I suspect that in X years we'll learn that sun is not bad for us while the chemicals we apply to our skin are problematic.

What I find personally works is to build up a base tan. I probably did a little sunscreen application back in May but just spend a lot of time outdoors so by the time it got really sunny I had enough tan that I didn't need sunblock to not get burnt.

Even my wife who is very light and "can't tan" - I saw a picture of her when she was a lifeguard in highschool - she's bronze and probably wouldn't need sunblock either.

Obviously people make money when you buy sunscreen so the message that you don't need it doesn't get a lot of amplification.

▲

wiether 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...

As always, the issue is that people want things to be simple, when the reality is in nuances.

_the poison is in the dose_.

People spending hours everyday under direct sunlight are at risk.

And so does people putting sunscreen everyday, even when they don't go outside but they seat next to a window.

The amount of sunscreen you need depends on your genetics, your history with sun exposure, the place you live and the amount of time you spend under direct sunlight. There is no "sunscreen is a scam" and "life is not sustainable without sunscreen".

▲

skeeter2020 4 days ago | parent [-]

it feels like you're setting up a false eqivalancy; I didn't read anything here about people putting on sunscreen religiously who never go outside, nor you'll die without sunscreen. It seemed to be clearly seperated themes:

1. people are mad about the original topic - false claims of effacicy, when sun exposure can be very damaging and cause cancer.

2. alternatives to these sunscreens, including mechanical like hats and clothing; questions about mineral alternatives

3. wild theories like this one, where a base tan or early season burn somehow protects you. These are wrong and should be called out.

	▲	xyzelement 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		How do you know? I would default to the natural approach of yes sure keep in the shade but also man people evolved / were created spending a lot of time outdoors.

▲

loeg 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nah; sunburn and skin cancer are very bad.

▲

seabrookmx 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The message doesn't get a lot of amplification because it's not backed by science. Just because you don't turn red or scab doesn't mean you aren't increasing your risk of skin cancer even with a "base tan."

▲

xyzelement 4 days ago | parent [-]

Humana lived without sunblock for millennia, often in sunnier places than you and I.

▲

wao0uuno 4 days ago | parent [-]

And they rarely lived for more than 30 years.

	▲	sethammons 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Data is lacking, but computer models provide the estimate. If a person survived to age 20, they could expect to live around 30 years more The average life expectancy was dragged down by high infant and adolescent mortality. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
	▲	skeeter2020 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If this is a honest perspective on sunscreen I can't imagine what they potentially believe about vaccines...

▲

skeeter2020 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You're free to hold these "beliefs" but they are patently and completely incorrect. The "base tan" theory was debunked decades ago.

"What I find personally works..." is ridiculous when it comes to sun damage and skin cancer, unless you are a wild outlier of humanity or a mutant. The simple answer is it takes some (but not much!) time to see the damage and you're likely to encounter it sooner or later.

>> Obviously people make money when you buy sunscreen so the message that you don't need it doesn't get a lot of amplification.

Yes, a shadow-global-conspiracy promoted by the mega-national sunscreen cabal. That's the most likely answer.