9 ms·

The NIH guys also did a study that said that even in tropical countries, Vitamin D absorption has fallen dramatically because of lifestyle changes. One of the p

The NIH guys also did a study that said that even in tropical countries, Vitamin D absorption has fallen dramatically because of lifestyle changes. One of the probable factors is the lust for fair skin. I routinely see people covered from head to toe to help them stay fair skinned, even kids are sent to play covered in full sleeve clothing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897581/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897581/

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
Fair skin is a lot better than skin cancer!
- tomhoward 9y ago
  Sure, but higher melanin (ie, darker skin pigmentation) is correlated with lower cancer rates [1][2]. So the point is that cultural changes are causing people who were previously were at lower risk of cancer due to their skin pigmentation/higher melanin, to now have reducing melanin/pigmentation, therefore increasing rates of skin cancer. [1] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/skin-cancer/prevention-and-early-detection/sun-damage.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/skin-cancer/prevention-and-ear... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm
  - kgwgk 9y ago
    Aren't those links about "people with naturally darker skin"? I'm not sure how cultural changes can affect that. Rich people may eat caviar, but eating caviar won't make you rich...
    - Sean1708 9y ago
      > The tan is caused by an increase in the activity and number of melanocytes, the cells that make the pigment melanin. Melanin helps block out damaging UV rays up to a point, It's not particularly clearly worded but to me that seems to suggest that tanning increases melanin and that melanin helps prevent cancer regardless of whether your dark skin is natural or tanned.
      - kgwgk 9y ago
        But if tanning also produces cancer it remains to be determined which effect dominates (unlike for people with naturally dark skin, where the effect can only go in the beneficial sense).
        scott_s 9y ago
        Indoor tanning is associated with higher rates of skin cancer: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/indoor_tanning.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/indoor_tanning.ht... I suspect outdoor tanning is as well.
        Bartweiss 9y ago
        Broadly, my understanding is that a major change in skin tone is 'worth' about 15 SPF, so tanning would fall somewhere below that. For a fixed amount of sun exposure, spreading out the duration is better both to establish a tan and to allow more time for skin recovery. But there isn't really a case where tanning increases safety, because you get the tan via exposure. It's like saying pilots who practice a lot are safer; for any given flight it might be true, but cumulative risk can only rise.
        Sean1708 9y ago
        I thought it was burning that was associated with an increased cancer risk, not just tanning in general?
        Fishkins 9y ago
        Every source I've seen clearly states tanning always increases your chance of skin cancer. Tanning does provide a small amount of protection against burning (around 3 SPF worth), but no protection against cancer. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-a-base-tan-can-protect-against-sunburn/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-a...
        Retric 9y ago
        They studied based on 2 weeks of tanning which is very minimal. You clearly get more than SPF 3 with a deep tan as you can spend 8 hours in direct sun without obvious problems. Without any tan you get a burn in under an hour suggesting ~SPF 10+.
    - spraak 9y ago
      That's what the above poster already said. > people who were previously were at lower risk of cancer due to their skin pigmentation/higher melanin
      - kgwgk 9y ago
        Unless the above poster means “due to their [acquired] skin pigmentation” I don’t see how the comment can make any sense. Why would their rates of skin cancer be higher now?
        loeg 9y ago
        Maybe OP is referring to spray tans? That's my best guess.
    - tomhoward 9y ago
