Sun exposure vs Dying early: Science is almost in!

[XXX-er]

This ^^

[iceman]

I wonder if people used to cover up or go in the shade and now they can spend more time with “bare” skin in the sun with sunscreen. Any cancer reduction benefits of using sunscreen could be offset by the increased exposure time.

I have a saying when working outside, "Emulate the Mexicans." Those guys know what's up. If you need to work in the sun wear loose light-colored clothing and a hat. Every chance you get, every break, go in the shade. Don't let the sun beat you more than it has to but don't hide from it and don't use sunscren unless you really need it.

Me, being Irish and from a northern climate, I'll burn in about 10 minutes early in the spring so I need decent sunscreen. I wean off it over time, using less SPF and extending sun time, until by late spring/early summer I'm good to go. It seems to be working so far. I've never had skin cancer. But the dermatologist does seem to freeze shit off me every year so who knows.

[SumJongGuy]

I have a saying when working outside, "Emulate the Mexicans." Those guys know what's up. If you need to work in the sun wear loose light-colored clothing and a hat. Every chance you get, every break, go in the shade. Don't let the sun beat you more than it has to but don't hide from it and don't use sunscren unless you really need it.

Me, being Irish and from a northern climate, I'll burn in about 10 minutes early in the spring so I need decent sunscreen. I wean off it over time, using less SPF and extending sun time, until by late spring/early summer I'm good to go. It seems to be working so far. I've never had skin cancer. But the dermatologist does seem to freeze shit off me every year so who knows.

Back in the stone age before Gatorade was readily available everywhere, we used to eat salt pills and drink a lot of cold water when working in the hot sun.... or in the hot warehouse, or hot barn or whatever..

[SB]

you could live underground

looks pretty happening

[Kenny Satch]

Back in the stone age before Gatorade

As for the stone age this is interesting.
Ted Talks Nina Jablonski

[Rideski]

That was one of the worst Ted talks I've ever seen.

[iceman]

I tried to watch it but it kept bringing up Louise leakey on Human Origins. Sounds like it's just as well I missed it.

[SumJongGuy]

As for the stone age this is interesting.
Ted Talks Nina Jablonski

I've heard both sides of that and the debunking seems to be pretty credible as well. Heck, I thought that before I had black friends who debunked my ignorance about skin color and sunburn.

Here's another fairly common theory. There's an inverse correlation between dong size and intelligence. Men who live in harsh climates have to be more intelligent and creative to survive and live comfortably, and females tended to mate with the men who could provide shelter and food in harsh conditions. Men in more forgiving climates only needed to be good at fornicating with obvious attributes there, intelligence was less of a factor in determining male attraction to females.

I must be a freaking genius LOL!

[Rideski]

I tried to watch it but it kept bringing up Louise leakey on Human Origins. Sounds like it's just as well I missed it.

Oh, I guess that was part of the problem. I kept wondering when she was going to make a point and or when it was going to tie back to skin color.

It advanced to leaky for me as well.

Too long didn't watch = we came from apes and we are over populating the globe, and polluting and stuff.

[bobz]

Interesting article. It echoes an article I read about a quarter century ago, whose message has stayed with me; I use sunscreen, but only on the days when I'm out all day long and/or in snow, I use it not extensively, and I have a strong preference for physical barriers like long sleeves and neckshade hats. As it turns out, I still have a copy of the article: Beach Bummer, "New evidence suggests that sunscreens don't prevent skin cancer and may even promote some forms of it", Michael Castleman, Mother Jones, May/June 1993.

Basically, the article notes that
1) Melanoma incidence started taking off in the US right around the time that sunscreens started to become popular, and continued to increase, multiplicatively, alongside greater popularity of sunscreens;
2) Sunscreens, some much more than others, block burn-causing UVB more than melanoma-causing UVA;
3) Moderate sun exposure encourages tanning which conditions the skin, reducing the tendency to burn;
4) Sunburn is a "smoke alarm" for backing off of more UVA exposure than your skin can safely handle, and sunscreen essentially turns off that smoke alarm;
5) Sun-sourced vitamin D has a hormone-like effect that can interfere with the growth of cancers, including melanoma;
6) Lots of formal evidence has come in (as of 1993), several (mostly European) studies, which manufacturers and the FDA can't claim to be unaware of;
7) But, you know, big industry and a lot of momentum.

Re the "skin conditioning" effects of sun exposure, I almost always wear a wristwatch; interesting how I've sometimes gotten sunburned only at the watch location of my left wrist on certain occasions when I've gone out, short-sleeved, without wearing the watch.

[old goat]

Funny, I just recerted my O2 endorsement yesterday. Still recommended to give O2 for 1st aid; use for longer than a couple hours is only problematic for those with health conditions like heavy smokers. Seems those individuals have switched from CO2 to O2 blood concentration as the control for breathing after a few hours of supplemental O2 use. But this shouldn’t be a primary concern of the 1st responder, especially given the amount of O2 most teams have on hand at a site (a couple hours at 10 l/min).
If the med professionals here know something different, would be happy to bring that to my instructor.

This ^^^^. Oxygen in high concentrations on ventilated patients damages the lungs--but without the oxygen the patients would die of hypoxia. Nasal and mask oxygen isn't harmful. (It also does no good for football players but they seem to love it.) There's good evidence that oxygen speeds healing of chronic, poorly healing wounds--like those in diabetics. While hyperbaric oxygen given for short periods of time daily is usually covered by insurance and medicare, medicare for some reason won't cover home oxygen for the same conditions, which used to piss me off.

[Dexter Rutecki]

It's kind of interesting to research that skin cancer rates started to increase at the same time sunscreen was getting popular.

Kind of interesting that you're literally a fucking retard no matter what the topic.

And you're the worst kind of stupid person, because you sincerely believe you're smart--and, by definition, unable to tell the difference between smart and stupid, so your endless cycle of idiocy will not end.

[jfost]

^ don't sunburn your dicks in the waving contest fellas.

[AKPogue]

Kind of interesting that you're literally a fucking retard no matter what the topic.

And you're the worst kind of stupid person, because you sincerely believe you're smart--and, by definition, unable to tell the difference between smart and stupid, so your endless cycle of idiocy will not end.

Bahahaha, the moron speaks. What triggered you idiot? You don't like when people might question what your overlords tell you. I made an observation about how skin rates correlated with the introduction of sunscreen. I said nothing else. I guess I'm an idiot, so thinking skin cancer rates should go down when you introduce something to prevent skin cancer means something is amiss.

I think there might be other reasons why skin cancer rates have gone up but anyways doesn't seem that sunscreen is effective if skin cancer rates keep rising instead of falling.

Que idiot calling me more names! Are you like best friends with Ocasio-Cortez?

[SB]

^ don't sunburn your dicks in the waving contest fellas.

Lol, quote of the week. Thus far.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Like I said, a manifestly stupid person. Find someone smarter than you are to explain all the flaws in your 'reasoning' (if you look around whoever you see will likely qualify).

edit: my post didn't go through at first--you is obviously the moron who doesn't understand correlation/causation, and believes there are overlords dictating cancer science, etc.

^ don't sunburn your dicks in the waving contest fellas.

Yeah, not really about that on my end, but I'm sure you can get something going if you're into it.

[old goat]

I've heard both sides of that and the debunking seems to be pretty credible as well. Heck, I thought that before I had black friends who debunked my ignorance about skin color and sunburn.

Here's another fairly common theory. There's an inverse correlation between dong size and intelligence. Men who live in harsh climates have to be more intelligent and creative to survive and live comfortably, and females tended to mate with the men who could provide shelter and food in harsh conditions. Men in more forgiving climates only needed to be good at fornicating with obvious attributes there, intelligence was less of a factor in determining male attraction to females.

I must be a freaking genius LOL!

The opposite of that theory is true. People who live in harsh climates are idiots for living there. The smart people stayed where it's warm. Think of all the swedes and norwegians who wound up in North Dakota. Now Russians are smart--they immigrate to California.

[AKPogue]

Like I said, a manifestly stupid person. Find someone smarter than you are to explain all the flaws in your 'reasoning' (if you look around whoever you see will likely qualify).

edit: my post didn't go through at first--you is obviously the moron who doesn't understand correlation/causation, and believes there are overlords dictating cancer science, etc.



Yeah, not really about that on my end, but I'm sure you can get something going if you're into it.

Well I guess you're not very bright if ya can't explain it to me.

[My Pet Powder Goat]

Well I guess you're not very bright if ya can't explain it to me.

You seem angry, maybe go outside and get some sun?

[summit]

The first I learned of the change in using Oxygen was about 8 years ago and the ACLS instructor said it takes about 10 years for the medical community to totally adopt a new change. According to my CCEMTP and ACLS classes, yes you can do harm giving Oxygen when it isn't needed and even when it's only a couple of hours. I would do some research on that if I were you.

It can take a 10 years for some evidence to solidify into practice, and typically longer than that in EMS, shorter than other fields. ECC seems to be about 10 years (I mean, if we immediately followed the evidence, we'd give up most of the ACLS drugs and we'd eliminate most ALS interventions in urban areas). However, your implication that EMS has been killing people with excess O2 is without evidence.

I'm going to try and keep this as factual as possible, so please don't take offense, because I love and respect Paramedics and some are highly educated as well as highly knowledgeable. But as a field, Paramedics are not nationally required to have real college A&P (if you did great) nor even an associates degree (if you did, great). Paramedic textbooks are written at a 10th grade level. Paramedic interventions offer potentially high gain vs risk in an environment where it is uneconomical to have higher educated providers who might have some college statistics courses and some evidence based practice and research courses in their basic curriculum requirements. I pointed all that crap out so that you can understand protocols are written for the lowest common denominator and thus EMS's red-headed-stepchild-of-medicine status where a lot of treatments and sacred cows were based on not much more than expert opinion with long timeframes from evidence to practice change.

When you see old EMS sacred cow protocol like "highflow O2 for everyone" without nuance getting tossed or chipped, remember that plenty of EMS providers knew that was stupid 15 years ago, but it was "keep it simple" and were written with 5min to 2 hour transport times. KISS was necessary because people were neglecting O2 in respiratory distress and people were taught "supplemental O2 will knock out a COPDers hypoxic drive and they'll stop breathing on you" and there were EMS providers withholding O2 from COPDers in respiratory distress even though the hypoxic drive depression exist far outside of EMS timeframes and there had to be a new educational push: "never withhold O2 from a patient who needs it!" That is the nuance between typical prehospital care vs acute hospital/chronic care.

When you hop on over to your CCEMTP course, which is nice introductory level content for providers with no college degrees entering a very different specialty field than EMS that includes much longer time periods of care than EMS, don't be shocked to find different practice. My EMS system titrated O2 for effect in 2004 and I learned to titrate down O2 in vent and hospital patients when I started learning critical care in 2011 because we had outcome based studies validating hyperoxia free radical damage in ventilated critical patients. I'm pretty sure hyperoxia based free radical damage has been no secret to the critical care profession for longer than that. The Norweigans discovered bronchopulmonary dysplasia in over-oxygenated babies in the 1960s and we've long known about oxygen vs retinopathy of prematurity.

What is more interesting is that we now have data to show us that routine low flow O2 doesn't help in ischemic stroke and has limited utility for heart attacks when there isn't another indication. We had been giving O2 just because the underlying condition was localized tissue hypoperfusion/hypoxia thus maybe if we hyperoxyginated, perhaps that would be good, evidence says probably not. Good providers don't do things that do no harm when the evidence says there is no benefit, But don't be confused: we always treat hypoxia in these patients!

[The AD]

Sun exposure might be good for you, but it does make your face look like an old catcher's mitt.

[Dantheman]

Interesting article. It echoes an article I read about a quarter century ago, whose message has stayed with me; I use sunscreen, but only on the days when I'm out all day long and/or in snow, I use it not extensively, and I have a strong preference for physical barriers like long sleeves and neckshade hats. As it turns out, I still have a copy of the article: Beach Bummer, "New evidence suggests that sunscreens don't prevent skin cancer and may even promote some forms of it", Michael Castleman, Mother Jones, May/June 1993.

FYI, 1993 was 26 years ago. Virtually all sunscreens sold today are broad-spectrum UVA/UVB and have been for years.

Sunburn is bad. If you will be out long enough to get sunburned, put on sunscreen. If you won't, don't bother with it. This shit isn't rocket surgery.

[detrusor]

You're a complete idiot sometimes. At one point as a Paramedic, I was told to give everyone Oxygen, because the theory was Oxygen was good for you. Well from what I'm being told now that giving everyone Oxygen has probably killed a shit load of people because Oxygen can be toxic. Feel free to believe what our overlords tell us. I've learned to be skeptical of everything. I also love how you made the correlation to sunscreen causing skin cancer, last I checked, I didn't say that. I think there could be some other causes too but it is too damn coincidental to see the rise of skin cancer to coincide with the popularity of sunscreens.

You didn’t kill anyone by giving them oxygen. Even on non-rebreather you probably didn’t get to 50%.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[AKPogue]

You didn’t kill anyone by giving them oxygen. Even on non-rebreather you probably didn’t get to 50%.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

For some people who sure think they're smart you really need to step it up on reading comprehension. I just told you what my instructors told me. Nothing else.

[splitter]

Z. :


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums