That's because RFK Jr's dermatologist sees him walk in and starts shopping for a lake house. The man is walking melanoma.
georgemcbay 12 days ago [-]
> The man is walking melanoma.
Nothing a few pounds of ivermectin can't fix.
/s
PyWoody 12 days ago [-]
Best I can do is some sewage runoff.
LocalH 12 days ago [-]
Can I interest you in a nice brain worm?
jerlam 12 days ago [-]
If I'm reading the article correctly, he's cancelling a proposed federal ban. So status quo remains, tanning beds are not federally banned but continue to be banned in 19 states for minors.
God! This is only going to make the parents of pageant kids even more horrifying. Not only do you dress your child up like a street walker, but you will also give them skin cancer as well.
throw1234567891 12 days ago [-]
Who cares, natural selection at work.
collingreen 12 days ago [-]
Booo
I dont think it is ever ok to justify hurting the kids because we don't like the parents.
throw1234567891 12 days ago [-]
“But think of the children!”
grim_io 12 days ago [-]
In this case, yes, literally.
throw1234567891 10 days ago [-]
Maybe those parents should not have had children in the first place. Huh…
amavect 12 days ago [-]
I think the increased UVA poses the most risk of damage. I don't know of any metabolic use for UVA. As the article notes, tanning beds have a far worse UVB:UVA ratio than sunlight.
Because UVB scatters more than UVA (Rayleigh scattering), shade increases the UVB:UVA ratio from 1:1 to about 0.52:0.35 under a shade umbrella, or 0.53:0.37 under a tree. See Table 1 (paywalled, sorry) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2005.04.039
of course, most that go to a tanning booth care more about looks than health
donkeylazy456 12 days ago [-]
this guy's existance as secretary is the best joke of trump administration.
susiecambria 12 days ago [-]
So get rid of antidepressants but bring on tanning beds! YES. America IS healthy again. Sigh.
stefantalpalaru 12 days ago [-]
[dead]
theendisney 12 days ago [-]
I like vitamine D. The salmon is full of mercury, the hemp is criminalized, there is either not enough sun, to much, we dont have time or we have reduced capacity to produce. 50% has a deficiency and many can probably use more than the bare minimum.
UVB shouldnt just be legal, it should be mandatory.
malcolmgreaves 12 days ago [-]
About 5 minutes of sunlight exposure is the maximum amount you can absorb and use to make vitimin D. Everything after that point is harmful radiation.
amavect 12 days ago [-]
Mostly right, but only for light skin (and depends on the month and the latitude) (Table 1, Table 3). Dark skin usually needs 10-15 minutes (Table 2), and even 20 minutes for the darkest skin (Table 4). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16101489
kaikai 12 days ago [-]
I read the summary thoroughly and scanned the rest, and I don’t think the paper supports the grandparent comment.
The paper says you can produce enough vitamin d to maintain healthy levels from a specific amount of sunlight per day, depending on latitude and skin color.
The original comment suggests that there’s some (very short!) limit beyond which the body is unable to produce more vitamin d, which is very different. I’d be very curious to see sources for that.
amavect 12 days ago [-]
Ah, I didn't read their comment too strictly.
UVB synthesizes cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) in the skin, which the liver converts into calcifediol (what blood tests usually measure), which the kidneys convert to calcitriol (the active hormone). Wiki claims the kidneys have a negative feedback loop, converting excess calcifediol into inactive 24,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol. I wish I had better sources (for my vitamin D pdf folder).
But just knowing that, I don't immediately see anything limiting cholecalciferol or calcifediol amount and storage.
plorg 12 days ago [-]
The same wiki article says there is a limit to the capacity of synthesis by UVB due to the quantity of reagent 7-dehydrocholesterol produced in the skin, but I don't know the math on what amount of exposure would be required to hit that limit - presumably it (or something like it) is covered in the article above.
amavect 12 days ago [-]
Some napkin math, then. About 25–50 μg 7-DHC / cm2 skin (Wiki). About 1.5 m^2 human skin area (google AI summary). About 35% skin exposed (R. Kift, linked earlier). 1.5 * 100 * 100 * 25 * .35 = 131250 μg. Need 50-250 μg of colecalciferol (2000-10000 IU). Anyone would likely get sunburn before running out of 7-DHC (excepting a low 7-DHC condition, or me getting the wrong numbers).
This study says "Findings include that small UV doses on a regular basis are more efficient for vitamin D synthesis than larger sub-erythemal doses", using a logarithmic model for blood calcifediol as a function of exposure.
But it doesn't address colecalciferol production and storage. Fat stores colecalciferol, and I don't know of any way to measure that directly. I would guess that further UVB exposure linearly produces colecalciferol (with linear DNA damage, minus DNA repair with time), but the liver and kidneys logarithmically produce calcifediol and calcitriol. Just a guess. Still more questions :)
Nothing a few pounds of ivermectin can't fix.
/s
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/8iflwh/c...
I dont think it is ever ok to justify hurting the kids because we don't like the parents.
Because UVB scatters more than UVA (Rayleigh scattering), shade increases the UVB:UVA ratio from 1:1 to about 0.52:0.35 under a shade umbrella, or 0.53:0.37 under a tree. See Table 1 (paywalled, sorry) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2005.04.039
of course, most that go to a tanning booth care more about looks than health
UVB shouldnt just be legal, it should be mandatory.
The paper says you can produce enough vitamin d to maintain healthy levels from a specific amount of sunlight per day, depending on latitude and skin color.
The original comment suggests that there’s some (very short!) limit beyond which the body is unable to produce more vitamin d, which is very different. I’d be very curious to see sources for that.
UVB synthesizes cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) in the skin, which the liver converts into calcifediol (what blood tests usually measure), which the kidneys convert to calcitriol (the active hormone). Wiki claims the kidneys have a negative feedback loop, converting excess calcifediol into inactive 24,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol. I wish I had better sources (for my vitamin D pdf folder).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Excess
But just knowing that, I don't immediately see anything limiting cholecalciferol or calcifediol amount and storage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7-Dehydrocholesterol
This study says "Findings include that small UV doses on a regular basis are more efficient for vitamin D synthesis than larger sub-erythemal doses", using a logarithmic model for blood calcifediol as a function of exposure.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8558903/
But it doesn't address colecalciferol production and storage. Fat stores colecalciferol, and I don't know of any way to measure that directly. I would guess that further UVB exposure linearly produces colecalciferol (with linear DNA damage, minus DNA repair with time), but the liver and kidneys logarithmically produce calcifediol and calcitriol. Just a guess. Still more questions :)
But yes, one can have too much of a good thing in this regard.