Let me warn you that I am unreliable because I lost an inlaw to melanoma and I am losing the other to the same as we speak. Neither used sunscreen (instead they used baby oil) until it was much too late.

I will tell you my main gripe is the sleight of hand and fumbling treatment over sun exposure with regard to its health benefits. The conflation of risk (should I get high blood pressure or wear sunscreen?) is childlike, intellectually. It's not an either-or proposition and getting sun doesn't protect you from ailments aggravated by lifestyle. A sedentary lifestyle filled with fried salty foods is what causes high blood pressure. It's not a guessing game. Yet there are people who will take information from that article as some kind of choice, ignoring the simple fact that skin is an organ that deserves precautionary measures the same way we do with our teeth and circulatory systems.

The inane "caveman days" anecdote was particularly infuriating- "hey, we didn't have sunscreen back then and we did just fine." No, we didn't. If a caveman lived to be 35 they likely died an excruciatingly painful death from rotten teeth- inability to consume the proper sustenance and infection. Who the hell knows if they developed melanoma? Their cells didn't get the chance to divide enough.

Then there's the lede: "These are dark days for supplements." It's set up a position that I am not sure is tenable- that people take vitamin D instead of getting sunlight and that has set them on the path of destruction.

It's a half-baked article about a false choice, yet here we are, wondering aloud if sunscreen is a "good choice".

I hope my tone is not too harsh; I do not want it to sound that way. But articles like this are dangerous when partially digested so, caveat emptor.
[Post edited by typed by ben at 01/16/2019 7:20PM]