Do you think Sunscreen is a scam?

[Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 11:50
Last edited 29/10/2021 - 10:32

I have not seen any black or brown guy getting skin cancer. Melanin is a natural sunscreen. People who live in sunny areas evolved to have more melanin so that it protects them from constant exposure to the sun. Where people from northern latitudes evolved lighter skin so that they can absorb more sunlight. There are people like world-famous surfer Laird Hamilton who stays in sun all the time without any sunscreen and white and is perfectly healthy. Is diet causing skin cancer for some white people, where the skin is their weakest part? I heard the argument that in Australia there is no ozone layer, and it causes skin cancer. Which is completely false. Personally, I never used sunscreen, and I will be in sun a lot of time. What do you think?

Edit: My theory is that people of color getting skin cancer from sun exposure is almost zero. Skin is an organ same as the liver or lungs. Most people in this modern age are eating a Junk diet. Once you screw your body to a point of no return, your body starts to become dysfunctional. After that, some cells will start mutating and your body can no longer repair. Cancer starts forming. It can start in any organ. For example, my Aunt never smoked and was never exposed to passive smoking. But she died of lung cancer. As I told skin is an organ as well and white people's weakest link in the body is their skin because of very little melanin. Cancer can start in their skin. You can also see skin cancer deaths have increased significantly since 1970 in the UK where Sun doesn't shine too bright.

I love science. Science is wrong many times. The most recent blunder is Margarine. A few years back US FDA banned it because it is loaded with trans fat. But years prior to that it was considered as the holy grail for heart disease. And there are well-known blunders like doctors advertising cigarettes.

PS: I am not targeting anyone personally. But some people are assuming they are smart by using expletives. I am just posting my view.

Poll Options

  • 33
    Yes
  • 1205
    No
Health & Beauty Sun Protection Sunscreen

closed Comments

  • chunksandwich on 28/10/2021 - 09:36
    +1

    This is a perfect example of why free speech shouldn't ever be an inherent right.

  • colin5000 on 28/10/2021 - 09:48
    +2

    This is one of the dumbest threads I have ever seen on this site and that’s really saying something.

  • RSmith on 28/10/2021 - 09:51
    +2

    I reported this to mods as this being a troll post. Instead of nuking the post, mods recommended me to hide the posts/comments from the poster.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/10/2021 - 09:55
      -3

      You've done a great job. Almost stopped WW3

      • RSmith on 28/10/2021 - 09:57
        +2

        You love creating shit storms.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2021 - 23:32
      +1

      Moderation on this site is terrible.

  • keejoonc on 28/10/2021 - 09:52

    Everything is supposedly a scam these days LOL

  • Dilemma on 28/10/2021 - 09:59
    +1

    I think it’s unequivocally been proven to you by everyone else that you’re simply wrong.

    What baffles me though, no offence, is your extremely limited ability to comprehend probabilities/odds of certain events occurring.

    In this situation, the probability of you getting skin cancer is reduced by applying sunscreen no matter what your skin colour is.

    Now yes, how much it reduces does depend on skin colour, but that’s pretty much a moot point.

    It’s a moot point purely because, a logical person, would apply sunscreen even if there is a 1% decrease in their probability of getting skin cancer, due to how horrible skin cancer actually is.

    I’d seriously recommend some extremely basic maths/stats courses to get you into the 21st century.

    Regards,

    From a brown-skinned man.

  • skillet on 28/10/2021 - 10:25

    Next topic… " Do you think Condom is a scam? "

  • ihbh on 28/10/2021 - 10:45
    +1

    Not criticising or judging, but have you ever taken an IQ test OP? Yes, what was the result? No, you should to understand yourself better.

  • Mistredo on 28/10/2021 - 11:08

    How do you explain people in Australia have higher rates of skin cancer compared to Europe? What causes it in your opinion?

    • RSmith on 28/10/2021 - 11:12
      +1

      Scott Morrison

      • CocaKoala on 28/10/2021 - 12:01
        +3

        He's asking about skin cancer, not brain death.

        • RSmith on 28/10/2021 - 12:07

          I know… Scott Morrison's policies are causing people to protest. That means they are out in the sun and this extra exposure to sun is leading to skin cancer cases. Very logical.

  • pogichinoy on 28/10/2021 - 11:27

    Yes, I know brown or olive skinned people who have developed skin cancer.

  • pompompom on 28/10/2021 - 11:59

    It's a scam but only untill you get skin cancer. After that you need to take it seriously.

  • subywagon on 28/10/2021 - 12:10
    +5

    Do you think food is a scam?

    I've been to a few different countries in the world and in some places they don't seem to eat much or at all sometimes so I've come to the realisation that food is just a big scam run by Big Farma.

    Discuss.

    • RSmith on 28/10/2021 - 12:17
      +2

      I think life itself is a scam. We slog all our lives for nothing and then we die… some due to skin cancer, others due to other factors. I will say, life kills.

