←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 #
tsoukase ◴[] No.45305812[source]
The helper verb 'may' should accompany any scientific result as the scientific method usually cannot prove causations but only negate the null hypothesis.
replies(1): >>45308535 #
1. namuol ◴[] No.45308535[source]
I still think “increased sun exposure correlates with decreased all cause mortality” makes a better headline, but then maybe that’s why I’m not an editor.
replies(1): >>45311310 #
2. tsoukase ◴[] No.45311310[source]
The word 'correlates' in a title is borderline click bait-y due to possible intended confusion with 'causes'. Also it has little value. Consider the equivalent "decreased all cause mortality correlates with increased sun exposure". The word play is crazy. 'May' captures the relation and is correct philosophically.