God! This is only going to make the parents of pageant kids even more horrifying. Not only do you dress your child up like a street walker, but you will also give them skin cancer as well.
I think the increased UVA poses the most risk of damage. I don't know of any metabolic use for UVA. As the article notes, tanning beds have a far worse UVB:UVA ratio than sunlight.
Because UVB scatters more than UVA (Rayleigh scattering), shade increases the UVB:UVA ratio from 1:1 to about 0.52:0.35 under a shade umbrella, or 0.53:0.37 under a tree. See Table 1 (paywalled, sorry) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2005.04.039
of course, most that go to a tanning booth care more about looks than health
I like vitamine D. The salmon is full of mercury, the hemp is criminalized, there is either not enough sun, to much, we dont have time or we have reduced capacity to produce. 50% has a deficiency and many can probably use more than the bare minimum.
UVB shouldnt just be legal, it should be mandatory.
Mostly right, but only for light skin (and depends on the month and the latitude) (Table 1, Table 3). Dark skin usually needs 10-15 minutes (Table 2), and even 20 minutes for the darkest skin (Table 4). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16101489
I read the summary thoroughly and scanned the rest, and I don’t think the paper supports the grandparent comment.
The paper says you can produce enough vitamin d to maintain healthy levels from a specific amount of sunlight per day, depending on latitude and skin color.
The original comment suggests that there’s some (very short!) limit beyond which the body is unable to produce more vitamin d, which is very different. I’d be very curious to see sources for that.
UVB synthesizes cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) in the skin, which the liver converts into calcifediol (what blood tests usually measure), which the kidneys convert to calcitriol (the active hormone). Wiki claims the kidneys have a negative feedback loop, converting excess calcifediol into inactive 24,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol. I wish I had better sources (for my vitamin D pdf folder).
The same wiki article says there is a limit to the capacity of synthesis by UVB due to the quantity of reagent 7-dehydrocholesterol produced in the skin, but I don't know the math on what amount of exposure would be required to hit that limit - presumably it (or something like it) is covered in the article above.
That's because RFK Jr's dermatologist sees him walk in and starts shopping for a lake house. The man is walking melanoma.
> The man is walking melanoma.
Nothing a few pounds of ivermectin can't fix.
/s
Best I can do is some sewage runoff.
Can I interest you in a nice brain worm?
Let's bring this back!
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/8iflwh/c...
God! This is only going to make the parents of pageant kids even more horrifying. Not only do you dress your child up like a street walker, but you will also give them skin cancer as well.
Who cares, natural selection at work.
Booo
I dont think it is ever ok to justify hurting the kids because we don't like the parents.
So get rid of antidepressants but bring on tanning beds! YES. America IS healthy again. Sigh.
I think the increased UVA poses the most risk of damage. I don't know of any metabolic use for UVA. As the article notes, tanning beds have a far worse UVB:UVA ratio than sunlight.
Because UVB scatters more than UVA (Rayleigh scattering), shade increases the UVB:UVA ratio from 1:1 to about 0.52:0.35 under a shade umbrella, or 0.53:0.37 under a tree. See Table 1 (paywalled, sorry) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2005.04.039
of course, most that go to a tanning booth care more about looks than health
I like vitamine D. The salmon is full of mercury, the hemp is criminalized, there is either not enough sun, to much, we dont have time or we have reduced capacity to produce. 50% has a deficiency and many can probably use more than the bare minimum.
UVB shouldnt just be legal, it should be mandatory.
About 5 minutes of sunlight exposure is the maximum amount you can absorb and use to make vitimin D. Everything after that point is harmful radiation.
Mostly right, but only for light skin (and depends on the month and the latitude) (Table 1, Table 3). Dark skin usually needs 10-15 minutes (Table 2), and even 20 minutes for the darkest skin (Table 4). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16101489
I read the summary thoroughly and scanned the rest, and I don’t think the paper supports the grandparent comment.
The paper says you can produce enough vitamin d to maintain healthy levels from a specific amount of sunlight per day, depending on latitude and skin color.
The original comment suggests that there’s some (very short!) limit beyond which the body is unable to produce more vitamin d, which is very different. I’d be very curious to see sources for that.
Ah, I didn't read their comment too strictly.
UVB synthesizes cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) in the skin, which the liver converts into calcifediol (what blood tests usually measure), which the kidneys convert to calcitriol (the active hormone). Wiki claims the kidneys have a negative feedback loop, converting excess calcifediol into inactive 24,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol. I wish I had better sources (for my vitamin D pdf folder).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Excess
But just knowing that, I don't immediately see anything limiting cholecalciferol or calcifediol amount and storage.
The same wiki article says there is a limit to the capacity of synthesis by UVB due to the quantity of reagent 7-dehydrocholesterol produced in the skin, but I don't know the math on what amount of exposure would be required to hit that limit - presumably it (or something like it) is covered in the article above.
Don't bother quoting facts to these guys. We're being governed by people who make decisions based on their feelings, not material reality.
It's not just vitamin D, it's other things too (e.g., NO -- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10539323/).
But yes, one can have too much of a good thing in this regard.