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
  • 1208
    No
Health & Beauty Sun Protection Sunscreen

closed Comments

      • dtc on 27/10/2021 - 15:57
        +4

        You know that Laird does now wear sunscreen - you can see him talk about it on his own facebook site eg https://www.facebook.com/LairdLife/photos/gabrielle-reece-ha…

        Secondly, even when he didnt wear sunscreen, he said the way to protect your skin was to frequently jump in the water to keep it cool. Which isnt a great deal of use when you arent Laird on your board but Joe in the outback

    • iDroid on 27/10/2021 - 13:10
      +10

      Stop bringing logic to a conspiracy fight.

      • wizzy on 27/10/2021 - 13:11

        Ha!

  • coffeeinmyveins on 27/10/2021 - 12:08
    +20

    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.

    There are also people who smoke every day that live to be 90. What's your point.

    Personally, I never used sunscreen, and I will be in sun a lot of time. What do you think?

    I think the sun has fried your brain.

    • bobbified on 27/10/2021 - 12:09
      +10

      I think the sun has fried your brain

      There has to be one there to fry in the first place!

    • mskeggs on 27/10/2021 - 13:59
      +5

      Great, nekminnit "lung cancer? Is it a scam? I have magazine article from doctor in 1950 saying good for your throat."

    • zorodluffy on 30/10/2021 - 13:20
      -1

      why are u trying to strawman him?

      his point is if black people aint dying cuz they black, then they dont need sunscreen.

      Just like the 90 year old smokers, its living 90 yr old proof that smoking doesnt shorten ur lyfe.

  • mbck on 27/10/2021 - 12:09
    +3

    You do you op.

    At least I'll miss your posts. A reminder of the many colourful people out there.

  • 87percent on 27/10/2021 - 12:12
    +16

    there really needs to be a better screening process to post on here

    • pegaxs on 27/10/2021 - 12:26
      +21

      Without the conspiracy nut jobs and right wing fruit cakes on here, I would basically have nothing to laugh about at lunchtime if they were excluded from posting…

    • iDroid on 27/10/2021 - 13:12
      +4

      Sun screening?

  • DingoBilly on 27/10/2021 - 12:12
    +13

    Wow. Not sure if this is on the same level or a whole new level below antivaxxers. This is just crazy…

      • Crosscade on 27/10/2021 - 12:27
        +6

        It's almost like human life expectancy even as little as a few hundred years or so was less than 40…

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

        • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 12:30
          -1

          There are a lot of factors that decide life expectancy if the information in Wiki is accurate. Infant mortality, attacks from other tribes, wild animals etc

          • ThadtheChad on 28/10/2021 - 00:22
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: …. and cancer, you absolute mouth breather!

            So yeah mate, skin cancer kills - mitigating it means you live longer (all things being equal).

        • OzBarAnon on 28/10/2021 - 20:40

          Infant mortality was significantly higher, which would predictably drop the average life expectancy a lot. Also things like increased violence, worse/no safety regulations in dangerous occupations, etc.

      • trapper on 27/10/2021 - 12:30
        +2

        We did die.

        Notice how all the northern Europeans have light skin?

        That's because they are the only survivors after migrating north from Africa, all the darker skinned people couldn't survive with the lower levels of sunlight.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 12:32
          -2

          You bolstered my point

      • SF3 on 27/10/2021 - 12:30

        People didn’t have a long life expectancy in the days you spoke about.

        With your arguments, you shouldn’t have health care or medicine.

      • pegaxs on 27/10/2021 - 12:35
        +2

        Because 200,000 years ago, being 30 made you one of the oldest people alive. Skin cancer wasn't what killed people, infections, parasites and predators killed people well before something like skin cancer would take their life.

        And how do you know that 200,000 years ago, people were not dieing of skin cancer? There is a high probability that they were, and evolution made us smart enough to build shelters and hide during the heat and sun of the day.

