Unfortunately, questioning sunscreen use has become a popular topic among health communities that obsess over (and misinterpret) studies about chemicals.

Even Andrew Huberman, who was held up as the most science-y podcaster before people caught on that he doesn't know what he's talking about on many topics (not to mention, it turns out he's kind of a bad person) made a big deal about sunscreen for a long time.

At one point he said he was "as scared of sunscreen as melanoma", which triggered a lot of his listeners to start reducing their sunscreen use and debating the merits of sunscreen. Combine this with other podcasters like Joe Rogan pushing Vitamin D as a miracle mineral and a lot of people who think they are science-driven in their health choices are eschewing sunscreen. It's a maddening turn of events.

EDIT: Aaaand of course I'm getting downvoted for calling out Huberman. This is a good time to remind everyone that he has numerous positions like this one, such as avoiding Bluetooth headphones due to "heating effects" of their wireless signal. It's impossible for Bluetooth headphones to even emit enough power to warm your skin, but it's something he believes is true. He's very charismatic and charming, but he frequently strays from the science when he senses a good story that will engage his listeners.

Not to go off topic--cheating on his girlfriend and being a man-whore is bad behavior, yet I don't think that makes Huberman a bad person.

That's dramatically oversimplifying the situation. He didn't just "cheat on his girlfriend". He was carrying on six simultaneous relationships while misleading at least one of them into thinking they were monogamous and trying to conceive a child with her.

The big article that came out exposed how he had patterns of misleading people, telling people whatever they wanted to hear, abusing therapy speak to manipulate people, and it established a pattern of dishonesty. To reduce that all to "cheating on his girlfriend" is not accurate.

> telling people whatever they wanted to hear, abusing therapy speak to manipulate people, and it established a pattern of dishonesty.

I read that article in NY Mag prior to my comment, and then again after this comment. That wasn't my take-away. Sounded like a guy who got real famous and started to play the field, albeit badly. There was no evidence (that I recall) that Huberman acted this way in previous relationships, and no evidence that he will continue to act this way.

Not great behavior, not going to excuse it, but hardly the behavior I would say makes him a bad person. My opinion is philandering is relatively common behavior for people (men in particular) who achieve a certain level of fame and/or status.

An argument by "whataboutism" is implicitly a bad one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Arguing that an argument is bad simply due to logical fallacy is also a logical fallacy.

That is not the correct label for this argument. The argument is that there are a limited amount of hours in the day and that there are different amounts of risk. The optimal amount of risk is probably not zero.

I find it ironic when overweight people with an empty, sugary iced coffee drink next to them complain about the scary-sounding ingredients in processed fast food they eat.

The scary ingredient is not your biggest health concern...