- 547comments
- 759comments
- 198comments
- 84comments
- 353comments
- 3comments
- 66comments
- 60comments
- 62comments
- 73comments
- 18comments
- 55comments
- 36comments
- 37comments
- 7comments
- 182comments
- 35comments
- 8comments
- 2comments
- 30comments
- 13comments
- 72comments
- 20comments
- —discuss
- 172comments
- 430comments
- 50comments
- 6comments
- 103comments
- 9comments
I am curious if anyone else can tell whether it is a high UV day just by looking outside.
There is a certain look to the sky (slightly whiter-bluer) looking against the clouds, and I am not sure if it is because I am directly seeing UV, whether there is some fluorescence, or whether it’s placebo effect.
UV index weighs UVB more heavily than UVA. UVB falls much faster than visible sunlight as the sun gets lower because photons travel through increasingly more ozone and atmosphere. So the higher in the sky the sun is, minus cloud clover, the higher the UV index is.
I don't think so. If you controlled for temperature and season I bet you wouldn't be able to tell.
You can use simple heuristics to get a very good idea.
1: How high in the sky is the sun? (Many other factors like time of year, time of day, and latitude feed into this) 2: What is the chance for you at a given time of the sun being blocked by clouds, buildings, etc?
Maybe how different things look with sunglasses on vs off?
This is very misleading. By some coincidence I was just looking into this earlier today.
The lower the UV index, the smaller the window is between the amount of time needed to get enough Vitamin D and the time to get burnt (erythema). So the best thing to do is get sunlight mid-day for a shorter amount of time.
UV Radiation: Balancing Risks and Benefits https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-1097.2008...
You would do well to calculate the numbers for your own city, as I did earlier today for mine:
https://chatgpt.com/share/6ab2f272-a32c-83ea-9fec-49031e4da3...
Isn't think only true if getting enough vitamin D is as important to you as cancer?
Sunlight is associated with lower risk of almost every cancer except skin cancer, and skin cancer is the easiest to detect early.
I really appreciate learning this fact, but I can't tell how it makes the quoted sentence misleading. The author is just talking about the surprising disparity between how warm it feels and how fast you will burn. They don't mention vitamin D.
I know they don’t mention vitamin D, but I think it’s important for people to know the context and not think that late day sunlight automatically = better
That's good to know as an additional factor to consider, but it's not enough to justify your accusation that the original statement is "misleading".
You're allowed to just say "cool, here's another important thing to think about it". You don't have to pick a fight.
I think the original statement was misleading wrt sunburn for the reason I stated. I think we have different definitions of fight.
Ohh, I see. I'm not sure it was "very misleading", but I agree somebody trying to decide when to get sunlight for the purposes of vitamin D could easily misapply the lesson from this article.
it really only takes about 5 minutes of exposure to get the vitamin D your body needs. i would happily do it between 7-9AM when the UV is low than doing it at mid day.
You only need 5 minutes at midday in the summer. At 7am, you get essentially no vitamin D.
What you are saying is exactly the wrong takeaway. Please read the article:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-1097.2008...
Beneficial UV is UVB, which is low when the sun is low because it can’t get through the ozone and atmosphere as well when the sun is at an angle. Instead, you are getting mostly UVA, which has an easier time passing through the skin (and atmosphere) and doesn’t stimulate vitamin D production.
The statement you quoted is very useful [One of the most useful heuristics], and your statement is misleading. You accumulate damage (Photoaging, cancer risk) dramatically faster at high sun angles (i.e. mid day, close to the summer solstice, closer-to-equatorial latitudes) etc than low ones.
I am not trying to be negative, but this is very important if you have pale skin. Being outdoors in morning and late afternoon is dramatically less damaging than mid day.
It kind of depends on context.
If your goal is "hang out in the sun but don't get burned", then morning/evening is better. If your goal is "get exactly as much vitamin D as I need while minimizing UV damage, perhaps using a timer", then it sounds like technically mid-day is better (assuming I'm reading the parent right).
After reading your reply here and the one I was responding to, I think I understand (You spelled out) the disconnect; the post I replied to was about Vitamin-D-Maxxing, which isn't something I had in my cross check. My primary concern is "Which times should we do outdoors things to prevent sun damage [photoaging + cancer]" (And/or "Do I need to apply sunscreen before going out now / how long can I stay out)
Yes, mid-day for a shorter amount of time is better for optimal Vitamin D. The article I linked above goes into great detail about it, more than the two quotes I pulled out
I think I got the worst sunburns when I didn't feel hot at all.
Usually, it involves water, water cools you down, so you don't feel the heat, but it doesn't block UV, so you don't get the warning.
