It makes a difference personally to me. At the risk of sounding facetious, my ginger hair and freckled pale skin turns me pink after a short period of time in sunshine which is not particularly strong, which means the need for me to cover up and/or wear sun cream is not an option. I would rather not have to fork out for factor 30. Nor would I wish to be the only one not covered in long sleeve clothes on the hottest day of the year when everyone else is OK. However, life isn't like that. It is a pain every time I go on holiday, and luckily I work inside buildings rather than outside. I would have to work very differently if I worked on site. I can't even have the sunroof open for very long. But it would be something that I would consider as my responsibility to sort out as my employer is not responsible for my hair colour or freckles.

Occupational exposure to non-artificial UV-light and non-melanocytic skin cancer - a systematic review concerning a new occupational disease Authors: Schmitt, Jochen1; Diepgen, Thomas2; Bauer, Andrea1 Source: Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft, Volume 8, Number 4, April 2010 , pp. 250-263(14) Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Conclusions: The association between occupational UV exposure and SCC is well and consistently documented epidemiologically (approximately 2-fold increased risk), so that the criteria for a new occupational disease are fulfilled. The association with BCC is unclear due to significant methodological limitations in the published studies. SCC = squamous cell carcinoma BCC = basal cell carcinoma Chris

Well Guys I believe I have all the relevant information to implement my controls. The only Operatives who will receive Sun Block will be Roofers in the warmer months. This will be provided for Face, Neck and hands as all other areas will be covered. The other Operatives do not warrant Sun Block as they do not work outside to the extent as what the Roofers do. Thank you for the responsive, I have read ALL of them and it doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with the comments the response was great. Thank you all Regards Phil

Mick When I went on holiday in Tuscany, lots of the scaffolds had physical textile protection particularly at the top to provide the workers with some shade.

Working in intense sun has risks, it is reported that the risks are increasing, due to the depilation of the Ozone layer. It could be suggested that it is a new hazard in some workplaces, and therefore should be addressed. When I attended a talk given by a doctor a few months ago, it was mentioned that yes we humans need Vit D; we get Vit D from the sun, oily fish, and supplements. It was pointed out that the sun causes melanoma (skin cancer), which kills! lack of vit D, does not kill but is associated with many serious problems. The doctor (consultant) said the use of sun protection with factor 30 was advisable when outdoors all the time, and not just when the sun is shining. Everyone seems to agree exposure to the sun is dangerous; the stumbling block seems to be who supplies and pays for the sun protection. Who pays for protection when an employee is forced to work in other unfavourable environments?, e.g. extreme cold, where there are chemicals etc.?

Mick: you say "the issue/hazard exists whether the person is working or not"... So..an employee goes to rock concerts twice a week at 120dB, and rides a motorcycle at weekends estimated at 95dB - personal choice. The risk of noise induced hearing loss exists whether the person is working or not. So you would expect the worker to come to work at 100dB for eight hours a day with his own ear plugs????? Would the noise regs agree? At home, he smokes 40 cigarettes day - so do you believe it's their own lookout if they smokoe whilst handling lead scrap in the yard? Would the lead regs agree? Or perhaps he's got a home workshop with unguarded machines - so its ok to let him work on unguarded machines at work? I could go on (and on, and on...) but you get the point. Seriously? Would you? And as for "If working nights (it's cold) you'll make sure that you have warm clothing on.".. Regardless of the definition of PPE on Reg 2.i of the Regs? "All equipment (including clothing affording protection against the weather)"... its cold weather - the guy needs thermals, but you don't supply them? 'scuse me guv, but I think I got a claim for me pneumonia and frostbite... Skin cancer kills people. It is caused by exposure to the sun. Some people work long hours outdoors under the sun. HSE have issued information (guidance so far...) the problem is getting worse (whether by ozone depletion or otherwise...).... Do you honestly think it's OK to rely on individuals protecting themselves? If so - your interpretation of what is 'so far as is reasonably practicable' is different from my own. Must remember to take off my mr grumpy hat before I go home tonight. Steve

As stated earlier in this subject, barrier cream is normally supplied to help with skin care, why not supply sunscreen? It is for exactly the same reason.

I bow to your expertise Chris, it is many years since i worked on site.

Mick You will find the BOHRF (British Occupational Health Research Foundation) study at: http://www.bohrf.org.uk/projects/dermatitis.html When reading this bear in mind that this was produced using the SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidance Network) method for evaluating published papers. Having been involved in a similar study for the Royal Collegel of Physicians using this method my view is that whilst it is excellent in one way it does exclude a great deal of experiential evidence and thus limits its scope. This is not to say that it is not an excellent document, but I feel that there is a great deal that can be added to its conclusions that would enhance the guidance that it provides. Chris