| |
| ▲ | tartoran 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's only if you don't have a lot of time out. If you're planning to be out for a while I'd avoid being too exposed during the 12-3 window. | | |
| ▲ | pazimzadeh 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree, but you can titrate your exposure. So at the beginning of the season, in the 12-3 window you can start by going 5 mins without sunscreen for a few days, then 10 mins, then 20 etc. depending on your skin type. The worst thing to do is to go from low exposure (i.e. winter months, or just constant indoor time) to long periods of exposure, even with sunscreen. |
| |
| ▲ | Rnonymous 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Care to explain?
Isn't UVB more harmful than UVA? | | |
| ▲ | pazimzadeh 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, UVA is stronger and more harmful. UVA penetrates deeper in the skin, since it's stronger. UVB stimulates Vitamin D production, while UVA doesn't. So almost anything that is "UV-blocking" (sunscreen, UV-treated glass) gets rid of all of the beneficial UVB before UVA starts getting reduced. So you are actually enriching your exposure to the most harmful UV type, and not making Vitamin D. This might explain the paradoxical finding that people who use sunscreen more can have higher rates of skin cancer https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10840669 | | |
| ▲ | miladyincontrol 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Confounding by indication. People who spend more time outdoors are more likely to try to wear sunscreen, as are people who already got a lot of pre-existing risk to excessive sun exposure. Key word on try as its greatly assuming there isnt a wide audience who do use sunscreen, then just apply it in poor amount, or never re-apply but enjoy staying out far longer than most do in the sun feeling they're oh so very protected. Spray sunscreens for example are just about useless, as are those solid stick applicators. They only get a fraction the amount you need for the rated protection. The biggest issue with sunscreen relates to companies selling sub par "convenience" slop, often right beside their other products some of which might actually be half decent. | | |
| ▲ | pazimzadeh an hour ago | parent [-] | | Sure that’s a theory, but hasn’t been proven. If I recall, the study showed that heavy sunscreen use amongst sunscreen users was associated with higher cancer rates. Secondly, if sun exposure is really that bad then how do you explain why most skin cancers are on the trunk and thighs rather than more exposed areas like hands and arms? The simplest answer is it’s not sun exposure that’s bad but sudden high exposure after non-exposure (repair mechanisms can’t keep up with damage). Not sure why I’m being downvoted. I guess there’s a lot of sheep among us. If anything I said is incorrect, please show me the evidence. |
|
|
|
|
