5 ms·

This always strikes me as a tough discussion. With the odd hostility between the two extremes of "all sun is bad exposure" and "you should get more sun." With

• tossandthrow 2y ago
  > Expose it to direct sun all day for several days with no water This would appear to be an indication of lack of water and not too much sun.
  • taeric 2y ago
    I'm fine saying it is complicated. So, Maybe? I have grass right next to some that does not die due to the sun exposure. But it is shaded for large portions of the day, there. All of that is to say, I don't think you can or should reduce this down to only sun exposure. There is more going on.
    • tossandthrow 2y ago
      I absolutely agree on your premise - that sun, like most things, is about moderation. I was just pondering on the example you gave: Is there a case where grass will die out from sun when that is the isolated factor? I would assume that there is, but I am not sure it is given.
      • taeric 2y ago
        Totally fair and I don't know. My yard actually has a sprinkler system, such that I don't think I'm flat out not watering it in the sunny time of the year. You can definitely see where the sun hits the yard for longer, though.
  • AlexandrB 2y ago
    Grass is a terrible analogy here. Try putting a moth orchid or many ferns in direct mid-day sun and they'll quickly die no matter how much water is available.
• _heimdall 2y ago
  I believe it goes back to an over generalization that nearly all skin cancers must be caused by exposure to the sun's UV rays.
  • fridder 2y ago
    And the fact that general medical advice is often geared towards the common denominator. Folks who are not great an nuance
• sherburt3 2y ago
  Same thing with exposure to bacteria, too much and you get the bubonic plague, too little you get autoimmune disorders. Moderation is key.
  • quesera 2y ago
    FWIW, this is overstated to the point of inaccuracy. Bubonic plague is caused by Yersinia pestis only, regardless of exposure level. Reduced exposure to common beneficial bacteria in young children might cause a mild increase in susceptibility to colds, allergies, asthma, eczema. Your examples have nothing to do with moderation.
• simonbarker87 2y ago
  Agree! I think people are sooo scared of cancer (which is understandable) and have had 15 years of the sun screen industry beating the “always wear sun screen” drum (not that they are financially incentivised here at all!) that many people now just equate “sun = bad” because grey areas are hard.
  • addicted 2y ago
    The financial incentives for the sunscreen industry works both ways. If all sun exposure is bad people will minimize going out and sunscreen sales would plummet (no one is wearing sun screen while sitting in their homes). So, in fact, the sunscreen industry is entirely incentivized to push the “the answer is always at the center of the extremes” mantra that is being repeated in this comment thread. Because that’s maximizing the use of their product because people will still go out to get the benefits of the sun but need to apply sunscreen to avoid the negative effects.
    • zh3 2y ago
      I expected far more comments about how the profit motive so often manages to drown out the scientific evidence; little disappointed how far down the page I was before I saw yours.
    • t0bia_s 2y ago
      You forgot that being vitamine D deficit makes you potential customer of whole pharma because of your weak immunity. Vitamins cannot be patented so their supplements could be done by anyone. Agenda against sun exposing and relativization of vitamin D deficits is strong indeed.
  • caeril 2y ago
    It's also useful to note that skin cancer is very easy to catch early. Melanoma is definitely not something you want to have if you catch it late, but early detection is cheap (equipment required: eyes and a mirror) and easy. Treatment prior to melanoma reaching the capillaries is also relatively cheap and easy (excision with margins), and extremely successful (>99% remission). Median time between "that mole is looking a little weird" and the melanoma infringing on the capillaries is roughly 4 months. So enjoy the sun and check your skin every month.
• hypeatei 2y ago
  > odd hostility between the two extremes Yeah, I don't know why people care so much about what other people do with their skin but I suppose that's just human nature. > why people seem so resistant to the idea that some sun is probably beneficial For me, being outdoors isn't necessarily conducive to an enjoyable time. Very hostile environments like big ass roads, high speed limits, and just the general vibe in the US of questioning why someone could simply be existing without a goal in mind (e.g. Karen's calling the cops)
• rubicon33 2y ago
  Such a great point. As usual, more nuance, and less black-and-white thinking is important here. We need more analogue in this life! Personally my rule of thumb is: Be active in the sun. It’s okay to get some sun but just baking under it for hours isn’t great. Shirt off for a run? Great. Swimming for an hour? Great. Be active, get some sun
  • klipt 2y ago
    I think it depends on your skin tone. Black people can get a lot of sun without burning. White people evolved in a cloudy climate and need less sun for the same health benefit (and also burn very quickly in midday sun in not cloudy climates).