    • pompompom on 28/10/2021 - 12:29

      It's a scam untill you are about to die from malnutrition. After that you need to take it seriously.

  • RolandWaites on 28/10/2021 - 13:15
    +2

    OP revealing he's not friends with, or doesn't associate with, black or brown people.

  • Alexxx on 28/10/2021 - 13:15

    So taking this slightly seriously Australia has higher levels of UV compared to most of the world due to the hole in the ozone layer, in addition during our summer the earth is closer to the sun.
    Genetics does come into it as well but it's likely that evolution hasn't been able to keep up with the hole in the ozone layer or how humans have moved geographically.
    In terms of skin cancer from the sun you could probably relate it to lung cancer from smoking. Some people smoke all there lives without cancer and other smoke for one year and get cancer with a large range inbetween. Doesn't mean it's safe for all of us to smoke (not use sunscreen).
    Using sunscreen lowers the risk of cancer by 40-50% which is good enough for me.

    PS. If it's all about evolution then we have probably evolved to be able to process all the chemicals from sunscreen safely, having been exposed to it since birth in Australia.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/10/2021 - 13:26
      -1

      Australia has higher levels of UV compared to most of the world due to the hole in the ozone layer, in addition during our summer the earth is closer to the sun.

      When you check NASA website, ozone hole is directly above Antartica.

      In terms of skin cancer from the sun you could probably relate it to lung cancer from smoking. Some people smoke all there lives without cancer and other smoke for one year and get cancer with a large range inbetween. Doesn't mean it's safe for all of us to smoke (not use sunscreen).

      My Aunt died of lung cancer. She never smoked and no one in her home smoked

      Using sunscreen lowers the risk of cancer by 40-50% which is good enough for me.

      Can someone who survived Skin cancer tell whether they used or didn't used sunscreen before getting cancer instead of bashing me

      If it's all about evolution then we have probably evolved to be able to process all the chemicals from sunscreen safely, having been exposed to it since birth in Australia.

      I am not worried about chemicals in sun screen. But the sun screen ability to block UV rays which stops production of VitaminD

  • Goldenra1n on 28/10/2021 - 13:20
    +1

    Sunscreen is required. If I personally don't wear It I get sunburnt, simple as that. Red hair and pale skin in Tasmania with high UV index.

    I also recently had surgery to remove skin cancer from my face, it was an infiltrating basal cell carcinoma so have a scar from it.

    If I wore sunscreen more when I was a kid, I probably wouldn't have had the cancer so yes its super important.

    I also have sunscreen in my car ready to go at all times!

  • VBO on 28/10/2021 - 13:28

    Good on you OP. Keep it up.

  • pippohippo on 28/10/2021 - 13:32
    +1

    fkn nuffy OP

  • [Deactivated] on 28/10/2021 - 13:41
    -1

    According to Cancer Research UK, melanoma skin cancer deaths have been increasing dramatically in the UK, with the rate rising two and half times since the 1970s.

    Did Sun become more aggressive or people are not using enough sunscreen? Can anyone answer this?

    • wizzy on 28/10/2021 - 14:06
      +2

      1) People are living longer = more time to develop melanoma
      2) The demographics of the population in all developed nations (including the UK) is aging. That means that a greater percentage of the population is over the age of 60 relative to 1970. Older people have been exposed to the sun for longer than younger people = more chance of developing skin cancer.
      3) Skin cancer awareness has increased since the 1970s = more people are getting checked and diagnosed with skin cancer
      4) Our ability to diagnose melanoma has increased since the 1970s = increase in deaths attributable to melanoma since we're better able to identify it

      • [Deactivated] on 28/10/2021 - 14:23
        -1

        1) People are living longer = more time to develop melanoma
        2) The demographics of the population in all developed nations (including the UK) is aging. That means that a greater percentage of the population is over the age of 60 relative to 1970. Older people have been exposed to the sun for longer than younger people = more chance of developing skin cancer.

        From 1970 -2021 life expectancy increased by 9 years which is fair enough. But if they are taking skincare by using sunscreen, that should drastically decrease rates of skin cancer before 1970 sunscreen was almost nonexistent. It became widespread usage only in the mid-70s.

        3) Skin cancer awareness has increased since the 1970s = more people are getting checked and diagnosed with skin cancer
        4) Our ability to diagnose melanoma has increased since the 1970s = increase in deaths attributable to melanoma since we're better able to identify it

        So before 1970 even though people don't diagnose and treated they should be at more risk of skin cancer. And at least they should be recorded their cause of death as skin cancers. That means obviously there weren't many people dying with skin cancers

        • wizzy on 28/10/2021 - 14:46

          From 1970 -2021 life expectancy increased by 9 years which is fair enough. But if they are taking skincare by using sunscreen, that should drastically decrease rates of skin cancer before 1970 sunscreen was almost nonexistent. It became widespread usage only in the mid-70s.

