9 ms·

The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer

292 points by petethomas 1y ago

breppp 1y ago
https://archive.md/ypb35 https://archive.md/ypb35
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ponchel 1y ago
Who actually thought that getting sunlight was bad ?
- uncircle 1y ago
  There is a lot of weird discussion on English-speaking forums that you should always always wear sunscreen, even if the day is grey, because skin cancer is a constant risk. I do not get if it’s a massive and long-running marketing campaign that has brainwashed the entire population, if it’s because many living in US and UK have a very white skin tone thus burn easily, or what else. Skin cancer is a fact of life, but for a species that evolved in the sun, I do not believe one bit that sun exposure, which incidentally is linked to many benefits because it’s so bloody normal, is something that can only be dealt with modern technology and we should be deathly afraid of it. Sure, UV radiation can cause mutations, but our immune system has evolved over billions of years to deal with this exact problem. By all means use sunscreen if you have to spend a lot of time in the sun and risk a very unpleasant sunburn, but I wish someone would explain the Anglo obsession with daily sunscreen routine.
  - phito 1y ago
    > for a species that evolved in the sun, I do not believe one bit that sun exposure, which incidentally is linked to many benefits because it’s so bloody normal, is something that can only be dealt with modern technology and we should be deathly afraid of it. Sure, UV radiation can cause mutations, but our immune system has evolved over billions of years to deal with this exact problem. Yeah, most of the time our immune system deals with it, but sometimes it misses one roge cell and you've got cancer. That's why you want to limit your exposure to mutations even if you're somewhat adapted to deal with them. Then it's a matter of looking at studies and statistics and deciding for yourself. Personally, I'll keep putting on sunscreen, as I sunburn easily ;)
    - elcritch 1y ago
      The important piece missing from both of these comments IMHO, is that sunburns are the problematic piece. There's always going to be some risk from UV exposure, but as the parent comment points out we're evolved to deal with it and even to rely on it. There's research showing that low amounts of cellular damage is actually beneficial as it triggers cellular repair mechanisms or aptosis of senecent cells. Even here other commenters point out how exposure improved their skin or vision. However that natural evolved state doesn't include sitting inside all week and then going outside on the weekend and getting completely toasted sunburnt! Doing that and getting completely sunburnt overwhelms our normal cellular repair mechanism, the immune system response, etc. It's much more likely a rogue cell evades the immune system when it's swamped with such cells. Personally I avoid sunscreen if possible for short excursions but will use it if going to the pool as I'm indoors more these years and paler.
      - uncircle 1y ago
        > The important piece missing from both of these comments IMHO, is that sunburns are the problematic piece. Then the problem is light skin tone, and the advice to wear sunscreen always, only applies to them, hence my doubts. I do not get sunburnt if I go buy groceries or if I spend 1 hour outside, like most ethnicities on Earth; yet if I dare question the dogma of sunscreen, I get downvoted, which makes me wonder if it's at all rational. It boggles my mind how it has become a kind of innocent yet taboo argument on the (English-speaking) internet. Just google it. I mean, there's plenty of articles that say you need to wear it even if you plan to stay indoors all day. WTF.
        dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
        >> The important piece missing from both of these comments IMHO, is that sunburns are the problematic piece. >Then the problem is light skin tone, and the advice to wear sunscreen always, only applies to them, hence my doubts. My view: sunscreen for any skin is not healthy, lots of marketing there. People with sensitive skin to sunlight( generally light skinned folks but not always) should either avoid harsh sun of wear clothing that will protect them from harsh sunlight.
  - jusssi 1y ago
    Maybe we're getting more UV now than we evolved with? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      It's a small factor, but humans evolved in the tropics. Ancestral humans has very dark skin because of the tropical UV exposure. Then when some moved into Europe and Asia, selection pressure means they rapidly lost their pigmentation because they weren't getting enough vitamin D.
  - heyheyhey 1y ago
    > I wish someone would explain the Anglo obsession with daily sunscreen routine. Because it's more about skincare for physical attraction and less about the cancer. Sun ages your skin with wrinkles, sagging, hyperpigmentation, etc. This isn't specific to Anglo nations too. Any country where being "fair skinned" is more desirable will have lots of demand for sunscreen.
  - saltcured 1y ago
    Where the medical establishment pushes it, it is largely about establishing habits for people who may get a lot of exposure that they didn't plan for. Also, local climates differ dramatically. A couple of my worst sunburns in my life were on extremely gray days on the California coast. It is easy to fool yourself into thinking the sun isn't strong when you don't feel the heat of it. But on those kinds of days, it's just diffuse UV blasting from every direction. I found it instructive when I got photochromatic eye glasses. Since they are UV-activated, it is like carrying a UV detection instrument around with a heads-up display. It really helped me get a better sense for what conditions and hours of the day have significant UV in my normal daily life.
  - Earw0rm 1y ago
    It's context collapse, the curse of a shared language. If you live in Australia or Florida and have Anglo skin, you'd best believe that's good advice. In the natural range of the Anglo skin type, Edinburgh or Dublin, not so much.
- SapporoChris 1y ago
  Most East Asians: Chinese, Japanese and Koreans for a start.
- tforcram 1y ago
  I've had a malignant melanoma, my mother and extended relatives had it as well (including a great uncle I never met who died from it), 4 (of my 9) siblings have had multiple, mostly those of use who have red hair/fair skin. I don't think I've ever heard of a greater risk of skin cancer due to genetics/familial occurrence than I have. After my mother got it and had a huge chunk taken out of her leg when I was very young, we have had it drilled into our heads that the sun was going to kill us and we needed to cover up and lather in sun screen for even the slightest possibility of sun exposure. Obviously that didn't help much as many of us still got it anyway, hah! But yea there are some folks who are terrified of the sun. I personally think 15-20 minutes unfiltered sunlight is good for me, but beyond that I'm looking for the nearest shade or trying to cover up.
  - thrawa8387336 1y ago
    What I've heard is people who don't get sun frequently, are at higher risk of melanoma. Like no sun then sunburn = bad bad
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      There is also the evidence that it usually doesn't happen on the hands or face which are chronically exposed, but rather areas that are normally covered.
- ehnto 1y ago
  Quite a lot of people. People in Australia are educated about the risk of sun exposure in school for one. Another is cultures who view being pale as a beauty standard.
  - worthless-trash 1y ago
    Slip, Slop, Slap.
    - Grum9 1y ago
      [dead]
- EZ-E 1y ago
  It is a big thing in Asia to avoid sunlight to avoid premature aging and tanning. It's an interesting parallel you can observe in parks: in my country in Europe, people will prefer to sit on the benches exposed to the sun first, in China and Korea, people will sit in the shade instead.
  - seanicus 1y ago
    Lived in SE Asia fora few years and my understanding is that tan skin = outdoor labor = lower caste. My spouse is asian and I'm N Euro - I would kill to have skin that just tans no matter how much sun you get. I think I've seen her get burns twice in over a decade and we do a lot of beach time.
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      The West used to have the same association. Now it's reversed, only people with lots of leisure time get to have a tan.
- jokoon 1y ago
  Dermatologists and doctors
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  Sunlight has a distinct ageing effect on skin and this is so well known that cosmetic companies can truthfully label their ointments/lotions as "anti-ageing" if they provide some sun protection effect (e.g. SPF level).
- Krssst 1y ago
  Skin aging, skin cancer, cataract.
- wiseowise 1y ago
  Anyone who didn’t live under a rock for the last 30 years.
cpf_au 1y ago
Yeah not as a pasty white guy in Australia
- _wegs 1y ago
  Australia is exceptionally bad for the sun. It's crazy because the incidence of skin cancer is still so high even though sun protection is drilled into us since birth. I'll rant further that Australia is not even good from a UV/temperature tradeoff because the UV is always ridiculously high. Nice warm Mediterranean summer UV level is equivalent to a freezing cold winter day in Australia.
  - Earw0rm 1y ago
    It's because you're the same latitude as Namibia, Botswana etc. Even Perth is on the same equivalent (south instead of north) as Cairo or Kuwait. There's a reason the indigenous Australians stayed dark skinned after 40,000 years - a time frame more than long enough for the Irish to turn red-haired and pale; as a trait it's relatively fast evolving, Europe probably evolved most/all of its variation since the last ice age.
calebm 1y ago
I am very white, but getting sun feels very healthy for my skin. Obviously I don't want to get burned bad, but good sun exposure helps my skin feel softer and less inflamed. My grandfather also spent most of his days out in the sun gardening, and my mom was just commenting a few months ago about how surprisingly smooth his skin is (and he's 92).
