But I am mighty!!
-
Thats a cute observation but real facts are the following:
-
Autism was only formally recognized in the 1940s - there’s no reliable data before that, though historical evidence suggests autistic people have always existed. For decades, people deemed “mentally ill” were institutionalized and hidden from society.
-
The majority of autistic people can mask their traits and present as neurotypical - they had strong incentives to do so given the historical stigma.
-
Diagnosis happens more frequently in areas with accessible healthcare, which naturally are also areas with higher vaccination rates.
-
We now have better diagnostic tools and a less punitive society for people with neurological differences. The diagnostic criteria have expanded significantly - many people (especially women) who wouldn’t have qualified under older definitions now do.
And if we want to include the more modern research done by the autistic community we learn that autism is a part of a bigger phenomenon called neurodivergence which includes adhd and many others. Who also used to be completely excluded by the dogmatic labeling of neurotypicals.
Also you referring to autism as a serious disease shows how little you actually know about it. Just like anyone else neurodivergent people can have psychological disabilities but because they are neurodivergent those disabilities are often different from neurotypical ones. In ““high functioning”” autism disabilities are subjective in context of living in a neurotypical world and are increasingly less disabling with social acceptance and understanding.
@webghost0101 Yes big Ashkenazi pharma. Why are you afraid of actually researching the subject instead of trying to propagandaize it? -
-
So let me tell y'all about the crazies I work with. I burn easily, and there is very little shade, so I store sunscreen everywhere. My desk, the bathroom, my bag, the car, the office supply closet, etc. I often use it and offer to my colleagues when anyone needs to go out for a while.
We got a new guy on the team, he's going out, I suggest he take some sunscreen. He tells me that sunscreen is poison and that you don't really need it as long as you don't wear sunglasses. He tells me that it's wearing sunglasses that actually causes you to burn because your eyes don't get as much sun so your brain doesn't send the right chemicals out to protect your skin.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Sometimes I think I've heard all the batshit nonsense. Other times I read something like this.
-
On the other hand, what bullshit is it that my stupid human body can't survive being outdoors without medicinal cream. My ancestors would be ashamed.
Mud and henna masks and other full skin coverings are extremely common among indigenous people and presumably your ancestors as well.
-
It's actually irritating to me that the sun is bombarding us with ionizing radiation
(I know, not the same intensity) but think about the amount of precautions we take before turning on a UV lamp. Or before turning on a very bright LED which you are not supposed to look directly at. Well, neither you should look directly at the sun, but you get the idea
In a perspective, sun is so radioactive it can even decay paint and plastic! It can literally cook you alive and make your skin fall in pieces. This just seems usual to us because we were born with it, people would freak the hell out if a medical procedure had the same side effects
Look, I can make a right wing campaign out of this! BAN THE SUN SAVE YOUR KIDS FROM 800T (Terahertz) RADIATION
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I'm sure you could get signatures as long as you don't use the word sun, similar to that ban dihydrogen monoxide bit. Take video.
-
So let me tell y'all about the crazies I work with. I burn easily, and there is very little shade, so I store sunscreen everywhere. My desk, the bathroom, my bag, the car, the office supply closet, etc. I often use it and offer to my colleagues when anyone needs to go out for a while.
We got a new guy on the team, he's going out, I suggest he take some sunscreen. He tells me that sunscreen is poison and that you don't really need it as long as you don't wear sunglasses. He tells me that it's wearing sunglasses that actually causes you to burn because your eyes don't get as much sun so your brain doesn't send the right chemicals out to protect your skin.
Yeah I've seen an upsurge of people claiming sunscreen is toxic poison. Not sure where the fuck they pulled that from
-
Yes, that is when we evolved
You must know how averages work. The poster is correct. Average age at death is a horrible metric when you have gigantic birth and infant mortality rates.
-
what if your skin has a hit point system and that 1% difference is the breaking point of sunburn
They've cracked the code....
-
The average person should almost certainly not be using it, but maybe it would make the difference for extremely sun sensitive people.