      We know that genetics and environment both play a significant role. So think about it this way: If you're genetically predisposed to having very dark skin, you will be able to tolerate more UV exposure without significantly increasing your risk of cancer. And by continuing to be exposed to high UV levels, your body will continue to produce melanin to keep you protected. It's a feedback loop. If you're genetically predisposed to having pale skin, but then expose your skin to higher levels of UV than your low melanin levels can guard against, you will sustain significant sunburn, and if you do this repeatedly you'll significantly increase your risk of skin cancer. But if you gradually expose yourself to moderate levels of UV you can gradually increase your melanin levels more safely, but only as far as your genetics allow. (This is theoretical of course; we know very well that it's very hard for fair-skinned people to expose themselves to UV light from the sun or tanning beds without overdoing it, hence the widespread occurance of skin cancer.) My educated guess about the notion that dark skinned people are experiencing higher levels of cancer would be that if a dark-skinned person keeps avoiding UV for long enough, their melanin levels start to decline (due to it not being an optimal use of resources), but then if/when sun exposure happens, the protection isn't as strong and the risk of cancer is higher.
      - angry_octet 9y ago
        The notion of 'building up a tan' is dangerously wrong advice. Even for people with darker skin it is unwise to have significant bursts of UV exposure. I'm curious as to whether your educated guess derives from a clinical background, or reddit? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671032/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671032/ http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/skin-cancer-and-skin-of-color http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/skin-cancer-and-skin-of... https://theconversation.com/amp/sun-damage-and-cancer-how-uv-radiation-affects-our-skin-34538 https://theconversation.com/amp/sun-damage-and-cancer-how-uv... http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/uv/molelcularmech.html http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/uv/molelcularmech.html
        tomhoward 9y ago
        The notion of 'building up a tan' is dangerously wrong advice. I know, I acknowledged that in my comment. My main point was only about the extent to which people with genetically high melanin levels are at much lower risk of cancer (which your first link confirms), but how their risk might increase if their melanin levels drop. I don't dispute that it's a complex and dangerous topic. And as someone with genetically very pale skin, I most certainly steer well clear of direct sunlight and make no efforts to develop a tan. I'm curious as to whether your educated guess derives from a clinical background, or reddit? That's a low blow :) I rarely go anywhere near Reddit, certainly not for anything to do with health. I have spent 10+ years researching health topics for reasons to with serious, chronic, illnesses I've endured, and have now largely overcome thanks to what I've learned.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  People who work outside don’t get skin cancer. People who cook themselves for fun do. If they did, we would know, because workers compensation would be paying for it.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > People who work outside don’t get skin cancer. Yes, they do. > If they did, we would know, because workers compensation would be paying for it. While state workers comp laws vary in ways which make this different from state to state, workers comp is paying for it for some subset of people who work outside. http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2015/06/can-i-get-workers-comp-for-skin-cancer.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2015/06/can-i-get-workers-c...
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Many of them (like my uncle a few years ago) don’t last very long, so it isn’t workers comp that you should just look at. It is definitely something that happens.
  - kgwgk 9y ago
    Don't they? "However, compared with the general population, the rates for certain diseases, including some types of cancer, appear to be higher among agricultural workers, which may be related to exposures that are common in their work environments. For example, farming communities have higher rates of leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma, as well as cancers of the skin, lip, stomach, brain, and prostate." https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/ahs-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Ag workers were routinely exposed to ridiculous levels of dangerous pesticides for most of the 20th century.
