71–80 of 102 posts
I would like to think that I'm about as far a way from any sort of conspiracy theory as one could get. I have no time for anti-vax stuff, for example. A huge fan of "never blame on conspiracy what you can blame on stupidity". Etc. etc. And yet ... when it comes to sunblock ... I try to avoid sliding into a conspiratorial stance, but let's just say that I don't use it [0], and I am very curious about the reason(s) why…
Interesting. I've never been that worried, my skin doesn't burn easily even though I'm very fair-skinned and live in Spain and often hike outdoors. I just hate that SPF stuff on my skin. It makes it sticky and makes me feel dirty. Instead I just try to avoid burning. I do bring some for when it does start but it almost never does. What I do to avoid it works well enough. What I tend to do is just take the shady side…
There are many sunscreens out there, ranging from greasy and sticky, to completely unnoticeable. My go-to sunscreen of choice is Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch. It's sold in most pharmacies in the U.S. It's lightweight and doesn't feel like you have any sunscreen on at all. There's also a mineral version, but I've not tried it.
The more convenient a sunscreen is, the more likely it is to be killing off coral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am very curious about the reason(s) why so many of us do. > ps. yes, I do know about skin cancer and have several friends and family that experienced it. How are you still curious then?
Some people tan really easily and think that everyone is like them.
This is not even remotely surprising to me. I've always been a bit skeptical of "the sun is evil" (and got even more skeptical when I was told I should wear sunblock inside!) and ensure I get 20 minutes full body exposure daily in the summer. Anecdotally, I can tell a general difference in my mood and sleep during periods where I get adequate sun vs. when I'm not (and I supplement vitamin D when I'm not). While I am…
A lot of the "sunscreen inside" people are those trying to maximize their visible skin health and beauty. If you don't care about your physical looks, as least above all else, I imagine the trade off to getting regular direct sunlight is well worth it. But it is fairly intuitive that sunlight's ultraviolet radiation at any strength is going to degrade your skin over long periods of time.
I would like to think that I'm about as far a way from any sort of conspiracy theory as one could get. I have no time for anti-vax stuff, for example. A huge fan of "never blame on conspiracy what you can blame on stupidity". Etc. etc. And yet ... when it comes to sunblock ... I try to avoid sliding into a conspiratorial stance, but let's just say that I don't use it [0], and I am very curious about the reason(s) why…
> I am very curious about the reason(s) why so many of us do. > ps. yes, I do know about skin cancer and have several friends and family that experienced it. How are you still curious then?
It seems that the argument that solar exposure causes cancer, and if not cancer than weathered leathery skin when you're older, has been widely and effectively made, and this has been enough to get most people to hedge and just use sunblock anyway.
I'm not convinced they're wrong - I'm more interested in the way sunblock brings out my own inner "conspiracy" self, even if I don't feel inclined to defend that version of me. It's actually a way to have some empathy towards people I otherwise feel no empathy whatosever for (e.g. the anti-vax crowd).
I would like to think that I'm about as far a way from any sort of conspiracy theory as one could get. I have no time for anti-vax stuff, for example. A huge fan of "never blame on conspiracy what you can blame on stupidity". Etc. etc. And yet ... when it comes to sunblock ... I try to avoid sliding into a conspiratorial stance, but let's just say that I don't use it [0], and I am very curious about the reason(s) why…
Even if you doubt the efficacy against skin cancer, sun burns are easily observed in short time
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many sunscreens out there, ranging from greasy and sticky, to completely unnoticeable. My go-to sunscreen of choice is Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch. It's sold in most pharmacies in the U.S. It's lightweight and doesn't feel like you have any sunscreen on at all. There's also a mineral version, but I've not tried it.
You should be aware that the oxybenzones in that stuff are killing the coral and leading to reef bleaching. The mineral version is less bad, but still not a good idea if you or your sewage are even vaguely near tropical water. The more convenient a sunscreen is, the more likely it is to be killing off coral.
This is the key point to keep in mind; “The ‘Slip, Slap, Slop’ guidance is appropriate for the descendants of white-skinned north Europeans living in high-UV environments such as Australia, where they have a lot of skin cancer. But it is not appropriate for white-skinned Brits here in Scotland, and it is absolutely inappropriate for dark-skinned Brits, who have made the reverse migration from Africa or India,” says W…
Altitude too. Solar intensity at notably high altitudes (say, 5000' or above) can be significant if you spend a lot of time there.
Right from the beginning i had felt that the whole Sun Exposure/Skin Cancer/Sunscreen debate was nonsensical without understanding the "original adaptations" of the people involved.
I remember an article which i read a long time ago that posited that all of our modern health/medical dosage "standards" (eg. BMI) are suspect because they were derived from a sample of European Males and hence are not universally applicable across the world. Given what we know today about genetics/epigenetics/adaptation i have always felt that this should be the first thing doctors should consider when treating patients.
I've always been skeptical of dermatologist insistence that sun exposure is unequivocally bad. It never made sense. If human health and lifespan were so negatively affected by sunlight, we would all be covered in fur, or everyone would be as dark skinned as populations living near the equator. Like everything else in life, "moderation in all things" is the best rule to follow. If you spend your life getting deep dark…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Altitude too. Solar intensity at notably high altitudes (say, 5000' or above) can be significant if you spend a lot of time there.
Right, people who have lived natively there have evolved physical coping mechanisms which must be taken into account when they move to other geographical areas. The reverse for "plains" people who move to high altitudes. Right from the beginning i had felt that the whole Sun Exposure/Skin Cancer/Sunscreen debate was nonsensical without understanding the "original adaptations" of the people involved. I remember an art…
What coping mechanisms would that be?
Right from the beginning i had felt that the whole Sun Exposure/Skin Cancer/Sunscreen debate was nonsensical without understanding the "original adaptations" of the people involved.
What "original adaptations" are you referring to?
I remember an article which i read a long time ago that posited that all of our modern health/medical dosage "standards" (eg. BMI) are suspect because they were derived from a sample of European Males and hence are not universally applicable across the world. Given what we know today about genetics/epigenetics/adaptation i have always felt that this should be the first thing doctors should consider when treating patients.
How about you give us a reference to this article before paraphrasing from memory?