[HN Gopher] Exposure to the Sun's UV radiation may be good for you
___________________________________________________________________
Exposure to the Sun's UV radiation may be good for you
Author : beefman
Score : 145 points
Date : 2024-08-20 16:23 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| beefman wrote:
| https://archive.is/tqZsD
| Hendrikto wrote:
| > According to Richard Weller, who co-led the study, most uv
| exposure guidance has thus far been firmly focused on preventing
| melanoma skin cancer. But, he says, "Many times more people die
| from other cancers and diseases. We have to think about how uv
| radiation could help them avoid illness."
|
| > The exact mechanism whereby uv light might lengthen lives is
| unknown. The authors, for their part, believe part of the
| explanation may lie in vitamin D's ability to boost the immune
| system and improve bone health. They also point to nitric oxide,
| a potent blood-vessel widener capable of reducing the risk of
| cardiovascular disease.
| aurareturn wrote:
| So why can't we just eat more Vitamin D supplements?
| davidcollantes wrote:
| The sunlight is free. :-)
| hollerith wrote:
| There are 4 beneficial effects of sunlight I know of that
| have nothing to do with vitamin D.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I know 5.
| hollerith wrote:
| My 4:
|
| Light that is brighter than is possible inside most homes
| makes you more alert (almost immediately), and if done
| during the first 3 hours of wakefulness has benefits that
| last throughout the day according to Andrew Huberman.
|
| Specific qualities present in sunlight when the sun is
| very low in the sky (or under the horizon, namely yellow-
| blue contrasts detected by the intrinsically-
| photosensitive retinal ganglion cells) entrain the body's
| clock, making it easier to get to sleep at a consistent
| and suitably early time of day.
|
| UVB exposure triggers a skin-brain-gonadal axis through
| skin p53 activation (nothing to do with vitamin D). I.e.,
| 20 or 30 min every other day of strong sunlight on bare
| skin and into your eyes increases your levels of the sex
| hormones.
|
| Certain red and infrared wavelengths help cytochrome c
| oxidase turn serotonin into melatonin, which is a potent
| antioxidant right where antioxidant activity is most
| needed (in the mitochondria).
|
| What's the fifth one?
|
| ADDED. It just occurs to me that with "I know 5" the
| conversation might have jumped from the object level to a
| comment on the social and emotional effects of my
| comment. D'oh!
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS
| Temporary_31337 wrote:
| The 6th reason is being smarter than the other two guys.
| Etheryte wrote:
| For one, your body absorbs an abysmal fraction of
| supplements, nearly all of it comes back out the other end.
| This isn't unique to vitamin D, naturally, but for
| practically all food supplements. Your body is pretty good at
| taking care of itself so long as you give it the tools it
| needs. If you live in a northern climate, vitamin D
| supplements may be a part of it, but for most part, spending
| some time outside and getting your movement in is a
| reasonable baseline.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > your body absorbs an abysmal fraction of supplements,
| nearly all of it comes back out the other end
|
| This is irrelevant when the supplements are available in
| high enough doses to overcome poor availability.
|
| It's not hard to exceed the upper limits of serum Vitamin D
| with common higher-dose off the shelf supplements if taken
| long enough.
| _bin_ wrote:
| You can, and it's quite possible that provides most of the
| benefit. But very few systems in the body operate in total
| isolation, and it's equally possible something else depends
| on vitamin D synthesis or on UV absorption, and that thing
| might matter for health.
| lukan wrote:
| In short, because the body and the mind is a very complex
| system.
| Hnrobert42 wrote:
| I know almost nothing about this apart from being vitamin D
| deficient and taking supplements. My doc says that vitamin D
| absorption through the gut is much less efficient than
| vitamin D created by the body.
| kingkawn wrote:
| because its a reductionist view of the value of sunlight
| exposure
| gruez wrote:
| >They also point to nitric oxide, a potent blood-vessel
| widener capable of reducing the risk of cardiovascular
| disease.
| pmahoney wrote:
| This paper, "Insufficient Sun Exposure Has Become a Real
| Public Health Problem" [1] states "thus, serum 25(OH)D as an
| indicator of vitamin D status may be a proxy for and not a
| mediator of beneficial effects of sun exposure".
|
| That is, while vitamin D can be used to deduce someone's
| amount of sun exposure, the benefits of sun exposure are not
| coming from the vitamin D.
