I _hate_ sunscreen. It's unpleasant to wear. I always do, but it's not my favorite part of summer by far. This year i am experimenting with rashguards and big stupid floppy hats.
There are sun sleeves which you can wear with your casual clothes too.
Time to sunburn
41–50 of 121 posts
Re: Time to sunburn
#42This might be completely a common knowledge, but I just learned recently that SPF (the number on most sunscreen products) is actually a multiplier of the time you can spend in the sun without any protection So having an SPF of 50 increases a time 50 fold, which really puts things into perspective. Never leave the house around lunchtime without sunscreen.
This is not correct, https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-res... There is a popular misconception that SPF relates to time of solar exposure. For example, many consumers believe that, if they normally get sunburn in one hour, then an SPF 15 sunscreen allows them to stay in the sun 15 hours (i.e., 15 times longer) without getting sunburn. This is not true because SPF is not directly related to time…
It's correct, but with extra steps required for comparison.
Re: Time to sunburn
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
The video was cool but I'd also be skeptical of how they imply that freckles (including UV spectrum freckles) are "damage" to the skin or undesirable. It's neat that people look different under UV, and it's a cool adaptation that our skin pigments seem to target UV differently that visible spectrum... that's all I would confidently take away from the video
But in many (most?) cases, they are damage. I have visible 'freckles' in my shoulders. I wasn't born with them. There's further damage in some areas that had heavy exposure to sunlight. Same on the more exposed areas in my arms. Zero "freckles" or spots of any kind outside these zones. There's plenty of literature on this. Sure, they are an adaptation. One that's best avoided _while you can_ Every time you get a "sun…
This comment is full of assumptions about an extremely complex and poorly understood relationship between two things that are themselves very complex. The fact is, we evolved to live in the sun, just as most other land animals did. While it can damage us (just as anything in nature) it's unclear to what extent this damage might be offset by the benefits of sun exposure, or to what extent sun exposure might have a hardening effect against further damage, extending the benefits even further. Sunscreen didn't exist for most of human history, and yet there were no plagues of skin cancer. The fact is, we simply cannot say with any certainty that "the skin should be protected as much as possible".
Re: Time to sunburn
#44I almost exclusively refuse to wear sunscreen. The data isn’t exceptionally clear if wearing vs no wearing leads to overall more or less cancer system wide. Further, it definitely reduces vitamin D production and has harmful chemicals when in the water supply and absorbed into your skin. You can wear very lose light cotton clothing, hats and avoid too much direct sun. Further, going out regularly will typically keep…
The Amish are also notoriously covered head to toe in clothing. Obviously if no sun touches you, it's difficult to be affected by it.
Re: Time to sunburn
#45Worth mentioning that UVA and UVB are different, and that there are multiple sunscreen scandals happening right now where UVA protection is insufficient. UVB causes burns and tanning but UVA causes more cancer; and American suncreens especially - but also globally - are not telling the truth about how much protection they offer. You've got to be careful to really apply multiple layers of sunscreen with UVA protection…
Hard part is finding sunscreen which isn't cancerous or poisonous itself. 1 in 4 seem to have benzene in it. The sunscreen sitting on my shelf has talc in it. Etc
If only I could just buy sunscreen without having to worry about any of this shit.
Re: Time to sunburn
#46For those who, like me, started to wonder how using sunscreen affects vitamin D production, here's the conclusion of "The effect of sunscreen on vitamin D: a review" : "There is little evidence that sunscreen decreases 25(OH)D concentration when used in real-life settings, suggesting that concerns about vitamin D should not negate skin cancer prevention advice. However, there have been no trials of the high-SPF sunsc…
it should also be noted that consumption of certain antioxidants protect against skin cancer (most notably sulforaphane found in Cruciferous Vegetables).
>Nonsystematic reviews of observational studies suggest that use in real life does not cause vitamin D deficiency.
yeah, but that's an observational study.
