Why turning off the lights is a waste of your time

[Zero999]

What a load of bollocks. Good quality, well-designed LED lamps are not a fire hazard, any more than any other mains device. A decent LED lamp will have a fuse/fusible resistor and X-rated capacitors (nothing to do with porn, but capacitors which are designed not to fail short circuit and smoke) and some LED driver ICs even have thermal protection. There are far greater fire hazards than LED bulbs. Incandescent bulbs were much worse.

[Microdoser]

One thing I know is that the 25% of people who see the sun the least suffer from 3 times the cancer rate of the 25% of people who see the sun the most. It's different cancers, of course.

[nth_degree]

One thing I know is that the 25% of people who see the sun the least suffer from 3 times the cancer rate of the 25% of people who see the sun the most. It's different cancers, of course.

You're presenting 'fact' without a source. "One thing I know"? What does that mean? How do you know? And more importantly, at what point did your requirement for proof and rigor fly out of the window? Or did you think we took health advise from random strangers anywhere on planet earth with a gut feeling?

There's evidence that more sunshine reduces overall chance of cancer;

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more-vitamin-d

Let me tell you something, I don't care all that much about the subject of debate here but rather the tactics in play that are being revealed. It would appear many people today have lost their taste for reality. That means big trouble.

[Zero999]

One thing I know is that the 25% of people who see the sun the least suffer from 3 times the cancer rate of the 25% of people who see the sun the most. It's different cancers, of course.

You're presenting 'fact' without a source. "One thing I know"? What does that mean? How do you know? And more importantly, at what point did your requirement for proof and rigor fly out of the window? Or did you think we took health advise from random strangers anywhere on planet earth with a gut feeling?

There's evidence that more sunshine reduces overall chance of cancer;

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more-vitamin-d

Let me tell you something, I don't care all that much about the subject of debate here but rather the tactics in play that are being revealed. It would appear many people today have lost their taste for reality. That means big trouble.

(Attachment Link) (Attachment Link)

Correlation doesn't mean causation.

There's an optimal amount of UV exposure. Too much and it increases the risk of skin cancer. Too little and there's a higher risk of vitamin D deficiency. The optimal level is determined by skin type, which is genetic.

Vitamin D is important for a healthy immune system and brain development and low levels during pregnancy are associated with children with lower IQ scores.

Vitamin D is a critical nutrient and has many important functions in the body. A mother's vitamin D supply is passed to her baby in utero and helps regulate processes including brain development. A study published today in The Journal of Nutrition showed that mothers' vitamin D levels during pregnancy were associated with their children's IQ, suggesting that higher vitamin D levels in pregnancy may lead to greater childhood IQ scores. The study also identified significantly lower levels of vitamin D levels among Black pregnant women.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201102142242.htm
 

[not1xor1]

One thing I know is that the 25% of people who see the sun the least suffer from 3 times the cancer rate of the 25% of people who see the sun the most. It's different cancers, of course.

exposure to natural light during growth reduce the risk of developing shortsightedness.
While excessive exposure to sun light may be responsible for various kinds of skin cancer, sun light is essential to synthesize vitamin D. Food contain very little vitamin D (apart some fish) unless it is fortified.

You can easily find references on pubmed or similar search engine.

[Microdoser]

One thing I know is that the 25% of people who see the sun the least suffer from 3 times the cancer rate of the 25% of people who see the sun the most. It's different cancers, of course.

You're presenting 'fact' without a source. "One thing I know"? What does that mean? How do you know? And more importantly, at what point did your requirement for proof and rigor fly out of the window? Or did you think we took health advise from random strangers anywhere on planet earth with a gut feeling?

There's evidence that more sunshine reduces overall chance of cancer;

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more-vitamin-d

Let me tell you something, I don't care all that much about the subject of debate here but rather the tactics in play that are being revealed. It would appear many people today have lost their taste for reality. That means big trouble.

(Attachment Link) (Attachment Link)

Well aren't you simply a DELIGHT to converse with! Bless your soul, you must be the breath of life to every party you go to.

Personally, I find much commonality with Nietzsche who is famously attributed to the quote

"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!"

I myself find the modern practice of not conversing, but criticising the manner in which others converse, to be quite gauche and dull. It shows a base mind more concerned with earning brownie points and belittling their fellow man than it is in discussing a topic.

I note that you posted links that prove the validity of my statement. Well done, you added nothing to the discussion.

One thing I know is that the 25% of people who see the sun the least suffer from 3 times the cancer rate of the 25% of people who see the sun the most. It's different cancers, of course.

You're presenting 'fact' without a source. "One thing I know"? What does that mean? How do you know? And more importantly, at what point did your requirement for proof and rigor fly out of the window? Or did you think we took health advise from random strangers anywhere on planet earth with a gut feeling?

