Mainstream health advice is telling us that any amount of sun exposure is harmful and carcinogenic and therefore we should wear sunscreen or UV blocking clothing at all times. The US and Australian governments officially endorse this belief, and probably other governments as well I can't remember at the moment.How true is it really?I have trouble believing that any amount of sun exposure is potentially harmful considering how modern this view is. For millennia people did not all die of skin cancer and many thought sun exposure was good for you. While health authorities sometimes accept that some amount of sun exposure is good for you, they always say it's only a little bit of sun exposure and insist you still wear sunscreen.Something else I know is that in the past several decades myopia rates have been greatly increasing, and myopia can be caused by a lack of time outside. Could our discouragement of going outside be causing myopia?
>>16278851Medical doctors always talk about risks and how to minimize them. Even if prevalence of skin cancers would be 0.00001% in people who do not go out at all and 0.001% in people who go out, there's still a 100x increased risk in the other group.As far as I've understood, every time the skin burns red, there's a marked increase in cancer risk. This mainly happens if you live mainly indoors and then suddenly expose your body to a lot of UV radiation. People in the ancient times had pretty much constant exposure.
>>16278851>MainstreamThat's a already a red flag, but I'll bite anyway.>For millennia people did not all die of skin cancerThey didn't live long enoughWe have a lot of data nowadays, both on cancer inducing and of just skin aging.But it's useless for people skeptical of anything "too modern" and I have better things to do.
>>16278851Not much. You're looking at living to 70 instead of 85. Much like asbestos the danger isnt that great in the grand scheme of things.
>>16278851>For millennia people did not all die of skin cancer and many thought sun exposure was good for you.For millenia people thought 35 was a venerable age.
>>16278903>>16279136Disproven, average life expectancy at birth was dragged down by how many people died in infancy and early childhood. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity
And for millennia, the average life expectancy was like 30? Your point?
>>16279362>Not everyone agrees. “There was an enormous difference between the lifestyle of a poor versus an elite Roman,” says Valentina Gazzaniga, a medical historian at Rome’s La Sapienza University. “The conditions of life, access to medical therapies, even just hygiene – these were all certainly better among the elites.”>In 2016, Gazzaniga published her research on more than 2,000 ancient Roman skeletons, all working-class people who were buried in common graves. The average age of death was 30, and that wasn’t a mere statistical quirk: a high number of the skeletons were around that age. Many showed the effects of trauma from hard labour, as well as diseases we would associate with later ages, like arthritis.>Men might have borne numerous injuries from manual labour or military service. But women – who, it's worth noting, also did hard labour such as working in the fields – hardly got off easy. Throughout history, childbirth, often in poor hygienic conditions, is just one reason why women were at particular risk during their fertile years. Even pregnancy itself was a danger.>Childbirth was worsened by other factors too. “Women often were fed less than men,” Gazzaniga says. That malnutrition means that young girls often had incomplete development of pelvic bones, which then increased the risk of difficult child labour.>“The life expectancy of Roman women actually increased with the decline of fertility,” Gazzaniga says. “The more fertile the population is, the lower the female life expectancy.”Disporven, lol. Of course anon doesn't even read their own article but likes to be a contrarian. Classic 4chan
>>16279362That also has very little to do with the risk to health from sun. Cancer was and still is not that great a killer of younger people. We all generally live sufficiently long now that exposure to sun is liable to cause health issues for you. It is unlikely you will suffer any ill affects until your later years. Sun exposure also visually ages the skin quite a lot. Which is something you might consider as that is surely associated with a host of skin issues.
>>16278851I have been staring at screens 12-16 hours a day for the last 25 years and still have 20/10 vision bilaterally, so idk about the vision shit. But if I go weeks without skin exposure, I tend to start getting little skin infections a lot more.
>>16278851Just look at people on the streets, faggot. Who seems to look more healthy?
people get skin cancer from rubbing toxic sunblock creams into their skin, not from exposure to sunlight
>>16278851>I have trouble believing that any amount of sun exposure is potentially harmful considering how modern this view is. For millennia people did not all die of skin cancer and many thought sun exposure was good for you.Lmao have you ever been severely sunburned? What is your definition of harmful?For millennia, if you lived in sunny areas, you either were black or you covered your skin from the sun. All desert cultures are either black skinned or have skin coverings that they wear most of the time. It's how it's always been.
>>16279461idk, staring at a CRT too long as a kid damaged my eyes. more than one optometrist has asked if I had a CRT after looking at my eyes. apparently some used to leak radiation way more than advertised
>>16281068TSMTnobody ever got skin cancer before >muh scyence invented carcinogenic sunblock products
>>16278851the bigger issue is that it ages you and makes you look gross prematurely. most skin cancers are easily detected and excised if you're not retarded
>I'm a pasty friendless loser nerd virgin who is destined to be a genetic dead end and I never go outside because the sun is unhealthy >Chad who is tanned, physically fit and will have a plethora of children is unhealthy because he exposes his skin to the sunIs there a name for this cope? Why do genetic dead ends always want to imagine that they're some how superior to people who lead successful lives?If genetic dead ends didn't devote themselves to coping mechanisms they'd have the possibility of improving themselves to the point that they didn't end up as genetic dead ends, yet instead they insist on developing fantasies and copes that prevent themselves from self improvement and condemn themselves to being genetic dead ends, why?