          The 60+ population were all born before 1970 when sunscreen was almost nonexistent. Plus sunscreen use didn't suddenly become widespread in the 1970s. The first sunscreens had lower SPF ratings, were thick and unpleasant to use, and were not as widely available. It also took time for the population to get the message that sunscreen could offer them protection.

          So before 1970 even though people don't diagnose and treated they should be at more risk of skin cancer. And at least they should be recorded their cause of death as skin cancers.

          If melanoma doesn't get diagnosed, it spreads to other parts of the body (becomes metastatic). Once cancer has spread, and is at the terminal phase, it can be difficult or impossible to identify the primary cancer. So the cause of death won't be attributed to melanoma.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/10/2021 - 21:07

      Sun bed use in the UK is commonplace.

  • Greem85 on 28/10/2021 - 14:22
    +1

    Had to click this topic, just to make sure this was not another world famous bs post by SlavOz. To my surprise, it was not :P

    • TEER3X on 28/10/2021 - 14:48

      I was just going to post something along those lines, SlaveOz obviously has more than one user account

  • afah0447 on 28/10/2021 - 14:28
    +2

    I love that one example of a surfer who is out in the sun all day and does not get skin cancer is evidence enough.

    This is the problem with the world today and some of the blame can be attributed to Trump. The anti-intellectual, anti-evidence world he created where anyone's unfounded ridiculous views must be taken seriously. It's seriously hindering human progress.

    • TEER3X on 28/10/2021 - 18:30

      I have a theory that wearing a hat and walking around a lot in the sun prevents baldness, based on my observations of golfers. It's a very Krameresque (Seinfeld) theory, but it is a theory.

    • zombrex on 30/10/2021 - 17:21

      If you think Trump is significantly responsible for the anti-intellectual and anti-evidence world then you have not done more than 60 seconds of serious thought on this topic.

  • Oofy Doofy on 28/10/2021 - 15:39

    Next p0pc0rn thread… "Do you think toothpaste is a scam?"

    • CMH on 28/10/2021 - 18:14

      It's definitely a scam.

      I brush my teeth with bleach and it works just fine.

  • PhatChedda on 28/10/2021 - 15:55
    +2

    Sunscreen gives a false sense of security thus keeping the individual outside longer and having a part to play in causing skin cancer

    • TEER3X on 28/10/2021 - 18:28
      -1

      Just like seatbelts and driving slowly.

  • wannagrababargain on 28/10/2021 - 16:28
    +1

    Sunscreen is not and never was a panacea. The classic skin cancer prevention message was Slip, Slop, Slap (with added Seek and Slide recently). In other words cover up your skin with clothes, put on sunscreen, put on a hat, seek shade and slide on sunnies (eyes can be damaged by UV too). While young your body can repair DNA damaged by UV more easily. It might seem ok that you get burned and it peels off but every time this happens you are increasing your risk of skin cancer.

    The amount of UV can be measured by the UV Index linear scaled index for UV which in many Australian cities can reach Extreme 13-15 in the peak of the day in summer. This is an objective measure based on time of year, time of day and location.

    Skin types are classified against their response to UV by the Fitzpatrick Skin Type scale. This includes both genetic and reactive factors. It's not true that pale skin can 'absorb' more sun, some pale skin types will not tan and goes straight to burned.

    The time to burn when exposing skin to the sun is dependent on the UV Index and Skin Type.

    You'll burn in half the time if the UV Index is 14 vs 7 where 7 is already considered 'High.' It's only late October and the UV Index peaks at 8 in Melbourne today. On 'Extreme' days it is well advised to stay in the shade - time to burn would be measured in mere minutes for pale skin people.

    There is even an app, dminder, that estimates you how long you can safely stay in the sun to get your vitamin d dose based on your location and self-assessment of skin type.

  • darxtorm on 28/10/2021 - 16:51

    no, i don't think sunscreen is a scam. yes, i do think our ozone layer is damaged.

  • giilour on 28/10/2021 - 17:00
    -5

    OP believe what you want to believe, you are much smarter than those that believe what they have heard from media (whose goal is to sell products), government (who has a long history of lies), "science" (that is backed by funding bodies). Not financial advice DYOR! Sunscreen can work, but smart people would stay out of the sun when it's blistering hot, put on a hat and where protective clothing (long sleeve and pants). Health is not just one thing, it's holistic. Mind and body is connected to say the very least. And internally it's all interconnected. These days people are not connected to their bodies and people want a quick fix for their health, not understanding what their body and environment is telling them. The best they can manage is being toilet trained. Thank god for that at the least. "My stomach is acting up, I'll take some medicine" (forgetting they ate pizzas for 5 days straight). "My head hurts, I'll take pain killers" (maybe it's your sugar levels, stress levels, dehydration, it's more complex than that). "I can't get an erection, I'll take viagara" (maybe your relationship is not that good). etc etc. Keep exploring the questions and answers for yourself, even if it's asking on these types of forums. Out of this whole debate, I find the most interesting is that people think that the sun is bad for you and are scared of the sun. That is false.