        It's really not hard to logic this shit out, let alone how easy it would be to Google it. Your posts seem like literal brain farts made manifest onto a keyboard and shat out onto the internet.

        • cheapo123 on 27/10/2021 - 15:18

          or it did and they just didnt know about it

        • [Deactivated] on 28/10/2021 - 21:12
          -1

          You understand that average lifespan is grossly distorted by infant mortality, right? Throughout history people have lived to old age, modern medicine has certainly helped, but to say a 30 year old made you one of the oldest people alive is blatantly incorrect. It's just that half the population used to die in childhood. Make it to adulthood, and even in antiquity you could live a relatively long life.

      • Drakesy on 27/10/2021 - 12:46
        +1

        We also used to have hair that covered guess what? the skin!

        But since we started to wear clothes/animal skins our body has since stopped growing hair over the body exposing skin.
        Dogs get skin cancer, cats get skin cancer, animals get skin cancer, but because they have hair they're less prone.

        It's not diet based

      • daleroy1234 on 27/10/2021 - 13:48
        +1

        We used to have a much shorter life expectancy. If you want to go back to caveman times and die in your 20 or 30s, feel free. I'll use our scientific advances to live a longer life :)

  • HerpinDerp on 27/10/2021 - 12:14
    +8

    I really hope this is just a slow day and a troll just wants to be fed.

    • bargaino on 27/10/2021 - 18:28
      +1

      Not a troll. Apply Hanlon's Razor.

      • Jaspa7 on 28/10/2021 - 17:38

        any razor would do.. or just let the skin cancer do its job.
        Only pity is that the first thing to go won't be their ability to spread misinformation

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 27/10/2021 - 12:16

    Noting OP's logic, a more likely hypothesis is their Nokia flip phone is protecting them from cancer…since practically nobody else uses a flip phone these days.

  • nephilim on 27/10/2021 - 12:16
    +1

    Price wise it is.
    nivea day cream 1/2 price for $5 is my go to in summer

  • DashCam AKA Rolts on 27/10/2021 - 12:17

    OP, your one case scenario of Laird Hamilton is too small a data set to draw any effective conclusions regarding sunscreen use/non-use and skin cancer.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 12:24
      -3

      Mate, I don't know why people are attacking me personally. What I asked is a logical question. I know my sample size is small. I don't know whether these guys even travelled any part of the world because if you go to some parts of Africa or Asia. They will be outside in the Sun for most of the day. And the skin cancer rates are almost non-existent.

      • Jerome87 on 27/10/2021 - 12:39
        +7

        because you haven't demonstrated any ability to use logic to prove or disprove your position. You're basically saying does a+b=c like big pharma says or does potato chips + something = c?? hmmmm

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 27/10/2021 - 12:48
        +6

        I know my sample size is small

        That's an understatement. Your sample size is approximately 1.265822784810127e-10.

      • McFly on 28/10/2021 - 00:53
        +2

        What I asked is a logical question.

        Looks like someone needs to read https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logical

    • Baysew on 27/10/2021 - 13:57

      Well at least Sunscreen makers have a sense of irony - HAMILTON SUN AND SKIN RANGE

  • Your Pog Champ on 27/10/2021 - 12:23
    +7

    Dear OP

    I sincerely believe that you are right and that sunscreen is a scam as i have never once gotten sun burnt, However this may in account due to the fact that I barely leave the house as the commies will are after my life and are trying silence me from telling people truth about covid-19 and sunscreen and the correlations between them. I have to go now i can hear the commies at my door

    Regards,
    Your Pog Champ

  • SF3 on 27/10/2021 - 12:23
    +2

    Personally, I never used sunscreen, and I will be in sun a lot of time.

    Sounds awfully like those anti something people’s arguments.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 12:43

      Why would I? What will i gain from this?

      • mskeggs on 27/10/2021 - 14:00
        +1

        Indeed. What would you gain from this nonsense?

        Are you selling a wellness product or some other 'natural' cure?