|
| [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7400257/
| jmward01 wrote:
| In his TED talk, Weller gives a potential alternate benefit
| source in nitric oxide production which leads to potential
| cardiovascular benefits. So, the short answer is it may not
| be (just) vitamin-d. The bigger point though is that there
| are a lot of very complex things that happen when you go
| outside and benefits could come from many of them. We want an
| easy 'this one thing happens so we can replicate just that'
| but maybe it is actually a combination of many things so
| there may be no easy one pill replacement.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Two pills then: Daily 10,000 iu D and daily Cialis. Bonus:
| Bon-us.
| cpncrunch wrote:
| Because studies into vitamin D supplementation haven't shown
| that it reduces mortality, and because there are other
| benefits of sunlight, such as nitric oxide.
| Wissenschafter wrote:
| Ok, just add L-Arginine supplementation then...
| cpncrunch wrote:
| So how do you explain the reduction in cancer mortality
| with sunlight?
| Wissenschafter wrote:
| Did this study factor in supplementing for other things
| sunlight provides, i.e. the nitric oxide? If not, then
| it's a poor study in relation to supplementation as a
| means of obtaining the benefits of sun exposure.
| cpncrunch wrote:
| No studies have shown that any of these supplements
| reduces mortality, whereas multiple studies show sunlight
| reduces mortality.
| kragen wrote:
| because the exact mechanism whereby uv light might lengthen
| lives is unknown
|
| when your skin synthesizes vitamin d using sunlight, it
| synthesizes it from cholesterol. i wonder, does that lower
| serum cholesterol? if so, which serum cholesterol?
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| People who get plenty of vitamin D through their diet still
| benefit from sunlight exposure
|
| Ecological study of solar radiation and cancer mortality in
| Japan https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15551791/
| jmward01 wrote:
| He has a good TED talk on this from over a decade ago.
| https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_weller_could_the_sun_be_go...
| trhway wrote:
| another effect - collagen mixed with vitamin B polymerizes in
| UV, thus eyes and skin repairs for example.
|
| The biggest issue is non-managing mismatch between your
| geographically evolved skin type and the Sun in the geography
| you're residing - thus white people living south get a lot of
| skin cancer while for example Somali immigrants in Minnesota
| and Sweden have widespread severe vitamin D deficiency (and
| associated issues)
|
| Tangential - a pet theory of mine is that 40K years ago when
| magnetic field flipped, and there was short period (1K years or
| so) of highly increased UV it led to large number of early eyes
| issues in those large eyed (most probably the result of
| evolutionary adjustment to the more northern light)
| Neanderthals living in Europe - early damaged vision,
| cataracts, blindness - while Cro-Magnon's eyes with Cro-Magnon
| just coming out from Africa, faired much better with that
| northern, even temporarily increased, level of UV and thus the
| Cro-Magnon quickly replaced the Neanderthals.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| I don't understand how this is surprising for people.
|
| We have evolved under the sun, of course we have adapted to its
| presence, and taking it away naively is unadvisable.
| colechristensen wrote:
| People are generally taught things like this through mildly
| hysterical news broadcasts from moralizing non-specialists.
| This is why it's surprising for people. They've been taught
| the sun is scary.
|
| If you don't put sunscreen on your kids, it's tantamount to
| abuse. (I recently experienced this walking through the woods
| at 10 AM with a family member, no I don't need any sunscreen
| for a short hike through the trees)
| davidw wrote:
| People evolved to live in a fairly small area of the world
| rather than flying to distant places with different amounts
| of sunshine than our ancestors likely dealt with in the areas
| where they spent generations.
| matsemann wrote:
| I don't buy that as an argument. It's the same argument used
| to push all kind of hoaxes or fad stuff. We live longer than
| what we used to do, so not everything we did in the stone
| ages can have been beneficial.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| Average lifespan has increased, meaning more people survive
| early deaths due to disease and injury that we can now
| prevent, but as individuals we haven't broken through any
| maximum age barriers.
|
| That said, sun bathing is a modern phenomenon. Our
| ancestors knew enough to assess that painful sunburns were
| bad and mitigated their exposure by wearing large hats and
| clothing with long sleeves. I'm sure even primitive peoples
| would cover themselves when necessary. If you spend a lot
| of time working outside you also develop a very dark tan
| which helps quite a bit. Modern people seem to suffer
| mostly from spending so much time indoors that even
| moderate sun exposure on the weekend produces a damaging
| sunburn.
| Bjorkbat wrote:
| Something I've found rather curious is that my home state of
| New Mexico has the lowest cancer incidence rate out of any
| other state US state (Puerto Rico is lower, but technically not
| a state) (https://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/incidencerates
| /index....).
|
| Now, granted, your risk of dying from heart disease is actually
| greater than that of cancer, so it's entirely possible that the
| low cancer rate is because everyone is dying from heart disease
| instead. It would make a lot of sense since New Mexico is one
| of the poorest states in the country.