- calebm 1y ago
  On a related note: I also think looking at the sun is healthy for our eyes. I've been getting more sun-in-my-eyes exposure, and at the last optometrist I had, he was surprised to find that my vision improved since my last checkup.
  - quaintdev 1y ago
    Anyone thinking of doing this, don't. There's a reason we don't directly look at solar eclipse. Here's a excerpt from [1] > Usually we close our eyes in reflex due to intense light from the Sun, but on day of an eclipse, the intensity of sunlight is decreased and we can view the Sun through naked eyes. While we watch a solar eclipse without any protection to our eyes, the ultraviolet rays penetrate our eyes and cause retinal burn, leading to loss of central vision. [1]: https://www.indiatoday.in/science/story/partial-solar-eclipse-india-naked-eyes-retina-damage-solar-filters-2289161-2022-10-25 https://www.indiatoday.in/science/story/partial-solar-eclips...
    - yunwal 1y ago
      The comment above you said nothing about a solar eclipse
      - Arainach 1y ago
        In a Solar Eclipse you're getting a tiny fraction of the sun's energy and it is still enough to very quickly cause long-term physical damage to your eyes. Looking at the sun during not an eclipse is even worse.
    - 1y ago
peoplefromibiza 1y ago
[dead]
lqet 1y ago
Every winter since I was a kid, I get Keratosis pilaris [0] on my inner upper arms, which is a bit of a nuisance. After the first day of spring sun in a T-Shirt, it disappears completely within days. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keratosis_pilaris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keratosis_pilaris
- xeonmc 1y ago
  Oh, I've always thought it's just a lack of sweating causing your dead skins to grow over the pores, didn't realize that it's actually a mysterious medical condition?
- manmal 1y ago
  Have you tried irradiating with near infrared light in the winter? Eg with a cheap CCTV IR light off aliexpress.
pinkmuffinere 1y ago
It’s tempting to see things like this and think “well of course it does, because that’s how we evolved”. But I think that might just be post-rationalization? At the very least, I think the argument _doesn’t_ hold for periodic famine, extreme temperatures, most disease, etc even though we also evolved with those things. Is there any guiding principle that separates the things-we-evolved-with-that-are-good vs the -that-are-bad? Or is it really just a case-by-case examination?
- Jweb_Guru 1y ago
  Entirely case by case. It's further confounded by the fact that a bunch of things that are bad for us don't exert strong selective pressure in the first place.
  - annsjdhs 1y ago
    > don't exert strong selective pressure in the first place This assumes we understand how these things work in the first place. It’s very likely our understanding of evolution is incomplete. I make this mistake a lot: 1. See thing that’s been done a long time a certain way 2. Modern recommendation is don’t do thing 3. Revised modern recommendation says “actually wait, do thing” 4. Revised modern recommendation is now ok because our incomplete model has been updated, whereas it should have always been ok because it’s been that way for a long time Put another way: we should give more weight to a repeated pattern observed over thousands of years and heavily question any science that goes against it. Both sides are just estimations, but nowadays it’s almost assumed “old ways bad”. Way too many cases that end up being “way humans have operated for millennia is actually ok”.
    - Jweb_Guru 1y ago
      I agree with you in general, but we understand enough of the mechanisms for how selective pressure occurs that we know it is often not the deciding factor in population-level changes. For example, the smallest and most rapidly replicating bacteria have such intense selective pressure that they even select against noncoding introns (extra energy during replication!) but this effect is already gone for larger and less rapidly-dividing bacteria. A lot of stuff simply does not affect fitness (either direct reproductive fitness or species survival) enough for that to be the deciding factor in its propagation, and without recognizing that an awful lot of evolutionary biology / population genetics isn't going to make much sense. In other words, the default hypothesis when we find that something humans often did in the past is bad for our health should certainly not be that there is some evolutionary advantage to the behavior. We are a fairly homogeneous population that has suffered several severe bottlenecking events, has fairly long and slow reproductive cycles, and has relatively few children. We also have aggressive active immune systems. Under these circumstances selective pressure is not super high, even before accounting for any of the modern life factors people often bring up. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all obviously, just that it's very case by case.
ZaoLahma 1y ago
As with everything, I guess do it in moderation and don't be stupid...? Planning on being out a full day under the summer sun as a very pale north European? Slob on all the sunscreen that you can and hide in the shade when possible. A day out in mid September / mid March when the sun is not looking to murder you? Revel in it. Soak it up. Be a plant.
- surfmike 1y ago
  Also it makes a lot of difference where you are. Scandinavians rarely wear sunscreen but their UV index is much lower than, say, California, let alone Australia.
- whycome 1y ago
  Also, critically, get regular sun exposure so that your skin adapts. Ideally do this before it gets intense.
wewxjfq 1y ago
The way I see it: If you live where your ancestors lived for thousands of years and if you make sure your skin gets gradually attuned to the sun each year, you probably get more health benefits. But beware if you're of Northern European ancestry living in Southern USA or Australia or if you work an office job and only seek the summer sun with pale skin.
- _wegs 1y ago
  > make sure your skin gets gradually attuned Is this a thing? Surely DNA damage from UV is dose-dependent, in which case any greater amount of UV results in a greater chance of skin cancer.
  - oasisaimlessly 1y ago
    Is this a joke? Yes, it's called 'tanning'. Having more melanin decreases the effective dose because any photon that melanin absorbs isn't going to be absorbed by your DNA.
    - _wegs 1y ago
      Are you joking? I'm legitimately asking. Primary institute of skin cancer in Australia: https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/causes-and-prevention/sun-safety/10-myths-about-sun-protection https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/causes-and-prev... See number 2. I'm hypothesising you may live in a place where skin cancer is not a big issue?
  - TheCoelacanth 1y ago
    Melanin helps protect from DNA damage by absorbing much of the UV radiation. As you get more exposure to sunlight, your skin produces more melanin resulting in more protection.
  - wewxjfq 1y ago
    A sunburn is what you want to avoid and it's easier to get when you stayed indoors the whole year and only go outside when the sun is out full blast. I personally think this modern lifestyle is one of the reasons people get more skin cancer despite being outside less. There are studies that show that chronic sun exposure isn't that bad.
anthonj 1y ago
Isn't skin cancer 100% survivable if caught on time*, with the removal procedure begin a single 1-2 hour specialist visit? Where "on time" means during the trivial yearly screening that everyone should be getting.
- NaomiLehman 1y ago
  If you get melanoma, it can progress within weeks or months to stage >1. An annual checkup is not enough. And then you get 50% chance if you qualify for gene therapy or die.
  - joseakle 1y ago
    What is the recommended screening frequency ?
    - sigmoid10 1y ago
      That highly depends on the individual and their risk profile. But the best approach in general is to be aware of the signs that are up on these posters you see in every good dermatologist's office. Then you can spot abnormalities immediately and get them checked out professionally. Half of all melanomas are not found by screenings and are self-detected instead. https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/screening-advice-thats-not-just-skin-deep https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/screening-advice-thats...
    - anthomtb 1y ago
      Perhaps by "An annual checkup is not enough", they do not mean you need screenings multiple times a year. Rather, one needs to regularly examine their own skin in addition to yearly checks by a professional. An aside for my fellow wookies: moles can form under hair!
- vharuck 1y ago
  Between 2015 and 2021, Americans diagnosed with invasive[0] melanoma had a 94.7% net 5-year survival rate[1]. That means, if all other causes of death were impossible, an estimated 5.3% of those patients would have died of melanoma. That's a pretty good net survival rate [3], but it's not perfect. And it's possible that less care in avoiding excessive sun exposure could lead to any cancers being more aggressive. However, I don't have a reference for that musing, so feel free to ignore it. [0]: Invasive means the tumor has left the tissue it started in. [1]: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html [2]: It would be higher if the official method for calculating net survival didn't, in my opinion, needlessly bias itself against cancer patient survival. The last time I reviewed the methodology notes, they compared daily hazards of death between cancer patients and everyone else. But, if the cancer patients had a lower hazard for a day, the difference was treated as zero instead of negative. This is a hill I'll die on, because their method pretends any confounding variables not in the model have no effect. Patients who catch melanoma early are probably less likely to die soon compared to those of similar age, race, sex, and location. An early diagnosis likely means they care enough about their health to visit doctors regularly and make good use of those visits.