      • bajillionaire on 27/10/2021 - 21:09

        Why would any scam exist? To make money.

  • plmko on 27/10/2021 - 12:25

    Holy cow….OzB you've done it again!

  • subywagon on 27/10/2021 - 12:29
    +13

    I think you, just like most people these days spreading false information about topics such as climate change and covid are not qualified nor have the mental skill set to understand how real scientific and medical peer reviewed research is conducted in order to make such or any reliable observations.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 12:41
      -2

      Do you have any idea that there are other parts of the world where people who spend most of their time outdoors without sunscreen and have low rates of skin cancer?

      • subywagon on 27/10/2021 - 14:27
        +3

        Do you have any idea what science is?

      • djgreedo on 27/10/2021 - 14:54
        +4

        White people who migrate to Australia have high rates of skin cancer because white skin evolved in places where the sun isn't as harsh as in Australia. It's only in the last couple of centuries that people have started living in places other than where their ancestors evolved.

        White people in the UK have low rates of skin cancer because they are in an environment that is suitable for their skin.

        It's not rocket science.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 14:56

          So what about colour people using sunscreen.

        • Mistredo on 28/10/2021 - 11:05

          Actually, my skin cancer doctor told me people born in Europe who migrate as adults to Australia have smaller chance getting skin cancer than white people born in Australia.

          Although never fact checked that.

          • wizzy on 28/10/2021 - 11:34
            +1

            @Mistredo: That sounds logical because European people who migrate to Australia as adults have had 18+ fewer years of Australian sun exposure overall, compared to a person with European ancestry who was born in Australia.

            Eurpean people who migrate to Australia as adults would still have a higher rate of skin cancer compared to Europeans who remain in Europe. That's what djgreedo is referring to. White people born in Australia are also a product of the migration of previous generations from Europe, so djgreedo is also referring to that.

  • ajm07 on 27/10/2021 - 12:34
    +2

    Our descendants truly do not need sunscreen.

    Everyone go outside and stay there for 20 years. Those still alive, procreate.

    Repeat the cycle a few dozen dozen times, and yep you are right - sunscreen was a myth (created by paradoxically non exist lines of time travelling descendants of the 'race that could have been' that were more susceptible to skin cancer.)

  • Donaldhump on 27/10/2021 - 12:44
    +2

    here's a way to prove your scam

    go stand out in the middle of alice spirngs in summer without sunscreen on.

    after your recover, repeat this with sunscreen on

    compare the differences.

    • leiiv on 27/10/2021 - 13:13
      +1

      Easier to just compare your two arms at the same time. Put suncreen only on one hand, and compare the difference after 2 hours in the sun.

      • Donaldhump on 27/10/2021 - 13:42
        -1

        2 arms may not be like for like, he may vigoursoly ***k off with one arm making it more resistant to the sun

  • DrRalph on 27/10/2021 - 12:55

    Do you think skin cancer is a scam?

    • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 12:56
      -2

      No Dr. Cancer is real. Causes are debated

      • Your Pog Champ on 27/10/2021 - 13:00
        +5

        Dear OP

        What does the Sun emit and also what can cause caner

        Regards,
        Your Pog Champ

        • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 13:06
          -5

          Sun emits all rays in EMS. Yeah, some of them will damage skin cells, if that's what you mean. But our wonderful body can repair by itself any damage caused by Sun. Otherwise, everybody would have died from skin cancer. As I told before that there are other parts of the world where people who spend most of their time outdoors without sunscreen and have low rates of skin cancer

          • Your Pog Champ on 27/10/2021 - 13:10

            @[Deactivated]: Dear OP

            My mother has never left the house but still has sun cancer. Curios, how could she never have left the house but still have sun cancer. I'm still debating this myself, any help would be appreciated.

            Regards,
            Your Pog Champ

            • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 13:14

              @Your Pog Champ: If that's true, then that's the point of this post. Sun is not the only cause of Skin cancer. I am not sure whether you are being sarcastic or serious.