|
| Thing is though, the heart disease mortality rate is also low.
| (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/heart_disease_mort..
| .)
|
| So I don't know, I'm kind of inclined to that our low mortality
| rates might be due to the sun instead. On top of being located
| further south than most states, we also get more UV exposure
| due to our higher elevations, and most days are relatively
| cloud free. Other theory of mine is a more Latin-influenced
| diet and exercise, but again, we're a poor state, poverty tends
| to be negatively correlated with exercise and diet.
|
| It's a trend followed by most of the Mountain West, which is
| roughly as arid and sun-rich as New Mexico. I just find New
| Mexico so interesting because it definitely dispels any notion
| that people are healthier because they're richer or have access
| to better health care.
| klipt wrote:
| This is called the Hispanic Paradox, there's even a wiki page
| on it.
|
| Hispanic people have better health outcomes despite being
| poorer, probably due to better diet, exercise, community
| structure etc.
| xnx wrote:
| This is probably even more complex than "The dose makes the
| poison". UV has some benefits and other known drawbacks (e.g.
| skin damage and cancer).
| tantalor wrote:
| That adage only really applies to chemical toxicology.
|
| It doesn't work on non-chemicals: UV, radiation, noise,
| heat/cold, pressure, physical trauma, repetitive motion,
| exertion, posture, etc.
| jkingsman wrote:
| I would argue it certainly does -- heat/cold is comfort vs
| injury. Pressure is massage vs. crush injury. Trauma, I
| suppose, is definitionally bad. Repetitive motion is muscle
| mass and strength increase vs RSI. Exertion is cardiovascular
| health vs exhaustion. Posture, I'll give you -- I don't think
| there's such a thing as posture that is /too/ good as long as
| you're staying mobile/stretching/taking breaks.
|
| Perhaps a more intuitive way of stating it is, "Some
| classically bad things can be good in small or optimized
| doses. Some classically good things can be bad when taken to
| excess."
| crowcroft wrote:
| Strictly speaking yes, but I think it can be applied well
| enough in some cases to things like exertion/repetitive
| motion when thinking about specific contexts.
|
| Running is good for you, running 20km every day for years
| will prematurely destroy most people's knees.
|
| I guess applying the adage in that way makes it become a
| tautology though, too much is in fact, too much.
| lxgr wrote:
| Most of which are in turn influencing biochemical processes
| in an organism, so I'd say the point still stands.
| cpncrunch wrote:
| But the benefits seem to outweigh the risks. Mortality from
| cancer, including melanoma, is lower with higher sun exposure.
| We have known this since Berwick's 2005 study into mortality
| from Melanoma, and Lindqvist's 2016 study showed that all-cause
| mortality was reduced with UV exposure.
| office_drone wrote:
| This reminds me of the story of the Taiwanese radioactive homes,
| where 2000 homes were built with radioactive materials. There was
| a prediction that a lot of the inhabitants would die of cancer,
| and that didn't really happen.
|
| https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2020/12/the-curious...
| lxgr wrote:
| The general concept is called Hormesis:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis
|
| It's one reason why the "linear no-threshold" model for
| biological effects of radiation is probably not accurate:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
| calibas wrote:
| "Avoiding Sun as Dangerous as Smoking"
|
| https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/860805?form=fpf
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Note: preventing photo aging by limiting exposure to UV, is
| currently the single biggest thing you can do to slow [an aspect
| of] visible aging.
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| I'm 60, and from mostly Irish descent -- meaning I burn easily
| and don't really tan much. I've never been a beach-goer/sun-
| bather. The sun I get is just incidental to mowing the lawn,
| walking the dog, etc.
|
| The skin on my arms looks like a typical 60 year old --
| spotted, thin, little elasticity. But lift up my sleeve and the
| skin of my upper arm and shoulder look like that of a 20 year
| old. My torso skin is young too, but it is weird to demonstrate
| that to young people.
| deepfriedchokes wrote:
| Ben Franklin said about the same of older women!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_to_a_Friend_on_Choosing.
| ..
| slothtrop wrote:
| Isn't sunscreen use enough?
| the__alchemist wrote:
| It can be.
| lucius_verus wrote:
| Very few people use the recommended amount of sunscreen (it's
| more than you think) and even when you do, no sunscreen
| blocks 100% of the photo-aging UV energy that hits your skin
| (note: still wear sunscreen - absorbing 5 or 10% is better
| than 100% of the radiation you would otherwise absorb). This
| also means that (contrary to what weird sunscreen-truthers
| will tell you) wearing sufficient sunscreen does not prevent
| you from producing vitamin D - sunscreen is not the same as
| never seeing the sun.