Overcast days are the worst offenders for sunburn because the melanin impaired don’t feel the heat of the sun to remind them they are going to roast.
I have always heard sunny snow days are the worst, because you feel cold, but the sun is still hitting you, plus reflecting off the snow to hit you twice.
You can get sunburn from light reflecting off water as well, in hot places. Maybe not on its own, but certainly in conjunction with direct sunlight.
Depends which part of the world you are in. I've never been sunburnt on an overcast day where I live.
One of my worst sunburns was in San Diego on an extremely gray day. I should have known better.
The right thickness marine layer can make the sky seem dim but it's like one massive UV diffuser from horizon to horizon.
It depends a lot on the position of the sun in the sky too. It can be warm around sunset and sunrise, but because the sun is so low to the horizon, it is passing through more atmosphere.
I spent a lot of time out in the sun by the Dead Sea and did not burn at all, since the very low altitude seems to have provided me with extra protection, whereas nearby on the shores of the Red Sea, at sea level, I did burn with similar levels of exposure.
The details of UV damage are interesting. You can think of DNA as a sequence of four letters: C, G, A, and T. If there are two neighboring T's, UV can move a bond, linking the two T's together (i.e. thymine dimerization). If you're in the sun, each skin cell gets 50-100 of these pairs created per second (which is much higher than I expected). Enzymes fix most of these errors, but sometimes the errors will cause problems during DNA replication and you can end up with mutations.
Details: https://pdb101.rcsb.org/motm/91
Not a skin-scientist, but this seems misleading: Sunburn is not caused by some bad DNA floating around, nor damaged cells making making mistakes or pumping out wrong proteins to inflame their neighbors.
Instead, your cells have techniques to measure a variety of risk factors and signals (which does include DNA-molecule weirdness [0]) and when things get too risky the well-behaved ones will self-destruct, to avoid the chance of turning into a cancer.
So the sunburn you see and feel is instead due to cells signalling "something damaged me and I can't be trusted, I'm shutting down, recycle me" to your immune-system, plus the attendant bustle of hazmat-cleanup and increased security-sweeps for cancer-leftovers and other potential causes of the damage.
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/newbio241074a0
This whole article shouldn't even exist, and should just point to wikipedia or mayo clinic.
Toasting my DNA is quite a way to put it. It's an informative read, it helps me understand why the noonday sun does feel so intense. Even if it's not hot, the ability to find shade at noon is so poor, it feels inescapable.
Does anyone know how UV indexes reported by weather apps (including forecasts) work?
I've found that some sources report lower UV index on cloudy days, whereas some seem to indicate the same index as a sunny day.
It's not clear if these sources all have a different model for UV, some being more sophisticated or conservative, and whether any of them are backed up by a UV meter.
It is a prediction of UV intensity based on specific forecast location, time of day, day of year, prevailing weather, and any anomalies affecting the ozone layer. It is calculated by NOAA.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/uv_index...
This depends on the country and the source. Here in Australia BOM UV values are predicted, but cancer council are observed.
Here are the predictions and observations for Australia: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/our-services/monitoring/ultraviol...
I don't know about this. I can feel where there are holes in my sunblock (which only block UV) which lets me know where to apply it, and the sensation is not one of heat of the sun, it's different. I'm not sure about the mechanism, but the presence of the sunblock stops the "UV" type sensation. This from the moment I put it on to long after the water component of the sunblock has evaporated. And, the type of sunblock doesn't matter (the drier waterproof kind or various lotion varieties). And, I do notice a difference between the different SPF, along with some "bad" sunblock that I just kept applying but couldn't make the feeling go away (it had apparently separated, and everyone that used it was burned).
I think the "real" test would be to just shine a UV light in a dark room, to see if the source can be identified while blindfolded, or something.
Good post - the UV index is related to how short the "column of air" that the sun traverses to get to your skin - noon is the shortest distance. Scattering is a density function (more air, more scattering), so this is why it looks like cos^p when compared to normal irradiance (cos). It also explains why it is hard to get a sunburn in the temperate winter, since the sun always appears at an angle, it doesn't go directly overhead.
As someone who has gotten sunburned in California winters and even around 7-9 PM in Alaska, I can't relate to your closing idea at all!
I've heard a quick way to determine if the UV index is dangerous is if your shadow is shorter than you. Though location matters too.
I moved from Vermont to Texas and had to purchase an umbrella with UV protection to walk around during the day. The highest the UV index hits in the Vermont's summer is 6. In Texas, it's 11+ !!! 15 minutes and you're toast
In some parts of South America the UV index reaches 15-20 due to near-equatorial latitude and extremely high elevation. It is strong enough that you need protection from indirect UV radiation.