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

251–258 of 258 posts

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

#251

Post by hollerith »

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…

>Tanning is a response to skin cell damage

That might be true, but it is also true that the positive health effects of aerobic exercise (e.g., increased fitness, increased insulin sensitivity) are responses to the oxidative damage caused by the exercise.

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

#253

Post by pazimzadeh »

tarsinge wrote: post #250
pazimzadeh wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you sure about this? I always heard about Australians (especially surfers) that had a high melanoma incidence and that it had made it clear that even if you are adapted (tanned) cancer risks still rises with exposure time.

It matters what type of skin you have, there’s a genetic component. Most “Australians” are of Irish/British descent and not ready for that much sun even with a bit of a tan/priming. Indigenous Australians do not have high melanoma incidence.

Although skin color is an obvious visual indicator, two people with the same shade of skin can have very different responses to sunlight because there are non-tan-related genes which affect rapid DNA/tissue repair on your skin:

Clinical and Biological Characterization of Skin Pigmentation Diversity and Its Consequences on UV Impact https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6163216/

So what I said is especially applicable to people who are not the palest on earth. If you are mixed like me (French and Iranian combo) then you can push it more than a say “pure” Irish person.

Thankfully the paler you are the less time in the sun you need to make vitamin D. But I will bet that some sun exposure is still better than none.

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

#254

Post by geor9e »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #208
geor9e wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"not relevant"

"this paper"

It's painfully obvious you haven't even clicked the link.

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

#255

Post by marstall »

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…

the economist doesn't have bylines, never has. you go by the reputation of the publication, which is top notch for science reporting!

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

#256

Post by gaoshan »

meatmanek wrote: post #145
gaoshan wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make sure your sunscreen is free from things like benzene* or you may just be trading one cancer causer for another. * https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/is-sunscreen-safe

A reality check on the sunscreen benzene panic: https://labmuffin.com/will-benzene-in-sunscreens-give-you-ca...

The take away from that blog post: "I would personally stop using the products from batches that were measured to have high amounts of benzene"

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

#257

Post by ToDougie »

Nevermark wrote: post #154
ToDougie wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also have bright rope LEDs surrounding a few of my room ceilings, hidden behind coving. That light reflects smoothly off the entirety of the white ceilings. A great combination of very high intensity lighting, that is also gentle, diffuse and calming. Summer days, indoors, all year round. I am intrigued -- please can you share any publicly available image of this solution? I'm not sure what to google search, or w…

Here you go! The camera dramatically auto-reduced the brightness in all the pictures. So imagine the room summer sun bright. But not harsh, very soft shadowing. https://imgur.com/a/0OBnR9j Where the ceiling shows shadow in the middle of each border, it is really just a tiny bit less bright than at the edge of the borders. And those LED strips are blinding, even though they look off! In the evening I turn off the ceil…

Incredible! I love it. And wow what an awesome office..... the walls are exquisite. Thank you very much for sharing.

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

#258

Post by indolering »

maleldil wrote: post #196
indolering wrote: post #194

I don't think I'm going to take my health advice from an economics magazine that is published by libertarians in the UK (a famously NOT sunny place). Economists have a habit of wandering off into other fields and misapplying statistical methods developed for economics. See their work in anti-parastic studies and all sorts of gross wannabe sociology research. I'll wait until Chocrane steps in and says something before…

I think this assessment is unfair. The paper [1] is not from economists. The first author is an endocrinologist. The third author is a dermatologist. As for where the authors are from, I don't see why it would matter, as long as their methodology is sound. However, this doesn't mean one should forget about the current consensus. This is just one paper, and it takes more than that to offset the current knowledge. [1]…

The actual scientists have a much more limited outlook on the potential impact of this line of research, but The Economist's headline does not. This sort of hyperbole is very Freakonomics and will be used by people who really like the sun as evidence that it's better to not wear sunscreen.

It's gross to see them weighing in on this topic at all.

Post reply on HN