←back to thread

279 points petethomas | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
namuol ◴[] No.45305025[source]
> 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.

replies(9): >>45305484 #>>45305812 #>>45305947 #>>45305992 #>>45306290 #>>45306357 #>>45306904 #>>45309708 #>>45309711 #
1. elif ◴[] No.45306290[source]
The only time you will see anything stated as an absolute is when there is low or no scientific rigor.

Thinking you are somehow holding the authors into account is akin to doubting a paper's veracity because it has "too many authors" or some other meaningless if not ironic standard.

replies(1): >>45308440 #
2. namuol ◴[] No.45308440[source]
Agree - my original comment was trying to highlight the actual info from the study in contrast to the suggestive headline: That there’s no causal link being claimed by the study that UV exposure decreases all-cause mortality, or in other words, sunscreen isn’t killing us.