Not really, because I'm using the most conservative margins possible. I remember a source showing vitamin D concentration over time in sunbathing black/white subjects, and the blacks after 2 hours didn't even reach what the whites had at 20 minutes. I can't find that source right now, so I didn't cite this, but the "acceptable limit" for dark skinned type 5 people is probably a lot higher than 1 hour.
Personally, I've sunbathed for 3 hours without getting burned, and only a very slight tan.
Again, the study was using socially constructed self-reported races, lower sample sizes for nonwhite people
It was 52 people. Small sample sizes are less relevant when the effect size is large enough.
and at the end of the day still admitted that there is a nonzero chance of getting sun-related skin cancer if you’re not white. Wear sunblock.
Or don't wear sunblock. Because the effects of vitamin D deficiency and Seasonal depressive disorder are astronomically more likely than getting skin cancer for a dark-skinned person. Regards, an actual dark skinned person
“There is little evidence that sunscreen decreases 25(OH)D concentration when used in real-life settings, suggesting that concerns about vitamin D should not negate skin cancer prevention advice”
where in that study does it say they only looked at white people?
The authors save 1 are all Anglo names (one is literally named Whiteman lul), and the text doesn't mention race/ethnicity which means they are exclusively done on whites, or at best a 90:10 split of whites:blacks (which effectively means the results only matter for whites)
really rigorous science you’re doing here. Are you really implying that you know the race of the participants in the study based on the author names?
Holy shit dude, yes. How do you not know this? It's a meta-analysis. That means they look at a bunch of different studies.
That means that, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, these are going to be mostly Western studies, which are done on populations that are overwhelmingly white.
If a Western study deals specifically with a non-white population, it almost always says so right in the title.
If you don't believe me just look at their references, and the names of the people/titles.
There are probably a few use cases, like if you're lifeguarding on the beach all day all summer long, even a dark-skinned person might benefit from it.
It's not just vitamin D, it's also seasonal affective disorder and thousands of other interactions unknown to science, because science only holds up a candle in an unlit auditorium (and in the case of funding for POC-centric studies, it's more like a glowing ember). Dark-skinned people evolved taking in plenty of sunlight, that's why they're dark. There are certainly dozens of downstream, subtle effects of light-deprivation which science hasn't even begun to describe. but yea
There is little evidence that sunscreen decreases 25(OH)D concentration when used in real-life settings, suggesting that concerns about vitamin D should not negate skin cancer prevention advice
that study reviewed other studies which were almost exclusively done on Europeans, so it's irrelevant.
It's possible and even probable that sunscreen has a UV-blocking effect that is enough to shut out the modicum of vitD-production that dark people have, and enough to give big returns in burn protection to pale skin, but not enough to block vitD production in pale skin.
How about instead of me playing defense here, someone proves to me that a dark-skinned person can even get UV-induced skin cancer, for starters? This whole conversation, myself included, has assumed this is even possible, with no evidence. 29-72% (let's call it an even 50%) of melanoma in dark-skinned individuals is Acral Lentigious Melanoma, which is not UV-related. What's the other 50%? For all we know it could also be mostly unrelated to UV exposure.
deleted by creator
I have proven that if you have type 5 skin, you do not need to wear sunblock for exposures up to 1 hour.
Actually, I didn't prove this, a bunch of scientists did. I just looked it up
deleted by creator
Not really, because I'm using the most conservative margins possible. I remember a source showing vitamin D concentration over time in sunbathing black/white subjects, and the blacks after 2 hours didn't even reach what the whites had at 20 minutes. I can't find that source right now, so I didn't cite this, but the "acceptable limit" for dark skinned type 5 people is probably a lot higher than 1 hour.
Personally, I've sunbathed for 3 hours without getting burned, and only a very slight tan.
It was 52 people. Small sample sizes are less relevant when the effect size is large enough.
Or don't wear sunblock. Because the effects of vitamin D deficiency and Seasonal depressive disorder are astronomically more likely than getting skin cancer for a dark-skinned person. Regards, an actual dark skinned person
deleted by creator
From studies done on white people, yes.
deleted by creator
The authors save 1 are all Anglo names (one is literally named Whiteman lul), and the text doesn't mention race/ethnicity which means they are exclusively done on whites, or at best a 90:10 split of whites:blacks (which effectively means the results only matter for whites)
http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/psych2015/projects/chapter/weird-populationsunrepresentative-sampling/
yes dude, it literally does. and there's no reason to wear it for the 1st hour of sunbathing.
Dark skinned people in general should err on the side of NOT using sunblock.
deleted by creator
Holy shit dude, yes. How do you not know this? It's a meta-analysis. That means they look at a bunch of different studies.
That means that, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, these are going to be mostly Western studies, which are done on populations that are overwhelmingly white.
If a Western study deals specifically with a non-white population, it almost always says so right in the title.
If you don't believe me just look at their references, and the names of the people/titles.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-effect-of-sunscreen-on-vitamin-D%3A-a-review-Neale-Khan/9c77216902252c88dc801342a4a31493e9062078?sort=relevance&citedPapersSort=relevance&citedPapersLimit=10&citedPapersOffset=20
deleted by creator
There are probably a few use cases, like if you're lifeguarding on the beach all day all summer long, even a dark-skinned person might benefit from it.
It's not just vitamin D, it's also seasonal affective disorder and thousands of other interactions unknown to science, because science only holds up a candle in an unlit auditorium (and in the case of funding for POC-centric studies, it's more like a glowing ember). Dark-skinned people evolved taking in plenty of sunlight, that's why they're dark. There are certainly dozens of downstream, subtle effects of light-deprivation which science hasn't even begun to describe. but yea
deleted by creator
realistically, how many dark skinned people (or any people) are doing that? For most, it's better to err on the side of no sunscreen.
deleted by creator
Are you dark skinned though? As in this or darker?
deleted by creator
okay, that doesn't fix Seasonal Affective Disorder though. You need the actual full spectrum light for that.
that study reviewed other studies which were almost exclusively done on Europeans, so it's irrelevant.
It's possible and even probable that sunscreen has a UV-blocking effect that is enough to shut out the modicum of vitD-production that dark people have, and enough to give big returns in burn protection to pale skin, but not enough to block vitD production in pale skin.
How about instead of me playing defense here, someone proves to me that a dark-skinned person can even get UV-induced skin cancer, for starters? This whole conversation, myself included, has assumed this is even possible, with no evidence. 29-72% (let's call it an even 50%) of melanoma in dark-skinned individuals is Acral Lentigious Melanoma, which is not UV-related. What's the other 50%? For all we know it could also be mostly unrelated to UV exposure.