    • TEER3X on 28/10/2021 - 18:26

      You are false

    • SydStrand on 29/10/2021 - 09:07
      +1

      Bahaha. OP is upvoting low IQ, bias-confirming comments like this.

    • Ughhh on 29/10/2021 - 09:16

      believe what they have heard from media (whose goal is to sell products),

      Like laird Hamilton?

      but smart people would stay out of the sun when it's blistering

      Smart people would know that it doesn't have to be blistering hot to get sunburnt, you can get sunburnt when it's overcast too. But you're so smart, you would've known right? You just….forgot?

      sun is bad for you and are scared of the sun. That is false

      Smart people would understand that a balance is needed for everything, even drinking too much water can be poisonous. If you disagree, please stand under the sun all day on a nice 36degree day or overcast day. Or drinking 10L of water a day.

  • Zondor on 28/10/2021 - 17:14

    u wot

  • Weezle on 28/10/2021 - 17:15

    Username checks out.

  • Carmen Sandiego on 28/10/2021 - 17:29

    Just because you have seen that people with melanin rich skin tend not to get cancer, that doesn't mean skin cancer doesn't happen.

    I feel like with this OP's post history, next minute he'll post "Only white people get MS and Parkinson's" (news flash - lol no)

  • burns13 on 28/10/2021 - 18:00
    +4

    Im getting real sick of this "alternative facts" crowd these days.

  • TrustNoBody on 28/10/2021 - 18:13

    My older son has black skin and he definitely has got sunburnt before but compared to my younger son with white skin , my younger son can be outside 20 minutes n start to go red but my darker son it has to be like a 40* day n in the sun all day with no shirt he does go red n get sore but just doesn’t peel and he goes blacker

  • knackers on 28/10/2021 - 18:23

    I apply sunscreen on my vaccinated dog's nose before embarking upon an extended lockdown walk

  • Kamsi on 28/10/2021 - 18:54

    One minute they tell us don't put on the sun screen if you want Vitamin D into your body. The next minute the tells us put the sun screen on if you don't want skin cancer. Than you have to choose the right sun screen with the one that don't have lead or zinc :)

    • wizzy on 28/10/2021 - 20:31
      +2

      Lead is not contained in sunscreen. It was used in makeup in Elizabethan times, but that was a long time ago. We have known that lead is toxic from well before the existence of sunscreen.

      Zinc is safe in sunscreen too. I am not aware of anyone saying that we should avoid zinc. We put zinc on baby's bottoms for nappy rash. It's actually the most common ingredient used in nappy rash creams.

  • kaleidoscope on 28/10/2021 - 19:51

    There was a YT video from veritasium about sunscreen stuff shot with uv camera. Go watch it first.

  • payless69 on 28/10/2021 - 19:52

    Just cover the noose in zinc

  • [Deactivated] on 28/10/2021 - 21:08
    +5

    The problem with the internet is it gives really stupid people a voice. Crap like this is just as bad as anti vaxxers. OP, STFU.

    • Shaddolf on 28/10/2021 - 22:02
      +3

      100%.

      Back in the day, the one crazy guy in the village was ridiculed and shut down for being crazy.

      Now the crazies from each village can find each other online and their ideas can proliferate. Definitely big downside of the internet.

      • knackers on 29/10/2021 - 07:47
        +2

        yep, and their unearned confidence makes it's way out into the real world.
        My younger brother thinks people who believe the world is round are idiots.
        He also believes Covid19 isn't real, Trump is the second coming..
        There isn't a pocket of internet stupidity that he hasn't adopted.

        People with a cognitive deficit gravitate to simple erroneous ideas.

        • dizzle on 29/10/2021 - 11:26
          +1

          Sometimes it's the older brothers responsibility to knock some sense into the younger brother :)

      • MessyG on 29/10/2021 - 08:17
        +1

        And then when they get loudly disagreed with they cry oppression…

  • morse on 28/10/2021 - 21:09
    +2

    Oh my, this is still going, I was going to give it a miss based on how ridiculous the premise is.

    Stop being so offensive to people with cancer or who have lost people to cancer

    People with low exposure to sun, cigarettes, alcohol etc still get cancer. All of those things can increase the risk of cancer. but people, all people (even really healthy people) , can get very sick or die from cancer

    It’s not fair, it’s sucks.

    Sunscreen is not a conspiracy, it helps to prevent UV exposure, which is going to prevent some skin cancers but unfortunately won’t prevent them all.

    The thing that saddens me most about posts like this is the disrespect to people with cancer or have lost people to cancer, who don’t want to be controversial or debated - who just want the best recovery or end of life that they can have.

  • scottySK on 28/10/2021 - 21:13
    +3

    My family have lost a few loved ones to skin cancer. Please don't be so ignorant, and please stop spreading misinformation.