| qingcharles wrote:
| I recently went 10 years without seeing the sun, and I
| definitely think it had an anti-aging effect on my skin.
|
| I worry about what _aging_ effects it had _inside_ my body,
| though, being without for so long.
| JoshTko wrote:
| I've started to ignore studies these days that contradict how
| most humans would have lived, for most of humanity. Most humans
| would have had plenty of sun exposure and genetics would have
| adapted accordingly. I'll seek as much sun exposure I can on work
| days, but will never sun bathe for hours on end.
| cameldrv wrote:
| It depends on your skin though. If you're of European ancestry
| and living in a sunny place, your genes haven't had enough time
| to adapt.
| reustle wrote:
| Yes, this is the nuance so many of these discussions miss.
|
| Keep a close eye on your local UV forecast, avoid peak times,
| and you should be pretty good.
| mint2 wrote:
| Exactly, a Northern European adapting to sun exposure doesn't
| mean getting a tan, it would mean evolutionary pressure to
| adapt to, say, sunnier California via natural selection over
| a few thousand years where less sun fit portions die off
| earlier, while the surviving group slowly gets darker over
| many many generations or better at repairing damage.
|
| If you're fair skinned but find yourself outside the low UV
| region that your skin is adapted to, you are welcome to begin
| the new adaptation by avoiding sun protection and going
| outside without regard to the UV index.
|
| I, however, will not join that genetic adaptation.
| archagon wrote:
| Genetics would have adapted if it affected reproductive
| fitness. But skin cancer tends to develop past reproductive
| age.
| troymc wrote:
| The article is about a new paper in the journal _Health & Place_.
| That paper is open access and can be found at:
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135382922...
| chromatin wrote:
| > * Public health messaging on sunlight exposure may need
| reconsideration.
|
| no kidding
| taeric wrote:
| 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 the later taken to be "all
| sun is good exposure."
|
| Just observing a typical yard, it is easy to see that grass can
| both have too much and too little sun. Indeed, cover it up and it
| will die. Expose it to direct sun all day for several days with
| no water and it will similarly die. (Well, not similarly, it will
| die in a different way.)
|
| I realize we don't photosynthesize, and burning is clearly bad
| for us. But I don't understand why people seem so resistant to
| the idea that some sun is probably beneficial.
|
| I also realize that literally "basking in the sun" is almost
| certainly taking it too far. :(
| tossandthrow wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| And the fact that general medical advice is often geared
| towards the common denominator. Folks who are not great an
| nuance
| sherburt3 wrote:
| Same thing with exposure to bacteria, too much and you get the
| bubonic plague, too little you get autoimmune disorders.
| Moderation is key.
| simonbarker87 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| caeril wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| _> 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 wrote:
| 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.
| grecy wrote:
| > * Shirt off for a run? Great. Swimming for an hour? Great.*
|
| Tell me you don't live in Australia without telling me.
|
| Doing that in Australia is basically the fast-track path to
| skin cancer thanks to the hole in the ozone layer.
|
| Going back after ~10 years away I was staggered to experience
| the feeling of hot chilli peppers being ground into my skin
| after standing in the sun for ~5 minutes.
|
| Nowhere in Africa was like that.
| jerlam wrote:
| Australia's sun recommendations have become more nuanced,
| taking into account skin type:
|
| https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-13/sun-safety-
| position-s...
| Aurornis wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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/
|
| ---
|
| 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.
| jdietrich wrote:
| _> Research on all cause mortality disagrees. Some sun
| exposure reduces all cause mortality even if you already
| take vitamin D._
|
| Some sun exposure is _correlated_ with lower all-cause
| mortality. That is a very long way from establishing
| causation, particularly considering all of the other
| plausible explanations for that correlation.
| cube2222 wrote:
| I wonder if it's just correlation, with the actual cause of
| both being physical activity. Physical activity likely
| makes you go out into the sun more, and it also likely
| reduces mortality.
|
| Would be great if you provided a source so we could check
| whether they controlled for physical activity.
| maeil wrote:
| One of the things I love most about HN - you think of a
| hypothesis, and right after you see someone else who has
| already posted it. Very curious about this one as well.
| Though I don't imagine it being the "actual cause", just
| a big cofactor. I'd still put some money on the direct
| effect of sunlight absorption by your skin in itself
| having additional positive benefits (in appropriate
| doses).
| addicted wrote:
| I would be very surprised if the research you're pointing
| to suggests causation.
|
| I'm not saying causation doesn't exist. But the reason why
| this issue is hard to resolve is precisely because
| causation one way or another is hard to establish.
