Welcome back! Summer's here and I'm psyched. Time to get outside and enjoy the sun — with sunscreen, senior reporter Dr. Keren Landman says. She's here today to unpack some of the viral myths about sun protection.
—Caroline Houck, senior editor of news |
|
|
Sunscreen myths, debunked |
Despite the extremely well-established science linking sun exposure to skin cancer, bad sun safety advice on social media simply will not stop — and a lot of people are buying it. A few days ago, the Cleveland Clinic felt compelled to plead with people not to do something called "beer tanning." Young people are especially likely to believe misleading messages about sun exposure, although they don't have a monopoly on misunderstanding — or miscommunicating — the science; middle-aged podcast hosts (and frequent peddlers of pseudoscience) Joe Rogan and Andrew Huberman have also done their share of spreading inaccurate information. Many experts also point to TikTok as the source of the wildest rumors and speculation about sunscreen. Sun safety fallacies have been around for decades, but they got a boost five years ago after a flurry of confusing actions and statements on sunscreen by the Food and Drug Administration. Then, last year, multiple aerosol products, including a few sunscreens, were found to be contaminated by benzene — a known carcinogen — leading to widespread recalls. Additionally, a growing body of science suggests there are benefits to getting a little sun, although not all countries' public health authorities embrace that science equally. A recent article in the Atlantic highlighted evidence suggesting a range of benefits associated with UV radiation. While a consortium of Australian public health groups recommends a modest amount of sun exposure to residents on the basis of some of that evidence, American public health authorities don't. It's no wonder so many people are confused about what's true and what's not about sunscreen. Understanding what's behind some of the more common misleading statements about sun safety — and why people fall for them — can help. Here are four sunscreen facts. |
Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images |
1. Sun exposure causes skin cancer — and sunscreen prevents it |
Michelle Wong, a cosmetic chemist based in Sydney, Australia, has been correcting sunscreen misperceptions for years on her YouTube, Lab Muffin Beauty Science. One of the worst that continues to dominate: "Sunscreen is worse for you than skin cancer, or sunscreen causes skin cancer — yeah, I think it's always those ones that seem to get the most traction," she says. People making this false claim sometimes point to data showing the more than threefold rise in US rates of the dangerous skin cancer melanoma between 1975 and 2018, a period over which sunscreen technology evolved considerably. Although trends that occur simultaneously are often unrelated, people sometimes suggest (without evidence) that more sunscreen is to blame. A key data point they're missing: Melanoma isn't increasing everywhere. In fact, in Australia, where sunscreen culture is perhaps stronger than in any other country, melanoma has been on the downturn since 2005. In 2021, 70 to 80 percent of Australians said they used sunscreen at least sometimes. Moreover, multiple studies have linked sun exposure to a variety of skin cancers, while plenty of other research shows sunscreen prevents multiple types of skin cancer. |
2. Chemical and mineral sunscreens are both safe — and chemical may be more effective
|
There are two categories of sunscreens. Mineral formulations rely on flecks of minerals spread on top of the skin to physically reflect the sun's rays; zinc dioxide and titanium dioxide are the two ingredients typically used in these products. Meanwhile, chemical sunscreens contain substances the skin soaks up, which absorb the sun's radiation as it hits the skin; these include avobenzone, oxybenzone, and a range of other compounds. In 2019, when the FDA was moving to update its sunscreen guidelines, it established a threshold — a very low one of just half a nanogram per milliliter — past which these ingredients would need to be further studied to determine if their absorption had any effects. Data the FDA published the following year showed all the chemicals tested blew past that threshold, leading to a furor about chemical sunscreens. These findings didn't invalidate all the safety data the FDA already had on these products, they just meant the agency needed more studies to understand if the bloodstream absorption of these chemicals was meaningful in any way. Studies seeking to link chemical sunscreen with health effects haven't added much to what we know. Meanwhile, sunscreen's protective benefits are unambiguous. Which is better for you? Wong prefers chemical sunscreens, because it's hard to formulate mineral sunscreens such that their particles get distributed evenly on the skin, so they often don't work as well. Ultimately, however, the sunscreen that's best for you is the one you'll actually use. |
Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto via Getty Images |
3. You still get the benefits of occasional sun exposure even if you're lathered up with sunscreen |
There's a strong body of evidence proving the benefits of UV radiation on bone health, mood, circadian rhythms, and vision, as noted in the Australian sun exposure guidelines. There may also be some benefit to the immune system, although the data to support that is less clear. Wearing sunscreen doesn't block those benefits, says Wong. For starters, although it's clear vitamin D deficiency is associated with sun avoidance and wearing full-body clothing that blocks the sun's rays, research doesn't link such deficiencies with sunscreen use. "No one actually applies sunscreen 100 percent correctly — there's always lots of gaps where UV can get through and produce vitamin D," she says. |
4. SPF 50+ is better than SPF 50
|
Our imperfect application is also the reason why high-SPF sunscreen — even above 50 — is actually better than SPF 50. In the places where your sunscreen application is a little half-assed, an imperfectly smeared SPF 100 will still offer some protection, while an SPF 50 in the same scenario offers substantially less. In 2007, the FDA said it wouldn't allow sunscreens to be labeled with SPFs higher than 50 out of concern the claim was misleading. However, research has shown higher SPFs do translate to more protection. In a study published in 2017, about 200 people in Vail, Colorado applied SPF 50 sunscreen to one side of their face and SPF 100 to the other; the next day, 41 percent of them were sunburned on their SPF 50 side, compared with 14 percent on their SPF 100 side. Lather up. —Keren Landman, MD, senior reporter |
|
|
| The last good day on the internet |
Remember when the only thing anybody could talk about was white and gold versus blue and black? NatGeo's Brian Resnick does. And the Atlantic's Charlie Warzel explains why there might never be another The Dress. |
|
|
- What if you could have a panic attack, but for joy?: You've caught my attention. [Vox]
- Meth-addicted fish: Yes you read that right. Our pharmaceutical waste is contaminating natural ecosystems, creating huge changes in some species — including brown trout that are addicted to methamphetamine. [Guardian]
- What a year on Ozempic can teach: A new book by Johann Hari — a writer whose post-comeback is concerned with "self-control and self-destruction, and with the interplay of forces, from without and from within, that may lead us into ruin" — chronicles his year on the new drug. [Atlantic]
|
Gary Hershorn/Getty Images |
- Not going to let this go: Still angry at New York Gov. Hochul over killing congestion pricing for Manhattan, a move that if it holds could be a "generational setback for climate policy." [Heatmap] and [HuffPost]
- Unsurprising but still disheartening: Four months ago, Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa instituted a major crackdown to quell rampant gang violence. Now, horrifying reports of torture, abuse, and starvation in the prisons are mounting. [InsightCrime]
- Gird yourselves: Utility bills for our likely extremely hot summer are also going to be extremely high. [Quartz]
|
- Sudan on the brink of famine and genocide once again: "After more than a year of neglect from global leaders and massive funding gaps for humanitarian assistance, the war in Sudan has reached a critical tipping point." [Vox]
|
|
|
Why China is winning the EV war |
|
|
Are you enjoying the Today, Explained newsletter? Forward it to a friend; they can sign up for it right here.
And as always, we want to know what you think. Specifically: If there is a topic you want us to explain or a story you're curious to learn more about, let us know by filling out this form or just replying to this email.
Today's edition was produced and edited by Caroline Houck. We'll see you tomorrow! |
|
|
Become a Vox Member Support our journalism — become a Vox Member and you'll get exclusive access to the newsroom with members-only perks including newsletters, bonus podcasts and videos, and more. |
| |
|
This email was sent to edwardlorilla1986.paxforex@blogger.com. Manage your email preferences or unsubscribe. If you value Vox's unique explanatory journalism, support our work with a one-time or recurring contribution. View our Privacy Notice and our Terms of Service. Vox Media, 1701 Rhode Island. NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. |
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment