• Vespair@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean I definitely see your point, but as I understand it even field workers are encouraged to use sunscreen and farmers and others who spend a lot of time outdoors are at greater risk of long-term damage, not lesser, despite this supposed acclimation.

        • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Sunscreen was invented in 1946, it looks like. Our ability to diagnose cancer has come a long, long way since then. So it would likely be difficult or impossible to answer this question, since 50 year old data about skin cancer incidence will be lower than modern level simply due to diagnostic advances.

          copied from a similar question

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s all relative. Sunscreen itself has carcinogens. It’s kind of like blood pressure medication. It’s easy and works. But obviously exercising and eating better would be better.

      Same with the sun. Gradual exposure and not baking deliberately in the sun would be better, but sunscreen is easier.

      At the end of the day we’re extremely well adapted to the sun for the most part, within reason.

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ll say that I think if the situation was truly as simple and non-nuanced as you describe, I wouldn’t have any reason to be confused or uncertain on the topic.

        But as stated, since even those who adhere to best practices seem to be at higher risk with compound exposure, I think your claim of simple acclimation is a little lacking. I think there is truth in what you say, but far from the whole truth and it is what is missing which eludes me as well.