    I hope this post has served as a reminder for people to buy some new sunscreen as we enter the warmer months..

  • Shaddolf on 28/10/2021 - 22:00

    The "person x doesn't use sunscreen and they are fine" is a dumb argument.

    I eat chocolate DAILY and I've been skinny all my life. Does that mean there is no link between sugar and weight gain? Should all overweight people just eat more chocolate?

    I know people who smoke but don't have lung cancer. Does that mean smoking cigarettes is completely safe to your body?

    I also burn to a crisp if I don't wear sunscreen as I'm white af and I had my first skin cancer removed at age 29..

  • TransportPosters on 28/10/2021 - 22:32

    I wish I had skin like the OP. Sounds like they are very lucky to be able to stay in the sun all day and not get burnt.

    I've been someone who "burns easily" all my life, have had some really horrible experiences. Sunscreen makes a big difference and works.

  • inasero on 28/10/2021 - 22:36
    +1

    I'll just leave this here OP, you can make up your own mind as to whether sunscreen is effective

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9BqrSAHbTc&ab_channel=Thoma…

    • Cletus vandamme on 29/10/2021 - 08:30
      +1

      Wow I had no idea. Thanks for sharing definitely will definitely make use it more next time!

  • Cave Fire on 28/10/2021 - 22:51

    The thing about black/brown people is just ignorance. Because of their immunity/resistance, they are assumed to be "invincible". However, they can catch skin cancer and it is just as serious to them. Even a light coat of sunscreen can help anyone.

  • Pornboy69er on 28/10/2021 - 23:53

    Are you a doctor OP? Coz you either got your medical degree from Wangaratta Medical School or you're seriously delusional.

  • TimApple on 29/10/2021 - 00:04

    Bruh. Please believe in science.

  • hasher22 on 29/10/2021 - 00:33

    I think being an adult is a scam

  • LaTerrible on 29/10/2021 - 06:49

    Jesus Christ

    Gab and telegram down today

  • hamwhisperer on 29/10/2021 - 08:07

    Good troll like a solid 7

  • grr1701 on 29/10/2021 - 08:15
    +2

    “I have not SEEN anyone with Covid. Therefore, is Covid a scam?
    I have not SEEN a plane crash. Therefore do planes actually crash?
    I have never SEEN anyone on the moon. Therefore, have humans actually been there?
    Blah, blah,blah”
    If OP only relies on first hand experience, he’s an idiot.

  • buckethat on 29/10/2021 - 09:07

    This might be the dumbest thing I've read all year and I've read a lot of dumb shit..

  • Kayrhcp on 29/10/2021 - 09:13
    +1

    I hate this

  • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2021 - 09:16

    The relation between the amount of sunscreen applied
    and the sun protection factor in Asian skin

    Sang Min Kim, MD, Byung Ho Oh, MD, Yang Won Lee, MD, Yong Beom Choe, MD,
    and Kyu Joong Ahn, MD, PhD

    Seoul, Korea

    Background: The measurement of the sun protection factor (SPF) is the usual method in the examination
    of the effectiveness of sunscreen. The declared SPF is based on the use of a sunscreen layer of 2 mg/cm2
    . However, only around a quarter (0.5 mg/cm2
    ) of this amount is generally used in real life. Theoretical
    calculations have suggested that the effectiveness of SPF is related to sunscreen quantity in an exponential
    way but this was not confirmed in Asian skin.

    Objectives:This study was performed to investigate the change in SPF values when less than the
    recommended amount of sunscreen was applied.
    Methods: A board divided into 10 areas measuring 7 3 4 cm was placed on the back of 15 healthy
    volunteers. Low- and high-SPF standard reference sunscreens, and two types of sunscreen (SPF 30 and 35)
    were each applied on 4 areas, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 mg/cm2
    , respectively, and were left to dry for 20
    minutes. The irradiation was conducted at a distance of 50 cm using a template (1 3 1 cm) placed directly
    on the skin with 10 windows allowing ultraviolet (UV) radiation to pass through with a dose increment of
    20%. Erythema was evaluated 20 to 24 hours after exposure to UV radiation.
    Results: Sunscreen showed its expected SPF value when 2.0 mg/cm2 was applied. The SPF values of
    the different amounts were significantly different from each other and decreased when less was applied
    (P .05). The relation between the amount of sunscreen applied and the SPF provided was most likely
    to follow exponential growth.

    Limitations: Spectral differences between our solar simulator and the UV sources of commercial
    laboratories are likely to be important. In addition, differences in sunscreen application techniques may
    have influenced the ultimate SPF values.

    Conclusions: This study concludes that to get the expected SPF value, it is important to apply the UV
    protective sunscreen precisely in the amount of 2.0 mg/cm2 on Asian skin as recommended by the Food
    and Drug Administration. In addition, it was difficult to predict the SPF values when the usual amount of 0.5
    mg/cm2 was applied ( J Am Acad Dermatol 2010;62:218-22.)