|
| Causation for specific effects of Sun exposure is much
| easier to establish (for example skin cancer due to
| exposure, or lower depression due to exposure).
| reducesuffering wrote:
| > some people think that just popping a vitamin D pill
| gives you all the benefits of sun exposure without the
| downsides.
|
| No one with any cursory research would still think that.
| Nitric Oxide benefits have been known for awhile.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6830553/
| mcguire wrote:
| How do you control for sun exposure versus outdoor physical
| activity and any of the other factors?
| taeric wrote:
| I mean, I want to agree with you, but it is easy to see that
| everyone says any tanning of your skin is indication that you
| have skin damage. Which, frankly, feels extremely stated to
| me.
|
| Pale skin from living in a cave looks just as unhealthy as
| leather tan skin from all day sun exposure over years.
| Moderate tan from being outside, though? I have a hard time
| thinking it is as dangerous as stated. Feels like saying
| "soreness is your muscles recovering from damage and you
| should avoid it."
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > Feels like saying "soreness is your muscles recovering
| from damage and you should avoid it."
|
| Except this is an _analogy_ not a true comparison of the
| systems. The act of growing muscles is due to muscle damage
| and regrowth (to really handwave), and that action causes
| soreness. It's not cumulative damage to the muscles,
| ideally it should heal in between. The same experience is
| _not_ true for skin. You're not "improving the health" of
| your skin by being tan, and we know that damage to the skin
| is cumulative.
|
| The health benefits of being in the sun seem to be a
| combination of mental-health (sun=happy) and chemical-
| release when skin is exposed to sun (eg vitamin D). This
| seems more like "certain side affects of sun expose are
| positive _to the overall body_ , despite the growing damage
| _to the skin_ ".
| taeric wrote:
| Agreed that it is an analogy. I'll go farther and agree
| that I could flat be wrong! :D
|
| In the analogy, though, I do know people have a hard time
| distinguishing between pain and soreness. Such that it is
| not uncommon for people to exercise too hard and trigger
| pain, which will slow them down. As such, I expect that
| sun exposure is likely the same. I even agree that it is
| probably easier to jump over any threshold that there may
| be and to get too much sun. I have a hard time thinking
| any darkening of skin is a sign of damage, though.
|
| I also think it is tough to distinguish between damage
| versus wear. Which, is probably just my not liking the
| language of "damage" here. Do we say that guitar players
| have damaged their skin to build calloused finger tips?
| (Genuine question.)
| jordanb wrote:
| > It's getting harder to find people who think that avoiding
| all sun exposure is a good idea.
|
| Not in Asia.
| dundercoder wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Easiest just to not get out of bed or go straight to a
| couch, and drive occasionally to pizza hut.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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/
| WheatMillington wrote:
| You're literally committing the sin described in the parent
| comment - refusing to acknowledge nuance.
| kome wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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
|
| > 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.
| sholladay wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| alyandon wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| We can only strive to do better for our children than our
| parents did for us.
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| >occasionally get mild sunburns
|
| >It's really hard to know where to draw the line between "too
| much sun" vs "no sun".
|
| Apparently it's not that hard, occasionally mild sunburns is
| right out; seems like we have a provisional maximal limit to
| sun exposure.
| alyandon wrote:
| I really think genetics has to be a factor as well.
| falcolas wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| dullcrisp wrote:
| > 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.
|
| How can that be weird? Just about everything can kill you in
| large quantities but some things are still good for you in
| the right doses. I'm pretty sure your proteins are made out
| of acids.
| DataDive wrote:
| lets use common sense a bit, humans have evolved while being
| in the sun, constantly, their skin darkened to protect them
|
| as humans moved northward, the exposure to sun was so
| important that even their skin lost it protective
| pigmentation to allow more sun to reach the body
|
| we are not even remotely close to understanding all the
| beneficial processes that take place when the sun hits skin
|
| thinking that exposure to sun is like exposure to acid shows
| a complete disconnect from reality,
|
| I would urge you to read up on this a lot more - you will
| find that people who spend time outdoors in the sun are
| healthier, happier, and live longer. Their outcomes when
| facing all kinds of cancers are far, far better.
| xkcd-sucks wrote:
| 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
| kkoncevicius wrote:
| Anecdotal, but the parts of my skin that see more sun exposure
| (forearms) look healthier compared with parts that are more
| covered (upper arms). I wonder if maybe gradual sun exposure
| starting from spring and increasing towards the summer is
| healthier compared to sudden intense tanning of the area that is
| otherwise constantly covered by clothes.
