Sir, - I am sure that Mrs Anne Walsh is quite correct in her belief that the high cost of sunscreen acts to reduce its use (May 26th.). Poorer people in particular have little hope of adequately protecting themselves and their children.
Might I therefore suggest that the costs of making adequate sunscreen available to people of all income levels be met by seeking compensation from those organisations and individuals that produced, marketed, and otherwise profited from the use of the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that are continuing to destroy our planet's stratospheric ozone layer and so greatly contribute to the dramatic rise in skin cancers experienced around the world? Perhaps health boards could make sunscreen freely available during the summer months and recover their costs by pursuing such actions in the courts?
Such an arrangement would not only help to protect the health of children but, by reinforcing the "polluter pays" principle, would also act to lessen the sense of impunity with which corporations feel they can experiment with our heritage and that of all our descendants.
It is important to remember that when CFCs were invented in the 1930s, they were heralded and confidently promoted as being inert, non-reactive and therefore absolutely safe for use in a variety of applications. It was not until nearly 50 years later that the truth became apparent and the myopic ignorance of those who once championed CFCs was exposed. Since then, and despite the efforts of the nations of the world in the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, our planetary ozone layer continues to decay.
By vigorously bringing to account those whose past actions now make a sunny day an increasingly dangerous event, we can send a powerful message to those who expect all of us to pay for any error of judgment they might make in their far-reaching, profit-driven activities. - Yours, etc., Graham Caswell,
Arklow, Co Wicklow.