We've destroyed the atmosphere on this planet in so many ways to the point that we should all just be wearing spacesuit all the time.
Time to sunburn
61–70 of 121 posts
Re: Time to sunburn
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
This makes since sense, but still feels too simplified. I used to spend many hours outside and basically developed a skin type that was easily two types higher than I have normally. When this happened, I found I could definitely do longer without a hat or other sun shades with no negative impact. Fast forward a few years and I'm back to where the first few days mowing the yard will see me get burned. Give it a few we…
You repeatedly damaged your skin to maintain the tan.
I get that. But some damage is different from other damage. Getting callouses is similar to getting blisters. But one is much worse for you. (With the other being somewhat beneficial...)
So my question is how bad is it, really? Straw man arguments of folks being ridiculously tanned from tanning beds aside, is there much trustable discussion over mild tans?
Edit: Probably better asked in terms of my blister analogy. Is there benefit to getting tanned similar to building up callouses? Or is it purely cosmetic?
Re: Time to sunburn
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
if you're like most of the western world, especially if you have an indoor job and indoor hobbies (we spend an awful lot of time binging tv shows, playing video games, working on computers, etc..), you're not outside all that much unless it's to hop in the car and go to another indoor place.
and chances are you have a deficiency.
Most vitamins tell you to take 2,000 IU. Upper limits are typically stated to be 4,000 IU. But there's been no established harmful upper limit either.
This leads a lot of people into thinking more is better, this is doubly true if they have some kind of pre-existing condition that's linked to low VitaminD and they're desperate to heal themselves. They read quack stories on the internet about how 10,000 IU doses help cure MS and they do it too.
It's also made worse by so-called "smart" and "qualified" people like Dr Rhonda Patrick essentially turning herself into some pop-health guru and when she tells people what she supplements with (5,000-6,000 IU), many people feel she knows what she's talking about and copies her. But the reality is, she takes A LOT of supplements and she has zero idea how they all mix with each other, especially at the supplementation levels in which she's consuming them.
of vitamins that can be abused, VitaminD is mostly safe. But a lot of folks go a bit crazy with it and have hurt themselves.
VitD supplements are also, often, in soybean oil, which is horrible for you. VitD needs to be consumed with a fat, so If you're going to supplement, you spend the extra money for it suspended in coconut oil instead.
Re: Time to sunburn
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"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."
We are already aware of a direct benefit: the skin's production of Vitamin D uses up bodily cholesterol. External supplementation doesn't do that.
(I agree there are likely others we'll document later.)
Re: Time to sunburn
#65I _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.
already done, yup!
Re: Time to sunburn
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 preventin…
> • Known carcinogens commonly used in sunscreens, or present as contaminants, are actually causing increased rates of skin cancer.
I am curious to see a citation for this claim.
> 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.
I am also curious to see these studies, and wonder if they control for other variables like physical activity.
I think it's an incorrect framework to say that you have to choose between skin cancer and heart disease, you can avoid both through different lifestyle choices.
Re: Time to sunburn
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You want Geordi's VISOR from Star Trek.
Yes!!
Re: Time to sunburn
#68Worth 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/
"Broad spectrum" just tells you that it provides some amount of UVA protection. It doesn't tell you how much, and it's often much less than the UVB protection.
Re: Time to sunburn
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also remember however that the SPF numbers on most sunscreen are aspirational. They usually require you to apply a much heavier coat than most people think is reasonable and have shorter than you would expect full effectiveness window. As the article discusses it also depends on your skin. If you are a fair ginger then yeah, sunscreen is your life. If you are more swarthy then you can get away with some midday sun.
> then you can get away with some midday sun No you can't. Or rather, you shouldn't. If you have more melanin you obviously have more protection. But your skin will still get damaged by a midday sun, and it will age faster than normal. This misconception that darker skin does not need protection is really harmful. Maybe that allows you to skip sunscreen for short periods of time, or in early morning, late evening. No…
My understanding is that overuse of sunscreen is also considered harmful as it inhibits Vitamin D production. It's one of those areas where striking the right balance is difficult as it is different for everybody. As a result you had conflicting advice from every corner.
Re: Time to sunburn
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 preventin…
> • Known carcinogens commonly used in sunscreens, or present as contaminants, are actually causing increased rates of skin cancer. I am curious to see a citation for this claim. > 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 fou…
Here's a recent HN discussion of a study that found benzene in 27% of tested sunscreen samples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27292387