If someone is that sensitive to sun they should start picking up fashion tips from the Bedouin.
-
Not wearing sunscreen and getting a sunburn is a psyop to get men to buy more aloe vera.
Put that shit in the refrigerator, it's awesome.
-
New question for the "water isn't wet" fools unlocked.
But it isn't. Technically.
-
Yeah I've seen an upsurge of people claiming sunscreen is toxic poison. Not sure where the fuck they pulled that from
Maybe they read something about the titanium dioxide contained in some sunscreen products. There is some research indicating that its not as safe as we thought and that it might be carcinogenic.
-
Yeah I've seen an upsurge of people claiming sunscreen is toxic poison. Not sure where the fuck they pulled that from
-
It's a good thing my skin isn't made of coral.
-
The difference between SPF 60 and 100 is like 1.1% better UV blocking, anything over SPF 50 is in a practical sense nearly useless.
For instance SPF 30 blocks 97% of UVB rays, is it worth paying more and slathering more potentially harmful (to the environment) compounds on your skin for 98% blocking? I think not.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I used to think the same thing, but the thing is we don't care about the energy that goes into the sunscreen, we care about the remaining percent that goes into the skin. If you go from a sunscreen that absorbs 98% of the sun's energy to one that absorbs 99% you are halving the amount of energy your skin is exposed to.
If you're still getting burned with 98% absorption, then increasing that number by 1% would actually make a huge difference. And that's without even considering things like having a safety margin for improper application.
-
Get 100 spf, I've never even tanned on that shit.
I have never in my life seen anything seen anything higher than 50+
-
You must know how averages work. The poster is correct. Average age at death is a horrible metric when you have gigantic birth and infant mortality rates.
No, I mean that for the brunt of humans evolving to be genetically roughly what we are today, it is unlikely many people were living much past their prime. I am talking about roughly 100,000 years ago up to around 10,000 years ago when humans developed from a largely hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
-
No, I mean that for the brunt of humans evolving to be genetically roughly what we are today, it is unlikely many people were living much past their prime. I am talking about roughly 100,000 years ago up to around 10,000 years ago when humans developed from a largely hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
People who live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle today live 65+ regularly. The average may be lower for uncontacted peoples for various reasons, or higher because of reduced disease transmission. I imagine it depends on the group.
Now, I will give you that humans have refined their techniques of hunting etc over that 90k years in a way that caused less accidental deaths.
The crux of the matter though is that the statistical averages you have seen are flawed by infant mortality. In these societies, if you made it past toddler age you were statistically likely to live a long time.
What would be killing people much past their "prime" and how do you define prime?
-
Some of the chemicals do show up a bit in blood, but there's no evidence it's toxic iirc.
-
It's actually irritating to me that the sun is bombarding us with ionizing radiation
(I know, not the same intensity) but think about the amount of precautions we take before turning on a UV lamp. Or before turning on a very bright LED which you are not supposed to look directly at. Well, neither you should look directly at the sun, but you get the idea
In a perspective, sun is so radioactive it can even decay paint and plastic! It can literally cook you alive and make your skin fall in pieces. This just seems usual to us because we were born with it, people would freak the hell out if a medical procedure had the same side effects
Look, I can make a right wing campaign out of this! BAN THE SUN SAVE YOUR KIDS FROM 800T (Terahertz) RADIATION
It’s actually irritating to me that the sun is bombarding us with ionizing radiation
Yeah, it's called a sunburn!
-
The heat could dry out your skin, which, if I'm not mistaken, is essentially what a burn is. However, as the other person noted, a sunburn is damage from radiation, not heat. So I think you could stretch the common definition of a burn to call heat induced dry skin a burn but calling it a sunburn would not be accurate.
Heat is also (thermal) radiation. So is light, radio waves, microwaves, etc. However, the radiation from a fire or the other stuff I mentioned isn't ionizing, so unless the heat itself does damage it won't do cellular damage.
You also give off thermal radiation, but so does anything higher temp than absolute zero.
