Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)

SilverElfin

It’s great that people are finally talking about this. It should have been obvious that sun exposure without sunscreen is needed to some extent. If you’re blocking the UV all the time, then how could you possibly be getting the minimum UV exposure that you do need. But people have become absolutely obsessed with sun protection.

erelong

tl;dr you probably should get a few minutes of sunlight daily on your unexposed skin without sunscreen for the "health gains" (you can also wear clothes to block sun instead of sunscreen so you don't necessarily need sunscreen at all)

dntrkv

So everything in moderation? Cool, glad my philosophy still applies.

jrflowers

No. It is terrible on noodles. Every brand.

Zenbit_UX

The article seems to be a meta analysis of a bunch of conflicting research to support a narrative that we don’t really know shit. And fair, we don’t. But a couple of things we do know that weren’t covered - egregiously so - is that aging is UV damage. Sometimes called photoaging, wrinkles, sun spots, discoloration, fine lines, grey hair, all of that shit that you associate with someone visibly looking old is sun damage. So the picture that the article paints of some pasty nerds in offices shielding themselves from all UV and thus: they might as well be smoking… it doesn’t even touch on why people might be doing this. Both kurgezadt and veritasium did some really great videos on photoaging and it’s worth checking out if this is new information to you.

sevenseacat

Coming from the skin cancer capital of the world (Australia) - no, no it is not

_visgean

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135382922... this is better source on the underlying study

dang

Related: Current guidelines for sun exposure are unhealthy and unscientific – research (2019) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31471416 - May 2022 (335 comments)

Cider9986

Do we really have to reapply every 2 hours?

layman51

Does anyone know whether UVA or UVB is more conducive to producing vitamin D naturally? A quick search shows me that it is mainly UVB that's responsible for that, but unfortunately, this is what gets blocked out by glass windows and sunscreen. On the other hand, UVA is what causes early aging. So this is just an unfortunate situation because I don't think there's a way of just getting UVB into you in a safe way.

jondcallahan

I made a small little web app calculator for myself and my family to figure out how long we could stay outside without needing sunscreen based on current UV and skin type. I use it daily in the summer and a couple thousand people use it every month also. You can check it out at https://sunburntimer.com . It's also free and open source software, github link in footer.

ericmcer

I think this all stems from Baby boomers controlling the narrative. Baby boomers had an insane relationship with the sun. Getting crispy brown tan, using tanning oils, using that metal collar to blast sun directly into their face, and frequenting tanning beds were viewed as totally normal and healthy things. Big surprise they all got skin cancer. Then they swung the pendulum all the way back and now preach 24/7 sunscreen and never letting the sun touch you.

krupan

Wow, it feels like nobody read the article. Findings: - high blood pressure leads to a lot of deaths - people that spend more time in the sun have lower blood pressure - skin cancer is caused by sun exposure, but it kills far, far less people than high blood pressure - people that spend more time in the sun have a lower rate of dying from skin cancer than people who spend less time in the sun! Summary: more sun exposure makes you less likely to die on at least two fronts! It's really very simple. You skin adapts to sunlight and doesn't burn if you increase your exposure gradually, and then you get some amazing benefits from it!

andai

>These rebels argue that what made the people with high vitamin D levels so healthy was not the vitamin itself. That was just a marker. Their vitamin D levels were high because they were getting plenty of exposure to the thing that was really responsible for their good health—that big orange ball shining down from above. Yeah, it's not just UV. Infrared light has beneficial effects on deep tissue, including the brain. There's no way to get that from a pill.

pazimzadeh

Sunlight does way more than just produce vitamin D: Photo-neuro-immuno-endocrinology: How the ultraviolet radiation regulates the body, brain, and immune system https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2308374121

stevage

> Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years. Until the industrial revolution, we lived outside. How did we get through the Neolithic Era without sunscreen? Actually, perfectly well. What’s counterintuitive is that dermatologists run around saying, ‘Don’t go outside, you might die.’” At least in Australia a big difference is that there is a hole in the ozone layer that stone age people did not have. Sun exposure is much more harmful now.

sunnydeedee

Since biological evolutionary forces have forever been fighting the sun are our bodies MORE or LESS suited to dealing with UV damage vs oxybenzone damage? Since oxybenzone can intercalate DNA rungs under extremely high local concentrations (forcing some molecules into cavities), or by photo-oxidation converting to radical cation, or in the presence of ethanol which lowers DNA hydration layers and can widen the inter-pair base gaps, then is it causing MORE DNA damage or LESS DNA damage than the Sun's ultraviolet radiation which can contribute to cancer under real world conditions?