Dermatologist Shereene Idriss debunks myths about sun exposure, clarifying that while sunlight aids vitamin D and mood, chronic unprotected UV exposure still damages skin. Studies claiming sun exposure prevents cancer confuse correlation with causation, like saying ice cream causes shark attacks. Melanoma risk comes from intense, occasional burns, not gradual exposure.
Chapters
If this is a cult, then I guess Darwinism let UV pick its winners. Sunlight has its benefits, from vitamin D, your mood, circadian rhythm, even your immunity. No one, not even dermatologists, are denying that. But that does not mean that chronic unprotected UV exposure is going to de-risk you from colorectal cancer or prostate cancer. That's exactly like saying ice cream sales go up in summer, shark attacks go up in summer, so ice cream sales must cause shark attacks. Correlation does not equate to causation. And saying that outdoor workers have less of a risk of getting melanoma, that is not a free pass because this has been studied and there are multiple different factors contributing to this. They tend to be healthier populations too. They show behavioral differences— hat, long sleeves, a shirt. He's basically protecting himself. Gradual, consistent sun exposure is not the same thing as intermittent burns, and your skin eventually adapts, but that does not mean it's not damaged. UV radiation is a known carcinogen. Every single time that you get a tan or a burn, your skin cells' DNA is damaged. Yes, melanoma risk is usually associated with those intense, ever-so-often skin burns. Think vacations from your childhood. If you draw the conclusion that regular sun exposure should be protective because you do not want the intense intermittent bursts, that's exactly like saying, well, I drive every day and I never get into an accident, so maybe I shouldn't wear a seatbelt. Dermatologists, we're not anti-sun. We're anti-stupidity and pretending that cumulative sun damage doesn't exist.
