is the moral of the story that offices are killing us and that we need to go outside and sit in the sun for an hour of your day?
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more...
An hour a day buck-ass naked, isn’t enough if you don’t live along the equator.
For many northern and southern latitudes where many people live if you affixed yourself to a rotating pole and rotisserie’d yourself from sunrise to sunset while naked every day, then for 4-9 months out of the year you would be D deficient.
I’m outdoors more than most and if I don’t supplement my levels fall into the mid-20s ng/mL, below the standard range of 30-100.
And no matter how many millions of studies repeat verbatim the importance of vitamin d people still neglect it.
Like damn, I knew I was supposed to do such things already, but it's the difference between mom saying to eat your veggies vs. mom slamming down a stack of scientific paper about why not eating veggies will literally kill you or whatever.
Wham, unhealthy lifestyle eradicated at almost no behavioural cost.
I’m sorry, Elon is waaay smarter and more capable than I am but he is empirically wrong about his anti WFH bias.
I ask, because even if they never invest a cent in your personal ventures, it is a very significant boost to to have wealthy parents who provide both broad access to formal and informal education, valuable networking, and a dependable safety net. Saying someone with those advantages is "more capable" when comparing them to the average First Worlder (let alone the average human being) is a sort of perceptual bias that seems unfortunately common.
I don't know if you're playing up being a homebody or if something horrible happened to you.
Curiosity: How did you land up in the windowless situation?
Since you appear to have seen the underbelly of society you make want to look at my profile and read the link I've put on my profile. It may sound a little predatory when I suggest that you look at my profile, but so be it.
Sadly the laptop's too small and Chrome's too power-hungry for solar power to be an option: ⅓m width * ¼m length * 158W/m2 solar = 13W out of 67W to run it, or 19%.
While I love being outside, I always wear hats, hoods and jackets to protect my skin.
Also cataracts would also be a problem.
Sitting in tree shade won't give you skin cancer.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abs...
All you are doing is listing modern formulations, some of which are not even generally regarded as safe anymore.
The statement being made by others is that "ancients" applied a topical substance to protect their skin from harmful effects of the sun, most would call that sunscreen[0] but use whatever word you prefer.
> anything remotely close to the formulae we have today
No one is making this claim.
[0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sunscree...
Sunscreen is a 20th century term, and modern sunscreen as we know it came into use in the mid-20th century.
That’s not our sunscreen.
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
I think the dangers of over exposure to the sun have long been known and only recent generations think shorts and T shirts in direct sun for long amounts of time is a good idea.
It works well but it would actually be nice to have polarized glasses that improve the situation instead of making it worse.
https://www.uvm.edu/news/extension/tips-choosing-grow-lights
They're kind of hard to find, the optimal values are 6500K for CCT and as close to 100 as possible for CRI, which matches the peak value and the overall spectrum of natural sunlight. One option appears to be the NorthLux™ 95 CRI T8 LED Tube (kind of pricy though, and will need a specialized ballast fixture, also a bit pricy).
You _can_ install UV diodes, but then you have a whole another can of worms. A point source of UV can damage eyes much more easily, and if you forget to turn it off, you can expect a nasty sunburn.
I regularly sit outside with my shirt off in ~20F weather and don't get cold enough to have to go inside.
Direct sunlight makes all the difference. With the sun, sub freezing air temperatures can actually leave you feeling quite warm.
I live in the Middle East and the uv index in the am (before 9am) in direct sunlight isn’t that crazy.
I think I get 30 minutes from going outside for lunch and walking to my car, driving, taking out the trash, getting my mail, etc.
30 minutes of continuous chemical reaction will have vastly different effect than a reaction that stops & starts repeatedly, for a sum total of 30 minutes.
That's because vitamin D synthesis is an equilibrium reaction, UV drives backward and forward reactions. So you'll get more vitamin D if you expose your skin to the sun for a few minutes, then let the synthesized vitamin to diffuse out of the skin layer, and then expose yourself again.
I'm 38, and have never worn sunscreen outside of going to the beach for a whole day. I often get compliments from women about my face, and they're shocked to hear I never wear sunscreen or moisturize. It's almost like not putting chemicals on your face is good for you.