  • Fluffmeister on 29/10/2021 - 11:34
    +1

    Bring back natural selection…

  • JamesJayz on 29/10/2021 - 12:40

    More like people think sunscreen protects them and they stay outside for too long; therefore you have a correlation between people using sunscreen and cancer. It's positively correlated from medical data…

    I prefer to use shading such as an umbrella in conjunction with long sleeved shirts.

    Most ancient hunters would stay under trees and not stay in the sun for long periods which is what sunbathing is…

    The strength of the sunlight is also important, most likely the world class surfer is not going out on days with high UV.

    But yeah, it's a stretch to show sunscreen causes cancer… If you are paranoid, use zinc sunscreens!

    • JamesJayz on 29/10/2021 - 14:16

      Maybe I should add to what I believe the conspiracy theory the OP is putting forward:

      I've done some browsing on the web and found this:

      https://www.institutefornaturalhealing.com/2012/07/sunscreen…

      It makes sense the claims that are made, but I do believe the issue is not the use of the lotion itself, but because you are out in the sun longer than what is normal. You can avoid sunburn by using the lotion, but at the same time you would need to remember to get out of the sun after a certain amount of time (Harder said than done when the lotion itself lulls people into a false sense of security).

      Farmers and construction workers, even if they don't use sunscreen, usually don't stand in strong direct sunlight as that would cause headaches and discomfort (been there done that). Usually farmers are within the trees or going into the fields which are protected from sunlight. Likewise on 30c+ days you will unlikely see a farmer going out to pick vegetables. Your skin burning is telling you to get out of the sun, it's a natural response; using sunscreens to remove this response is basically what is killing people.

      Ask yourself, where are you today at 35c in Sydney? I'm in shade, but maybe you are on the beach, hopefully you are using good protection, but don't think for one second you can just rely on the sunscreen…

      Plus, you normally would not go surfing in 35 degree heat…

  • freekay on 29/10/2021 - 12:48

    So, guys, have we determined if sunscreen is a scam or not? Need to know because I'm about to buy some for my next beach holiday and I don't want to waste $$$ Also, is comprehensive vehicle insurance a scam? Need to know for same said holiday.

  • Mr Haj on 29/10/2021 - 13:01

    Hmm maybe OP is onto something. Maybe if I identify myself as a black man I won't get sunburned.

  • lanjiao on 29/10/2021 - 13:03

    You're very brave OP for sharing your stupidity with us here

  • RSmith on 29/10/2021 - 13:33

    Shocking thing is that 20 people agree with the op. Anyways, it gives me comfort knowing that majority of the people are not wackos.

  • pandaoncoffee on 29/10/2021 - 15:01

    It is unfortunate that your aunt had lung cancer despite never having smoked. However, you can still get cancer even if you do everything right, and for some, it’s because of their genetics. This is not to say that you should not do anything about it, because certainly your risk of developing it can by modified.

    Whilst your body certainly can repair damaged cells, it’s not fail safe. UV exposure causing DNA damage can disrupt specific mechanisms that prevent cancer. Melanin production in response to sunlight exposure is basically your skin wanting to protect itself — you have already damaged your skin cells and there is also limit on how much melanin you can produce.

    The rising number of cancer in the UK is because tanning is becoming an increasing trend. One of the many things that UK visitors do in Australia is burn themselves to a crisp in under 15 minutes at the beach.

    Also, cancer is not the only problem. It also ages your appearance, and this may or may not be important to you.

  • ev3nfl0w on 29/10/2021 - 15:46
    -1

    While I do not agree that sunscreen is a scam, I think the angle that OP takes in challenging the status quo is important.

    You are right that skin colour has a direct correlation with the rate of skin cancer. For instance, in the US ~35-45% of all cases are in Caucasians (i.e. white) whereas it is only 1-2% in the black population (Bradford 2009).

    So to address your assumptions:

    (a) Do you think the diet of black-Americans is healthier than their Caucasian counterparts? - No. (Baraldi et al. 2018)
    (b) Do people who stay out in the sun without sunscreen all get skin cancer? - No, but it definitely increases the chances and likelihood to do so (Karlsson et al. 2021)

    Important you keep asking questions OP but make sure you do not fall under the trap of confirmation bias.

    Have linked the articles for you below which will hopefully give you a balanced scientific facts about the subject matter.

    Ref:
    Bradford, P.T., 2009. Skin cancer in skin of color. Dermatology nursing/Dermatology Nurses' Association, 21(4), p.170., Accessed from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757062/ on 29 Oct 2021

    Baraldi, L.G., Steele, E.M., Canella, D.S. and Monteiro, C.A., 2018. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and associated sociodemographic factors in the USA between 2007 and 2012: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. BMJ open, 8(3), p.e020574.

