But I am mighty!!
-
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.
what if your skin has a hit point system and that 1% difference is the breaking point of sunburn
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
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
-
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.
Your ancestors had melanin production to fit their sun exposure and seldom lived past 40
-
Assuming this is a sincere question:
The sun emits a wide spectrum of radiation due to the nuclear fusion reactions occurring within it's core. This includes everything from low energy non-visible radio waves and thermal radiation to high energy X-rays and gamma rays. Fortunately for us, the Earth's electromagnetic field and atmosphere (especially the ozone layer) protects us from all but a tiny sliver of ionizing radiation or we wouldn't be here to talk about it.
Also, hello again AES_Enjoyer, hope you've been well
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Isn't most of that radiation blocked by the outer layers of the sun, though? Like, sure, there is a non-negligible amount of high energy photons escaping, but the overwhelming majority of the radiation comes AFAIK from blackbody radiation from the plasma at the temperature of the surface of the sun?
And yo, mate, how's it goin?
-
Because the spectrometer says so, mainly. Why?
Hahaha that's a good one
-
mate it's ÂŁ5-10 for a 200ml bottle I'd hardly call that cheap
I have autistic sensory issues and the cheapest one I can at all tolerate to have on my skin is 15€ for 50ml. I have so many of the 5-10€ bottles at home and can't handle any of them. Fml
-
Your ancestors had melanin production to fit their sun exposure and seldom lived past 40
Maybe tens of thousands of years ago, but 2000ish years ago 60ish was old age. The main reason life expectancy has gone up isn't that old people didn't make it to 50, it's that young people didn't make it to 2. If a couple has 5 kids, 3 of them die as toddlers and the other two make it to 70 the average life expectancy is about 30, but that doesn't mean living past 30 is unusual.
Also, tens of thousands of years ago there was an ice age, but for the last 10k years light-skinned Europeans still had normal summers and worked in the fields.
-
Maybe tens of thousands of years ago, but 2000ish years ago 60ish was old age. The main reason life expectancy has gone up isn't that old people didn't make it to 50, it's that young people didn't make it to 2. If a couple has 5 kids, 3 of them die as toddlers and the other two make it to 70 the average life expectancy is about 30, but that doesn't mean living past 30 is unusual.
Also, tens of thousands of years ago there was an ice age, but for the last 10k years light-skinned Europeans still had normal summers and worked in the fields.
Yes, that is when we evolved
-
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.
The average person should almost certainly not be using it, but maybe it would make the difference for extremely sun sensitive people.
-
@webghost0101 Yes said the big pharma industry to whom vaccination is incredibly profitable, but statistics say otherwise.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Feels weird that i have to explain this, but not all Research is funded by big pharma.
The majority of research on autism is not about Vaccins either but about understanding the many properties from which it emerges.
By understanding what autism actually is, which is often studied by autistic researchers who are motivated to understand themselves better it becomes self evident that we are far from reaching a technological point where we can create a drug to cause or even simulate the complex nature of it.
You could just aswell claim that vaccins cause people to shapeshift into cats, if you understand the subject matter thats just as non-realistic
If you want to bash vaccines you could state that an experimental accidental wrong mixed variant could cause death. Which would still be an incredibly unlikely freak accident but at least reality allows the technical possibility for such a mistake.
-
Feels weird that i have to explain this, but not all Research is funded by big pharma.
The majority of research on autism is not about Vaccins either but about understanding the many properties from which it emerges.
By understanding what autism actually is, which is often studied by autistic researchers who are motivated to understand themselves better it becomes self evident that we are far from reaching a technological point where we can create a drug to cause or even simulate the complex nature of it.
You could just aswell claim that vaccins cause people to shapeshift into cats, if you understand the subject matter thats just as non-realistic
If you want to bash vaccines you could state that an experimental accidental wrong mixed variant could cause death. Which would still be an incredibly unlikely freak accident but at least reality allows the technical possibility for such a mistake.
@webghost0101 Here are the facts. 100 years ago, Autism rate is 1-in-40000, today it is 1-in-16. The increase in autism has paralleled the increase in vaccines. And the autism rates parallels the vaccination rates in various regions. As I previously stated, this is a casual not a causal relationship, but given the seriousness of the disease and how many it is affecting, it is worth researching the relationship. Only people who could possibly be opposed to that are those whose profits are threatened. -
>be me
>white as everliving fuck
>put on 60 spf sun screen, as you should, and set a timer for an hour and a half to reapply, earlier than the recommended 2 hours
>alarm goes off, reapply
>STILL GET SUNBURNEDmfw
I once somehow got sunburned while inside my bedroom
-
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.
Seems like in real world use it makes a difference.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0190962219327550
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29291958/
From another thing I read, people have a tendency to not apply enough sunscreen or apply it correctly. I'm sure if everyone did it perfectly it wouldn't matter. All I know is anecdotally, when I switched to 100 I stopped getting sunburns, and I have been in situations with people who used their own lower spf, got a little burned still, and I came out of it pale white.
The price might be higher, but a quick look on Amazon and I'm seeing more than spf affecting that. The brand I buy is about 1.80 (usd) per ounce, and i see other brands with less spf for more. I see other brands with the same spf for less, and it seems like it's between ~1.10 per ounce to ~2.80 per ounce so I'm not really bothered by my price. I don't know anything about the environmental differences between spf so I won't comment on that.
-
>be me
>white as everliving fuck
>put on 60 spf sun screen, as you should, and set a timer for an hour and a half to reapply, earlier than the recommended 2 hours
>alarm goes off, reapply
>STILL GET SUNBURNEDmfw
Lotion is good for the first coat, but the spray is so much easier to apply when you're already sweaty and sand is everywhere.
-
Yes, that is when we evolved
And only then?
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
Yes, that is when we evolved
Speak for yourself.
-
@webghost0101 Here are the facts. 100 years ago, Autism rate is 1-in-40000, today it is 1-in-16. The increase in autism has paralleled the increase in vaccines. And the autism rates parallels the vaccination rates in various regions. As I previously stated, this is a casual not a causal relationship, but given the seriousness of the disease and how many it is affecting, it is worth researching the relationship. Only people who could possibly be opposed to that are those whose profits are threatened.
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.
-
-
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.
