As a bit of a different perspective, the sun in Australia is objectively dangerous. Heatwaves kill more people than any other natural hazard, and skin cancer is a leading cause of death (ranked...
As a bit of a different perspective, the sun in Australia is objectively dangerous. Heatwaves kill more people than any other natural hazard, and skin cancer is a leading cause of death (ranked 19, below heart disease and other cancers. Skin cancer kills 8 in 100,000 people and there are 3000 diagnoses per 100,000 people. Wikipedia has a page for the topic, if you want a little more info. The medical community's advice to both avoid the sun and use sunscreen seems quite reasonable here.
Yes, the sun here is pretty fierce (still 37 degrees here in Adelaide at 7pm). Also over the years the amount of time you can spend in the sun seems to be shorter than I remember.
Yes, the sun here is pretty fierce (still 37 degrees here in Adelaide at 7pm).
Also over the years the amount of time you can spend in the sun seems to be shorter than I remember.
Well, summers are longer and hotter now than 20 years ago. Heatwaves are harder too. Living in a concrete jungle doesn't help much either, and neither does getting older :)
Well, summers are longer and hotter now than 20 years ago. Heatwaves are harder too. Living in a concrete jungle doesn't help much either, and neither does getting older :)
I didn't have time to read the whole article, unfortunately, but I'm curious if/how the study controlled for sun vs other benefits of being outside, or whether cause a d correlation are being...
I didn't have time to read the whole article, unfortunately, but I'm curious if/how the study controlled for sun vs other benefits of being outside, or whether cause a d correlation are being confused, i.e. are people who are healthy for other reasons spending more time outside as a result?
Unfortunately none of the studies are linked in the article, as is true of most science articles, but given the size and scope of some of the studies it would not surprise me if there was a...
Unfortunately none of the studies are linked in the article, as is true of most science articles, but given the size and scope of some of the studies it would not surprise me if there was a questionnaire or something to help understand how much time was actually spent outside.
The doctor they interview, Dr. Weller, also apparently held a study where he directly exposed a subset of individuals to artificial sunlight to observe it's effects.
when he exposed volunteers to the equivalent of 30 minutes of summer sunlight without sunscreen, their nitric oxide levels went up and their blood pressure went down.
Personally, I've never been big on sunscreen for a variety of reasons. I'm glad to hear that there's some science supporting my position. It always seemed weird to me that something that has been around for longer than life itself has existed, would somehow be harmful. That sounds like a really good evolutionary pressure to adapt to it's existence.
Do you wash your hands ever? Do you try to avoid drowning? Do you put clothes on when it's cold? Do you avoid eating random mushrooms in the woods? Do you pay attention to hurricane warnings? I...
It always seemed weird to me that something that has been around for longer than life itself has existed, would somehow be harmful.
Do you wash your hands ever? Do you try to avoid drowning? Do you put clothes on when it's cold? Do you avoid eating random mushrooms in the woods? Do you pay attention to hurricane warnings? I don't know anything about the effects of sun, but it seems pretty crazy to say "it's natural, so it must be healthy".
That sounds like a really good evolutionary pressure to adapt to it's existence.
Evolutionary pressure only serves to increase reproduction. If sun is harmful but doesn't affect your ability to reproduce, and usually doesn't kill anyone until after they've had children, then evolution is not a factor.
Washing your hands is trying to avoid bacteria and viruses, organisms that are evolving alongside us to hijack our bodies. It's not a fair comparison. Clothes when it's cold is a human invention...
Washing your hands is trying to avoid bacteria and viruses, organisms that are evolving alongside us to hijack our bodies. It's not a fair comparison.
Clothes when it's cold is a human invention that allowed us to move out of climates where we could live without clothes. Not a fair comparison.
I don't have to eat random mushrooms in the woods, and mushrooms are also organisms evolving. Not a fair comparison.
"it's natural, so it must be healthy".
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we've evolved in an environment where it exists, much like we've evolved in an environment where oxygen exists. We use it to our benefit when it's used within reason.