  - ataturk 9y ago
- macawfish 9y ago
  I've known about the sunscreen misinformation for a long time. My dad died of malignant melanoma. He wore sun screen all the time. He didn't swim. He would wear sun hats. He was paranoid, and likely had premonition of it. Unfortunately, his prevention methods might have actually exacerbated his odds even further because he was depriving his skin of one of its few natural healing modalities.
  - GalacticDomin8r 9y ago
    What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Not smoking doesn't mean you will not get lung cancer.
    - macawfish 9y ago
      I know you probably meant that as a comment about correlation vs. causation, which is understandable. I agree that this is a complex issue, and that there are more factors than just sun exposure. But just so you're aware, your analogy rubbed me the wrong way. My father's death was definitely related to sun exposure in some way or another, and probably other factors like diet (he ate a lot of sugar), psychology/hormones (he experienced a lot of stress), and yes, genetics.
  - jimjimjim 9y ago
    it's not misinformation. one anecdote in one direction does not counter thousands in the other direction. Talk to some people in the southern hemisphere (australia and nz). There is a LOT of awareness of sun damage in these countries.
    - macawfish 9y ago
      There is misinformation about sunscreen. I'm not going to go and advocate that people don't use sunscreen, rather, for my own self, I've decided that it's important to have positive, moderate exposure to the sun in order to develop a healthy tan, to avoid overexposure, and to use sunscreen and protective clothing if I'm sure to be out in heavy sun. It's a complex, dynamical issue and there is conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of sunscreen to just blanket reduce melanoma: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22994908 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22994908 Not only that, there have been some controversies about sunscreens themselves containing questionable ingredients, some of which might actually be carcinogenic. If you're going to market your product as cancer preventative, but go and put carcinogens into that very same product, my trust level in your industry has been reduced by somewhere in the range of 25%-75%. Somehow, in all this, there are people who think any raw sun exposure is going to cause cancer. That's actually misinformation. Melanin is known to be a protective. How can one go about increasing melanin? By tanning in moderation, letting your skin adapt to the sun. Of course there are people who simply don't tan easily, and yes, they should be cautious. But I'm fortunate to have skin that tans, and I'm going to let it do that!
- coldtea 9y ago
  Sun exposure != skin cancer. It's like avoiding eating food altogether because you might became obese, or worse (given the odds) choke on it.
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    When the time it takes to get a burn is 10 minutes or less, you might as well treat it as exposure = burn.
    - kaybe 9y ago
      After I met an albino woman travelling I really appreciate my very-white-but-not-albino-skin. Sun lotion can only prolong your safe time, but 0 times whatever is still zero, as in her case. So there is a difference.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      That's when sunbathing on Venus. Or if you're a ginger or similar. On good old Earth, one can sit in the sun for hours on end without a burn. In fact people frequently do, like all the time.
      - davidbanham 9y ago
        It depends where you are and what time of year it is. Go to Tasmania in summer and give that a shot. Ozone layer depletion is no joke.
      - khedoros1 9y ago
        With some SPF30 sunscreen, or sufficiently dark skin, sure. I'm not especially pale, but I'll start burning in under an hour of direct sunlight. "Hours on end" would be a recipe for painfulness.
      - lostlogin 9y ago
        Where do you live? I suspect it isn’t in the South Pacific.
lostlogin 9y ago
When the burn time is less than 10 minutes, you need to cover them up or have them play in the shade. The UV index for tomorrow is just shy of 14 and we are a month or two from the time of year when it’s highest, you would need medical treatment for a child who played in that and was uncovered all day. Related: I found the old measure (burn time) much easier to use than the new UV index, and while having it standard across countries is good, it’s not straight forward to convert. https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-services/online-services/uv-and-ozone/uv-index-information https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-services/online-services/uv-and-o...