    Karlsson, O., Hagberg, O., Nielsen, K., Paoli, J. and Ingvar, Å., 2021. Difference in sun exposure habits between individuals with high and low risk of skin cancer. Dermatology practical & conceptual, 11(4). Accessed from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8480439// on 29 Oct 2021

    • rinco on 29/10/2021 - 16:43
      +2

      No celebrity reference? … no anecdotes or intangible comparisons? … didn't see it for yourself? I am not sure you understand the rules of OzConspiracyTheory.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2021 - 17:01
      -2

      (a) Do you think the diet of black-Americans is healthier than their Caucasian counterparts? - No.

      I never thought colour people have superior or healthy diet. What I told is for colour people skin is not their weakest link. So they will die with some other ailments, which we clearly saw in Newyork during covid

      • ev3nfl0w on 29/10/2021 - 17:13

        Your post states: "Is diet causing skin cancer for some white people, where the skin is their weakest part?"

        If your logic is true, then black-American's should also be demonstrating higher skin cancer numbers as their diet is significantly worse than their Caucasian counterparts.

        I have provided you solid evidence for you to read - its up to you whether you want to find some truth or if you still want to rely upon your own (misinformed and bias) logic.

  • Void on 29/10/2021 - 16:37

    I don't think it's a scam, but I still don't wear it because I'm lazy and hate the sensation.

  • gravel on 29/10/2021 - 17:34

    "I have not seen any black or brown guy getting skin cancer." Mod: Removed Personal Attack Anecdotal evidence, that is the number of black or brown skinned humans that may have crossed your path, that you knew well enough as to enquire if they even gotten skin cancer would be a very small number.
    My best friends partner , a black american guy had skin cancer was very serious. He survived but has to be vigilant. As far as I know ATAGI approves sunscreen, they are the same people that approved the vacc and al medicines. They probably have a fair idea of what they are doing.
    Yes science has been wrong about things in the past but, so what!

  • kabammi on 29/10/2021 - 18:47
    +7

    I don't know why as I scientist I feel the need to answer this.. but I do, and this will probably be sloppy as hell because it'll just be a stream of consciousness, but here it is.

    This is all about energy. Energy is basically charged particles. Charged particles can knock electrons off of things, including DNA.
    Here's a decent explainer.
    https://www.ansto.gov.au/education/nuclear-facts/what-is-rad…

    Radiation damages DNA. Proven about 100 years ago, starting with the big guns.
    The amazing Marie Curie, the first woman to receive 2 Nobel Prizes, died of cancer after her discoveries of Radium and radiation.
    That's ionising radiation. High to very high energy, so it passes through skin, bone, the works. So it tends to get to the more sensitive parts of your body and hit you hard and fast.
    We know that, and trust the science, because the cause and effect are quite direct. You blast someone with radiation, depending on the dosage, they'll die of cancer within months to years and if not, may have children with genetic birth defects. Early scientists died horrible deaths, then there was Hiroshima, then Chernobyl, and the fates of the people that were exposed during those events, etc.etc. So people believe that. Or maybe it was their diets.

    But, that's not sunlight though, right!

    UV, a non-ionizing radiation, has lower wavelength energy but higher yield when you're exposed to it for hours on end, also damages DNA. Being lower energy, it doesn't get much past your skin. Your skin is a tough old bag generally. It's designed to put up with a lot of punishment.
    But sunlight has shiteloads of UV as part of it's natural spectrum of light. You can split sunlight into some of the wavelengths that make it up with a prism, or even water. A rainbow is a classic example. ROYGBIV is basically longest to shortest wavelength. Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet.. well, UV would be tacked on the end after violet. but our eyes aren't able to detect it. That doesn't mean it's not real, not any less real than also invisible ionising radiation from radioactive sources.

    So you get exposed to a lot of UV, and the skin takes the hit. The neat thing about skin, is that all the skin you can see, is dead. So hitting it with UV, just those cells, won't really do DNA damage because they're already dead. The living part of the skin, which is many layers deeper, is what is being protected by the outer dead cells. Those cells are called basal skin cells. Their job is to make the outer layers of skin. But blast enough high energy UV, and even the DNA in the deeper thickness basal cells (i.e. not the dead stuff that you can see with your eyes) can be damaged. That's why the Bureau of Meterology has the "UV" forecasts. There are low UV days and extreme UV days. That's a rough idea of how high the UV levels will be on any day. On high energy days - maybe that high energy light will be strong enough to make it all the way through your outer dead skin cell layers to your basal skin cells. And damage their DNA.

    Now, the body has a remarkable capability to repair damaged DNA, and it does an amazing job. It really does. But if you blast your DNA enough, the DNA repair proteins that you have either can't keep up, or create errors themselves (even though they're extremely high fidelity, they're not completely error proof).

    Now I'm crapping on about DNA damage. So what?

