←back to thread

279 points petethomas | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.458s | 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. nelox ◴[] No.45309711[source]
Yes, dubious indeed.

How about looking at descendants of fair-skinned Britains in sunnier climes?

Australia has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world. This is due to a combination of factors: very high levels of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, outdoor lifestyles, and a largely fair-skinned population that is more vulnerable to sun damage. Rates of both melanoma (the deadliest form of skin cancer) and non-melanoma skin cancers are higher in Australia than anywhere else. New Zealand follows closely behind.

replies(1): >>45310021 #
2. verteu ◴[] No.45310021[source]
> Australia has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world.

It also has excellent life expectancy.

The key question is: For all-cause mortality, do the benefits outweigh the risks?