Evolutionary pressure only serves to increase reproduction. If sun is harmful but doesn't affect your ability to reproduce, and usually doesn't kill anyone until after they've had children, then evolution is not a factor.
Not entirely true. The longer you survive the more you reproduce, therefore traits that promote longevity tend to slowly adapt over time.
Evolutionary pressure favors having offspring that reproduce. That means people who become good grandparents are favored via evolution. Not sure where this outs your argument. Decidedly opposed to...
Evolutionary pressure favors having offspring that reproduce. That means people who become good grandparents are favored via evolution. Not sure where this outs your argument.
Decidedly opposed to your argument, though, are two things.
One we spent most of our aboriginal time in the shade.
Two, the characteristics of solar radiation may be different today than when we were losing our body hair. (See: ozone hole).
Uv radiation does create free radicals, which do damage dna.
And while carcinoma may not be fatal, it can still be painful and disfiguring, lime bad acne.
And even if carcinoma is not the result, too much exposure can keave skin dry, leathery, and chapped. Painful and not nice to look at.
All that said, i still spend and have spent for most of my life many long hours in the sun each week. I have good skin and strong bones.
I specifically used the words "seemed" and "sounds" combined with "I" and "personally" to indicate that this is not scientific. Can you help me understand how I can more accurately portray this so...
I specifically used the words "seemed" and "sounds" combined with "I" and "personally" to indicate that this is not scientific. Can you help me understand how I can more accurately portray this so that it is not misunderstood in the future?
Personally, I thought your original comment was very clearly casual, and that you weren't trying to make an argument to convince other people of your position. You were casually talking about your...
Personally, I thought your original comment was very clearly casual, and that you weren't trying to make an argument to convince other people of your position. You were casually talking about your perspective and experience. Not sure why burkaman felt the need to attack your statements.
So I think what led me to write that comment was that instead of explaining to @burkaman that you really meant your sun comment casually and didn't intend to imply that the sun isn't harmful in...
So I think what led me to write that comment was that instead of explaining to @burkaman that you really meant your sun comment casually and didn't intend to imply that the sun isn't harmful in some broad sense, you sort of doubled down on it by arguing. I hope that is helpful!
This has pretty much been my perspective, too. I've thought a lot about this over the past couple years because now I have a son to take care of, and in that time, I've decided to reverse my...
Personally, I've never been big on sunscreen for a variety of reasons. I'm glad to hear that there's some science supporting my position. It always seemed weird to me that something that has been around for longer than life itself has existed, would somehow be harmful.
This has pretty much been my perspective, too. I've thought a lot about this over the past couple years because now I have a son to take care of, and in that time, I've decided to reverse my position and go with the (pretty widespread) recommendation to limit sun exposure. Yet this article has turned me back around. Especially interesting is the information about skin cancer rates and mortality:
Skin cancer kills surprisingly few people: less than 3 per 100,000 in the U.S. each year. For every person who dies of skin cancer, more than 100 die from cardiovascular diseases.
People don’t realize this because several different diseases are lumped together under the term “skin cancer.” The most common by far are basal-cell carcinomas and squamous-cell carcinomas, which are almost never fatal. In fact, says Weller, “When I diagnose a basal-cell skin cancer in a patient, the first thing I say is congratulations, because you’re walking out of my office with a longer life expectancy than when you walked in.” That’s probably because people who get carcinomas, which are strongly linked to sun exposure, tend to be healthy types that are outside getting plenty of exercise and sunlight.
Melanoma, the deadly type of skin cancer, is much rarer, accounting for only 1 to 3 percent of new skin cancers. And perplexingly, outdoor workers have half the melanoma rate of indoor workers. Tanned people have lower rates in general. “The risk factor for melanoma appears to be intermittent sunshine and sunburn, especially when you’re young,” says Weller. “But there’s evidence that long-term sun exposure associates with less melanoma.”
I tan almost every summer because I gradually get used to the sun. Not last summer: I covered up completely every time I went out, and while I didn't use sunblock, I had a wide-brimmed hat protecting my face, as well as long sleeves and long pants, so I didn't need it. I look forward to getting back to normal. The sun feels amazing. Every time I go out and expose myself to it, I feel so alive. I guess I should've listened to that instinct all along.
How does it support your position? We know sun exposure causes cancer. The fact that sun exposure can decrease blood pressure doesn't mean anything unless you're suffering from untreated hypertension.
How does it support your position? We know sun exposure causes cancer. The fact that sun exposure can decrease blood pressure doesn't mean anything unless you're suffering from untreated hypertension.
There's always a trade-off when you medicate a condition and quite frankly I would rather live a life with less medications than with more. I do not have hypertension now because I spend a lot of...
The fact that sun exposure can decrease blood pressure doesn't mean anything unless you're suffering from untreated hypertension.
There's always a trade-off when you medicate a condition and quite frankly I would rather live a life with less medications than with more.
I do not have hypertension now because I spend a lot of time exercising. But the claims weren't just for hypertension, they reduced all cause cardiovascular mortality when examined at the population level. Perhaps there are more mechanisms we have yet to discover. Perhaps not, but regardless I'd rather reduce my chance to die from the #1 killer of people.
Good job spending time exercising, judging by the effect sizes that alone is doing you much more good. I was just trying to encourage you not to take the effects with a grain of salt. They are...
Good job spending time exercising, judging by the effect sizes that alone is doing you much more good. I was just trying to encourage you not to take the effects with a grain of salt. They are correlational studies and just as the article explains about vitamin D. This wouldn't be the first time results that seemed valid were misinterpreted.
Absolutely, I'm not saying this is the most scientific of conclusions but many of us do things that aren't healthy like drinking alcohol and eating heavily processed foods. As I said it's a...
Absolutely, I'm not saying this is the most scientific of conclusions but many of us do things that aren't healthy like drinking alcohol and eating heavily processed foods. As I said it's a trade-off I'm willing to make for a variety of reasons such as the fact that I do not spend a lot of time in the sun, I do not like how sunscreen feels, and much like the dermatologist in this story it always seemed silly to me to protect myself from a very low incidence of a primarily nonfatal disease.
As a bit of a different perspective, the sun in Australia is objectively dangerous. Heatwaves kill more people than any other natural hazard, and skin cancer is a leading cause of death (ranked 19, below heart disease and other cancers. Skin cancer kills 8 in 100,000 people and there are 3000 diagnoses per 100,000 people. Wikipedia has a page for the topic, if you want a little more info. The medical community's advice to both avoid the sun and use sunscreen seems quite reasonable here.
Yes, the sun here is pretty fierce (still 37 degrees here in Adelaide at 7pm).
Also over the years the amount of time you can spend in the sun seems to be shorter than I remember.
Well, summers are longer and hotter now than 20 years ago. Heatwaves are harder too. Living in a concrete jungle doesn't help much either, and neither does getting older :)
I didn't have time to read the whole article, unfortunately, but I'm curious if/how the study controlled for sun vs other benefits of being outside, or whether cause a d correlation are being confused, i.e. are people who are healthy for other reasons spending more time outside as a result?
Unfortunately none of the studies are linked in the article, as is true of most science articles, but given the size and scope of some of the studies it would not surprise me if there was a questionnaire or something to help understand how much time was actually spent outside.
The doctor they interview, Dr. Weller, also apparently held a study where he directly exposed a subset of individuals to artificial sunlight to observe it's effects.
Personally, I've never been big on sunscreen for a variety of reasons. I'm glad to hear that there's some science supporting my position. It always seemed weird to me that something that has been around for longer than life itself has existed, would somehow be harmful. That sounds like a really good evolutionary pressure to adapt to it's existence.
Do you wash your hands ever? Do you try to avoid drowning? Do you put clothes on when it's cold? Do you avoid eating random mushrooms in the woods? Do you pay attention to hurricane warnings? I don't know anything about the effects of sun, but it seems pretty crazy to say "it's natural, so it must be healthy".
