamin D and calcium (well – maybe some conflict of interest that we hope gets investigated).  That is the way it is supposed to be to prevent conflict of interest.  So who reviews the standards for unintended consequence?  We would have to assume that it is one of the divisions of HHS.  There is a huge consequence that has been alluded to by several of the researchers in responses.  However, no one has stated how costly it will be for employers of people that work in the sun.

Yesterday, I visited the Gov’s (NIH) vitamin D fact sheet to see how they had interpreted the advice of the committee.  (The good news is that I tried to just go there again to confirm what I had read and the server was busy!)  They pretty much stated that you should not have your serum 25(OH)D3 level above 50 ng/ml because there could be risk (probably too high – what does that mean?).  This immediately triggers the Department of Labor to act through OSHA to assure that no one is unduly exposed in their place of employment to hazards.

So what does this mean for the tens of thousands of life guards at pools and beach life guards that are constantly exposed to the sun?  Are they going to have to test on a regular basis to assure their employees do not go above the 50 ng/ml?  This is typical of what is necessary to protect employees against environmental exposures in the work place.  The employer then most take steps to get the employees level down.  More sun block (which could cause more melanoma as there is a straight line relationship between sunscreen use and melanoma, of course you can’t claim this without clinical trials according to the ‘rules’ – if you do not believe the straight line relationship see this video of Edward Gorham, Ph. D. presenting his paper – Skin Cancer/Sunscreen the Dilemma at GrassrootsHealth.net  The higher rates of melanoma that we are currently experiencing is another of those unintended consequences of dermatologist saying that sunscreen would reduce cancer.  They were right about the milder forms of skin cancer like basal cell.) and clothes that could interfere with required quick response to rescue.  An umbrella overhead would not do the job because of the better than 90% reflectance of UV light off the water.  It is not unusual for life guards to exceed 125 ng/ml.  People in sunny countries, and I suspect people that work regularly in the sun, typically have serum levels between 54 ng/ml and 90 ng/ml.  The Gov’s fact sheet on vitamin D that was replaced stated that serum levels < 200 ng/ml were safe.

So if we extend this to workers that go into the sun, it could have a huge impact on farming and construction – cost of not exposing the employee to environmental hazards and lost productivity because of the necessary protection from the sun.  This should be a great lesson to any scientist that just wants to set an arbitrary level because it ‘feels good’.  Okay, workers in the sun, long sleeve shirts, sun hats, long pants are the order of the day.  I did this growing up working the fields in North Carolina and I suffered severe degenerative disc disease.  Thank God that was all that happened and not cancer.  If you think the IoM, in the famous words of TV character Dr. House, are ‘idiots’, then go to – Action Alert: Is the Institute of Medicine in Bed with Big Pharma? at the Alliance for Natural Health – USA, read the article and sign the petition if you feel comfortable.  – “Our relationship to the sun has forever changed” – Edward Gorham.  Nekkid in the sun a hazard?! – Pandemic Survivor


Post a comment
Write a comment:

Related Searches