Live data from Hacker News

Time to sunburn

deepnote.com

51–60 of 121 posts

Re: Time to sunburn

#51
post #10

Worth 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.

If you look over that table, its generally the cheap drugstore sunscreens pushed by 2-3 large multinational companies.

Buy a higher quality sunscreen (there are multiple reddits for this exact purpose) and you will not get poisoned by benzene and it won't be greasy and smelly.

Re: Time to sunburn

#52
post #10

Worth 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…

You need to look for sunscreens that say "broad spectrum". That is the approved language in the U.S. for UVA protection.

https://time.com/3924609/sunscreen-spf-uva-uvb/

Re: Time to sunburn

#53

I 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…

[deleted]

Re: Time to sunburn

#55
post #52
post #10

Worth 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…

You need to look for sunscreens that say "broad spectrum". That is the approved language in the U.S. for UVA protection. https://time.com/3924609/sunscreen-spf-uva-uvb/

Sorry to say, but that article is 6 years old. A lot has changed since then. Yes, you need broad spectrum, but the point of my post is that those labels are not always telling the truth. You do not always get broad spectrum sunscreen from a bottle that says it is broad spectrum sunscreen.

Re: Time to sunburn

#56
This model doesn't take into account time of day, but many do. But those mostly seem to do so incorrectly, as far as I can tell. They tend to use the measure of "UVA/B incident on a horizontal square meter". However humans are not flat horizontal surfaces - and in fact a lot of my exposed skin is more vertical than horizontal. Therefore I think the correct measure should be "UVA/B incident on a meter-diameter sphere" or similar (where absorption from the atmosphere is the only contributor, not merely foreshortening). I was unable to identify numbers for this at all when I looked into it - does anyone know of a model that does this properly? Or just number of how much UVA/B is impacted by this?

Re: Time to sunburn

#57
post #56

This model doesn't take into account time of day, but many do. But those mostly seem to do so incorrectly, as far as I can tell. They tend to use the measure of "UVA/B incident on a horizontal square meter". However humans are not flat horizontal surfaces - and in fact a lot of my exposed skin is more vertical than horizontal. Therefore I think the correct measure should be "UVA/B incident on a meter-diameter sphere"…

Try duplicating the project, it should give you access to the code. Also the API returns the current weather/UV index, so the result is always for the current time at the location.

Re: Time to sunburn

#58

For 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…

"Consuming mass amounts of VitaminD over long periods of time, orally, can cause kidney problems."

What counts as massive?

And is consuming massive amounts of Vitamin D necessary to prevent deficiency?

Re: Time to sunburn

#59
post #35

For 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…

Fortunately Vitamin D supplements are a safe and effective way to get the recommended amount. UV exposure is the most preventable cause of skin cancer[1] and not worth the risk. EDIT Forgot my link: 1. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/call-to-action-preve...

But, after 50+ years of rising sunscreen use, there's essentially no data showing more sunscreen use reduces skin cancer.

Sunscreen definitely prevents sunburns, and almost certainly delays visible skin aging/weathering. Those may be enough benefits for some people.

But the people/populations using more sunscreen are also having more skin cancer. Some theories compatible with these observations are:

• While preventing sunburn pain, sunscreen doesn't prevent the actual cancer-causing skin damage - and thus by allowing more time to be spent in the sun, actually worsened skin cancer rates. (This may have especially been a problem for the 1960s-1990s, when it was thought that only sunburn-causing UVB contributed to skin cancer - so sunscreens only blocked UBV. That encouraged increased exposure to the mostly-unblocked UVA, now understood as an equal contributor to skin cancer. More recent sunscreens block UVA as well.)

• Known carcinogens commonly used in sunscreens, or present as contaminants, are actually causing increased rates of skin cancer.

Anyone whose true worry is skin cancer should use shade & limited times of exposure - not sunscreens. (Ensuring a spaced-repetition of gradually-increasing exposure, to develop a natural tan without ever reaching a peeling burn, is also likely naturally protective against skin cancer.)

Further, while endogenous Vitamin D production relies on sun exposure, and low Vitamin D is correlated with health problems, oral Vitamin D supplementation may not replace all the benefits of sun exposure.

Generally, large population studies show positive effects of moderate sun exposure on many health outcomes, including overall longevity, heart disease, and non-skin cancers. Meanwhile, Vitamin D supplementation studies have usually not found that such supplementation alone reverses the correlations of many diseases with low Vitamin D. Thus, Vitamin D may not be the only mechanism by which sun's benefits are achieved.