    • caeril 2y ago
      Skin tone is modifiable, within some limits. If you maintain a base tan (equivalent to 2 hours in the sun or 10 minutes in a "standard" tanning bed, per week), the melanin is highly photoprotective for any additional UV exposure.
  • jdietrich 2y ago
    >It’s okay to get some sun but just baking under it for hours isn’t great. Shirt off for a run? Great. Swimming for an hour? Great. That very much depends on your climate and skin type. In many circumstances, that kind of casual exposure can still result in dangerous levels of UV exposure.
  • david-gpu 2y ago
    Yeah, I'm the same way. I love going outside and getting some exercise, even if it's just a long walk around the neighborhood. I never get anything close to sunburn, because I already have a crude sense of how long I can be out in the sun depending on the season and how exposed it's going to be. Sunscreen is great for those times when sunburn is likely, but under most circumstances, a hat and white long sleeve polyester shirts provide perfectly suitable protection for a few hours outside, even for a pretty light skinned white guy like me. There's something about exercising outdoors that is incredibly effective at lifting my mood, well beyond the effect of doing the same indoors. For that reason you will find me outside all year round regardless of the weather.
• Aurornis 2y ago
  > But I don't understand why people seem so resistant to the idea that some sun is probably beneficial. There are some people who believe this, but Vitamin D and sun exposure have been a popular topic for a very long time now. It’s getting harder to find people who think that avoiding all sun exposure is a good idea. The most confusing part appears to be the idea that wearing sunscreen is equivalent to avoiding UV exposure. Sunscreen reduces UV exposure, but does not completely eliminate it. This misconception has produced a lot of people who think “sunscreen bad” because “UV good”. You can get moderate UV exposure while wearing sunscreen.
  • klipt 2y ago
    But some people think that just popping a vitamin D pill gives you all the benefits of sun exposure without the downsides. Research on all cause mortality disagrees. Some sun exposure reduces all cause mortality even if you already take vitamin D.
    • Aerroon 2y ago
      But what doses did they take in the research? Vitamin D RDA has been increased by like 5-10x recently in some countries (others are still lagging behind), because the RDA that we've used for decades had a calculation error. If the studies dosed vitamin D based on recommendations then it shouldn't be surprising that supplementing vitamin D didn't work. Considering that only a few countries have updated their vitamin D RDA in the past few years, and most haven't, then I think it's likely that most studies on the topic will have too low of a dose of vitamin D supplementation. The vitamin D error: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210929/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210929/ --- It's also possible that some of the health benefits don't come from vitamin D or UV exposure, but instead from something like red light exposure or some other wavelength. (Red) light therapy is a popular topic for example. It's mostly touted to improve skin aging and it's being studied as a help with myopia in children. Does it work? No idea.
      • t0bia_s 2y ago
        Vitamines cannot be patented by pharmaceutical firms. So their supplements could be made by anyone. Also having vitamine D deficit makes you potential customer of all kind alternatives made by pharma because of your weak immunity. Agenda against vitamine D is strong and make me sceptical everytime I hear about danger of sun exposing or how vitamine D is not working.
• dundercoder 2y ago
  Personally, I think it’s easier to be extreme than balanced. Like a see-saw (or teeter totter depending on where you are) it’s way easier to sit on one end or the other. To try to stand on the middle and balance is hard. A friend of mine met Patrick Moore, former President of Greenpeace, and asked Moore why he started supporting nuclear power, he told him essentially “It’s easier to be against everything than to be for something.”
  • deepsun 2y ago
    I think it's the other way around. It's definitely easier to walk around under some sun shopping groceries and occasional brunch, than go to extremes and hide under some cover all the time, or sunbathing the whole day.
    • loco5niner 2y ago
      Easiest just to not get out of bed or go straight to a couch, and drive occasionally to pizza hut.
      • vineyardmike 2y ago
        No because most people have jobs and limited money. It’s easier in most people’s existing lives to avoid taking extreme health measures. Most people don’t go to a gym or exercise for the suggested min/day, but most people go to their job instead of staying in bed.
  • ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    Patrick Moore is a professional climate change denier now (and for a few decades) so maybe not the best example. https://www.desmog.com/patrick-moore/ https://www.desmog.com/patrick-moore/
    • WheatMillington 2y ago
      You're literally committing the sin described in the parent comment - refusing to acknowledge nuance.