ryandvm 1y ago
Correlation versus causation and all that, but an increase in bowel cancers and a decrease in sun exposure are both well documented trends over the last few decades.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  They've associated low vitamin D levels and bowel cancer, but I don't know which direction causation goes. Or if it's a third factor like more exercise.
stefantalpalaru 1y ago
[dead]
fbn79 1y ago
I never realized how much solar radiation can be dangerous until I read Andy Weir's Hail Mary.
- mrsvanwinkle 1y ago
  unexpected andy weir reference (luv him)
Nevermark 1y ago
For winter I got a standing tanning machine. Which I use 2-4x a week for 1 minute per use. I calculated this was equivalent to 5-15 minutes outside, depending on time, but engages the entirety of the bodies largest organ. My (anecdotal, subjective) experience is that it helps. Both vitamin D and nitric oxide are good rationales for that. This would be economically impossible at a tanning salon. If you like to be tan, it turns out that a minute at a time, sporadically but regularly, is enough to train the skin to be somewhat tan all the time. Presumably with far less skin damage than longer more random sun exposures, or typical duration salon sessions. I also have bright rope LEDs surrounding a few of my room ceilings, hidden behind coving. That light reflects smoothly off the entirety of the white ceilings. A great combination of very high intensity lighting, that is also gentle, diffuse and calming. Summer days, indoors, all year round. There is nothing subjective about the mental benefits of the lights. I am far more alert during the day, and sleep better at night, even in summer. Rationale: We were meant to live outside. I have worked at home my whole career, so I tune things. I also enjoy the real sun!
- ToDougie 1y ago
  > I also have bright rope LEDs surrounding a few of my room ceilings, hidden behind coving. That light reflects smoothly off the entirety of the white ceilings. A great combination of very high intensity lighting, that is also gentle, diffuse and calming. Summer days, indoors, all year round. I am intrigued -- please can you share any publicly available image of this solution? I'm not sure what to google search, or what it would even look like. But I am interested in feeling better while stuck indoors all day.
  - photon_garden 1y ago
    David Chapman has a great writeup on this: https://meaningness.com/sad-light-lumens https://meaningness.com/sad-light-lumens His other writing is great too, but much more philosophical which may or may not be your cup of tea.
    - Carrok 1y ago
      > That light reflects smoothly off the entirety of the white ceilings. A great combination of very high intensity lighting, that is also gentle, diffuse and calming. The description from GP, and the photos in the article you linked, seem like polar opposites of each other.
spullara 1y ago
dunno man, just had melanoma removed from my ear and if it had moved to my lymph nodes I had a 50% chance of dying within 5 years. thankfully it didn't but it was caused by sun damage incurred in my youth. I'll be wearing sunscreen and mostly avoiding direct sunlight.
- gaoshan 1y ago
  Make sure your sunscreen is free from things like benzene* or you may just be trading one cancer causer for another. * https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/is-sunscreen-safe https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/is-sunscreen-safe
  - meatmanek 1y ago
    A reality check on the sunscreen benzene panic: https://labmuffin.com/will-benzene-in-sunscreens-give-you-cancer-with-video/ https://labmuffin.com/will-benzene-in-sunscreens-give-you-ca...
    - gaoshan 1y ago
      The take away from that blog post: "I would personally stop using the products from batches that were measured to have high amounts of benzene"
- DennisP 1y ago
  They did say to avoid getting sunburn, which is the main cause of melanoma.
- jghn 1y ago
  That's the thing about population level trends: there's always going to be individuals with counterexamples.
  - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
    It has a lot to do with the individual's makeup. My mom came from a pale lineage and had the same story as the parent comment - except for the luck part. Melanoma was common in her family and was tightly tied to excessive time in the sun as children.
brokegrammer 1y ago
> followed 30,000 Swedish women for 20 years. It likewise found that, even after correcting for things like age, wealth and health, sun-seeking behaviour was associated with a lower chance of death from all causes. Is it because they got exposed to sun or is it because of the "sun-seeking behavior", which probably means more physical activity? Either way, it's too soon to be throwing away our sunscreen.
namuol 1y ago
> A study published last year, for instance, examined medical data from 360,000 light-skinned Brits and found that greater exposure to UV radiation—either from living in Britain’s sunnier southern bits rather than the darker north, or from regularly using sunbeds—was correlated with either a 12% and 15% lower risk, respectively, of dying, even when the raised risk of skin cancer was taken into account. Emphasis on “may” - this is hardly a gold standard study. Living in sunnier/warmer climates as a proxy for UV exposure as opposed to lifestyle differences afforded by such a climate, regional culture differences, etc. makes all of this very dubious to me. I’m going to keep wearing my sunscreen most of the time when I need to be in direct sun, and continue regular screening for skin cancer.
- DennisP 1y ago
  Double-blind experiments on this are probably impossible, but it's not like large population studies are totally worthless. It's probably best to go where the evidence points, and the article mentions other studies with similar conclusions, as well as work on possible biological mechanisms. My strategy is to get short sun exposures, use sunscreen only when I'm going to be out long enough to get burnt, and also do my dermatology appointments.
  - namuol 1y ago
    Yep this about lines up with my current approach. But also let’s not forget the things that tend to correlate with moderate sun exposure: Fresher air, exercise, social activity, daylight exposure on the eyes, stimulation of all the senses, etc.
  - legacynl 1y ago
    > Double-blind experiments on this are probably impossible, but it's not like large population studies are totally worthless. Large population studies in itself are fine, it's just the quoted study is worthless. Socially there's just so many differences between the two groups that it becomes almost impossible to validly compare these two. A better study design would be to treat each region separately. And compare 'time spent outside' with health outcomes in each region. That would give a much more reliable and useful insight in if time spent outside equals better/less health. Bonus points if you also ask them if they regularly use sunscreen. That data would actually be useful. That way you could compare if spending time outside is healthy in itself, or if it has to do with the sun. For example if the sun would be a net negative, you would find relatively more skin cancer in the groups in sunnier climates that spend a lot of time outside versus those in greyer regions. If the sun would be a net-benefit, you would see less skin cancer instead. And quite likely you would see that people who spend more time outside have better health outcomes no matter which region you are in, although the size of those groups may differ greatly depending on the climate.
tejohnso 1y ago
"The big picture is that the benefits of sunlight outweigh the risks—provided you don’t get sunburnt,” argues Richard Weller, a dermatologist at the University of Edinburg Also, Dr. Roger Seheult has some strong opinions on this as well. Considers sun exposure one of the pillars of health and avoiding the sun to be as dangerous as smoking.
- cpncrunch 1y ago
  That does seem to be the case. The Lindqvist study specifically said that sun avoidance was as bad as smoking iirc. Sun exposure has been one of my main activities for over 10 years. The evidence is now overwhelming.
  - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
    I'm in the other camp. Sunlight never feels great and the best I've ever felt is working nights.
    - cpncrunch 1y ago
      This isn't really about it feeling good or bad, rather it's about the effect of sunlight in significantly reducing mortality. I agree that strong sunlight on a hot day doesn't feel good.
      - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
        > This isn't really about it feeling good or bad, I'm not sure that's true over the very long run. We're talking about a proscribed health practice that results in continuing discomfort and sickness. Even if the benefit manifests as predicted, I'm skeptical it can make up for the low quality of life. edit: I'm far from alone in this. When I share my aversion to sunlight, I find many more folks who feel similarly, than I do people who are puzzled by it.
jrpt 1y ago
I would like to know how regular sunlight compares to the combination of vitamin D supplementation and red light therapy. If you do both of those, is that equivalent or better since it doesn't have any damaging effects of the sun?
- setopt 1y ago
  There are other benefits as well. For example, some eye exposure to violet or ultraviolet light have been shown to reduce myopia, which might be one reason why glasses usage has increased a lot. (Screen usage is a big myopia factor as well, but it’s not the whole story.) There are also studies suggesting that low-level UV exposure lowers risk of death by more than what can be explained by serum vitamin D levels alone, suggesting other unknown mechanisms at play.
  - cma 1y ago
    Make sure the studies control for people bed bound for long times in the hospital or in home care, they are magnitudes more likely to die early and don't get as much sun as people doing sports etc. but the sun isn't likely to be the primary factor. If they claim causation in the paper it is usually controlled for, if they just claim a link it might not be.