I'm not anti-sunscreen and if you burn or get dark/deep freckles easily, I'm even more "pro" sunscreen for you.
But when looked at the number of diseases and problems correlated to Vitamin D deficiency and looking at the relatively low risk of contracting melanoma (as scary as that cancer can be if caught late), to me it's a balancing act.
Consuming mass amounts of VitaminD over long periods of time, orally, can cause kidney problems.
If you look at auto-immune issues globally, the percentage of the populations that have them sky rocket the further you get away from the equator. Depression, anxiety, even certain cancers themselves all have some relation to low vitamin d.
Sunlight, the type that allows UV-B to penetrate your skin, is a human necessity.
And like a lot of things we need (Vitamin C and E, or polyunsaturated fats, carbohydrates, etc), too much of it will cause you problems and/or kill you, not enough of it will cause you problems and/or kill you. And trying to anecdotally perform some balancing act without constantly running tests on yourself, is difficult.
My rule of thumb is put on sunscreen if you are out long enough to risk a burn, re-apply when necessary. Otherwise, soak up the rays.
Re: Time to sunburn
#47There's a video which shows how you look like to a UV camera when you put sunscreen on. Also glasses with UV filters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9BqrSAHbTc
My ultimate dream is a pair of magical glasses with a small knob on it, which when turned adjusts the wavelength you can see from deep radio all the way to high energy gamma. Just imagine seeing the entire spectrum.
Not sure the other spectrums of light are intense enough on average for such glasses to work without them also emitting all spectrum of light (essentially a walking radar/lidar/X-ray/etc… machine).
For example we of course have these types of “glasses” for infrared which is fine for humans because we give off significant quantities of infrared radiation, but lesser known is we also emit light in the visible spectrum, it’s just not enough intensity for our rods/cones or inversely our rods/cones are not sensitive enough to observe the visible light we emit. Anyway your invention would be cool, even if it just ratcheted up the existing visible light spectrum enough we could see ourselves glowing in the dark…it would give people a new appreciation for Carl Sagan’s quote that we are made of stardust.
Re: Time to sunburn
#48I _hate_ sunscreen. It's unpleasant to wear. I always do, but it's not my favorite part of summer by far. This year i am experimenting with rashguards and big stupid floppy hats.
Some sunscreen is and it's mostly the cheap drugstore junk you see in almost all retail settings.
There are plenty of sunscreens out there which are not greasy and don't stink and you won't notice once you apply it.
Re: Time to sunburn
#49I _hate_ sunscreen. It's unpleasant to wear. I always do, but it's not my favorite part of summer by far. This year i am experimenting with rashguards and big stupid floppy hats.
Buy UPF shirts from Patagonia, a relatively environmentally-friendly company. I never go out in the summer without UPF-50 long sleeve shirts, never have an issue with tanning let alone burning, and always feel perfectly comfortable as I don't have to apply or remove as much sunscreen.
Re: Time to sunburn
#50This might be completely a common knowledge, but I just learned recently that SPF (the number on most sunscreen products) is actually a multiplier of the time you can spend in the sun without any protection So having an SPF of 50 increases a time 50 fold, which really puts things into perspective. Never leave the house around lunchtime without sunscreen.
This is not correct, https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-res... There is a popular misconception that SPF relates to time of solar exposure. For example, many consumers believe that, if they normally get sunburn in one hour, then an SPF 15 sunscreen allows them to stay in the sun 15 hours (i.e., 15 times longer) without getting sunburn. This is not true because SPF is not directly related to time…
I don't see anything in that article that actually contradicts the definition of SPF. It's basically saying:
> It's a common misconception that speed determines how fast you get to your destination, but actually distance also matters. So speed does not reflect time to destination. Instead, speed lets consumers compare the level of relative quickness and that 60mph is quicker than 6mph.
Obviously we need to hold other factors constant. It's not a useful point in when talking about speed and I don't see the point in talking about SPF. And it certainly doesn't mean that time to destination is inversely proportional to speed.