So rigorous sun-exposure-minimization, even if it does reduce (often benign or increasingly survivable) skin cancers, may increase overall mortality through higher heart disease & other cancers. (Your HHS report mentions 9,000 skin melanoma deaths per year. There are 650,000 heart-disease deaths and 600,000 other cancer deaths.)

Get sun. Use shade, clothing, & timing to ensure it's not so much sun that you peel. Use sunscreen sparingly, only when you can't moderate sun exposure other ways.

Re: Time to sunburn

#60
post #35

For 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…

Fortunately Vitamin D supplements are a safe and effective way to get the recommended amount. UV exposure is the most preventable cause of skin cancer[1] and not worth the risk. EDIT Forgot my link: 1. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/call-to-action-preve...

Sunshine is more than just a source of VitD.

UVA has also been shown to lower blood pressure. This is probably the result of UVA causing the release of nitric oxide from skin stores, which promotes widening of blood vessels. It also acts as an antioxidant to prevent damage to cells.

People who don’t get enough sunlight have altered cellular defense mechanisms that predispose them to excessive inflammation, which can result in autoimmune diseases.

One could argue you can supplement to replace VitD, but are you supplementing your children? From what age? How regularly? What's the quality of the supplementation? How do the poor maintain access to supplementation?

Then you run into the problem that long term, large(r) doses of Vitamin D causes kidney problems.

A study ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21430082/) found an association between low vitamin D levels and the development of type 2 diabetes. For every ten-unit decrease in blood vitamin D levels, we found a 10% increased risk of developing this form of diabetes over the following five years. when they gave supplements of vitamin D to patients with low vitamin D levels who were already at risk of developing diabetes, there was no overall improvement in their sensitivity to insulin. Nor was there a change in their blood glucose levels compared with those given inactive tablets.

I'm betting, not just in this case, but the act of your body making it's own VitaminD creates benefits we are not yet aware - that oral consumption of a pill isn't going to compensate for.

nevermind MOST of VitaminD pills use soybean oil or some other horrible Omega-6 ridden, cheap seed oil as it's delivery method.

Outside time in the sun is helpful in ways not tied to VitD, as well. circadian rhythms are regulated by bright light exposure. You can't get these lumens by waking up and sitting inside all day. The heat from the sun is capable of reducing physical stresses on the body’s cells and by increasing heat production.

Another important potential effect of sunlight is UV-induced suppression of the body’s immune system. Solar radiation does this by altering the activity of the white cells involved in turning on the body’s defence mechanisms. This may seem like a negative, but it's vital for people to reduce inflammation and when considering how the earth's population spreads out autoimmune disorders (higher percentages the more you get away from the equator), this may be a secondary factor on top of VitaminD.

IMHO -

people need to find a balance with sunscreen and sunshine. if you know you're going to risk a burn, put it on and reapply when necessary.

if you're worried about cancer, eat some cruciferous vegetables regularly to make sure you get lots of sulforaphane which protects against skin cancer. Get regular derma checkups.

but when looking at auto-immune issues (that once you have one, your supplementation isn't going to undo it), the depression issues, and so forth - isn't worth skipping out on sunshine.

Skin cancer may be the most preventable but it's also a fairly unlikely cancer, as far as cancers go - and while it's one of the scarier cancers, catching it early with derma appointments is key to survival. Catching it early has a high survival rate.

An auto-immune issue, on the other hand, will shorten your life and make you suffer along the way, increasingly, for the rest of your life. It's not just a death sentence. It's a slow-slog through hell on the way there. Most people never go into a permanent remission of Ankylosing spondylitis or MS. It just slowly destroys you, it handicaps you, and then it kills you. And along with all that suffering, is your kids, parents and partners suffering right along with you. Yay - therapy sessions for everyone.

It's not just auto-immune issues. Depression, anxiety, even certain cancers themselves all have some relation to low vitamin d.

IMHO - sunlight needs to have it's saturated-fat moment where we realize that a lot of the fear mongering simply wasn't warranted. And that the cures for some diseases end up being the catalyst for many others that are far more likely.

How many people are afflicted with an autoimmune issue? how many with debilitating depression? Compare those numbers to skin cancer. Compare the deaths. Compare the suffering.

Then try to find a balance.

Post reply on HN