- mylifeandtimes 1y ago
  something to think about here: Your body synthesizes vitamin D. That chemical reaction may have side-products which are not found in the supplements. Biology is complex.
catchcatchcatch 1y ago
[dead]
geor9e 1y ago
I wish there was anything we could do about "x may y" "studies" where it's just a grad student finding 2 weakly correlated variables in an existing dataset and hitting publish. Maybe experimental studies can be called science and observational studies can be called schmience. Of course that is a terrible solution, but god I wish something could be done.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > where it's just a grad student This study was "just a grad student"?
  - geor9e 1y ago
    This article is a pop sci editorial. But it's drawing a "may cause" causation from correlations found in "observational studies" rather than "experimental studies". Junior researchers, pressured to publish or die, shovel them out because it's the easiest thing to publish. No experiments, no scientific method, no controls. Just manipulate old data and cherry pick something that looks like it might be related to another thing. Then a year later we get the opposite headline, from another grad student looking for an easy paper to publish. Then the general public confuses it for science.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      So…you’re spouting crap not relevant to this paper?
      - geor9e 1y ago
        "not relevant" "this paper" It's painfully obvious you haven't even clicked the link.
flowgrammer 1y ago
[dead]
rob_c 1y ago
Well yes, given this has been the message since the problems with short sightedness in the east everyone still seems obsessed with "too much sun bad". How about not making any public messaging so black and white. B&W messaging leads to polarised ideas on healthcare and everything else... </rant>
myrmidon 1y ago
Insufficient sun (light) exposure also increases risk of myopia (sort-sightedness) by an insane amount, by messing with eye growth.
biimugan 1y ago
I think people should be highly skeptical of articles like this, even without knowing anything about the subject in question. No byline/author. No citations/links to the studies in question. Confirmation of preconceived notions that people would like to be true (e.g. the sun as a wellness remedy instead of damaging to skin), including unfounded "just so" stories and claims about evolution, diabetes, and other unrelated topics. Named individuals seem to "specialize" in sunlight as a wellness remedy (seems like a big red flag to me). No actual physical theory as to how it could be true (more vitamin D reduces death by up to 50%? how? your body only needs so much vitamin D and it's not actually all that much). And sure enough, if you look up any details on the studies in question, they are highly questionable. Vastly different populations studied with very weak controls. For example, sunscreen use -- both chemical and physical, i.e. hats -- was not controlled for. Seems like a big problem since that's the primary claim being made! And it seems like such an obvious thing. It makes one wonder why it was omitted. The facts of the "status quo" of sun exposure dangers, on the other hand, have quite a lot more going for them, both in terms of study quality and in terms of physical explanation/interpretation. UV radiation physically damages DNA, even when you don't burn. Tanning is a response to skin cell damage, so any additional melanin production in your skin is indication that your DNA is being damaged. Damaged DNA means when your cells reproduce, they reproduce the damage and/or otherwise mutate. If that damage or mutation happens to be cancerous, then you have a big problem. Tanning, contrary to what people seem to think, doesn't inoculate you against skin cancer or damage. It merely helps absorb a higher percentage of UV radiation -- meaning your skin is still getting damaged, just at a slightly lower rate (a helpful, though marginal, evolutionary advantage).
- atombender 1y ago
  > No byline/author. This is The Economist; they don't use bylines, and their articles are all anonymous.
  - avalys 1y ago
    +1 The byline is “The Economist”, and the lack of links is the house style, like a printed newspaper. A relic from the times when the name and reputation of the institution alone was enough to earn your trust. Personally I still find them a high-quality source, especially because they are a weekly publication based in the UK and distanced (but not entirely removed) from the bullshit of the US media cycle.
abhaynayar 1y ago
> during which the nights will be longer the days. Error in the first sentence. At first I thought that's a bad thing, but then also, probably more likely not written/assisted by an AI. Haha.
WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
Personally, I associate sunlight with less health because of how it makes me feel - uncomfortable on a good day but often like having the flu. Some of that is tied to our daily 85° dew points but once the sun goes down the dp feels livable. But even without high heat and humidity, sunlight feels relentlessly, painfully bright. The best I can hope for is to ignore it. Conversely, cool cloudy days feel like the relief after a long, bad headache. And fog is the finest weather there is.
whatever1 1y ago
I’m looking at the correlation between melanoma incidence and geographic latitude, and it doesn’t appear to be very strong. For instance, I observe a significantly higher incidence in countries like Norway compared to Italy. Shouldn’t we expect a much stronger correlation?
sershe 1y ago
Weren't there studies showing that 1) some health conditions correlate with low vitamin D level, 2) vitamin D supplements do nothing for these conditions? Clearly, there's a third variable that causes both. Since we don't understand what the heck it is and I like being in the sun despite being pale (nearly never getting burned, although I did get burned a lot as a teen), I personally call it SUN MAGIC.
indolering 1y ago
I don't think I'm going to take my health advice from an economics magazine that is published by libertarians in the UK (a famously NOT sunny place). Economists have a habit of wandering off into other fields and misapplying statistical methods developed for economics. See their work in anti-parastic studies and all sorts of gross wannabe sociology research. I'll wait until Chocrane steps in and says something before rejecting decades of scientific consensus.
- maleldil 1y ago
  I think this assessment is unfair. The paper [1] is not from economists. The first author is an endocrinologist. The third author is a dermatologist. As for where the authors are from, I don't see why it would matter, as long as their methodology is sound. However, this doesn't mean one should forget about the current consensus. This is just one paper, and it takes more than that to offset the current knowledge. [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-025-00743-6 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-025-00743-6
  - indolering 1y ago
    The actual scientists have a much more limited outlook on the potential impact of this line of research, but The Economist's headline does not. This sort of hyperbole is very Freakonomics and will be used by people who really like the sun as evidence that it's better to not wear sunscreen. It's gross to see them weighing in on this topic at all.
nl 1y ago
This is not true in Australia or other places with high UV, and at least they sort of admit this: "at least for denizens of gloomy countries at high latitudes."
- EdwardDiego 1y ago
  Yeah, I was laughing in Kiwi at this. When you live in a country where you can sunburn in less than 10 minutes in spring, skin cancer is a far higher risk.
smeeger 1y ago
when your skin turns pale white your body is screaming for sunlight. it wants sunlight just like your body wants food and makes you hungry. if sunlight were so deadly then everyone would have skin that was pitch black and doesnt change. but we have this insane adaptive system to make sure we are always getting a trickle of UV. why else would we evolve this system if sunlight werent extremely important?
- wiseowise 1y ago
  > when your skin turns pale white your body is screaming for sunlight. Complete bullshit.
  - smeeger 1y ago
    why does it turn white then?
elihu 1y ago
https://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/sunshine https://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/sunshine
m3kw9 1y ago
Is this the eggs/butter but for sun?
byyoung3 1y ago
until you get melanoma
Amaury-El 1y ago
I used to avoid the sun, thinking that staying out of it was the healthier choice. But after spending long periods indoors, especially during the darker winter months, I started feeling constantly tired and low. A blood test later showed I was seriously low on vitamin D. Since then, I’ve made a point to get a bit of sunlight each day. Over time, I noticed my energy and mood improved. That small, consistent exposure to sunlight really does seem to make a subtle but meaningful difference in both body and mind.
- padjo 1y ago
  Did you get your Vitamin D re-checked? I’ve been low on Vitamin D, recovered it to high levels and noticed basically zero difference over the long term.
black_13 1y ago
[dead]
throwaway2037 1y ago
I have a controversial, non-scientific view: When you live in a place with better weather, your mental health is better. This has enormous second order effects. (I have no idea if this can be scientifically explained due to UVA/UVB exposure.) I grew up in place with horrible, long winters. When I finally escaped to places with better weather, it was life altering. I will never forget living as a university student in Silicon Valley. My otherwise unimpressive apartment had an orange tree in the backyard. I could pick the oranges and eat them. Weeks elapsed where there wasn't a single cloud in the sky. I cannot stress enough how much this improved my mental health.
jasonvorhe 1y ago
No sunscreen in decades, no signs of skin cancer. Shrug.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

