[pgcudahy]

This article is based on the work of Richard Weller who is trying to monetize them at Relaxsol[relaxsol.com]. I didn't find any disclosure of this in the article.

The mainstream view is in a paragraph buried deep: "“I don’t argue with their data,” says David Fisher, chair of the dermatology department at Massachusetts General Hospital. “But I do disagree with the implications.” The risks of skin cancer, he believes, far outweigh the benefits of sun exposure. “Somebody might take these conclusions to mean that the skin-cancer risk is worth it to lower all-cause mortality or to get a benefit in blood pressure,” he says. “I strongly disagree with that." It is not worth it, he says, unless all other options for lowering blood pressure are exhausted. Instead he recommends vitamin D pills and hypertension drugs as safer approaches."

[fiter]

The mainstream view amongst whom and where?

There are quotes from organizations that advocate sun exposure which are not linked to Weller:

Cancer Council Australia’s official-position paper (endorsed by the Australasian College of Dermatologists) states, “Ultraviolet radiation from the sun has both beneficial and harmful effects on human health.... A balance is required between excessive sun exposure which increases the risk of skin cancer and enough sun exposure to maintain adequate vitamin D levels.... It should be noted that the benefits of sun exposure may extend beyond the production of vitamin D. Other possible beneficial effects of sun exposure… include reduction in blood pressure, suppression of autoimmune disease, and improvements in mood.”

Australia’s official advice? When the UV index is below 3 (which is true for most of the continental U.S. in the winter), “Sun protection is not recommended unless near snow or other reflective surfaces. To support vitamin D production, spend some time outdoors in the middle of the day with some skin uncovered.”

New Zealand signed on to similar recommendations, and the British Association of Dermatologists went even further in a statement, directly contradicting the position of its American counterpart: “Enjoying the sun safely, while taking care not to burn, can help to provide the benefits of vitamin D without unduly raising the risk of skin cancer.”

[scoggs]

Is it strange that I get some level of measurable joy out of reading something official that contains a rational and balanced take on a subject such as:

"... A balance is required between excessive sun exposure which increases the risk of skin cancer and enough sun exposure to maintain adequate vitamin D levels..." ?

I'm not used to seeing articles / stories / write-ups / or even paragraphs that seem to contain acknowledgement of both sides (or all sides, depending) of a situation. Everything seems like an advertisement or a paid / sponsored article these days so it's almost like a balanced write-up / an author projecting a rational and honest viewpoint is this rare and refreshing change-of-pace for me? Maybe it's not that weird but I've never really taken the time to consider it so I've definitely never asked any friends, family, or co-workers about it. Any thoughts?

[gerbilly]

> Is it strange that I get some level of measurable joy out of reading something official that contains a rational and balanced take on a subject

I got joy reading the article because it basically tells you not to worry about moderate sun exposure.

How many articles tell you not to worry? Now that's a really rare animal in the news media.

[skannamalai]

It should be noted, Australia and New Zealand also have the highest skin cancer rates in the world, at nearly 3x the incidence of the US

https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/data-cancer...

[yesenadam]

Here's the page with the skin cancer stats:

https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/skin-cancer...

Australia here, I didn't know that! Or that, for women, Denmark and Norway (and NZ) have higher rates than Australia. Scandinavia rates surprisingly highly all round. Wonder why that is.

[PKop]

Always they say take pills. People should seriously look into criticism of massive overprescribing of statins. It's crazy this advice always comes in place of natural substitutes (low carb keto diet, prudent sun exposure. No.. just take pills that's surely healthier). Here's a reference for alternative viewpoint on statins & cholesterol if anyone is interested:

https://www.amazon.com/Cholesterol-Clarity-What-Wrong-Number...

[ip26]

Yeah the comments about pills in this bit were really perturbing.

"There’s a pharmacopoeia of drugs that are extremely effective at lowering blood pressure, so to draw the conclusion that people should expose themselves..."

Feels like we are one step away from, Don't risk your health by eating fruits and vegetables, take LIPITOR® instead!

[brbrodude]

Western health is fucking broken, I'd even go so far as to say it's actually sick.

It's not about any treehugger detached crap, it's just basic observation that the human animal and the natural world are tied, that we've buried under commercial and political interests most basic notions of what healthy human is, and how society pushes people through a funnel that makes them sick, hoping to later fix that with financially viable solutions(i.e.: having a pill for every malaise that emerges).

Health is just something hollistic in nature. In other words seems like we incentivize patching instead of refactoring.

[arkades]

The first line recommendation is always diet and exercise. Pills are second line.

Some docs burn out and just start giving pills first line because 99,999% of patients do not ever do the diet and exercise, even after repeated counseling rounds.

[ip26]

And the stipulation in this discussion is that maybe we're going to learn in the next decade that going outside should have been a first line recommendation, with pills second line.

There's melanoma risk with sun exposure- but there's e-coli with produce, and a bevy of sports-related injuries.

[pessimizer]

> The first line recommendation is always diet and exercise. Pills are second line.

It would be nice if this were true. We've started to get soft industry press-pushes suggesting putting statins in the drinking water supply about every three years for the last decade.

[darkerside]

That's so fucking irresponsible. I'm not mad at you, just at any doctor that would do that.

Would you stop teaching children because they didn't know math?!

[amitport]

Doctors, with their few minutes per patient, are not in the position to teach or really influence people's habits. Teachers should teach- about exercise among other things.

[ryall]

I often wonder why GP's don't refer patients to fitness/nutrition specialists like they do for everything else.

Medical training does not cover nutrition in any depth, I'd say your average doctor is under-qualified in addition to time poor.

[nradov]

In some countries they actually do give such referrals. But it's rare in the US because most insurance plans don't cover such treatments. That is starting to change to a limited extent; my retired father receives a discount on his medical insurance for going to the gym every week.

[darkerside]

Also, parents should parent. And people should take care of themselves. I'm not saying doctors should start teaching anything. I am definitely saying that they should NOT be prescribing statins flip-ly when getting someone to diet and exercise is the correct answer.

[NikolaeVarius]

Adults are not children.

[darkerside]

Analogies, by definition, are never exactly what they say they are

[drdrey]

And sleep

[mikemotherwell]

Instead, he recommends taking a supplement shown to be next to useless...

This is a tough argument, because AFAICT this is the full argument:

1. We can do positive things for what the sun hurts, e.g. we can treat high blood pressure.

2. We can't stop melanoma.

3. Therefore, avoid the sun, and take medications to treat the resulting complications.

That's an argument that takes one risk (Melanoma) and contrasts it with other risks minus the efficacy of their treatments. I have no idea how ANYONE has worked out that equation, as no working is shown.

Personally, I really like the sun, and the lifestyle that comes with it. Doesn't seem like a small increase in Melanoma risk is worth giving all that up, especially when the cost is taking more medication for years as a result.