- dijit 9y ago
  That UV index stuff is no joke. My girlfriend spent an hour "sunbathing" in the canary islands and came back with the most incredible sunburn I've ever seen. I'm mega paranoid (SPF 50 all the time in hot countries) and didn't notice anything damaging but she had to be covered in aloe vera creams to numb the pain.. it affected her sleep, it must have been unbearable. Not sure what the health qualms are with lack of Vitamin D bit I'm certain I don't want to advocate in favour of potentially harming people as much as my girlfriend experienced.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    > Not sure what the health qualms are with lack of Vitamin D Rickets and Osteomalacia are the big ones, I think. Both are a form of softening of the bones. Vitamin D apparently helps regulate the absorption and use of calcium, magnesium, and phosphate in the body.
  - abecedarius 9y ago
    Ouch! I've gotten a few bad sunburns in Los Angeles, but that sounds like something else. My sunbathing policy is to go without sunscreen but only for 20-30 minutes daily around noon.
- redtuesday 9y ago
  I never took the time to investigate how accurate this site is, but it seems quite nice since it has uv index, time to skin redness and time to sunburn: http://sunburnmap.com http://sunburnmap.com
zeveb 9y ago
> One of the probable factors is the lust for fair skin. I think this must be cultural. Certainly in my experience in the United States, the lust is for tanned skin. There are even tanning salons, where one can lie down in a machine which floods one's skin with UV. Now, I personally love fair skin, and have never understood why others seem to love a tan so much.
- Quiark 9y ago
  And in Asia they sell skin-whitening lotions.
- michaelbuckbee 9y ago
  Tanning salons are on a steep downturn [1] (at least the UV ones, spray tans are a different thing). 1 - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-industry/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-indust... 1 - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-industry/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-indust...
- dsr_ 9y ago
  It's a cultural thing, and directly related to wealth (or class, if you prefer). If most people work outside for a living, then the sign of wealth is that you don't have a tan. If most people work in offices, then the sign of wealth is that you have a tan, implying that you went on vacation or otherwise have the available leisure time. When most people do manual labor, having impractically long fingernails demonstrates that you don't have to do that. When most people have two or three sets of clothing, changing clothes several times a day demonstrates your wealth. When most people eat a subsistence diet, being fat is demonstrating wealth. when most people eat fast food, being thin demonstrates your superior resources. If most people need to pay attention to what they are wearing at their jobs, dressing in a way which signals that you don't have to pay attention is a status marker. If everybody drives a car, picking an unusual vehicle can be a status marker. What's the difference between a Chevy Silverado 2-door and a Ford F-150 SVT Raptor? They demonstrate different spending priorities.
- noir_lord 9y ago
  Fathers family was Irish, Mothers Scottish. I burn in front of a monitor, I have fair skin because factor 50 and covering everything I can are simply required.
caio1982 9y ago
I live in southern Brazil (one of these tropical countries), where sunlight is not that easy to get; also people dress up and cover themselves much more than in other regions due to not only the weather but also for cultural reasons. In fact, the city where I live (Curitiba) has a huge portion of people who need vitamin D supplements, to the point this deficiency became folkloric. I was quite "happy" to learn last year that after a full decade here my blood exam showed for the first time in 35 years that now I need vitamin D supplements too.
redtuesday 9y ago
> [...] even kids are sent to play covered in full sleeve clothing. Which is good because if I remember correctly the human skin has quit a bit natural sun protection, but is only fully developed in the twenties. If I got that mixed up with something else please correct me if I'm wrong.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago

Fair skin is a lot better than skin cancer!

tomhoward 9y ago
Sure, but higher melanin (ie, darker skin pigmentation) is correlated with lower cancer rates [1][2]. So the point is that cultural changes are causing people who were previously were at lower risk of cancer due to their skin pigmentation/higher melanin, to now have reducing melanin/pigmentation, therefore increasing rates of skin cancer. [1] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/skin-cancer/prevention-and-early-detection/sun-damage.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/skin-cancer/prevention-and-ear... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm
- kgwgk 9y ago
  Aren't those links about "people with naturally darker skin"? I'm not sure how cultural changes can affect that. Rich people may eat caviar, but eating caviar won't make you rich...
  - Sean1708 9y ago
    > The tan is caused by an increase in the activity and number of melanocytes, the cells that make the pigment melanin. Melanin helps block out damaging UV rays up to a point, It's not particularly clearly worded but to me that seems to suggest that tanning increases melanin and that melanin helps prevent cancer regardless of whether your dark skin is natural or tanned.
    - kgwgk 9y ago
      But if tanning also produces cancer it remains to be determined which effect dominates (unlike for people with naturally dark skin, where the effect can only go in the beneficial sense).
      - scott_s 9y ago
        Indoor tanning is associated with higher rates of skin cancer: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/indoor_tanning.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/indoor_tanning.ht... I suspect outdoor tanning is as well.
      - Bartweiss 9y ago
        Broadly, my understanding is that a major change in skin tone is 'worth' about 15 SPF, so tanning would fall somewhere below that. For a fixed amount of sun exposure, spreading out the duration is better both to establish a tan and to allow more time for skin recovery. But there isn't really a case where tanning increases safety, because you get the tan via exposure. It's like saying pilots who practice a lot are safer; for any given flight it might be true, but cumulative risk can only rise.
      - Sean1708 9y ago
        I thought it was burning that was associated with an increased cancer risk, not just tanning in general?
      - Fishkins 9y ago
        Every source I've seen clearly states tanning always increases your chance of skin cancer. Tanning does provide a small amount of protection against burning (around 3 SPF worth), but no protection against cancer. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-a-base-tan-can-protect-against-sunburn/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-a...
        Retric 9y ago
        They studied based on 2 weeks of tanning which is very minimal. You clearly get more than SPF 3 with a deep tan as you can spend 8 hours in direct sun without obvious problems. Without any tan you get a burn in under an hour suggesting ~SPF 10+.
  - spraak 9y ago
    That's what the above poster already said. > people who were previously were at lower risk of cancer due to their skin pigmentation/higher melanin
    - kgwgk 9y ago
      Unless the above poster means “due to their [acquired] skin pigmentation” I don’t see how the comment can make any sense. Why would their rates of skin cancer be higher now?
      - loeg 9y ago
        Maybe OP is referring to spray tans? That's my best guess.
  - tomhoward 9y ago
    We know that genetics and environment both play a significant role. So think about it this way: If you're genetically predisposed to having very dark skin, you will be able to tolerate more UV exposure without significantly increasing your risk of cancer. And by continuing to be exposed to high UV levels, your body will continue to produce melanin to keep you protected. It's a feedback loop. If you're genetically predisposed to having pale skin, but then expose your skin to higher levels of UV than your low melanin levels can guard against, you will sustain significant sunburn, and if you do this repeatedly you'll significantly increase your risk of skin cancer. But if you gradually expose yourself to moderate levels of UV you can gradually increase your melanin levels more safely, but only as far as your genetics allow. (This is theoretical of course; we know very well that it's very hard for fair-skinned people to expose themselves to UV light from the sun or tanning beds without overdoing it, hence the widespread occurance of skin cancer.) My educated guess about the notion that dark skinned people are experiencing higher levels of cancer would be that if a dark-skinned person keeps avoiding UV for long enough, their melanin levels start to decline (due to it not being an optimal use of resources), but then if/when sun exposure happens, the protection isn't as strong and the risk of cancer is higher.
    - angry_octet 9y ago
      The notion of 'building up a tan' is dangerously wrong advice. Even for people with darker skin it is unwise to have significant bursts of UV exposure. I'm curious as to whether your educated guess derives from a clinical background, or reddit? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671032/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671032/ http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/skin-cancer-and-skin-of-color http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/skin-cancer-and-skin-of... https://theconversation.com/amp/sun-damage-and-cancer-how-uv-radiation-affects-our-skin-34538 https://theconversation.com/amp/sun-damage-and-cancer-how-uv... http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/uv/molelcularmech.html http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/uv/molelcularmech.html
      - tomhoward 9y ago
