Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can choose to bake, and your skin will harden up and deal with it, but it will also cause long term leathery skin, which many find unattractive, and increased skin cancer risk. Tho I agree with economist article, sun exposure is very good for you, just not high UV exposure.
I'd say more like comments here: it's not high UV, it's high delta between actual UV flux and what one's skin was expecting. So pace it, like you would do when first starting lifting weights. The final tolerance is suprisingly high.
The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer
211–220 of 258 posts
Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer
#212> 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…
> I’m going to keep wearing my sunscreen most of the time when I need to be in direct sun, and continue regular screening for skin cancer Sunscreen reduces vitamin D production, but it doesn't stop it. Wearn sunscreen. Get screened. And don't stay indoors for fear of UV.
Also, getting sunburnt is not the only way to get vitamin D. Wear sunscreen and go out. Enjoy the sun. And eat healthy foods that contain vitamin D.
Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 The byline is “The Economist”, and the lack of links is the house style, like a printed newspaper. A relic from the times when the name and reputation of the institution alone was enough to earn your trust. Personally I still find them a high-quality source, especially because they are a weekly publication based in the UK and distanced (but not entirely removed) from the bullshit of the US media cycle.
The Economist a few years back did an article on Steon (free energy engine) but it was essentially a PR piece soliciting investors… so take them with a grain of salt
Journalists fucked up massively when they allowed sponsored content to masquerade as editorial content. Now people don't trust media as much as they used to and are moving to other sources to get their information. What journalists around the world need to do is come together and build consensus in the industry on separating sponsored content from their own. A tiny, fine print at the bottom of a full page sponsor is grossly insufficient. It has to be more explicit. Perhaps reserve colors and styles exclusively for indigenous content or frame all sponsored content in a clearly identifiable manner. One way or another, they need to figure out how to reclaim their reputation.
Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer
#214This is not true in Australia or other places with high UV, and at least they sort of admit this: "at least for denizens of gloomy countries at high latitudes."
Yeah, I was laughing in Kiwi at this. When you live in a country where you can sunburn in less than 10 minutes in spring, skin cancer is a far higher risk.
Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Smoking or not smoking, things don't go 'immediately', so probably something else going on there.
Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Economist a few years back did an article on Steon (free energy engine) but it was essentially a PR piece soliciting investors… so take them with a grain of salt
Journalists fucked up massively when they allowed sponsored content to masquerade as editorial content. Now people don't trust media as much as they used to and are moving to other sources to get their information. What journalists around the world need to do is come together and build consensus in the industry on separating sponsored content from their own. A tiny, fine print at the bottom of a full page sponsor is…
Or even better, allow people to pay to remove ads.
Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer
#217I 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…
Very simple, studies all confirm that people who spend more time outdoors have better eyesight at youth (avoids myopia) and health (exercise), use sunscreen (avoid skin cancer). No need to speculate more.
Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer
#218I 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…
Solar noon sunlight microdose is now on my todo list for tomorrow, thanks.
Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer
#219until you get melanoma
Re: The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer
#220I 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…
This is the Lindqvist and Weller paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-025-00743-6
So it’s a narrative review, the op ed of journals. Basically worthless.