5 ms·

People have such a hard time with the concept of a trade-off. Life is not a video game where there is an optimal single answer for everyone every time. It’s com

People have such a hard time with the concept of a trade-off. Life is not a video game where there is an optimal single answer for everyone every time. It’s complicated, especially with something like biology. So place your bets: do you want possibly better blood pressure, higher incidence of melanoma, and faster aging of skin? Or do you want benefits of more sun exposure and greater risk of cancer? The answer is: it depends on your family history, your lifestyle, and a bunch of other things. I know that organizations like American Dermatology or Outdoor magazine have to water down their message so it’s digestible, but it annoys me when people expect “The Answer”. Science is constantly updating.

bccdee 4y ago
> it annoys me when people expect “The Answer” I don't think it's unreasonable that people expect clear public health guidelines. I don't want to trudge through a thousand pages of research, I want the department of health to say "well we had some experts read the papers, and if you do X and Y and Z you'll probably be fine." I'd appreciate more details beyond that, of course, especially if it's an area of particular interest to me. But I can't be that interested in everything, and sometimes it's good just to put out a guideline.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mikkergp 4y ago
  I understand why you think this isn't unreasonable -- I just don't think it's _possible_ for most things (that aren't overt poisons, i.e. smoking, lead, etc). If you get skin cancer, you'll always wish you'd done more. There's just too many variables, and the department of health will likely always be too conservative(see below) for some people's take, so then which "experts" do you listen to? The reality of the advice for sun is probably similar to most things -- You need some sun, but not too much. And no one probably knows the answer, and it will probably change as a result of climate change and other factors. My wife is a high risk pregnancy because she’s over 35, but after probing the doctors what we realize is that for some women at some point between the ages of 30 and 45 the risks to your pregnancy may increase some variable amount but you know what is funny, that because these women are more closely monitored, high risk pregnancies may actually have better outcomes than low risk pregnancies! And so there’s this epically long laundry list of things that you’re not supposed to do, with very little specific guidance on the risks you might take on. But if you really want experts. The Skin Cancer Foundation at Skincancer.org suggests a shotglass full of sunscreen over your entire body every day 30 minutes before you go out, even when it's cloudy. Also, that's not enough! For a full sun protection strategy seek the shade whenever possible, wear sun-safe clothing, a wide-brimmed hat and UV-blocking sunglasses: https://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-prevention/sun-protection/sunscreen https://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-prevention/sun-protec...
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Eat a lot of carbs and grains as the basis of your food intake and avoid eating fat. Oops. Smoking cigarettes to reduce throat irritation is fine. Oops. Take thalidomide to ward off the effects of morning sickness. Oops. Then there’s the whole communications fiasco around masks for COVID. A different kind of oops.
  - pas 4y ago
    > Smoking cigarettes to reduce throat irritation is fine. Oops. I mean whoever thought inhaling the output of small bonfire is no biggie should try it with a big one first.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    Oh no, experts are sometimes wrong. Are they wrong more, or less often, than "common sense"?
- watwut 4y ago
  There is simple and then there is insistence on everything to be either "you need to maximize exposure" or "any small amount of it is super bad" with no middle ground allowed. There is simple and then there is "so overly simplistic, that it is almost guaranteed to harm those who take it seriously".
colechristensen 4y ago
People are trained to expect the Answer during their education which focuses for a very long time on presenting things as Truth with uncertainty coming in far too late.
xorfish 4y ago
I find the advice 'all sun exposure is bad' pretty unhelpful. It is on the same level as teaching abstinence as sex education. Our bodies deal with some form of damage all the time. Is there really evidence that someone that slowly builds up a tan during spring has a higher risk of skin cancer than someone who doesn't? I can't really imagine how you could study that in a controlled way.
- ip26 4y ago
  “all sun exposure is bad” suggests we should spend our lives in the basement, but we also know human eyes do not shape properly without the bright light of the sun.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  in my lifetime western medicine "discovered" a casual link between sun burn during your mid-teens, and real serious skin cancers decades later. Other random factoids - skin varies a lot with genetics.. a lot, a lot.. and your resistance to aggressive cancer has to do with overall health and nutrition at any time in your life. .. no simple "this or that" cause and effect, even with good nutrition, skin care and moderation.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  > I find the advice 'all sun exposure is bad' pretty unhelpful. It is on the same level as teaching abstinence as sex education. > Our bodies deal with some form of damage all the time. Yet in the frequent “leaded gasoline” threads here, the “no amount of lead exposure is acceptable” meme gets trotted out every time. No spectrum, no trade offs, no caveats. As if the minute you eat a paint chip as a toddler, you’re hopelessly contaminated! When dealing with hazards to health, it’s important to frame things in terms of higher/lower probability and higher/lower risk rather than these zero tolerance simplifications. I’m not saying we should go out and drink a pint of airplane gasoline but entire generations grew up with lead paint and regular gasoline and are still here—just statistically worse off health wise than the generation that grew up without them.
  - thelopa 4y ago
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
>> Science is constantly updating. As does my firefox installation. Trade offs, indeed.