        The notion of 'building up a tan' is dangerously wrong advice. I know, I acknowledged that in my comment. My main point was only about the extent to which people with genetically high melanin levels are at much lower risk of cancer (which your first link confirms), but how their risk might increase if their melanin levels drop. I don't dispute that it's a complex and dangerous topic. And as someone with genetically very pale skin, I most certainly steer well clear of direct sunlight and make no efforts to develop a tan. I'm curious as to whether your educated guess derives from a clinical background, or reddit? That's a low blow :) I rarely go anywhere near Reddit, certainly not for anything to do with health. I have spent 10+ years researching health topics for reasons to with serious, chronic, illnesses I've endured, and have now largely overcome thanks to what I've learned.
Spooky23 9y ago
People who work outside don’t get skin cancer. People who cook themselves for fun do. If they did, we would know, because workers compensation would be paying for it.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > People who work outside don’t get skin cancer. Yes, they do. > If they did, we would know, because workers compensation would be paying for it. While state workers comp laws vary in ways which make this different from state to state, workers comp is paying for it for some subset of people who work outside. http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2015/06/can-i-get-workers-comp-for-skin-cancer.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2015/06/can-i-get-workers-c...
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Many of them (like my uncle a few years ago) don’t last very long, so it isn’t workers comp that you should just look at. It is definitely something that happens.
- kgwgk 9y ago
  Don't they? "However, compared with the general population, the rates for certain diseases, including some types of cancer, appear to be higher among agricultural workers, which may be related to exposures that are common in their work environments. For example, farming communities have higher rates of leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma, as well as cancers of the skin, lip, stomach, brain, and prostate." https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/ahs-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Ag workers were routinely exposed to ridiculous levels of dangerous pesticides for most of the 20th century.
- ataturk 9y ago
macawfish 9y ago
I've known about the sunscreen misinformation for a long time. My dad died of malignant melanoma. He wore sun screen all the time. He didn't swim. He would wear sun hats. He was paranoid, and likely had premonition of it. Unfortunately, his prevention methods might have actually exacerbated his odds even further because he was depriving his skin of one of its few natural healing modalities.
- GalacticDomin8r 9y ago
  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Not smoking doesn't mean you will not get lung cancer.
  - macawfish 9y ago
    I know you probably meant that as a comment about correlation vs. causation, which is understandable. I agree that this is a complex issue, and that there are more factors than just sun exposure. But just so you're aware, your analogy rubbed me the wrong way. My father's death was definitely related to sun exposure in some way or another, and probably other factors like diet (he ate a lot of sugar), psychology/hormones (he experienced a lot of stress), and yes, genetics.
- jimjimjim 9y ago
  it's not misinformation. one anecdote in one direction does not counter thousands in the other direction. Talk to some people in the southern hemisphere (australia and nz). There is a LOT of awareness of sun damage in these countries.
  - macawfish 9y ago
    There is misinformation about sunscreen. I'm not going to go and advocate that people don't use sunscreen, rather, for my own self, I've decided that it's important to have positive, moderate exposure to the sun in order to develop a healthy tan, to avoid overexposure, and to use sunscreen and protective clothing if I'm sure to be out in heavy sun. It's a complex, dynamical issue and there is conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of sunscreen to just blanket reduce melanoma: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22994908 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22994908 Not only that, there have been some controversies about sunscreens themselves containing questionable ingredients, some of which might actually be carcinogenic. If you're going to market your product as cancer preventative, but go and put carcinogens into that very same product, my trust level in your industry has been reduced by somewhere in the range of 25%-75%. Somehow, in all this, there are people who think any raw sun exposure is going to cause cancer. That's actually misinformation. Melanin is known to be a protective. How can one go about increasing melanin? By tanning in moderation, letting your skin adapt to the sun. Of course there are people who simply don't tan easily, and yes, they should be cautious. But I'm fortunate to have skin that tans, and I'm going to let it do that!
coldtea 9y ago
Sun exposure != skin cancer. It's like avoiding eating food altogether because you might became obese, or worse (given the odds) choke on it.
- lostlogin 9y ago
  When the time it takes to get a burn is 10 minutes or less, you might as well treat it as exposure = burn.
  - kaybe 9y ago
    After I met an albino woman travelling I really appreciate my very-white-but-not-albino-skin. Sun lotion can only prolong your safe time, but 0 times whatever is still zero, as in her case. So there is a difference.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    That's when sunbathing on Venus. Or if you're a ginger or similar. On good old Earth, one can sit in the sun for hours on end without a burn. In fact people frequently do, like all the time.
    - davidbanham 9y ago
      It depends where you are and what time of year it is. Go to Tasmania in summer and give that a shot. Ozone layer depletion is no joke.
    - khedoros1 9y ago
      With some SPF30 sunscreen, or sufficiently dark skin, sure. I'm not especially pale, but I'll start burning in under an hour of direct sunlight. "Hours on end" would be a recipe for painfulness.
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      Where do you live? I suspect it isn’t in the South Pacific.

