Hacker News Reader

Comment by NoPicklez | Hacker News Reader

Then you have Australia here where there's no way sleeping outside during the day would be beneficial due to how harsh our UV rays are, unique to the rest of the world.

I agree, we didn't evolve for 100k years to work at desks for 8 hours and I think so much of that is a bigger problem in of itself, combined with lack of sunlight as just one piece

View on HN

Australia's UV rays are not unique to the rest of the world. There are lots of places in the world where the UV rays are much stronger than in Australia.

"So where on Earth’s surface would we expect the highest UV? Peak UV should occur within the tropics (high sun, low ozone), at a high altitude site, in the Southern Hemisphere. Near the Tropic of Capricorn, overhead Sun occurs during the period when the Earth- Sun separation is a minimum"

Satellite data clearly shows that UV is approximately 1.5x stronger in Peru than Australia, for instance.

> Satellite data clearly shows that UV is approximately 1.5x stronger in Peru than Australia, for instance.

Does this account for the diminished ozone-based UV filtering Australia is subject to?

Yes. Other places, like Peru, also have diminished ozone.

I should have said unlike many places around the world.

My point being in relation to the parent comment was that here you can’t just sleep outside all day. And being outside for extended hours here does irreversible damage without sunscreen very quickly

Hard to believe but I remember australian grandparents claiming you would be a "good mum" if you left infants in the sun. But I also remember being told dark tans were healthy, and people without then looked sick.

In the case of infants, sometimes their ability to break down bilirubin is reduced. small amounts of sun exposure could be recommended

My understanding is when children are born they may get put under a uv light for this. Your grandparents knowledge may be prior to modern treatment

the first studies that determined the connection between sunlight and skin cancer were based on Australia cabbies.

US cabbies got skin cancer on the left side, because their left arms or sides hung out the window / got more sun. Meanwhile the Aussie cabbies got it on their right side, and at high rates (because anglo-irish in a desert).

And the native Australians have the skin pigmentation to deal with it.

I definitely don't (not native, very pale)

I think the parent may be referring to the indigenous Australian (i.e. Aboriginal people) - who are basically black-skinned, and have been here for a lot longer than other races.

(Even they came to Australia from South East Asia originally - tens of thousands of years ago - back when there was a land-bridge).

I know, they were referring to them, I live in Australia.

I was just saying I’m not native and I have pale skin which is worse for sun damage, unlike our indigenous counterparts

Extreme equatorial sunlight still causes skin cancer even in full pigmentation islanders of northern Australia, PNG, Torres Strait, etc.

https://sundoctors.com.au/blog/how-aboriginal-peoples-master...

https://www.ourmobandcancer.gov.au/ways-to-help-protect-agai...

There's some additional protection, even so most people with long Australasian family histories hang out under trees at midday.

  Mad dogs and Englishmen
  go out in the midday sun

EDIT: come to think of it, this may explain the popularity of pith helmets in the chap hop scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eELH0ivexKA

Reply on news.ycombinator.com