[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.