[tkanarsky]

Is this claim substantiated? I've seen all sorts of opinions ranging from "use European sunscreens containing non-FDA-approved UVA filters" to "just rub lard on skin, drink raw milk, and lift heavy weights". I feel like chemical sunscreens have been ubiquitous enough for long enough that any correlation in skin cancer rates would have been long pointed out by now.

[joker_minmax]

I can't testify as to Sunscreen, but I can verify the UV thing first hand: my aunt who went to the tanning bed multiple times per week got skin cancer so severe they had to remove a golf ball size piece of flesh from her leg.

[fransje26]

There are recent studies going somewhat in that direction. The gist was more or less as follows: - the chemical compounds in sunscreens often break down into potentially toxic/cancer inducing compounds under UV light. YMMV per sunscreen. - metals can be used as UV blocks, and are absorbed by the skin, with potential health risks attached. - the proportion of melanomas in the population groups NOT using sunscreen was indeed higher than in the population groups using sunscreen. HOWEVER,the groups using sunscreen had a prevalence of aggressive melanoma, while the groups not using sunscreen were predominantly diagnosed with the least-aggressive type of melanoma.

[arrosenberg]

No, they are an idiot. UV light causes various mutations at the DNA level, which accumulate over time and can lead to skin cancer. Skin cancers have some of the highest number of mutations of any form of cancer.