| matsemann wrote:
| That can be for other reasons, though. Like one's upper arm is
| often looser or have more fat below the skin, making it a
| different texture than the more taught lower arms.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Sunlight can definitely clear up some skin conditions like
| eczema. I don't know about making skin healthier in general
| though. It 100% causes aging in skin though so any "healthier"
| skin you get will be totally wiped out by the wrinkly mess it
| becomes in your 40s.
|
| The message we should send kids is not "wear suncream; it
| prevents cancer" it's "wear suncream; it prevents wrinkles".
| Surprising how many people don't even know that.
|
| There's a famous photo that demonstrates it very obviously:
|
| https://metro.co.uk/2018/01/28/photo-truck-driver-shows-28-y...
|
| Which side would you prefer?
| kkoncevicius wrote:
| I am suspicious of that driver effect being caused solely by
| sun exposure. If that were the case we would see the same
| effect in all drivers.
| whyoh wrote:
| It's possible that he was driving with the open window or
| that the window in his truck wasn't blocking much UVA.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| It isn't a wrinkly mess, it's character.
| jajko wrote:
| Lets see when you are older. The difference (number of moles,
| overall skin age) should be visible on most skin types
| runjake wrote:
| tl;dr: _Some_ sun is good. _No_ sun, or _too much_ sun, is bad.
|
| This advice will probably never change, regardless of qualified
| studies.
| kerkeslager wrote:
| Sun exposure has been inversely correlated with depression, and
| frankly depression by itself is worse than all the negative
| effects of UV I'm aware of combined.
| jdietrich wrote:
| There are an awful lot of possible causal relationships that
| could explain that correlation. On the face of it,
| relationships like "depressed people can't face going outside"
| or "people who are too immobile to leave the house get
| depressed" seem far more plausible and powerful than "UV
| exposure reduces the risk of depression through some yet-
| unknown mechanism".
| kerkeslager wrote:
| Based on what my previous post said, sure, but there are more
| reasons to believe that sunlight is inversely causal in
| depression than I stated. I'm hesitant to dig up the research
| I looked through though, because if I recall correctly, the
| research really brings up more questions than it answers.
|
| In a more general sense, I agree that more research is
| needed, but with this and many other facts about our brains
| and bodies, I'm becoming more cynical about the possibility
| that the research will be performed in our lifetimes. There's
| simply too much we don't know and too little funding and too
| few researchers to find conclusive answers for all of it.
| People have depression now, and when the risks of the
| "treatment" are much lower than the risk of the disease, I
| think it makes sense to self experiment and see if the
| treatment helps _you_. Beyond the studies, there seems to be
| some anecdotal evidence that sunlight does help depression,
| and I tend to think depression has worse risks than
| (moderate) sun exposure.
|
| Two notes:
|
| 1. From a scientific perspective, one of the problems with
| anecdotal evidence is that it might be the result of placebo
| effect, which a well-crafted scientific study would
| eliminate. But from a medical perspective: who cares? If
| sunlight improves your depression via the placebo effect,
| well, your depression has been improved.
|
| 2. To be clear about a caveat: I'm _not_ saying go out and
| self-experiment every home remedy you can find. The bit I
| said about "when the risks of the 'treatment' are much lower
| than the risk of the disease" is important. Powerful drugs
| like ivermectin have dangerous side effects, and trying
| different supplements can become costly even when those
| supplements contain what they claim and have lower risks.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| I think you can look into what humans desire for their ideal
| vacation places. The subconscious guides the conscious. This
| usually involves a sunny beach and water. Or at least a pool.
| Tropical fruits for breakfast and eggs is kind of a hotel
| standard for a reason too. Good nutrition and an a fun adventures
| day. Kind of polar opposite of dark depression.
|
| Not too soud woowoo, but people with good vibes and sunny energy
| is what you should seek too.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| too much is bad, too little is bad, these doctors are not helping
| very much.
| Kalanos wrote:
| Perhaps because bacteria have no nucleus to protect their DNA and
| less DNA-damage repair mechanisms?
| slothtrop wrote:
| Would note that full-spectrum light penetrates thin layers of
| clothing such that you can still yield some benefits being
| outside fully clothed, with mitigated risk. Also, even with
| sunscreen you'll synthesize some vitamin D. You'd have to really
| lay it on thick over all of your body to meaningfully prevent
| that, and it only lasts for a limited time anyway.
|
| On sunscreen there's talk about non-mineral ones having compounds
| that traverse the blood-brain barrier, but not much to suggest it
| can be dangerous. Since mineral sunscreens are oilier, my
| approach is to slather that type on my body, and use an
| alternative for my face using a light amount.