• kome 2y ago
  I must be living under a rock, but at least where I come from, it is common sense that some sun exposure is good. I've never heard of anyone saying that the sun should be avoided at all costs, it's weird. but then you find people on the internet who claim that cats (of all animals!) should stay at home at all costs. that's also weird. But these are mostly internet people, I've never found one in real life... Maybe the general problem is that the internet has very vocal minorities.
  • weaksauce 2y ago
    > but then you find people on the internet who claim that cats (of all animals!) should stay at home at all costs. vocal minorities such as the aspca? https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/cat-care/general-cat-care https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/cat-care/general-cat-care > Please keep your cat indoors. Outdoor cats do not live as long as indoor cats. Outdoor cats are at risk of trauma from cars, or from fights with other cats, raccoons and free-roaming dogs. Coyotes are known to eat cats. Outdoor cats are more likely to become infested with fleas or ticks, as well as contract infectious diseases.
  • consteval 2y ago
    > I've never heard of anyone saying that the sun should be avoided at all costs, it's weird Yeah that's because nobody says that. They say, following the advice of every medical association ever, that you should wear sunscreen, Somehow, people interpret "sunscreen" as "no sun". Not the same thing. You still get Vitamin D and all the benefits of the sun with sunscreen because you are, in fact, in the sun.
    • jjav 2y ago
      > > I've never heard of anyone saying that the sun should be avoided at all costs, it's weird > Yeah that's because nobody says that. It can't be nobody since this very thread has people saying that! Agreed with OP, that's weird. I thought it was universally understood that moderate sun exposure is great for health.
  • bal00ns 2y ago
    > claim that cats (of all animals!) should stay at home at all costs. that's also weird. But these are mostly internet people, I've never found one in real life... I’m one of these people. I swear I’m not just an internet person. Most of my friends who own cats also have these views as well. Cats are incredibly efficient killers and live a considerably shorter life when given unsupervised access outdoors. Just because it’s natural for them doesn’t mean it’s good for them or their environment. Cats can live perfectly happy lives indoors, if taken care of properly. This isn’t weird. What’s weird is what’s normal.
• sholladay 2y ago
  > I don't understand why people seem so resistant to the idea that some sun is probably beneficial. A cynical take would be that it’s because there is no profit in sun exposure. Even places that would theoretically have a motivation to promote sun exposure, such as beaches and outdoor restaurants, have goals that are perfectly compatible with umbrellas and sunscreen and hats and sunglasses, etc. In fact, those are just complimentary sales for them. Tanning salons come to mind, but the sun is their biggest competitor. > “basking in the sun” is almost certainly taking it too far Plenty of animals sunbathe, though, not just humans. Lots of reptiles, of course, but my dog also does it every chance she can get.
  • taeric 2y ago
    Amusingly, my dogs specifically will only sit in the shade outside. Same for the various snakes and other animals in the yard. Hard to know if that is avoiding sun, or avoiding predator birds, though. My guess would be the birds are far more of a concern for the animals.
    • maipen 2y ago
      My dogs and cats love sunbathing. But they intercalate between shade and sun all day. It’s about balance, that’s what I learned from observing them.
  • mcswell 2y ago
    My cat says sunbathing on the back of his (it's our, but I don't tell him that) couch is how he's reached his advanced age. He'll be 22 in a couple weeks.
  • consteval 2y ago
    I'm no scientist, but I think scaly skin and fur MIGHT be different than human skin.
    • sholladay 2y ago
      And those two are different from each other. It’s still the case that a wide variety of species seem to have evolved this way. I’m not saying our skin has the same tolerance - that seems unlikely. But I do think we benefit greatly from some level of sun exposure, ideally more than most people get today.
• alyandon 2y ago
  My older parents here in the southern US are both dealing with skin cancer of various forms (melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma) because of accumulated sun exposure from when they were younger. Neither one of them were tanning fanatics/sun bunnies/whatever but they would very occasionally get mild sunburns from working outside without adequate protection. I myself try to avoid prolonged direct exposure to the sun as a matter of principle to try and avoid having to deal with that stuff when I'm their age. If I'm going to be out in direct sunlight for a prolonged period of time, I'm going to be wearing sunscreen and a hat. It's really hard to know where to draw the line between "too much sun" vs "no sun".