292 points by petethomas 1y ago

breppp 1y ago

https://archive.md/ypb35 https://archive.md/ypb35

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ponchel 1y ago

Who actually thought that getting sunlight was bad ?

uncircle 1y ago
There is a lot of weird discussion on English-speaking forums that you should always always wear sunscreen, even if the day is grey, because skin cancer is a constant risk. I do not get if it’s a massive and long-running marketing campaign that has brainwashed the entire population, if it’s because many living in US and UK have a very white skin tone thus burn easily, or what else. Skin cancer is a fact of life, but for a species that evolved in the sun, I do not believe one bit that sun exposure, which incidentally is linked to many benefits because it’s so bloody normal, is something that can only be dealt with modern technology and we should be deathly afraid of it. Sure, UV radiation can cause mutations, but our immune system has evolved over billions of years to deal with this exact problem. By all means use sunscreen if you have to spend a lot of time in the sun and risk a very unpleasant sunburn, but I wish someone would explain the Anglo obsession with daily sunscreen routine.
- phito 1y ago
  > for a species that evolved in the sun, I do not believe one bit that sun exposure, which incidentally is linked to many benefits because it’s so bloody normal, is something that can only be dealt with modern technology and we should be deathly afraid of it. Sure, UV radiation can cause mutations, but our immune system has evolved over billions of years to deal with this exact problem. Yeah, most of the time our immune system deals with it, but sometimes it misses one roge cell and you've got cancer. That's why you want to limit your exposure to mutations even if you're somewhat adapted to deal with them. Then it's a matter of looking at studies and statistics and deciding for yourself. Personally, I'll keep putting on sunscreen, as I sunburn easily ;)
  - elcritch 1y ago
    The important piece missing from both of these comments IMHO, is that sunburns are the problematic piece. There's always going to be some risk from UV exposure, but as the parent comment points out we're evolved to deal with it and even to rely on it. There's research showing that low amounts of cellular damage is actually beneficial as it triggers cellular repair mechanisms or aptosis of senecent cells. Even here other commenters point out how exposure improved their skin or vision. However that natural evolved state doesn't include sitting inside all week and then going outside on the weekend and getting completely toasted sunburnt! Doing that and getting completely sunburnt overwhelms our normal cellular repair mechanism, the immune system response, etc. It's much more likely a rogue cell evades the immune system when it's swamped with such cells. Personally I avoid sunscreen if possible for short excursions but will use it if going to the pool as I'm indoors more these years and paler.
    - uncircle 1y ago
      > The important piece missing from both of these comments IMHO, is that sunburns are the problematic piece. Then the problem is light skin tone, and the advice to wear sunscreen always, only applies to them, hence my doubts. I do not get sunburnt if I go buy groceries or if I spend 1 hour outside, like most ethnicities on Earth; yet if I dare question the dogma of sunscreen, I get downvoted, which makes me wonder if it's at all rational. It boggles my mind how it has become a kind of innocent yet taboo argument on the (English-speaking) internet. Just google it. I mean, there's plenty of articles that say you need to wear it even if you plan to stay indoors all day. WTF.
      - dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
        >> The important piece missing from both of these comments IMHO, is that sunburns are the problematic piece. >Then the problem is light skin tone, and the advice to wear sunscreen always, only applies to them, hence my doubts. My view: sunscreen for any skin is not healthy, lots of marketing there. People with sensitive skin to sunlight( generally light skinned folks but not always) should either avoid harsh sun of wear clothing that will protect them from harsh sunlight.
- jusssi 1y ago
  Maybe we're getting more UV now than we evolved with? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    It's a small factor, but humans evolved in the tropics. Ancestral humans has very dark skin because of the tropical UV exposure. Then when some moved into Europe and Asia, selection pressure means they rapidly lost their pigmentation because they weren't getting enough vitamin D.
- heyheyhey 1y ago
  > I wish someone would explain the Anglo obsession with daily sunscreen routine. Because it's more about skincare for physical attraction and less about the cancer. Sun ages your skin with wrinkles, sagging, hyperpigmentation, etc. This isn't specific to Anglo nations too. Any country where being "fair skinned" is more desirable will have lots of demand for sunscreen.
- saltcured 1y ago
  Where the medical establishment pushes it, it is largely about establishing habits for people who may get a lot of exposure that they didn't plan for. Also, local climates differ dramatically. A couple of my worst sunburns in my life were on extremely gray days on the California coast. It is easy to fool yourself into thinking the sun isn't strong when you don't feel the heat of it. But on those kinds of days, it's just diffuse UV blasting from every direction. I found it instructive when I got photochromatic eye glasses. Since they are UV-activated, it is like carrying a UV detection instrument around with a heads-up display. It really helped me get a better sense for what conditions and hours of the day have significant UV in my normal daily life.
- Earw0rm 1y ago
  It's context collapse, the curse of a shared language. If you live in Australia or Florida and have Anglo skin, you'd best believe that's good advice. In the natural range of the Anglo skin type, Edinburgh or Dublin, not so much.
SapporoChris 1y ago
Most East Asians: Chinese, Japanese and Koreans for a start.
tforcram 1y ago
I've had a malignant melanoma, my mother and extended relatives had it as well (including a great uncle I never met who died from it), 4 (of my 9) siblings have had multiple, mostly those of use who have red hair/fair skin. I don't think I've ever heard of a greater risk of skin cancer due to genetics/familial occurrence than I have. After my mother got it and had a huge chunk taken out of her leg when I was very young, we have had it drilled into our heads that the sun was going to kill us and we needed to cover up and lather in sun screen for even the slightest possibility of sun exposure. Obviously that didn't help much as many of us still got it anyway, hah! But yea there are some folks who are terrified of the sun. I personally think 15-20 minutes unfiltered sunlight is good for me, but beyond that I'm looking for the nearest shade or trying to cover up.
- thrawa8387336 1y ago
  What I've heard is people who don't get sun frequently, are at higher risk of melanoma. Like no sun then sunburn = bad bad
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    There is also the evidence that it usually doesn't happen on the hands or face which are chronically exposed, but rather areas that are normally covered.
ehnto 1y ago
Quite a lot of people. People in Australia are educated about the risk of sun exposure in school for one. Another is cultures who view being pale as a beauty standard.
- worthless-trash 1y ago
  Slip, Slop, Slap.
  - Grum9 1y ago
    [dead]
EZ-E 1y ago
It is a big thing in Asia to avoid sunlight to avoid premature aging and tanning. It's an interesting parallel you can observe in parks: in my country in Europe, people will prefer to sit on the benches exposed to the sun first, in China and Korea, people will sit in the shade instead.
- seanicus 1y ago
  Lived in SE Asia fora few years and my understanding is that tan skin = outdoor labor = lower caste. My spouse is asian and I'm N Euro - I would kill to have skin that just tans no matter how much sun you get. I think I've seen her get burns twice in over a decade and we do a lot of beach time.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    The West used to have the same association. Now it's reversed, only people with lots of leisure time get to have a tan.
jokoon 1y ago
Dermatologists and doctors
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
Sunlight has a distinct ageing effect on skin and this is so well known that cosmetic companies can truthfully label their ointments/lotions as "anti-ageing" if they provide some sun protection effect (e.g. SPF level).
Krssst 1y ago
Skin aging, skin cancer, cataract.
wiseowise 1y ago
Anyone who didn’t live under a rock for the last 30 years.

cpf_au 1y ago

Yeah not as a pasty white guy in Australia

_wegs 1y ago
Australia is exceptionally bad for the sun. It's crazy because the incidence of skin cancer is still so high even though sun protection is drilled into us since birth. I'll rant further that Australia is not even good from a UV/temperature tradeoff because the UV is always ridiculously high. Nice warm Mediterranean summer UV level is equivalent to a freezing cold winter day in Australia.
- Earw0rm 1y ago
  It's because you're the same latitude as Namibia, Botswana etc. Even Perth is on the same equivalent (south instead of north) as Cairo or Kuwait. There's a reason the indigenous Australians stayed dark skinned after 40,000 years - a time frame more than long enough for the Irish to turn red-haired and pale; as a trait it's relatively fast evolving, Europe probably evolved most/all of its variation since the last ice age.

