121–130 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better detection and screening for these cancers resulting in an apparently larger rate of incidence is an easy hypothesis to reach for.
Also cancer is often in line behind other things waiting to kill you. If you survive everything else, you die of cancer.
*in US. Honestly, I was expecting an article about some ingredients being harmful to coral reef hence disallowed, or similar. Instead, the issue is slow process of FDA. > The FDA hasn’t added a new active ingredient to its sunscreen monograph [...] in decades. Also, what makes this article interesting (a "man bites a dog" kind of story) is that the US is more strict than EU in this area; in 95% of cases for all kinds…
The same FDA which made it all-but-impossible to test for SARS-CoV-2 in early 2020? I'd believe it. https://twitter.com/random_eddie/status/1232075455295037440
https://www.science.org/content/article/united-states-badly-...
Vitamin D deficiency is far riskier for sedatory indoor people then skin cancer is. I wouldn’t be surprised if we look back at this time and laugh at how we were blocking too many UV rays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same FDA which made it all-but-impossible to test for SARS-CoV-2 in early 2020? I'd believe it. https://twitter.com/random_eddie/status/1232075455295037440
Quoted post unavailable.
> At 36, I am just old enough to remember when sunscreen wasn’t a big deal. My mom, despite being among the palest people alive, does not remember bringing it on our earliest vacations, or hearing any mention of sun protection by our pediatrician. > Now SPF is ubiquitous. You can find it in lotions, sprays, gels, oils, powders, and implements that look like grade-school glue sticks, as well as infused into skin-care…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So we went from little to no sunscreen to ubiquity over a few decades, but over that time rates of skin cancer have increased per 100k UV exposure patterns have changed significantly. Long-distance vacation travel to sunny locations is much more common now. Tanning beds are much more common. Both holidays and deliberate tanning often take people from indoor office life to the opposite extreme of sun exposure. Peopl…
> People also dress differently in the sun than they did in the past. Temperatures in those sunny areas have increased as well on average over the last few decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
impressive public-health comms technique, but again, will still 'show jet black' even if: - you're wearing a sunscreen which is itself carcinogenic, and are being affected by this - your sunscreen is destroying coral reefs - your sunscreen washes off easily - your suncreen is unpleasant to wear (making you unlikely to wear it) - your body actually needed some sunlight anyway: https://www.outsideonline.com/health/well…
'show jet black' is not the strategy of researching whole impact of sunscreen. However once the impact of sunscreen is researched and it comes out positive you still need to convince people that applying sunscreen is a good idea. Just telling the information doesn't work that well. Demonstration like the one mentioned is better.
Again: Science changes; emotions do not; the job of public health comms is to generate emotions that roughly match science; but then science changes again, but the emotions do not.
The net result is that everyone's fear-compass is randomly pointing to findings from fifty years ago, which, incidentally, is why my last roommate couldn't cook.
The 31yo rock climber was terrified of salt. Why? His father had had a heart condition --- in nineties.
There are few things that could have brought the poor man more joy than ruining his dinner every night, which likely had the opposite effect than intended.
It's easy to spam links on this topic -- I went searching for this excellent summary:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/we-only-th...
And found these two as well; I'm sure you can dig up plenty more
https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/2...
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/health/research/04salt.ht...
Amazon blocks "bemotrizinol" from its search. Tsk tsk. https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aamazon.com+%22bemotri...
What are they, and where can I buy them in the US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'show jet black' is not the strategy of researching whole impact of sunscreen. However once the impact of sunscreen is researched and it comes out positive you still need to convince people that applying sunscreen is a good idea. Just telling the information doesn't work that well. Demonstration like the one mentioned is better.
Yes, it works rather too well, in fact. So much so, that people subject to it will likely be slathering up, no matter what science finds out. Again: Science changes; emotions do not; the job of public health comms is to generate emotions that roughly match science; but then science changes again, but the emotions do not. The net result is that everyone's fear-compass is randomly pointing to findings from fifty years…
You still have to communicate what you're assigned and, yes, the better you do your job, the worse the next person will have it, when (not if) the science changes.
Such is life.