              • Your Pog Champ on 27/10/2021 - 13:18
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: Dear OP

                Yes I agree. my situation regarding my mother and the disappearance of my father due to the effect of sun cancer is very traumatic and serious and i am 100% with you and i myself have spent years trying to find the truth.

                Regards,
                Your Pog Champ

                • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 13:21
                  +1

                  @Your Pog Champ: Confirmed, you are being sarcastic. Ok whatever, if you think I am saying rubbish, that's ok

                  • Your Pog Champ on 27/10/2021 - 13:27
                    +5

                    @[Deactivated]: Dear OP

                    I'm not being sarcastic and by saying that you are disrespecting my years of research and time spent trying uncover the truth about my mother and my father, how dare you think that i'm not being serious i can't believe that you are one of us.

                    Regards,
                    Your Pog champ

  • deme on 27/10/2021 - 12:59
    +4

    😮‍💨

  • Hithere on 27/10/2021 - 13:06
    +7

    I'll never get skin cancer as my tin foil hat protects me.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 13:09
      -1

      What's popular belief may not be fact. And people who start discussion are not always tin foiled

  • leiiv on 27/10/2021 - 13:14
    +2

    The only scam here is the their price..

  • Godric on 27/10/2021 - 13:15

    no

  • jv on 27/10/2021 - 13:17
    +7

    I have not seen any black or brown guy getting skin cancer.

    How long have you been a dermatologist?

    • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 13:19
      -2

      I traveled across the world where people who spend most of their time outdoors without sunscreen and have low rates of skin cancer. I am a big fan of your wit

      • jv on 27/10/2021 - 13:20
        +11

        Unless you are a dermatologist, or have studied this scientifically, I don't see how you can be taken seriously with that assumption.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 13:28
          -3

          No, don't take me seriously. Just raising a question with some critical thinking. I think we are in this mess because of these experts. I have an idea about how scientific studies are conducted and who funds them. Drug and Food companies will be behing any government organisation American Academy of Dermatology, Diabetes Australia

          • scrimshaw on 27/10/2021 - 13:42
            +4

            @[Deactivated]: What kind of mess are we talking about?

            Are you saying sunscreen is a scam because of the boatloads of money private companies make from selling the stuff and it being highly promoted in ad campaigns?

            Are we talking about the business model or are we arguing the science behind how sunscreen works? If it is the former, then I have no input but if it's the latter, I think everyone universally agrees that sunscreen does work to prevent skin damage and UV exposure. This stuff was invented a very long time ago and it's not some phony product like Theranos was

            Also, I've had skin cancer and had operations to remove it when I was young, due to frequent sun exposure when playing sports.

            • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 13:49

              @scrimshaw:

              Are we talking about the business model or are we arguing the science behind how sunscreen works? If it is the former, then I have no input but if it's the latter, I think everyone universally agrees that sunscreen does work to prevent skin damage and UV exposure.

              My first point, people of colour doesn't get skin cancer due to Sun. My second point is People with fair skin may get skin cancer from the Sun. But some white people swear by not using Sunscreen. Is skin cancer caused by Sun or Diet as skin is the weakest link for white people?

              • scrimshaw on 27/10/2021 - 14:15

                @[Deactivated]:

                people of colour doesn't get skin cancer due to Sun

                That's an incorrect statement, if you read the report from the cdc titled "Melanoma Among Non-Hispanic Black Americans" you'll see the risk of skin cancer in people of color is low, but not entirely nil. You can even go back at reports dating back half a decade ago for other countries and still come to the same conclusion. Low, but not nil.

                "Most of the people of color have misconception that they are immune to skin cancer but recent studies indicate that skin cancer does not discriminate, it can occur in all populations whatever their skin color (Lozano et al., 2012)."

                But some white people swear by not using Sunscreen.

