I was surprised.
UV light is also bad for the eyes.
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/sunshine-on-a-clou...
Time of Day (Dawn & Dusk), Exposure Time, Skin and Eye[6] covering (Clothing, Sunscreen[7,8]
[1] Health Effects of Sunlight Exposure : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_sunlight_exp...
[2] Ultraviolet - Human Health-related effects : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Human_health-relat...
[3] Latitude : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude
[4] Ozone Depletion - Effects : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Effects
[5] NASA - Ozone Watch : https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
[6] Health Effects of Sunlight Exposure - Benefits of Optic Exposure & Effects on Eyes
: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_sunlight_exp...
[7] Sunscreen : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunscreen
[8] Ultraviolet - Sunscreen Safety Debate : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Sunscreen_safety_d...
If we can do that, it's confusing how we can't incrementally tackle climate change with selective international agreements that would make the most impact for the socio-economic burden.
Ban doesn't mean they aren't still produced.
https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2843/...
UV Index - The Sun Safety Scale - Forefront Dermatology (2017)
: https://forefrontdermatology.com/uv-index-sun-safety-scale/
A Guide to the UV Index (PDF) : https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/uviguid...
Ultraviolet Index - External links - 'UV Index Forecast' - 'Real-time Global Ultraviolet Index'
: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_index#External_lin...
The Fitzpatrick Scale (aka) Fitzpatrick Skin Typing test; or Fitzpatrick phototyping scale
: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale
Developed in 1975 by American dermatologist Thomas B. Fitzpatrick,
as a way to estimate the response of different types of skin to ultraviolet (UV) light.
Season : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season
Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder
Light Therapy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_therapy
Vitamin D : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D
Vitamin D Deficiency : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_deficiency
Vitamin D Toxicity (aka) Hypervitaminosis D : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_D
Black-and-white thinking is unsciеntific.
Please provide sources for the evidence you speak of.
> Sunscreen also blocks our skin from making vitamin D, but that’s OK, says the American Academy of Dermatology, which takes a zero-tolerance stance[1] on sun exposure: “You need to protect your skin from the sun every day, even when it’s cloudy,” it advises on its website. Better to slather on sunblock, we’ve all been told, and compensate with vitamin D pills.
-- https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...
You really shouldn't be so sure of anything you're too lazy to validate yourself. If you're too lazy now, chances are you were too lazy to validate it when you formed the opinion to begin with.
“My thing is true, even though the vast majority of medical professionals and societies disagree with me. And I don’t have to prove it to you, as that is best left as an exercise to the reader” is lazy, and a terrible argument.
Even if you didn’t validate the established guidelines, that doesn’t actually make you lazy; as humans, we cannot possibly hope to empirically validate every single thing we are told, as that would be madness. We often rely on various sources to validate claims for us by running solid, peer-reviewed studies and then we read those, and the vast majority of those studies do not agree with you, though more studies definitely need to be run, particularly with higher SPF sunblocks and mineral sunblocks.
https://www.thechildren.com/health-info/conditions-and-illne...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30945275/
“ There is little evidence that sunscreen decreases 25(OH)D concentration when used in real-life settings, suggesting that concerns about vitamin D should not negate skin cancer prevention advice. However, there have been no trials of the high-SPF sunscreens that are now widely recommended. What's already known about this topic? Previous experimental studies suggest that sunscreen can block vitamin D production in the skin but use artificially generated ultraviolet radiation with a spectral output unlike that seen in terrestrial sunlight. Nonsystematic reviews of observational studies suggest that use in real life does not cause vitamin D deficiency. What does this study add? This study systematically reviewed all experimental studies, field trials and observational studies for the first time. While the experimental studies support the theoretical risk that sunscreen use may affect vitamin D, the weight of evidence from field trials and observational studies suggests that the risk is low. We highlight the lack of adequate evidence regarding use of the very high sun protection factor sunscreens that are now recommended and widely used.”
Either you think there's a more representative opinion for American dermatologists than the AAD or what seems more likely is that you don't understand the argument that I was supporting.
The evidence I actually wanted proof for was the original commenters’ assertion that sunblock somehow raises cholesterol to unhealthy levels.
The quote you chose from the article (which I did read, for what it’s worth, but was also very light on sources) strongly suggested that sunblock blocks Vitamin D production. The science on that is unclear, but prior research suggests it doesn’t; that said, it warrants more research. I took your choice of that quote specifically to mean that was a claim you were making. If that wasn’t the case and you simply meant to show that the AAD suggested not being in the sun without sunblock, then I agree.
The science on melanoma being very bad is pretty cut and dry, on the other hand.
I never disagreed that American dermatologists tend to follow a “zero tolerance” policy for sun exposure without sunblock. They would very much like you to get sun with sunblock, though.
Apart from that, zero tolerance makes no sense - do they really recommend to wear sunscreen on a cloudy winter day? - but it is somewhat debatable that some people still underestimate the destructive effects of overexposure.
And the elefant in the room is of course your skin type.
Couple of my friends have skin of the fitzpatrick type with reddish hair, light skin and many dark spots.
For them sunscreen is a must when I wouldn't even think about it.
Another interesting tangent: wasn't there a somewhat potent carcinogenic in most sunscreen products?
Only makes the tradeoff even harder.
Edit: found it, I meant this:
https://health.unl.edu/can-sunscreen-cause-cancer-how-avoid-...
Cloudy days still have plenty of UV, depending on where you are (especially near the equator).
Skin type matters, of course, and I would probably be less heavy handed with the recommendation, but the “zero tolerance” issue wasn’t the original point as I understood it.
[edit] Quote from the very article you posted:
“It's important to note that these results are from one study (Valisure), which hasn't yet been validated. Strangely, they also detected benzene in blank test tubes (no sunscreen), leaving some to question if the testing methods contributed to the levels detected.
Toxicologists note that even if you applied the worst sunscreen on the Valisure list to your entire body, you'd be exposed to less than half the amount of benzene you breathe in normal city air in a day. Benzene is also very unstable, so it's unclear how much would be absorbed through the skin.
Don’t let this study convince you to skip sunscreen altogether. Although benzene is a potential risk, it pales in comparison to the known, real risk of UV radiation. Instead, take the time to check that your preferred sunscreen isn’t on the list of contaminated products.”
Agree
>> even when it’s cloudy
Bullshit.
Investigating those issues? Sure. Possibly even believing it’s safer to sleep a baby not on their belly, or that mothers should breastfeed if they can because it is likely to be healthier for the baby? Absolutely.
But almost the entirety of your comment is an appeal to extremes, which is a logical fallacy.
A lot of these studies came out of heart disease investigations within the black community. In the US there is just more compared to West Africa, and after controlling for weight, income, diet, etc., they guessed the difference was likely sunlight and outdoor time.
Followup studies found similar findings, albeit less pronounced with white and middle eastern people.
https://www.grida.no/resources/7130
Note that it’s the same as Spain in the northern-most of the continental US, same as Morocco in the middle, and same as Dubai in the south.
Americans have far more need for sun-screen than Brits do
Anyone not intent on looking old prematurely uses sunscreen.
Here are some maps of the effect of sun exposure on skin cancer as you move north through Europe: https://ecis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf/factsheets/Melanoma_cancer...
https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300553551/nz-has-the...
It it very well established in science that light is good for you in some many different ways.