calebm 1y ago

I am very white, but getting sun feels very healthy for my skin. Obviously I don't want to get burned bad, but good sun exposure helps my skin feel softer and less inflamed. My grandfather also spent most of his days out in the sun gardening, and my mom was just commenting a few months ago about how surprisingly smooth his skin is (and he's 92).

calebm 1y ago
On a related note: I also think looking at the sun is healthy for our eyes. I've been getting more sun-in-my-eyes exposure, and at the last optometrist I had, he was surprised to find that my vision improved since my last checkup.
- quaintdev 1y ago
  Anyone thinking of doing this, don't. There's a reason we don't directly look at solar eclipse. Here's a excerpt from [1] > Usually we close our eyes in reflex due to intense light from the Sun, but on day of an eclipse, the intensity of sunlight is decreased and we can view the Sun through naked eyes. While we watch a solar eclipse without any protection to our eyes, the ultraviolet rays penetrate our eyes and cause retinal burn, leading to loss of central vision. [1]: https://www.indiatoday.in/science/story/partial-solar-eclipse-india-naked-eyes-retina-damage-solar-filters-2289161-2022-10-25 https://www.indiatoday.in/science/story/partial-solar-eclips...
  - yunwal 1y ago
    The comment above you said nothing about a solar eclipse
    - Arainach 1y ago
      In a Solar Eclipse you're getting a tiny fraction of the sun's energy and it is still enough to very quickly cause long-term physical damage to your eyes. Looking at the sun during not an eclipse is even worse.
  - 1y ago

peoplefromibiza 1y ago

[dead]

lqet 1y ago

Every winter since I was a kid, I get Keratosis pilaris [0] on my inner upper arms, which is a bit of a nuisance. After the first day of spring sun in a T-Shirt, it disappears completely within days. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keratosis_pilaris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keratosis_pilaris

xeonmc 1y ago
Oh, I've always thought it's just a lack of sweating causing your dead skins to grow over the pores, didn't realize that it's actually a mysterious medical condition?
manmal 1y ago
Have you tried irradiating with near infrared light in the winter? Eg with a cheap CCTV IR light off aliexpress.

pinkmuffinere 1y ago

It’s tempting to see things like this and think “well of course it does, because that’s how we evolved”. But I think that might just be post-rationalization? At the very least, I think the argument _doesn’t_ hold for periodic famine, extreme temperatures, most disease, etc even though we also evolved with those things. Is there any guiding principle that separates the things-we-evolved-with-that-are-good vs the -that-are-bad? Or is it really just a case-by-case examination?

Jweb_Guru 1y ago
Entirely case by case. It's further confounded by the fact that a bunch of things that are bad for us don't exert strong selective pressure in the first place.
- annsjdhs 1y ago
  > don't exert strong selective pressure in the first place This assumes we understand how these things work in the first place. It’s very likely our understanding of evolution is incomplete. I make this mistake a lot: 1. See thing that’s been done a long time a certain way 2. Modern recommendation is don’t do thing 3. Revised modern recommendation says “actually wait, do thing” 4. Revised modern recommendation is now ok because our incomplete model has been updated, whereas it should have always been ok because it’s been that way for a long time Put another way: we should give more weight to a repeated pattern observed over thousands of years and heavily question any science that goes against it. Both sides are just estimations, but nowadays it’s almost assumed “old ways bad”. Way too many cases that end up being “way humans have operated for millennia is actually ok”.
  - Jweb_Guru 1y ago
    I agree with you in general, but we understand enough of the mechanisms for how selective pressure occurs that we know it is often not the deciding factor in population-level changes. For example, the smallest and most rapidly replicating bacteria have such intense selective pressure that they even select against noncoding introns (extra energy during replication!) but this effect is already gone for larger and less rapidly-dividing bacteria. A lot of stuff simply does not affect fitness (either direct reproductive fitness or species survival) enough for that to be the deciding factor in its propagation, and without recognizing that an awful lot of evolutionary biology / population genetics isn't going to make much sense. In other words, the default hypothesis when we find that something humans often did in the past is bad for our health should certainly not be that there is some evolutionary advantage to the behavior. We are a fairly homogeneous population that has suffered several severe bottlenecking events, has fairly long and slow reproductive cycles, and has relatively few children. We also have aggressive active immune systems. Under these circumstances selective pressure is not super high, even before accounting for any of the modern life factors people often bring up. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all obviously, just that it's very case by case.

ZaoLahma 1y ago

As with everything, I guess do it in moderation and don't be stupid...? Planning on being out a full day under the summer sun as a very pale north European? Slob on all the sunscreen that you can and hide in the shade when possible. A day out in mid September / mid March when the sun is not looking to murder you? Revel in it. Soak it up. Be a plant.

surfmike 1y ago
Also it makes a lot of difference where you are. Scandinavians rarely wear sunscreen but their UV index is much lower than, say, California, let alone Australia.
whycome 1y ago
Also, critically, get regular sun exposure so that your skin adapts. Ideally do this before it gets intense.

wewxjfq 1y ago

The way I see it: If you live where your ancestors lived for thousands of years and if you make sure your skin gets gradually attuned to the sun each year, you probably get more health benefits. But beware if you're of Northern European ancestry living in Southern USA or Australia or if you work an office job and only seek the summer sun with pale skin.

_wegs 1y ago
> make sure your skin gets gradually attuned Is this a thing? Surely DNA damage from UV is dose-dependent, in which case any greater amount of UV results in a greater chance of skin cancer.
- oasisaimlessly 1y ago
  Is this a joke? Yes, it's called 'tanning'. Having more melanin decreases the effective dose because any photon that melanin absorbs isn't going to be absorbed by your DNA.
  - _wegs 1y ago
    Are you joking? I'm legitimately asking. Primary institute of skin cancer in Australia: https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/causes-and-prevention/sun-safety/10-myths-about-sun-protection https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/causes-and-prev... See number 2. I'm hypothesising you may live in a place where skin cancer is not a big issue?
- TheCoelacanth 1y ago
  Melanin helps protect from DNA damage by absorbing much of the UV radiation. As you get more exposure to sunlight, your skin produces more melanin resulting in more protection.
- wewxjfq 1y ago
  A sunburn is what you want to avoid and it's easier to get when you stayed indoors the whole year and only go outside when the sun is out full blast. I personally think this modern lifestyle is one of the reasons people get more skin cancer despite being outside less. There are studies that show that chronic sun exposure isn't that bad.

anthonj 1y ago

Isn't skin cancer 100% survivable if caught on time*, with the removal procedure begin a single 1-2 hour specialist visit? Where "on time" means during the trivial yearly screening that everyone should be getting.

NaomiLehman 1y ago
If you get melanoma, it can progress within weeks or months to stage >1. An annual checkup is not enough. And then you get 50% chance if you qualify for gene therapy or die.
- joseakle 1y ago
  What is the recommended screening frequency ?
  - sigmoid10 1y ago
    That highly depends on the individual and their risk profile. But the best approach in general is to be aware of the signs that are up on these posters you see in every good dermatologist's office. Then you can spot abnormalities immediately and get them checked out professionally. Half of all melanomas are not found by screenings and are self-detected instead. https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/screening-advice-thats-not-just-skin-deep https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/screening-advice-thats...
  - anthomtb 1y ago
    Perhaps by "An annual checkup is not enough", they do not mean you need screenings multiple times a year. Rather, one needs to regularly examine their own skin in addition to yearly checks by a professional. An aside for my fellow wookies: moles can form under hair!
vharuck 1y ago
Between 2015 and 2021, Americans diagnosed with invasive[0] melanoma had a 94.7% net 5-year survival rate[1]. That means, if all other causes of death were impossible, an estimated 5.3% of those patients would have died of melanoma. That's a pretty good net survival rate [3], but it's not perfect. And it's possible that less care in avoiding excessive sun exposure could lead to any cancers being more aggressive. However, I don't have a reference for that musing, so feel free to ignore it. [0]: Invasive means the tumor has left the tissue it started in. [1]: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html [2]: It would be higher if the official method for calculating net survival didn't, in my opinion, needlessly bias itself against cancer patient survival. The last time I reviewed the methodology notes, they compared daily hazards of death between cancer patients and everyone else. But, if the cancer patients had a lower hazard for a day, the difference was treated as zero instead of negative. This is a hill I'll die on, because their method pretends any confounding variables not in the model have no effect. Patients who catch melanoma early are probably less likely to die soon compared to those of similar age, race, sex, and location. An early diagnosis likely means they care enough about their health to visit doctors regularly and make good use of those visits.

