[swalling]

Higher ultraviolet light exposure is associated with lower mortality... for white people residing in the United Kingdom.

The selected cohort of people is pretty specific from a global perspective. In particular, if you live in a higher UV location (i.e. closer to the equator), intentionally increasing sun exposure like they measured in this study may not be necessary or helpful. For instance, the entire lower 48 states in the USA are below the same latitude as the UK.

[mint2]

Glad this was pointed out - this article is specifically about regions in “low” UV latitudes, with the actual subject being from the UK.

Accounting for UV intensity of your home country is crucial. Don’t just go out and frolic without precautions just because a study from the UK found sun exposure was good. Their sun isn’t built the same.

Mid day UV index in SF is 9 as I type. Compare what the paper says about the UK UV index:

“ The UV index [in the uk], which measures the erythemal intensity of sunlight, rarely exceeds 6 (where 3–5 is classified as moderate and 6–7 high)”

Make good decisions people! I got some sun when the UV was 2 early in the early morning. Now it’s 9 at midday. All sun is not equal.

[xattt]

> Make good decisions people! I got some sun when the UV was 2 early in the early morning. Now it’s 9 at midday. All sun is not equal.

I observed a group of people going into a theme park at 5 PM and slopping on a thick layer of sunscreen. Sundown was ~8 PM. Local UV index is essentially 0 at that time of the day.

Mental models of UV exposure are not always intuitive.

[swalling]

> Mental models of UV exposure are not always intuitive.

100%. On this front, the study notes something important that helps explain the lower overall mortality, which is that "Most melanoma is a disease of intermittent burning sun exposure, particularly in childhood."

In other words, skin cancer doesn't increase exponentially with total lifetime UV exposure, unlike say, regular alcohol use or smoking. It's much riskier to get burned repeatedly in early childhood than it is to have regular moderate levels of sun exposure long term while avoiding being burned.

[mcguire]

Higher ultraviolet light exposure from:

"The UK Biobank has data from which behavioural and geographic UV exposures can be estimated. Firstly, participants were asked ‘how many times a year would you use a solarium or sunlamp?’ We recoded the responses to create a solarium use variable (solarium user or solarium non-user, defined as one or more times per year versus never or less than one time per year)."

and

"Secondly, we estimated an annual average residential shortwave radiation (SWR; kJ/m2) over the follow-up period variable for each participant. Downward SWR is the total incoming solar energy over the Earth's surface in the shortwave spectrum and comprises both UVA and UVB radiation, (Yu et al., 2021) the components solar radiation that have effects on human health. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) calculates half-monthly average of daily downward SWR (250 nm–2500nm) measurements using daily data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument on NASA's Aqua and Terra satellites, considering cloud and aerosol thickness (Murakami, 2010). These measurements are available at a 0.05°x.0.05° spatial resolution."

So, "Did you use a sunroom at least once?" and "How much solar radiation does where you live according to our model?"

[jmward01]

In his TED talk Weller points out that latitude correlates with heart disease well. This study gets to clear out a lot of variables by sticking to the UK though so it is really valuable in testing the potential of UV without having to deal with as many social/environmental/etc etc factors. It would have been nice if the paper mentioned the world data that shows correlation between cardio vascular disease and latitude to help put this study into better perspective. To sum it all up: There is a world trend but the data is a bit messy. This study took a smaller chunk of the world and the results support the world trend and the data is much cleaner.

[arcticbull]

I mean, they would be the ones I'd expect to be the most sensitive to the negative impacts of UV radiation, right? The acute effects of UV tend to be worse on people who are (a) lighter skinned and (b) get less exposure in general.

I would actually expect the biggest positive impacts would be to darker-skinned people who live in higher latitudes with more time spent inside (as melanin protects you from the UV radiation, so you see higher rates of, e.g. vitamin D insufficiency).

There's three major pathways for health benefits from sun exposure.

1. UVB radiation stimulates the synthesis of vitamin D3.

2. UVA radiation stimulates the release of nitric oxide. This reduces your blood pressure and improves markers of cardiovascular health.

3. You're outside getting physical activity.

[edit] Also note that melanoma survival rates are much better for people who get more time in the sun.

[1] https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/97/3/195/2544082

[noncoml]

Higher calorific intake is associated with lower mortality*

*Study conducted during the Great Famine

[hnlmorg]

While I get your point, I think it’s a rather uncharitable way of putting it.

A lot of the world is in lower UV continents like the UK. It’s not like it’s a statistical outlier like the great famine. So this research can have benefits to a lot of other people in other counties too.

[noncoml]

You are absolutely right about the research part.

I guess I was surprised that it made it to the news, as it seems expected to me. If they would reach the opposite conclusion however, now that’s newsworthy.