  • bityard 2y ago
    > because of accumulated sun exposure from when they were younger. I don't think this gets enough attention. It's anecdata, so grain of salt and all of that, but one day when I was around 8 or 10 years old, I spent essentially the entirety of a bright summer day playing on the beach near a relative's cabin. It was the longest I had ever spent continuously in the sun up until that point. No one warned me to take extended breaks in the shade, or suggested sunscreen. I don't think I even heard about sunscreen at that point. At the end of the day, almost all of my skin was bright red and extremely painful to the touch. All of the adults thought it was funny. I was in excruciating pain for the next 48 hours. It's not that the adults (parents, aunts, uncles, etc) weren't caring, they just seemed to think that painful sunburns were just a normal summer thing. Maybe even a right of passage. I was _much_ more careful about sun exposure after that experience. Anyway, fast forward a couple of decades and now I have damaged skin everywhere that sunburn happened. Lots of moles on the tops of my arms, shoulders, and back (virtually none on the bottom), scar tissue from where injuries never healed properly, etc. Skin cancer is very likely in my future. I have two kids and they whine and groan and complain when I berate them about not wearing sunscreen or taking shade breaks. Oh well.
    • alyandon 2y ago
      We can only strive to do better for our children than our parents did for us.
  • 2y ago
• falcolas 2y ago
  > But I don't understand why people seem so resistant to the idea that some sun is probably beneficial. The sun ages your skin. It makes you look older. I've known people in their 40's who have avoided sun who look like they're in their late 20's. Their skin is supple, has few wrinkles, and generally looks healthy. My friend is my age, his wife is 10 years older than he. She legitimately looks a good 10 years younger than him thanks to intentionally avoiding the sun throughout her life. I, in contrast, look my age (40's as well), because I've spent a reasonable amount of my life outside. Chores, being raised with an attitude of "don't come back inside until dinnertime", and swimming competitively in the summer. My skin doesn't heal as well, it's less supple (sub-skin features show through more harshly than they used to), and I have a fair share of wrinkles around my eyes and corners of my mouth (charitably referred to as laugh lines). And then there's the extreme sunbathers and outdoor laborers who look like they're in their 70's at 40; who have already had potential cancerous spots on their skin removed. It's simply one of those things where even moderate exposure can do demonstrable damage to your skin. And if not treated quickly, the cancer sun exposure causes can straight up kill you. Finding out that it may also have positive benefits feels weird. It feels like learning that regular exposure to acid has long term health benefits.
  • debatem1 2y ago
    Isn't this basically also true of exercise? Running is great for you, but it puts a strain on the cartilage in your joints which will become slower to heal and faster to harm over time. Still, most people would rather have great pulmonary health and a knee replacement by 70 than nice knees and a bad ticker. Maybe a similar tradeoff here.
    • phainopepla2 2y ago
      I believe the consensus is now that running improves joint health in the long term
    • foolfoolz 2y ago
      the one reliable longevity increasing action you can take across all humans is eat less calories. eating enough, but overall smaller amounts of calories, leads to longer lifespans in humans. eating too many calories leads to shorter lifespans. eating more calories than “normal,” but working out regularly so you are fit, still leads to shorter lifespans than eating less calories overall. and yes i think most people would rather have the medium life span but a healthy one
• xkcd-sucks 2y ago
  Maybe "growth factor" as in "sunlight is a growth factor" is appropriately neutral? Case in point, melanin synthesis and libido systems are related: There's a drug "bremelanotide" and by now probably some others, injectable melanocortin receptor agonists originally marketed for whole-body skin tanning. But actually it's marketed for libido enhancement and in the process it turned out that most MC receptor subtypes regulate mood/cognition more than skin color TL;DR, there's evidence to suggest - in humans - that sunlight exposure makes people want to bone. Assuming the sunlight -> MCR activation assumption is true lol
• shirro 2y ago
  It is a tough discussion as with anything nuanced online. The negative consequences of UV exposure are compelling and very visible both with aging and skin cancer. It would be irresponsible to promote uv exposure but also factually it is an effective treatment for some conditions in some people and possibly has less obvious benefit to others. UV exposure does things to our immune system that can't be replicated by vitamin D supplements. As crazy as it may seem, occasionally "basking in the sun" might be reasonably cheap, accessible and effective disease management for some very specific cases even if it doesn't seem very wise to say so and risk the accusatory finger pointing.