←back to thread

The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer

(www.economist.com)
279 points petethomas | 1 comments | 19 Sep 25 04:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.426s | source
Show context
namuol ◴[19 Sep 25 18:46 UTC] 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 #
DennisP ◴[19 Sep 25 19:31 UTC] No.45305484[source]▶
Double-blind experiments on this are probably impossible, but it's not like large population studies are totally worthless. It's probably best to go where the evidence points, and the article mentions other studies with similar conclusions, as well as work on possible biological mechanisms.

My strategy is to get short sun exposures, use sunscreen only when I'm going to be out long enough to get burnt, and also do my dermatology appointments.

replies(2): >>45308505 #>>45313604 #
1. legacynl ◴[20 Sep 25 14:14 UTC] No.45313604[source]▶
> Double-blind experiments on this are probably impossible, but it's not like large population studies are totally worthless.

Large population studies in itself are fine, it's just the quoted study is worthless. Socially there's just so many differences between the two groups that it becomes almost impossible to validly compare these two.

A better study design would be to treat each region separately. And compare 'time spent outside' with health outcomes in each region. That would give a much more reliable and useful insight in if time spent outside equals better/less health. Bonus points if you also ask them if they regularly use sunscreen.

That data would actually be useful. That way you could compare if spending time outside is healthy in itself, or if it has to do with the sun. For example if the sun would be a net negative, you would find relatively more skin cancer in the groups in sunnier climates that spend a lot of time outside versus those in greyer regions. If the sun would be a net-benefit, you would see less skin cancer instead. And quite likely you would see that people who spend more time outside have better health outcomes no matter which region you are in, although the size of those groups may differ greatly depending on the climate.