| ortusdux wrote:
| Reminds me of people paying for radon exposure:
|
| https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/1/316
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZkusjDFlS0
| Aurornis wrote:
| Reducing everything to "good for you" or "bad for you" is the
| media's favorite game. Nuance is hard, so reducing complex topics
| to extreme statements makes them easy to digest. It also creates
| an opportunity for them to manufacture debate whenever a new
| piece of information comes out that doesn't fit into their self-
| created bipolar conception.
|
| As always with these topics: UV exposure isn't something that can
| be reduced to "good" or "bad". Both extremes of complete UV
| avoidance and excess UV exposure have consequences.
|
| What people frequently miss on this topic is that sunscreen isn't
| a 100% effective UV blocker. People who cover themselves in
| sunscreen and then spend significant time outside are receiving
| some UV exposure. This fact is lost on many people, which is why
| skin cancer rates can be higher in people who use a lot of
| sunscreen. Sunscreen enables people to spend more time in the sun
| and be less covered, which can paradoxically lead people to get
| more UV exposure over more of their body than, for example, the
| person who works outside M-F but covers up with long sleeves,
| hats, and pants (like you will see in yard work crews,
| construction workers, and other trades).
|
| These headlines are difficult because some people read them as an
| invitation to stop using sunscreen but continue their old habits,
| pushing their UV exposure deep into the high risk region of the
| benefit-reward curves.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > UV exposure isn't something that can be reduced to "good" or
| "bad".
|
| Indeed this is true about almost anything we _commonly_ put
| into our body: fat, protein, carbs, even water. But it gets a
| lot more clicks to claim that something is either always good
| or always bad.
| sowut wrote:
| there's a popular trend that has been gaining momentum over
| decades that has people so disconnected from reality that they
| think a pill can replace proper diet, exercise, and in this case,
| the sun.
|
| there is an obesity epidemic in this country at the root of many
| ailments (inflammation is the root of many diseases) and you have
| politicians pitching policies about bringing the cost of "drugs"
| down to treat these ailments but we have no mainstream leaders
| with mainstream policies advocating for health and fitness to fix
| the root issue.
|
| we're going in the wrong direction and something has to change.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| > advocating for health and fitness to fix the root issue.
|
| Do you know any GP's / doctors? They'll all tell you that's the
| first line they repeatedly recommend to their patients. It
| barely works, because mostly that has to come from intrinsic
| motivation. And then they proceed to the "well if they won't
| eat healthier and exercise, what else is going to do something
| for them..."
| sowut wrote:
| "we have no mainstream leaders with mainstream policies
| advocating for health and fitness to fix the root issue"
| coppsilgold wrote:
| From the point of view of evolution the sun is a fact of the
| universe and it would have adapted numerous processes to rely on
| its presence. That does not mean the sun is safe however. Skin
| color variance so closely tied to geographic location indicates
| that there is a very delicate balance there.
| blueridge wrote:
| I'll take the UV rays over a bunch of smelly, synthetic goop all
| over my skin. I also see people go from not seeing the sun in
| months to full, 1pm exposure for hours, then they get roasted,
| then they're in pain, then it takes weeks to heal, then they do
| it again. Or they'll start slathering on an absurd amount of
| sunscreen, the summer months go by, and they look just as sick
| and pasty and unhealthy as they did last year, as if they never
| went outside.
|
| You've got to build intuition around how to get sun: what's your
| current skin tone, how much sun you've had recently, what it
| feels like to get an appropriate amount of sun vs. get burnt, the
| time of day, elevation considerations, whether you're going to be
| in the sun again tomorrow or all week after a lot of exposure
| today, if you're getting more direct sun on key areas like your
| neck and nose and ears, or whether you've got full body exposure.
| The more time in the sun, the more you understand how to behave,
| how to protect yourself, how to get what you need to feel good.
|
| Most people pay no attention to how they feel day-to-day. They
| never learn what it feels like to eat a nutritiously dense meal,
| or what being fit feels like over the long term. It's the same
| with sun exposure: if you don't pay attention, you'll never
| learn.
| maipen wrote:
| You make a good point.
|
| I did see a pattern in my friend circle of those that got sun
| burn and those who don't.
|
| Skin color and sun exposure habits play a big role.
|
| The paler you are the more disciplined you need to be in
| regards to sun exposure, in order for your skin to adapt and
| build tolerance
| lilyball wrote:
| You don't "build tolerance" to UV. Developing a tan will help
| avoid getting sunburn in the future, but it does nothing at
| all to reduce your risk of skin cancer. Sunscreen doesn't
| just stop sunburn, it also prevents cancer.