Evolutionary pressure only serves to increase reproduction. If sun is harmful but doesn't affect your ability to reproduce, and usually doesn't kill anyone until after they've had children, then evolution is not a factor.
Washing your hands is trying to avoid bacteria and viruses, organisms that are evolving alongside us to hijack our bodies. It's not a fair comparison.
Clothes when it's cold is a human invention that allowed us to move out of climates where we could live without clothes. Not a fair comparison.
I don't have to eat random mushrooms in the woods, and mushrooms are also organisms evolving. Not a fair comparison.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we've evolved in an environment where it exists, much like we've evolved in an environment where oxygen exists. We use it to our benefit when it's used within reason.
Not entirely true. The longer you survive the more you reproduce, therefore traits that promote longevity tend to slowly adapt over time.
Evolutionary pressure favors having offspring that reproduce. That means people who become good grandparents are favored via evolution. Not sure where this outs your argument.
Decidedly opposed to your argument, though, are two things.
One we spent most of our aboriginal time in the shade.
Two, the characteristics of solar radiation may be different today than when we were losing our body hair. (See: ozone hole).
Uv radiation does create free radicals, which do damage dna.
And while carcinoma may not be fatal, it can still be painful and disfiguring, lime bad acne.
And even if carcinoma is not the result, too much exposure can keave skin dry, leathery, and chapped. Painful and not nice to look at.
All that said, i still spend and have spent for most of my life many long hours in the sun each week. I have good skin and strong bones.
Not OP, just a random passer by. It seems to me that you're arguing in bad faith to defend a poorly thought-out statement.
I specifically used the words "seemed" and "sounds" combined with "I" and "personally" to indicate that this is not scientific. Can you help me understand how I can more accurately portray this so that it is not misunderstood in the future?
Personally, I thought your original comment was very clearly casual, and that you weren't trying to make an argument to convince other people of your position. You were casually talking about your perspective and experience. Not sure why burkaman felt the need to attack your statements.
So I think what led me to write that comment was that instead of explaining to @burkaman that you really meant your sun comment casually and didn't intend to imply that the sun isn't harmful in some broad sense, you sort of doubled down on it by arguing. I hope that is helpful!
This has pretty much been my perspective, too. I've thought a lot about this over the past couple years because now I have a son to take care of, and in that time, I've decided to reverse my position and go with the (pretty widespread) recommendation to limit sun exposure. Yet this article has turned me back around. Especially interesting is the information about skin cancer rates and mortality:
I tan almost every summer because I gradually get used to the sun. Not last summer: I covered up completely every time I went out, and while I didn't use sunblock, I had a wide-brimmed hat protecting my face, as well as long sleeves and long pants, so I didn't need it. I look forward to getting back to normal. The sun feels amazing. Every time I go out and expose myself to it, I feel so alive. I guess I should've listened to that instinct all along.
How does it support your position? We know sun exposure causes cancer. The fact that sun exposure can decrease blood pressure doesn't mean anything unless you're suffering from untreated hypertension.
There's always a trade-off when you medicate a condition and quite frankly I would rather live a life with less medications than with more.
I do not have hypertension now because I spend a lot of time exercising. But the claims weren't just for hypertension, they reduced all cause cardiovascular mortality when examined at the population level. Perhaps there are more mechanisms we have yet to discover. Perhaps not, but regardless I'd rather reduce my chance to die from the #1 killer of people.
Good job spending time exercising, judging by the effect sizes that alone is doing you much more good. I was just trying to encourage you not to take the effects with a grain of salt. They are correlational studies and just as the article explains about vitamin D. This wouldn't be the first time results that seemed valid were misinterpreted.
Absolutely, I'm not saying this is the most scientific of conclusions but many of us do things that aren't healthy like drinking alcohol and eating heavily processed foods. As I said it's a trade-off I'm willing to make for a variety of reasons such as the fact that I do not spend a lot of time in the sun, I do not like how sunscreen feels, and much like the dermatologist in this story it always seemed silly to me to protect myself from a very low incidence of a primarily nonfatal disease.