bccdee 4y ago

> it annoys me when people expect “The Answer” I don't think it's unreasonable that people expect clear public health guidelines. I don't want to trudge through a thousand pages of research, I want the department of health to say "well we had some experts read the papers, and if you do X and Y and Z you'll probably be fine." I'd appreciate more details beyond that, of course, especially if it's an area of particular interest to me. But I can't be that interested in everything, and sometimes it's good just to put out a guideline.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mikkergp 4y ago
I understand why you think this isn't unreasonable -- I just don't think it's _possible_ for most things (that aren't overt poisons, i.e. smoking, lead, etc). If you get skin cancer, you'll always wish you'd done more. There's just too many variables, and the department of health will likely always be too conservative(see below) for some people's take, so then which "experts" do you listen to? The reality of the advice for sun is probably similar to most things -- You need some sun, but not too much. And no one probably knows the answer, and it will probably change as a result of climate change and other factors. My wife is a high risk pregnancy because she’s over 35, but after probing the doctors what we realize is that for some women at some point between the ages of 30 and 45 the risks to your pregnancy may increase some variable amount but you know what is funny, that because these women are more closely monitored, high risk pregnancies may actually have better outcomes than low risk pregnancies! And so there’s this epically long laundry list of things that you’re not supposed to do, with very little specific guidance on the risks you might take on. But if you really want experts. The Skin Cancer Foundation at Skincancer.org suggests a shotglass full of sunscreen over your entire body every day 30 minutes before you go out, even when it's cloudy. Also, that's not enough! For a full sun protection strategy seek the shade whenever possible, wear sun-safe clothing, a wide-brimmed hat and UV-blocking sunglasses: https://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-prevention/sun-protection/sunscreen https://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-prevention/sun-protec...
sokoloff 4y ago
Eat a lot of carbs and grains as the basis of your food intake and avoid eating fat. Oops. Smoking cigarettes to reduce throat irritation is fine. Oops. Take thalidomide to ward off the effects of morning sickness. Oops. Then there’s the whole communications fiasco around masks for COVID. A different kind of oops.
- pas 4y ago
  > Smoking cigarettes to reduce throat irritation is fine. Oops. I mean whoever thought inhaling the output of small bonfire is no biggie should try it with a big one first.
- adrianN 4y ago
  Oh no, experts are sometimes wrong. Are they wrong more, or less often, than "common sense"?
watwut 4y ago
There is simple and then there is insistence on everything to be either "you need to maximize exposure" or "any small amount of it is super bad" with no middle ground allowed. There is simple and then there is "so overly simplistic, that it is almost guaranteed to harm those who take it seriously".

colechristensen 4y ago

People are trained to expect the Answer during their education which focuses for a very long time on presenting things as Truth with uncertainty coming in far too late.

xorfish 4y ago

I find the advice 'all sun exposure is bad' pretty unhelpful. It is on the same level as teaching abstinence as sex education. Our bodies deal with some form of damage all the time. Is there really evidence that someone that slowly builds up a tan during spring has a higher risk of skin cancer than someone who doesn't? I can't really imagine how you could study that in a controlled way.

ip26 4y ago
“all sun exposure is bad” suggests we should spend our lives in the basement, but we also know human eyes do not shape properly without the bright light of the sun.
mistrial9 4y ago
in my lifetime western medicine "discovered" a casual link between sun burn during your mid-teens, and real serious skin cancers decades later. Other random factoids - skin varies a lot with genetics.. a lot, a lot.. and your resistance to aggressive cancer has to do with overall health and nutrition at any time in your life. .. no simple "this or that" cause and effect, even with good nutrition, skin care and moderation.
ryandrake 4y ago
> I find the advice 'all sun exposure is bad' pretty unhelpful. It is on the same level as teaching abstinence as sex education. > Our bodies deal with some form of damage all the time. Yet in the frequent “leaded gasoline” threads here, the “no amount of lead exposure is acceptable” meme gets trotted out every time. No spectrum, no trade offs, no caveats. As if the minute you eat a paint chip as a toddler, you’re hopelessly contaminated! When dealing with hazards to health, it’s important to frame things in terms of higher/lower probability and higher/lower risk rather than these zero tolerance simplifications. I’m not saying we should go out and drink a pint of airplane gasoline but entire generations grew up with lead paint and regular gasoline and are still here—just statistically worse off health wise than the generation that grew up without them.
- thelopa 4y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago

>> Science is constantly updating. As does my firefox installation. Trade offs, indeed.