Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 258 posts

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

#231

Post by groggler »

wiseowise wrote: post #223
mgh2 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it’s not very simple. I’ve spent on average 15 hours outside as a kid, still -6. So take all those “studies” with a grain of salt, they might be not applicable to you.

It is very simple. You can't expect to be the average member of every cohort you are part of.

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

#232

Post by padjo »

Amaury-El wrote: post #229

I used to avoid the sun, thinking that staying out of it was the healthier choice. But after spending long periods indoors, especially during the darker winter months, I started feeling constantly tired and low. A blood test later showed I was seriously low on vitamin D. Since then, I’ve made a point to get a bit of sunlight each day. Over time, I noticed my energy and mood improved. That small, consistent exposure t…

Did you get your Vitamin D re-checked? I’ve been low on Vitamin D, recovered it to high levels and noticed basically zero difference over the long term.

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

#233

Post by smeeger »

wiseowise wrote: post #226
smeeger wrote: post #199

when your skin turns pale white your body is screaming for sunlight. it wants sunlight just like your body wants food and makes you hungry. if sunlight were so deadly then everyone would have skin that was pitch black and doesnt change. but we have this insane adaptive system to make sure we are always getting a trickle of UV. why else would we evolve this system if sunlight werent extremely important?

> when your skin turns pale white your body is screaming for sunlight. Complete bullshit.

why does it turn white then?

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

#234

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

christophilus wrote: post #160
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's instructive to look at people who drive for a living. One arm will have significantly more sun exposure than the other and it's trivial to spot the difference as the sun does have a very noticeable aging effect.

I wonder, though, if they got full body sun exposure on a regular basis, if that would change things. It seems unlikely that we would have evolved to have a single part of our body exposed to the sun while the rest wasn’t.

> I wonder, though, if they got full body sun exposure on a regular basis, if that would change things

Yes - their whole body would be subject to the ageing effects of the sun.

> It seems unlikely that we would have evolved to have a single part of our body exposed to the sun while the rest wasn’t

And yet it's common for dark skinned people to have significantly lighter palms and soles of feet as they have less exposure to the sun.

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

#236

Post by wiseowise »

groggler wrote: post #231
wiseowise wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it’s not very simple. I’ve spent on average 15 hours outside as a kid, still -6. So take all those “studies” with a grain of salt, they might be not applicable to you.

It is very simple. You can't expect to be the average member of every cohort you are part of.

True. And same applies to everything in life, so just because some article says "sun is good for you all" doesn't mean you won't end up dying from skin cancer.

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

#237

Post by cindyllm »

wiseowise wrote: post #236
groggler wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very simple. You can't expect to be the average member of every cohort you are part of.

True. And same applies to everything in life, so just because some article says "sun is good for you all" doesn't mean you won't end up dying from skin cancer.

[dead]

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

#238

Post by astura »

anonzzzies wrote: post #215
astura wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

After a few years she stated looking like a old shriveled hot dog. There's no "something else," it's sun damage, and it looks awful.

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

#239

Post by msh »

mgh2 wrote: post #217
biimugan wrote: post #170

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…

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.

But is that cause or correlation?

Kids with bad sight or health might be more drawn to indoor pursuits.

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

#240

Post by throwaway2037 »

avalys wrote: post #176
atombender wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No byline/author. This is The Economist; they don't use bylines, and their articles are all anonymous.

+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.

    > bullshit of the US media cycle
The UK has their own media cycle. With the exception of Financial Times, the quality of newspapers has fallen dramatically in the last 30 years. Even the FT prints low quality "political swamp reporting" articles. I am always surprised how poor is their reporting on national UK politics. As a result, I avoid those articles. Even the BBC News is much worse than 10 years ago.
Post reply on HN