91–100 of 119 posts
Even if smoking didnt cause cancer it would still be terrible. 6 months since i quit using nic gums.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Confounding by indication. People who spend more time outdoors are more likely to try to wear sunscreen, as are people who already got a lot of pre-existing risk to excessive sun exposure. Key word on try as its greatly assuming there isnt a wide audience who do use sunscreen, then just apply it in poor amount, or never re-apply but enjoy staying out far longer than most do in the sun feeling they're oh so very prote…
Sure that’s a theory, but hasn’t been proven. If I recall, the study showed that heavy sunscreen use amongst sunscreen users was associated with higher cancer rates. Secondly, if sun exposure is really that bad then how do you explain why most skin cancers are on the trunk and thighs rather than more exposed areas like hands and arms? The simplest answer is it’s not sun exposure that’s bad but sudden high exposure af…
A critical factor for doing a screening is how many bad burns you've had on the chest and back which would probably be similar to many times the burns on the arms in terms of surface area x added probability.
As a millennial growing up it was beaten into our head that smoking was a death sentence. I recently looked up what the actual cancer rate among smokers was... about 125k people in the US die of lung cancer annual. 25 million people smoke annually. That is a 0.5% chance for occasional smokers. Even if you smoke a pack a day your entire life, the cancer rate is less than 15%. I am in no way saying it is okay to smoke,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The number one reason I wear an Apple Watch all summer is the UV index complication. If the number is at 4 and trending down I let the kids run free.
Interestingly the best time to go out is at solar noon, when the UVB/UVA ratio is higher. Just go for a shorter amount of time to compensate for the higher overall intensity.
Tourists stay and get burn to a crisp
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's that simple, and making it seem that way is counter-productive towards understanding what we should/shouldn't be doing. There's no anti-sun obsession, either. Sunscreen isn't anti-sun, and people are well aware that Vitamin D synthesis is an issue in farther northern/southern latitudes. There's definitely an increased recognition scientifically that excessive sun is extremely bad, though.
I would assume that many are taking Vitamin D, but there is still a major difference, if I spend few days no-lifing and I suddenly go out in the hot sun and comeback home 30min later, I feel much better, something happens internally, could be from the light itself, unsure, but I'd say for example to fight off depression, getting under the sun is quite powerful and will definitely improve your chances of getting out o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure that’s a theory, but hasn’t been proven. If I recall, the study showed that heavy sunscreen use amongst sunscreen users was associated with higher cancer rates. Secondly, if sun exposure is really that bad then how do you explain why most skin cancers are on the trunk and thighs rather than more exposed areas like hands and arms? The simplest answer is it’s not sun exposure that’s bad but sudden high exposure af…
The arms represent very little surface area: https://wikem.org/wiki/Estimating_body_surface_area A critical factor for doing a screening is how many bad burns you've had on the chest and back which would probably be similar to many times the burns on the arms in terms of surface area x added probability.
Anterior head + legs + arms = 31.5% Anterior + Posterior torsos = 36%
> which would probably be similar to how many times the burns on the arms in terms of surface area x added probability
I disagree, my whole point is that frequent low/moderate exposure (such as arms) reduces the chance of burning during high exposure
I looked up the number, and after normalizing by surface area it looks like the skew towards torso is only for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) not (SCC).
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle...
For melanoma the trunk was the dominant site in men, while the legs were the dominant site in women
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2939095/
Unfortunately, that I know of there are not many studies that compare 'frequent low/moderate exposure followed by high exposure' vs 'very low exposure (high sunscreen use) followed by high exposure'
Here is what I found:
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9335442/
These results show the specificity of the positive association between melanoma risk and intermittent sun exposure, in contrast to a reduced risk with high levels of occupational exposure.
Both the low-intermittent (HR = 1.26; 95%CI = 1.17–1.38) and high exposure groups (HR = 1.13; 95%CI = 1.01–1.26) had higher rates of melanoma than indoor workers.
The low-intermittent exposure group had elevated melanoma rates on the arms and trunk (body), while the high exposure group had an elevated rate on the head and trunk.
Head: 0.99; Arms: 0.95; Trunk: 1.00; Legs: 0.90
Why would the low-exposure group have a higher rate on the arms and trunk? Could it be because when they do go to the pool/beach, their arms are not protected? Whereas in the high exposure group, their arms are protected due to everyday exposure, but their trunk is only exposed when they go to the pool? Then again, you would think the low-exposure group would also have high trunk incidence, so there might be some confounding factors like ethnicity/behavior/dress.
Anyway, hopefully I convinced you that it's not as simple as more sun = always bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have not. Do you have any recommendations for specific brands? I'll order a bottle and try it out.
Different person here, but I've been using various Supergoop products for years and think they're all excellent. Their "Unseen Sunscreen" dries completely matte but is kind of pricey per ounce. I mostly use it on my face. "Play" is cheaper (especially if you get the 18oz pump bottle) and still a lot less greasy than most drug store sunscreens. I use it every day.
https://www.cheapism.com/trader-joes-supergoop-sunscreen-dup...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strong recommend a UV umbrella. I also hate the feeling of sunscreen and will also fry the minute I so much as look at the sun. Also, linen clothing. Far more comfortable in heat while keeping you covered. Hoodies and jeans sounds miserable.
How is UV umbrella different from any normal umbrella?
I bought one of those UV-C detection cards that also detect UV-A and UV-B. Both a UV umbrella and a non-UV umbrella blunted the midday sun down from very high levels to low/medium levels.
I also bought a Japanese umbrella (brand Wpc) that is rated for UV and it blocks the UV levels down to zero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly the best time to go out is at solar noon, when the UVB/UVA ratio is higher. Just go for a shorter amount of time to compensate for the higher overall intensity.
My country, Spain, is famous for its beaches. Everyone native leaves the beach in the middle of the day and returns after lunch/siesta, when the rays are less intense. Tourists stay and get burn to a crisp
Tourists are an especially bad example since they often work indoors all year or come from less sunny countries, so the sudden sun exposure is doubly bad for them.
Spain is sunnier yet has lower melanoma incidence than Northern Europe..almost like moderate sun exposure is protective, or that going from a cloudy country to a sunny area for a few weeks is especially bad - you can analyze it how you wish.