                You are using a sample size of n=1 (Caucasian male), and observing that they have not used sunscreen ever, in their lifetime, and have never suffered skin cancer, then you draw the hypothesis that skin cancer isn't positively correlated with sun exposure, but by other factors like… diet? Why do you say that?

                Au/NZ takes the top spot when it comes to skin cancer rates — then it's followed by a bunch of rich Scandivianian and european countries such as Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and Germany

                The ones that sit at the very bottom are countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bangladesh. Do you believe this has something to do with skin pigmentation of their respective populations or by differences in diet between these regions?

                • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 14:22

                  @scrimshaw: Did you use sunscreen before getting skin cancer?

              • gromit on 27/10/2021 - 14:19

                @[Deactivated]: and some smokers never get lung cancer and some miners never get black lung. You are failing to use any sort or basic logic, evidence or reasoning. You sound like one of those dodgy wellness purveyors who try to blame everything on diet to sell their massively overpriced teas and curealls.

                • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 14:28

                  @gromit: What am I selling here?

                  • gromit on 27/10/2021 - 14:29
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]: no idea? what business are you in?

                    • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 14:31

                      @gromit: My Aunt got lung cancer and she never smoked in her life.
                      People who use Sunscreen all their life may get skin cancer. Agree?

                      • gromit on 27/10/2021 - 14:44

                        @[Deactivated]: of course? what's your point? though your aunt probably did smoke (passively). People who use sun screen are less likely to get sun induced skin cancer, agree?

            • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 14:00

              @scrimshaw: Did you use sunscreen before getting skin cancer?

          • djgreedo on 27/10/2021 - 14:59
            +2

            @[Deactivated]: I don't think you have any idea what 'critical thinking' is because you are doing the complete opposite.

            • SF3 on 27/10/2021 - 22:29
              +2

              @djgreedo:

              any idea what 'critical thinking' is

              I think OP is critical of thinking.

          • ThadtheChad on 28/10/2021 - 00:29

            @[Deactivated]:

            Just raising a question with some critical thinking. I think we are in this mess because of these experts. I have an idea about how scientific studies are conducted and who funds them

            Alright. That explains it, pack it up folks, we have an "independent thinker" who has "done their research".

            Also FYI @OP
            While melanin does protect against skin cancer to an extent, folks with darker skin tones DEFINITELY get skin cancer. It may surprise you, that in a lot of the developing countries, there isn't a lot of rigorous testing or cancer screening.

            Also, I leave this for you to read:
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4963704/

      • wizzy on 27/10/2021 - 13:48
        +2

        Me too, but they were European countries that have lower UV levels overall than Australia.

        In Europe their sun protection is coming from environmental factors instead of melanin. That's why Europeans evolved to have white skin in the first place. Some sun is needed to synthesise vitamin D and remain healthy, but not too much that you develop skin cancer. Darker skinned people living in Europe also develop rickets (caused by lack of vitamin D) at higher rates than white people living in Europe, because their skin is too protected from the sun relative to the low UV levels.

        Here is an explanation as to why the UV rays in Australia are much stronger than in Europe from NASA:

        https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/aerosols…

        The problem with skin cancer arises when you take the white person out of Europe and put them in a country with UV levels that are higher than those where they evolved.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 13:50

          That's my point as well

          • RSmith on 27/10/2021 - 14:00

            @[Deactivated]: That's why the need for sunscreen

          • wizzy on 27/10/2021 - 14:07
            +3

            @[Deactivated]: Fantastic!

            So that's why sunscreen is not a scam. We are in agreement.

            • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 14:39

              @wizzy: Whatever you told me, I mentioned in my description before. My only question is "Is Skin cancer caused only due to Sun or modern diet is causing DNA mutations and as skin is the weakest link, it's getting affected.

              • wizzy on 27/10/2021 - 14:57
                +2

                @[Deactivated]: You keep changing your question which makes it very hard to follow your train of thought.