ryandvm 1y ago

Correlation versus causation and all that, but an increase in bowel cancers and a decrease in sun exposure are both well documented trends over the last few decades.

amanaplanacanal 1y ago
They've associated low vitamin D levels and bowel cancer, but I don't know which direction causation goes. Or if it's a third factor like more exercise.

stefantalpalaru 1y ago

[dead]

fbn79 1y ago

I never realized how much solar radiation can be dangerous until I read Andy Weir's Hail Mary.

mrsvanwinkle 1y ago
unexpected andy weir reference (luv him)

Nevermark 1y ago

For winter I got a standing tanning machine. Which I use 2-4x a week for 1 minute per use. I calculated this was equivalent to 5-15 minutes outside, depending on time, but engages the entirety of the bodies largest organ. My (anecdotal, subjective) experience is that it helps. Both vitamin D and nitric oxide are good rationales for that. This would be economically impossible at a tanning salon. If you like to be tan, it turns out that a minute at a time, sporadically but regularly, is enough to train the skin to be somewhat tan all the time. Presumably with far less skin damage than longer more random sun exposures, or typical duration salon sessions. I also have bright rope LEDs surrounding a few of my room ceilings, hidden behind coving. That light reflects smoothly off the entirety of the white ceilings. A great combination of very high intensity lighting, that is also gentle, diffuse and calming. Summer days, indoors, all year round. There is nothing subjective about the mental benefits of the lights. I am far more alert during the day, and sleep better at night, even in summer. Rationale: We were meant to live outside. I have worked at home my whole career, so I tune things. I also enjoy the real sun!

ToDougie 1y ago
> I also have bright rope LEDs surrounding a few of my room ceilings, hidden behind coving. That light reflects smoothly off the entirety of the white ceilings. A great combination of very high intensity lighting, that is also gentle, diffuse and calming. Summer days, indoors, all year round. I am intrigued -- please can you share any publicly available image of this solution? I'm not sure what to google search, or what it would even look like. But I am interested in feeling better while stuck indoors all day.
- photon_garden 1y ago
  David Chapman has a great writeup on this: https://meaningness.com/sad-light-lumens https://meaningness.com/sad-light-lumens His other writing is great too, but much more philosophical which may or may not be your cup of tea.
  - Carrok 1y ago
    > That light reflects smoothly off the entirety of the white ceilings. A great combination of very high intensity lighting, that is also gentle, diffuse and calming. The description from GP, and the photos in the article you linked, seem like polar opposites of each other.

spullara 1y ago

dunno man, just had melanoma removed from my ear and if it had moved to my lymph nodes I had a 50% chance of dying within 5 years. thankfully it didn't but it was caused by sun damage incurred in my youth. I'll be wearing sunscreen and mostly avoiding direct sunlight.

gaoshan 1y ago
Make sure your sunscreen is free from things like benzene* or you may just be trading one cancer causer for another. * https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/is-sunscreen-safe https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/is-sunscreen-safe
- meatmanek 1y ago
  A reality check on the sunscreen benzene panic: https://labmuffin.com/will-benzene-in-sunscreens-give-you-cancer-with-video/ https://labmuffin.com/will-benzene-in-sunscreens-give-you-ca...
  - gaoshan 1y ago
    The take away from that blog post: "I would personally stop using the products from batches that were measured to have high amounts of benzene"
DennisP 1y ago
They did say to avoid getting sunburn, which is the main cause of melanoma.
jghn 1y ago
That's the thing about population level trends: there's always going to be individuals with counterexamples.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
  It has a lot to do with the individual's makeup. My mom came from a pale lineage and had the same story as the parent comment - except for the luck part. Melanoma was common in her family and was tightly tied to excessive time in the sun as children.

brokegrammer 1y ago

> followed 30,000 Swedish women for 20 years. It likewise found that, even after correcting for things like age, wealth and health, sun-seeking behaviour was associated with a lower chance of death from all causes. Is it because they got exposed to sun or is it because of the "sun-seeking behavior", which probably means more physical activity? Either way, it's too soon to be throwing away our sunscreen.

namuol 1y ago

> A study published last year, for instance, examined medical data from 360,000 light-skinned Brits and found that greater exposure to UV radiation—either from living in Britain’s sunnier southern bits rather than the darker north, or from regularly using sunbeds—was correlated with either a 12% and 15% lower risk, respectively, of dying, even when the raised risk of skin cancer was taken into account. Emphasis on “may” - this is hardly a gold standard study. Living in sunnier/warmer climates as a proxy for UV exposure as opposed to lifestyle differences afforded by such a climate, regional culture differences, etc. makes all of this very dubious to me. I’m going to keep wearing my sunscreen most of the time when I need to be in direct sun, and continue regular screening for skin cancer.

DennisP 1y ago
Double-blind experiments on this are probably impossible, but it's not like large population studies are totally worthless. It's probably best to go where the evidence points, and the article mentions other studies with similar conclusions, as well as work on possible biological mechanisms. My strategy is to get short sun exposures, use sunscreen only when I'm going to be out long enough to get burnt, and also do my dermatology appointments.
- namuol 1y ago
  Yep this about lines up with my current approach. But also let’s not forget the things that tend to correlate with moderate sun exposure: Fresher air, exercise, social activity, daylight exposure on the eyes, stimulation of all the senses, etc.
- legacynl 1y ago
  > Double-blind experiments on this are probably impossible, but it's not like large population studies are totally worthless. Large population studies in itself are fine, it's just the quoted study is worthless. Socially there's just so many differences between the two groups that it becomes almost impossible to validly compare these two. A better study design would be to treat each region separately. And compare 'time spent outside' with health outcomes in each region. That would give a much more reliable and useful insight in if time spent outside equals better/less health. Bonus points if you also ask them if they regularly use sunscreen. That data would actually be useful. That way you could compare if spending time outside is healthy in itself, or if it has to do with the sun. For example if the sun would be a net negative, you would find relatively more skin cancer in the groups in sunnier climates that spend a lot of time outside versus those in greyer regions. If the sun would be a net-benefit, you would see less skin cancer instead. And quite likely you would see that people who spend more time outside have better health outcomes no matter which region you are in, although the size of those groups may differ greatly depending on the climate.

tejohnso 1y ago

"The big picture is that the benefits of sunlight outweigh the risks—provided you don’t get sunburnt,” argues Richard Weller, a dermatologist at the University of Edinburg Also, Dr. Roger Seheult has some strong opinions on this as well. Considers sun exposure one of the pillars of health and avoiding the sun to be as dangerous as smoking.

cpncrunch 1y ago
That does seem to be the case. The Lindqvist study specifically said that sun avoidance was as bad as smoking iirc. Sun exposure has been one of my main activities for over 10 years. The evidence is now overwhelming.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
  I'm in the other camp. Sunlight never feels great and the best I've ever felt is working nights.
  - cpncrunch 1y ago
    This isn't really about it feeling good or bad, rather it's about the effect of sunlight in significantly reducing mortality. I agree that strong sunlight on a hot day doesn't feel good.
    - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
      > This isn't really about it feeling good or bad, I'm not sure that's true over the very long run. We're talking about a proscribed health practice that results in continuing discomfort and sickness. Even if the benefit manifests as predicted, I'm skeptical it can make up for the low quality of life. edit: I'm far from alone in this. When I share my aversion to sunlight, I find many more folks who feel similarly, than I do people who are puzzled by it.

jrpt 1y ago

I would like to know how regular sunlight compares to the combination of vitamin D supplementation and red light therapy. If you do both of those, is that equivalent or better since it doesn't have any damaging effects of the sun?

setopt 1y ago
There are other benefits as well. For example, some eye exposure to violet or ultraviolet light have been shown to reduce myopia, which might be one reason why glasses usage has increased a lot. (Screen usage is a big myopia factor as well, but it’s not the whole story.) There are also studies suggesting that low-level UV exposure lowers risk of death by more than what can be explained by serum vitamin D levels alone, suggesting other unknown mechanisms at play.
- cma 1y ago
  Make sure the studies control for people bed bound for long times in the hospital or in home care, they are magnitudes more likely to die early and don't get as much sun as people doing sports etc. but the sun isn't likely to be the primary factor. If they claim causation in the paper it is usually controlled for, if they just claim a link it might not be.
mylifeandtimes 1y ago
something to think about here: Your body synthesizes vitamin D. That chemical reaction may have side-products which are not found in the supplements. Biology is complex.

