Comment by rogeryu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rogeryu | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

(e) You may not know that ... cancer prevalence depends heavily on vitamin D levels. People living around the equator have a 40-60% lesser chance of getting cancer than people living in the US, Canada or Europe. This is even true for people living in Florida. We don't get enough UV-B from the sun, not like centuries ago when we didn't have to work indoors and didn't use sunscreen. People with dark or darker skin have an even bigger risk.

The risk of getting nonmelanoma skin cancer from UV-B is relatively low, and it's easy to treat. Melanoma skin cancer is dangerous, but not related to sun exposure. Taking vitamin D using pills or getting enough sun exposure (without sunscreen) without getting burnt may be the cheapest and most easy way to reduce cancer risk.

Below some links, these about breast cancer. AFAIK these numbers are similar for other cancers like liver, lung, colon, etc.

http://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/vitamin-d-sun-and-canc...

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/26/health/he-explain26

http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc05/papers/p...

Or Google that yourself: https://www.google.com/webhp?q=cancer+rates+equator

Sorry, what? Please provide some sources for these claims.

As far as I'm aware melanoma is most definitely related to sun exposure and there is no consensus opinion on vitamin-D and cancer prevention, with the most evidence being for it being protective against certain bowel cancers..

Edit: Here's a source for my view: http://www.nhs.uk/livewell/summerhealth/documents/concensus_... [3rd and 4th bullet points for example]

See my updated comment!

There's some data to speculate that chronic non-burning levels of sun exposure is protective against melanoma while acute burning exposure is inductive. Until the data becomes more clear get some sun exposure but do not burn.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082713/

This is exactly what I mean. Burning is not good, never. It damages the skin and that can cause cancer. Getting 1 MED of sun / UVB a week is however OK it seems.

What 1 MED is for you depends on where you live, what time of the year it is, and what skintype you have. If you take a sunbath of one hour in New York in July, and the next day your skin if mildly rose but not burnt, than 1 MED = 1 hour of sun for you, under those circumstances. Then you can divide that into two or three parts spread out over the week. So for 1 hour, you can sit in the sun for 20 minutes three times a week. That will give you enough vitamin D without causing nonmelanoma skin cancer.

In Mexico the sun is brighter, so that would shorten your 1 MED period. In november in NY the sun is less bright, so that would make it longer and probably even harmless.

Yes, absolutely, also of note is that it's not just only vitamin d that is good for you but nitric oxide related effects as well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24445737 (ted talk about this topic: https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_weller_could_the_sun_be_go...)

That's still an open issue, and the direction of causality hasn't been nailed down yet, but it's interesting.

Seriously? Research please ... Not a challenge, more a desire for more

See my updated comment. I don't have the time to give more links, but you can do that yourself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com