Live data from Hacker News

The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer

economist.com

201–210 of 258 posts

Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer

#201
post #103

> A study published last year, for instance, examined medical data from 360,000 light-skinned Brits and found that greater exposure to UV radiation—either from living in Britain’s sunnier southern bits rather than the darker north, or from regularly using sunbeds—was correlated with either a 12% and 15% lower risk, respectively, of dying, even when the raised risk of skin cancer was taken into account. Emphasis on “m…

Yes, dubious indeed.

How about looking at descendants of fair-skinned Britains in sunnier climes?

Australia has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world. This is due to a combination of factors: very high levels of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, outdoor lifestyles, and a largely fair-skinned population that is more vulnerable to sun damage. Rates of both melanoma (the deadliest form of skin cancer) and non-melanoma skin cancers are higher in Australia than anywhere else. New Zealand follows closely behind.

Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer

#202
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ask „how did people survive“ the answer is more often than not: „with great difficulty“. Take for example simple hygiene measures like using soap or brushing your teeth or disinfecting wounds.

Teeth brushing is not as important if you're not eating modern food. Processed sugars really are terrible (but delicious)

If by modern you mean anything since agriculture was invented, then perhaps.

Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then another person (of North European ancestry looks) like a brown leatherbag at 50. Anecdotal evidence is sadly not worth a lot.

Many of those smoke or used to smoke, a lot (continues). I live in a country village in south EU and you can see immediately which of the farmers smoke and which don't. Most of them do, but the ones that don't have smooth skin and look younger than they are, the others look like leather bags indeed and older than they are. I guess you can get the same skin without smoking, I just don't see those here.

My sister moved to a southern latitude and pretty much immediately aged 20 years. Never smoked.

Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer

#205

I think people should be highly skeptical of articles like this, even without knowing anything about the subject in question. No byline/author. No citations/links to the studies in question. Confirmation of preconceived notions that people would like to be true (e.g. the sun as a wellness remedy instead of damaging to skin), including unfounded "just so" stories and claims about evolution, diabetes, and other unrelat…

Sure but you should also be highly skeptical of people telling you that sunscreen is always required to go outside. A lot of the studies are funded by sunscreen companies which stand to make a lot of money.

> Tanning is a response to skin cell damage

I don't think this is true in any meaningful sense. Damage is part of life. Your body repairs minor damage and it is usually a good thing to trigger the repair pathways once in a while. This is also the basis for exercise - your muscles and tendons are damaged when you work out, but they get rebuilt stronger. Your DNA is also repaired, and turning repair pathways on can sometimes improve tissue quality/collagen production or get rid of imperfections - this is the basis of microneedling and cosmetic techniques, some of which involve light exposure. UV therapy is also a treatment for psoriasis (skin inflammation).

If any amount of sunlight is bad, ask yourself why melanoma typically occurs on the trunk region (in men) or legs (women) rather than say the face or arms. Those are regions that are normally hidden, but are then suddenly exposed when you go shirtless/at the beach.

The most dangerous thing is to go straight from non-exposure to high exposure. But if you gradually increase exposure, the body has many ways of dealing with non-overwhelming amounts of damage. Damage can in fact trigger repair which is often beneficial, as this article alludes to.

Most importantly, the more beneficial UV rays (UVB) for vitamin D production are weaker than the more harmful ones (UVA), so any sunscreen or glass that "blocks UV" necessarily blocks all UVB before you get close to blocking all UVA. Nothing can actually block 100% of UVA. But let's say you slather sunscreen on every time you go out. Now imagine one day you forget it or run out of it or for whatever emergency reason can't apply it. Now your pale unready skin is exposed to a large dose which could actually do more damage than your body is ready to repair.

The best time to get UVB is actually around solar noon. So, depending on your skin type, the best thing to do is to expose yourself to sunlight for short amounts of time (start with 1 minute if you want) without sunscreen before applying sunscreen. Then gradually increase the non-sunscreen time as your skin turns up repair pathways (and you get tanner).

Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer

#206

It’s tempting to see things like this and think “well of course it does, because that’s how we evolved”. But I think that might just be post-rationalization? At the very least, I think the argument _doesn’t_ hold for periodic famine, extreme temperatures, most disease, etc even though we also evolved with those things. Is there any guiding principle that separates the things-we-evolved-with-that-are-good vs the -that…

Since I was a little kid I was always skeptical of slathering something all over my body just to go outside. Just thought…how did people survive before this stuff if we really need it so bad.

Long sleeves and wide brim hats.

Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer

#207
post #201
post #103

> A study published last year, for instance, examined medical data from 360,000 light-skinned Brits and found that greater exposure to UV radiation—either from living in Britain’s sunnier southern bits rather than the darker north, or from regularly using sunbeds—was correlated with either a 12% and 15% lower risk, respectively, of dying, even when the raised risk of skin cancer was taken into account. Emphasis on “m…

Yes, dubious indeed. How about looking at descendants of fair-skinned Britains in sunnier climes? Australia has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world. This is due to a combination of factors: very high levels of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, outdoor lifestyles, and a largely fair-skinned population that is more vulnerable to sun damage. Rates of both melanoma (the deadliest form of skin cancer) and non-melanoma…

> Australia has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world.

It also has excellent life expectancy.

The key question is: For all-cause mortality, do the benefits outweigh the risks?

Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer

#208
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where it's just a grad student This study was "just a grad student"?

This article is a pop sci editorial. But it's drawing a "may cause" causation from correlations found in "observational studies" rather than "experimental studies". Junior researchers, pressured to publish or die, shovel them out because it's the easiest thing to publish. No experiments, no scientific method, no controls. Just manipulate old data and cherry pick something that looks like it might be related to anothe…

So…you’re spouting crap not relevant to this paper?

Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> make sure your skin gets gradually attuned Is this a thing? Surely DNA damage from UV is dose-dependent, in which case any greater amount of UV results in a greater chance of skin cancer.

Is this a joke? Yes, it's called 'tanning'. Having more melanin decreases the effective dose because any photon that melanin absorbs isn't going to be absorbed by your DNA.

Are you joking? I'm legitimately asking.

Primary institute of skin cancer in Australia: https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/causes-and-prev...

See number 2.

I'm hypothesising you may live in a place where skin cancer is not a big issue?

Post reply on HN