catchcatchcatch 1y ago

[dead]

geor9e 1y ago

I wish there was anything we could do about "x may y" "studies" where it's just a grad student finding 2 weakly correlated variables in an existing dataset and hitting publish. Maybe experimental studies can be called science and observational studies can be called schmience. Of course that is a terrible solution, but god I wish something could be done.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> where it's just a grad student This study was "just a grad student"?
- geor9e 1y ago
  This article is a pop sci editorial. But it's drawing a "may cause" causation from correlations found in "observational studies" rather than "experimental studies". Junior researchers, pressured to publish or die, shovel them out because it's the easiest thing to publish. No experiments, no scientific method, no controls. Just manipulate old data and cherry pick something that looks like it might be related to another thing. Then a year later we get the opposite headline, from another grad student looking for an easy paper to publish. Then the general public confuses it for science.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    So…you’re spouting crap not relevant to this paper?
    - geor9e 1y ago
      "not relevant" "this paper" It's painfully obvious you haven't even clicked the link.

flowgrammer 1y ago

[dead]

rob_c 1y ago

Well yes, given this has been the message since the problems with short sightedness in the east everyone still seems obsessed with "too much sun bad". How about not making any public messaging so black and white. B&W messaging leads to polarised ideas on healthcare and everything else... </rant>

myrmidon 1y ago

Insufficient sun (light) exposure also increases risk of myopia (sort-sightedness) by an insane amount, by messing with eye growth.

biimugan 1y ago

I think people should be highly skeptical of articles like this, even without knowing anything about the subject in question. No byline/author. No citations/links to the studies in question. Confirmation of preconceived notions that people would like to be true (e.g. the sun as a wellness remedy instead of damaging to skin), including unfounded "just so" stories and claims about evolution, diabetes, and other unrelated topics. Named individuals seem to "specialize" in sunlight as a wellness remedy (seems like a big red flag to me). No actual physical theory as to how it could be true (more vitamin D reduces death by up to 50%? how? your body only needs so much vitamin D and it's not actually all that much). And sure enough, if you look up any details on the studies in question, they are highly questionable. Vastly different populations studied with very weak controls. For example, sunscreen use -- both chemical and physical, i.e. hats -- was not controlled for. Seems like a big problem since that's the primary claim being made! And it seems like such an obvious thing. It makes one wonder why it was omitted. The facts of the "status quo" of sun exposure dangers, on the other hand, have quite a lot more going for them, both in terms of study quality and in terms of physical explanation/interpretation. UV radiation physically damages DNA, even when you don't burn. Tanning is a response to skin cell damage, so any additional melanin production in your skin is indication that your DNA is being damaged. Damaged DNA means when your cells reproduce, they reproduce the damage and/or otherwise mutate. If that damage or mutation happens to be cancerous, then you have a big problem. Tanning, contrary to what people seem to think, doesn't inoculate you against skin cancer or damage. It merely helps absorb a higher percentage of UV radiation -- meaning your skin is still getting damaged, just at a slightly lower rate (a helpful, though marginal, evolutionary advantage).

atombender 1y ago
> No byline/author. This is The Economist; they don't use bylines, and their articles are all anonymous.
- avalys 1y ago
  +1 The byline is “The Economist”, and the lack of links is the house style, like a printed newspaper. A relic from the times when the name and reputation of the institution alone was enough to earn your trust. Personally I still find them a high-quality source, especially because they are a weekly publication based in the UK and distanced (but not entirely removed) from the bullshit of the US media cycle.

abhaynayar 1y ago

> during which the nights will be longer the days. Error in the first sentence. At first I thought that's a bad thing, but then also, probably more likely not written/assisted by an AI. Haha.

WarOnPrivacy 1y ago

Personally, I associate sunlight with less health because of how it makes me feel - uncomfortable on a good day but often like having the flu. Some of that is tied to our daily 85° dew points but once the sun goes down the dp feels livable. But even without high heat and humidity, sunlight feels relentlessly, painfully bright. The best I can hope for is to ignore it. Conversely, cool cloudy days feel like the relief after a long, bad headache. And fog is the finest weather there is.

whatever1 1y ago

I’m looking at the correlation between melanoma incidence and geographic latitude, and it doesn’t appear to be very strong. For instance, I observe a significantly higher incidence in countries like Norway compared to Italy. Shouldn’t we expect a much stronger correlation?

sershe 1y ago

Weren't there studies showing that 1) some health conditions correlate with low vitamin D level, 2) vitamin D supplements do nothing for these conditions? Clearly, there's a third variable that causes both. Since we don't understand what the heck it is and I like being in the sun despite being pale (nearly never getting burned, although I did get burned a lot as a teen), I personally call it SUN MAGIC.

indolering 1y ago

I don't think I'm going to take my health advice from an economics magazine that is published by libertarians in the UK (a famously NOT sunny place). Economists have a habit of wandering off into other fields and misapplying statistical methods developed for economics. See their work in anti-parastic studies and all sorts of gross wannabe sociology research. I'll wait until Chocrane steps in and says something before rejecting decades of scientific consensus.

maleldil 1y ago
I think this assessment is unfair. The paper [1] is not from economists. The first author is an endocrinologist. The third author is a dermatologist. As for where the authors are from, I don't see why it would matter, as long as their methodology is sound. However, this doesn't mean one should forget about the current consensus. This is just one paper, and it takes more than that to offset the current knowledge. [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-025-00743-6 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-025-00743-6
- indolering 1y ago
  The actual scientists have a much more limited outlook on the potential impact of this line of research, but The Economist's headline does not. This sort of hyperbole is very Freakonomics and will be used by people who really like the sun as evidence that it's better to not wear sunscreen. It's gross to see them weighing in on this topic at all.

nl 1y ago

This is not true in Australia or other places with high UV, and at least they sort of admit this: "at least for denizens of gloomy countries at high latitudes."

EdwardDiego 1y ago
Yeah, I was laughing in Kiwi at this. When you live in a country where you can sunburn in less than 10 minutes in spring, skin cancer is a far higher risk.

smeeger 1y ago

when your skin turns pale white your body is screaming for sunlight. it wants sunlight just like your body wants food and makes you hungry. if sunlight were so deadly then everyone would have skin that was pitch black and doesnt change. but we have this insane adaptive system to make sure we are always getting a trickle of UV. why else would we evolve this system if sunlight werent extremely important?

wiseowise 1y ago
> when your skin turns pale white your body is screaming for sunlight. Complete bullshit.
- smeeger 1y ago
  why does it turn white then?

elihu 1y ago

https://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/sunshine https://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/sunshine

m3kw9 1y ago

Is this the eggs/butter but for sun?

byyoung3 1y ago

until you get melanoma

Amaury-El 1y ago

I used to avoid the sun, thinking that staying out of it was the healthier choice. But after spending long periods indoors, especially during the darker winter months, I started feeling constantly tired and low. A blood test later showed I was seriously low on vitamin D. Since then, I’ve made a point to get a bit of sunlight each day. Over time, I noticed my energy and mood improved. That small, consistent exposure to sunlight really does seem to make a subtle but meaningful difference in both body and mind.

padjo 1y ago
Did you get your Vitamin D re-checked? I’ve been low on Vitamin D, recovered it to high levels and noticed basically zero difference over the long term.

black_13 1y ago

[dead]

throwaway2037 1y ago

I have a controversial, non-scientific view: When you live in a place with better weather, your mental health is better. This has enormous second order effects. (I have no idea if this can be scientifically explained due to UVA/UVB exposure.) I grew up in place with horrible, long winters. When I finally escaped to places with better weather, it was life altering. I will never forget living as a university student in Silicon Valley. My otherwise unimpressive apartment had an orange tree in the backyard. I could pick the oranges and eat them. Weeks elapsed where there wasn't a single cloud in the sky. I cannot stress enough how much this improved my mental health.

jasonvorhe 1y ago

No sunscreen in decades, no signs of skin cancer. Shrug.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]