| hgomersall wrote:
| I suppose black people just have a full body tan for the
| evolved aesthetic?
|
| You're going to have to provide some evidence if you're
| suggesting a tan has no protective effect against sun
| damage.
| dgan wrote:
| >> I'll take the UV rays over a bunch of smelly, synthetic goop
| all over my skin
|
| You are clearly not allergic to the sunlight / UV, aren't you?
| Because i am, and definitely taking synthetic goop over red
| rash all over the exposed body parts
| Aerroon wrote:
| It might not be UV exposure that helps though. The sun has a
| bunch of other wavelengths of light as well. There's red light
| therapy that might have positive health effects and you certainly
| get that from the sun as well.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Let's imagine that exposure to UV gives you more statistical QALY
| than melanoma and skin aging remove. I believe this is _false_
| but let's imagine it's true.
|
| Okay but there's many other things that also give you more QALY,
| things that don't increase your risk of a horrible disease or
| looking like a prune when you're 40. Maybe we should do those
| things _first_ and only come back to double-edged life extension
| techniques when we've completed all the benign techniques.
|
| After all, caloric restriction also increases lifespan, but the
| cost is so high in terms of life enjoyment that few would be
| tempted. There's more to life than time spent living.
| ziddoap wrote:
| "QALY" may not be obscure to you, but this is the first time
| I've ever seen it. It's always appreciated when you can spell
| out an acronym for other readers who maybe aren't as familiar
| with a topic as you are.
|
| Given the context, Google leads me to believe:
|
| QALY = Quality-adjusted life year
| mcguire wrote:
| Discussion of the actual paper:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41302103
| Ekaros wrote:
| For average office worker, during regular week it probably makes
| no sense to avoid exposure. On other hand sun bathing or tanning
| is probably not good for you either.
|
| Sensible moderation makes most sense to me. If you are extended
| periods in sun cover yourself or use protection. But no
| particular need to avoid it in short periods.
| mint2 wrote:
| As I posted in the dupe of this -
|
| this article is specifically about regions in "low" UV latitudes,
| with the actual subject being from the UK. Accounting for UV
| intensity of your home country is crucial.
|
| Don't just go out and frolic without precautions just because a
| study from the UK found sun exposure was good. Their sunlight
| isn't built the same.
|
| Mid day UV index in SF is 9 as I type. Compare what the paper
| says about the UK UV index:
|
| " The UV index [in the uk], which measures the erythemal
| intensity of sunlight, rarely exceeds 6 (where 3-5 is classified
| as moderate and 6-7 high)"
|
| Make good decisions people! I got some sun when the UV was 2
| early in the early morning. Now it's 9 at midday. All sun is not
| equal.
| adamc wrote:
| Good point. UV in Austin, TX today is 10.6.
| teekert wrote:
| Anecdotally, I'm from across the North Sea where this study
| was taken. I hardly ever use sunscreen. I went to a
| conference in Galveston Tx, walked around for a part of the
| afternoon, the next 4 days I was peeling the skin of my
| forehead and nose... it was painful.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| Yes but... not for the whole day. You can still get some sun
| in the morning and evening when the UV index is a lot more
| reasonable. Clearly not ideal but, well, that's where you
| live.
|
| I personally am looking forward to when I am able to be a
| snowbird. Summers in the northern US, winters in the south.
| It's the best of both worlds.
|
| A few years ago, we met up with some friends from Houston at
| a summer vacation rental up in the Traverse City Michigan
| area. Their kids couldn't get over how late sunsets were. It
| really messed with their heads for the first few days. But
| when you have so so much daylight, you don't worry about
| spending a few hours indoors when the sun is most intense -
| you aren't wasting any of your precious vacation time.
|
| And then in winter, walking along the ocean on the Gulf Coast
| in January with only a long-sleeved shirt. For a few hours
| most days you can get away with a T-shirt (or no shirt).
| Glorious.
| adamc wrote:
| Given the heat, you basically need to start your walk or
| whatever before 8am. Visited my brother in Michigan earlier
| this summer; it was lovely. But I grew up in the north.
| Winters were not lovely.
| arijun wrote:
| I think it's pretty obvious from our evolution that we need some
| UV but not too much. In Africa, where we got a lot of sun, we
| evolved darker skin to prevent damage, but in the more norther
| latitudes, our skin tones lightened to take advantage of the
| otherwise insufficient sunlight.
|
| I feel like a good rule of thumb would be, if you're tanning,
| your body thinks you're getting too much sun exposure for your
| current skin color.
| complianceowl wrote:
| Follooooooow....follow the sunnnnnnnn
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-20 23:01 UTC)