There's evidence that more sunshine reduces overall chance of cancer;

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more-vitamin-d

Let me tell you something, I don't care all that much about the subject of debate here but rather the tactics in play that are being revealed. It would appear many people today have lost their taste for reality. That means big trouble.

(Attachment Link) (Attachment Link)

There's an optimal amount of UV exposure. Too much and it increases the risk of skin cancer. Too little and there's a higher risk of vitamin D deficiency. The optimal level is determined by skin type, which is genetic.

Vitamin D is important for a healthy immune system and brain development and low levels during pregnancy are associated with children with lower IQ scores.

This is absolutely correct. A sensible amount of exposure to sun has a much lower risk of cancer than too much or too little. I have read that a walk in the summer sun of about 15 minutes three times a week is enough for someone with light skin. Of course, this will vary with the seasons and skin type.

All the effects that UV light has on the skin are not yet fully understood, although probably the largest and easiest to see the effects of (apart from melanin production) is the production of Vitamin D.

When large amounts of people moved from India to the UK in the 1950's, many of them continued to eat the same diet they had at home, which was low in Vitamin D. When the effects were noticed, they had to shift to a more Northern/Western diet to substitute for the vitamin D they were no longer getting from sunlight.

Now, for the people that don't want to talk and just want to nitpick, here is a big wall of text and a link

Code: [Select]

It has been suggested that a few minutes of sunlight each day to the face, neck, hands, and arms are all that is necessary to restore vitamin D sufficiency, but the amount of sunlight required for photoconversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol to pre–vitamin D varies considerably depending on a person's age, Fitzpatrick sun-reactive skin type, geographic location, and season. (The six Fitzpatrick skin types classify sensitivity to ultraviolet light; skin type I is fair skin that always burns, never tans; type III is darker white skin that burns and tans; type V is brown skin that rarely burns, tans easily.) Investigators employed the FastRT computational tool to predict the length of daily exposure required to obtain the sunlight equivalent of 400 and 1000 IU oral vitamin D supplementation.

At noon in Miami, someone with Fitzpatrick skin type III would require 6 minutes to synthesize 1000 IU of vitamin D in the summer and 15 minutes in the winter. Someone with skin type V would need 15 and 29 minutes, respectively. At noon in the summer in Boston, necessary exposure times approximate those in Miami, but in winter, it would take about 1 hour for type III skin and 2 hours for type V skin to synthesize 1000 IU of D. After 2 PM in the winter in Boston, it is impossible for even someone with Fitzpatrick type I skin to receive enough sun to equal even 400 IU of vitamin D.
https://www.jwatch.org/jd201006040000002/2010/06/04/how-much-sunlight-equivalent-vitamin-d

[nth_degree]

At the heart of this issue is the delusion that if you just calculate the safest path in daily living, you will live forever. Sure you haven't said that plainly, but it's very clear many here. believe it. No additional reasoning appears to have been processed past "it's the healthier choice".

Now the trouble is that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the human predicament. You're not getting the deal. Skipped the fine print it seems.

While you may indeed be able to reduce the likelihood of cancer by never going outside into the Sun, the experience you will have in your finite remaining time will be less enjoyable. Sooner or later one of the radicals in your environment be it an out of control car, or radiation from your cellphone, or choking on the lettuce in your salad, something is going to take you out. If you waste your time and lessen your experience on mantras and repetitive fear based behaviors, then not only will you end up equally dead as someone capable of thinking critically, but what little happiness you might have had will be snatched away forever.

[MK14]

If you waste your time and lessen your experience on mantras and repetitive fear based behaviors, then not only will you end up equally dead as someone capable of thinking critically, but what little happiness you might have had will be snatched away forever.

Says the person, who lives in a self made sauna (for reasons), under artificial, always on LED lighting.

[Bassman59]

At the heart of this issue is the delusion that if you just calculate the safest path in daily living, you will live forever. Sure you haven't said that plainly, but it's very clear many here. believe it. No additional reasoning appears to have been processed past "it's the healthier choice".

Now the trouble is that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the human predicament. You're not getting the deal. Skipped the fine print it seems.

While you may indeed be able to reduce the likelihood of cancer by never going outside into the Sun, the experience you will have in your finite remaining time will be less enjoyable. Sooner or later one of the radicals in your environment be it an out of control car, or radiation from your cellphone, or choking on the lettuce in your salad, something is going to take you out. If you waste your time and lessen your experience on mantras and repetitive fear based behaviors, then not only will you end up equally dead as someone capable of thinking critically, but what little happiness you might have had will be snatched away forever.

I read through all nine pages of this topic, and all I can really say about it is that you've picked a particular stupid hill on which to die.