                The title of your post is "Do you think sunscreen is a scam?"

                Now you appear to have dropped that question about sunscreen, and conceded that the sun does cause skin cancer. Logically this implies that sunscreen is not a scam.

                Now you are also claiming that you only ever had one question about modern diet and DNA mutations. Yet this is the first time you have mention diet causing DNA mutations, so you have actually just introduced an entirely new question here.

                So I'm going to answer this as best as I can. Yes diet does impact our health. A person who is healthy is less likely to get any type of cancer. Some dietary substances (such as alcohol) are also considered carcinogenic:

                https://www.who.int/health-topics/alcohol#tab=tab_2

                Not all dietary substances that are regarded as carcinogenic are "new" or "modern" or exclusively consumed by white people though. Nor does this negate the association between the sun and skin cancer.

          • gromit on 27/10/2021 - 14:20
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: how is that your point exactly? you have been arguing it is diet and not the sun? and that sunscreen is a scam? this says the exact opposite of what you have been arguing.

      • cashless on 28/10/2021 - 08:53
        +2

        I traveled across the world where people who spend most of their time outdoors without sunscreen

        For someone who has travelled the world, OP is very unwordly.
        Travel is supposed to broaden the mind, the opposite seems to be happening here.

      • trapper on 28/10/2021 - 13:03
        +1

        It's amazing how few people you meet who actually died from skin cancer.

        I mean where are they all??

    • cheapo123 on 27/10/2021 - 15:20

      he clearly doesnt use google. i dont think he knows what dermatologist does

  • Tech5 on 27/10/2021 - 13:27
    +9

    Malignant cell damage from the sun is what is called stochastic. Chance of malignant change in cells increase with dose, with no threshold. From the first minute of sun that your skin receives, the chance of cancer increases. As with all things to do with chance, 100 people each standing out in the sun will not have the same incidence rate of skin cancer. Just like how 100 people playing pokies will not each leave with 88% of their original money.

    Sunburns- that is the physical damage to the skin- are deterministic. That means there is a threshold below which you will not have any.

    Sure, don't wear sunscreen and if you have darker skin or are lucky, you won't get sunburn. But your chance of cancer increases day by day.

    You need to realise that all your examples are anecdotes. You have talked to what, 10,000 people throughout your life? Of those 10,000 you may have asked maybe 100 about their health. That is 100 out of 7,900,000,000 people in the world. How is that representative? Like I said, cancer is stochastic- that means the chance of cancer averages out over populations of millions. It is like winning the lotto on your first ticket and saying that the chance of winning the lotto is 100%. Your sample size is too small, to make any generalisations.

    Finally, your examples of the cells in your skin automatically regenerating, completely argues against your own point. Cellular regrowth is what causes the proliferation of cancerous cells. You are making arguments based on your knowledge base which likely encapsulates less than 1% of the etiology behind skin cancer. Do you understands specifically how electromagnetic waves cause DNA damage? Do you understands the difference between single and double strand DNA breaks? The relationship between the proximity of these breaks on the DNA strand, and the risk of DNA pair shifting? How about how ionising radiation and free radicals? If you don't understand the science behind malignant changes, how can you understand the science behind sunscreen and be able to comment on effectiveness with any sort of authority?

  • FoxJump on 27/10/2021 - 13:36
    +1

    When I travel to South America, people use spf 8 sunblock and are fine. Personally I can go all day without sunblock there and be fine

    Meanwhile in Australia, people seem to only buy SPF 50 and I got sunburnt driving a convertible all day with the roof open …. In winter!

    • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 13:39

      Do you think Sunburn is dangerous(lead to cancer) or temporary physical effect of excessive heat which will heal relatively quickly?

      • Tech5 on 27/10/2021 - 13:46

        Sunburn is the immediate effect of UV rays on your skin, it has a correlation with skin cancer but no causative relationship

        • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2021 - 13:54

          Exactly correlation doesn't equal causation

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join