    Damaged DNA typically can typically have 3 results. I'm sure there's more, but this is all that's in my mind at the moment.
    1. Your DNA repair enzymes fix the damaged DNA. Awesome.
    2. Damaged DNA is sort of repaired, but mutations creep in. Not awesome.
    3. DNA is damaged which causes the cell to kamikaze and die. Sounds bad, but it's better than 2. Better to have a dead cell that knows it was faulty which is then gobbled up by your immune system, than a cell with mutated DNA that thinks all is good and makes mutated proteins that can do all sorts of nefarious things like cause the cell to divide, grow, migrate to the lungs, liver, brain.. and do cancery type stuff. That's cancer.

    So most people these days won't believe years, decades or even centuries of accumulated scientific knowledge unless they can see an effect preferably within 5 years of something happening. Because TikTok, Insta, or whatever will say it can't be real unless it can be seen. So many folks think "hey yea!?".

    Well, the only thing I can really think of, on a broader scale public experiment on the topic of UV and cancer is Tanning Salons. That's not the Spray Tanning Salons. I'm talking about the ones with the UV beds in them. You go in, put on eye goggles so you don't get cataracts from the UV (yes, that's damage), and wait for hours while UV light is blasted at you from scalp to toe. You come out with an amazing bronze tone. Well, that industry is no more because people were dying of cancer. Melanomas if I remember correctly.
    I think, but I'm happy to be corrected, tanning beds, have mostly been banned now.

    Another way to see the effects of a lifetime of UV exposure is to take a trip out to the bush, and look at all the old farmer's ears and noses. You'll see skin cancers like crazy. Sometimes with bits cut out or burnt off. I grew up in the bush and remember it well.

    So, to sunscreen. Sunscreen absorbs or absorbs+reflects UV light. So effectively it acts as a mirror or a sink. With radioactivity, and also x-rays, you use lead. If you've ever had an Xray and been told to put on a lead apron or put a vest on or something.. well that contains lead, and is your sunscreen for X-ray radiation - typically to protect your baby-making organs. You don't want damaged egg or sperm DNA.

    Skin colour - Melanin is simply just a brilliant biological light blocker.
    So people with darker melanin skin are able to resist the impact of UV light better because light can't get through the whole thickness of skin, to be basal cells, as easily.
    That doesn't that skin with a lot of melanin can't be burned and it doesn't mean that sort of skin won't get skin cancer. But the chances are much much lower than skin with little to no melanin, represented by a pale skin tone. Light and UV just passes better through it, getting to the basal skin cells, damaging DNA.
    You might have heard of basal cell carcinomas. Well, the basal cells of the skin.

    I've had enough now, so I'm going to stop. Sorry for boring everyone with probably what is incoherent drivel.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2021 - 20:24
      -3

      Amazing explanation. Now I have few doubts.

      1) Does mutated cells cleared with Autophagy?
      2) Why does humans and humans pets get skin cancer while animals in wild don’t get?
      3) If you think Sun is the only reason to get skin cancer why our body hasn’t evolved to adopted to sun?

      • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2021 - 23:05

        Dude. This isn't about what he thinks. He has presented you with facts. You seem to think that facts and opinions are interchangable. They are not. You are arguing with Science and looking like a complete moron. Don't question the efficacy of sunscreen, question your entire understanding of science and your belief system.

      • Ughhh on 30/10/2021 - 09:24

        while animals in wild don’t get

        Is this a fact of what you think?

        Do you understand the difference between what you think aka opinion vs fact?

      • SydStrand on 30/10/2021 - 14:21

        Why does humans and humans pets get skin cancer while animals in wild don’t get?

        I refuse to believe this is anything but a troll account now. Even a child can grasp the notion that animals in the wild die prematurely from other causes like predation before cancer, and that domesticated dogs tend to live longer than wild canids.

  • pyjamas on 29/10/2021 - 19:09
    +1

    I don't know much about how sunscreen prevents cancer, but I do use sunscreen because my skin is prone to getting sunburn ie. autoimmune issues.

    We have to remember that science most of the time is based off a hypothesis and is always evolving, so we will always have a bias towards something but to progress we should be open to discuss topics. I don't think we should immediately disregard and label people if they have an opposing view on something. I've noticed when people have an alternative view, it doesn't have to be one or the other, some points brought up can be open for discussion while some may have already been proven.

    From my own experience (having autoimmune issues), one aspect like diet can help with sun damage. The human body needs to intake the right nutrients in order to repair and heal efficiently. Unfortunately it can be hard to maintain a healthy/optimum lifestyle and diet in the modern world, we tend to eat packaged non seasonal food, we stress too much, we're not as active as before etc. So our bodies have slowly become more prone to illnesses and maybe more prone to sun damage without efficient repair? So, we have created these solutions that cater to the modern day person like sunscreen.

    And as always, every person is different. Having a small sample size is too difficult to determine if something is 'right' or 'wrong. This is all my view on things. I find these discussions quite interesting.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join