lostlogin 9y ago

When the burn time is less than 10 minutes, you need to cover them up or have them play in the shade. The UV index for tomorrow is just shy of 14 and we are a month or two from the time of year when it’s highest, you would need medical treatment for a child who played in that and was uncovered all day. Related: I found the old measure (burn time) much easier to use than the new UV index, and while having it standard across countries is good, it’s not straight forward to convert. https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-services/online-services/uv-and-ozone/uv-index-information https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-services/online-services/uv-and-o...

dijit 9y ago
That UV index stuff is no joke. My girlfriend spent an hour "sunbathing" in the canary islands and came back with the most incredible sunburn I've ever seen. I'm mega paranoid (SPF 50 all the time in hot countries) and didn't notice anything damaging but she had to be covered in aloe vera creams to numb the pain.. it affected her sleep, it must have been unbearable. Not sure what the health qualms are with lack of Vitamin D bit I'm certain I don't want to advocate in favour of potentially harming people as much as my girlfriend experienced.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  > Not sure what the health qualms are with lack of Vitamin D Rickets and Osteomalacia are the big ones, I think. Both are a form of softening of the bones. Vitamin D apparently helps regulate the absorption and use of calcium, magnesium, and phosphate in the body.
- abecedarius 9y ago
  Ouch! I've gotten a few bad sunburns in Los Angeles, but that sounds like something else. My sunbathing policy is to go without sunscreen but only for 20-30 minutes daily around noon.
redtuesday 9y ago
I never took the time to investigate how accurate this site is, but it seems quite nice since it has uv index, time to skin redness and time to sunburn: http://sunburnmap.com http://sunburnmap.com

zeveb 9y ago

> One of the probable factors is the lust for fair skin. I think this must be cultural. Certainly in my experience in the United States, the lust is for tanned skin. There are even tanning salons, where one can lie down in a machine which floods one's skin with UV. Now, I personally love fair skin, and have never understood why others seem to love a tan so much.

Quiark 9y ago
And in Asia they sell skin-whitening lotions.
michaelbuckbee 9y ago
Tanning salons are on a steep downturn [1] (at least the UV ones, spray tans are a different thing). 1 - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-industry/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-indust... 1 - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-industry/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-tanning-salon-indust...
dsr_ 9y ago
It's a cultural thing, and directly related to wealth (or class, if you prefer). If most people work outside for a living, then the sign of wealth is that you don't have a tan. If most people work in offices, then the sign of wealth is that you have a tan, implying that you went on vacation or otherwise have the available leisure time. When most people do manual labor, having impractically long fingernails demonstrates that you don't have to do that. When most people have two or three sets of clothing, changing clothes several times a day demonstrates your wealth. When most people eat a subsistence diet, being fat is demonstrating wealth. when most people eat fast food, being thin demonstrates your superior resources. If most people need to pay attention to what they are wearing at their jobs, dressing in a way which signals that you don't have to pay attention is a status marker. If everybody drives a car, picking an unusual vehicle can be a status marker. What's the difference between a Chevy Silverado 2-door and a Ford F-150 SVT Raptor? They demonstrate different spending priorities.
noir_lord 9y ago
Fathers family was Irish, Mothers Scottish. I burn in front of a monitor, I have fair skin because factor 50 and covering everything I can are simply required.

caio1982 9y ago

I live in southern Brazil (one of these tropical countries), where sunlight is not that easy to get; also people dress up and cover themselves much more than in other regions due to not only the weather but also for cultural reasons. In fact, the city where I live (Curitiba) has a huge portion of people who need vitamin D supplements, to the point this deficiency became folkloric. I was quite "happy" to learn last year that after a full decade here my blood exam showed for the first time in 35 years that now I need vitamin D supplements too.

redtuesday 9y ago

> [...] even kids are sent to play covered in full sleeve clothing. Which is good because if I remember correctly the human skin has quit a bit natural sun protection, but is only fully developed in the twenties. If I got that mixed up with something else please correct me if I'm wrong.