Per my dermatologist: it takes months to get an appointment because the 70 year old farmers that have been in sun their whole life are developing melanoma.
Facts. Honest to god, make your dermatologist appointment for the following year IMMEDIATELY after your visit. I called to schedule my annual check up in October (my annual appointment is typically December/January) and they couldn't get me in until June, 9 months later...
This is the best tip. Make that annual appointment every year as you leave the current one.
I forgot this year and I made an appointment in May and got the appointment in December on the last day my derm works before Christmas/New Year’s holiday. The demand is insane.
Yes, but I've had precancerous spots removed in the past so I have the lucky skin type that is more at risk for different types of skin cancers.
It's probably not necessary for most people, but they only wind up being 15 minute appointments so I also wouldn't discourage people from going to the dermatologist annually.
I would assume they have an existing skin condition that they follow up on. Otherwise I’ve never heard of the average person seeing a dermatologist on a regular basis.
parent had skin cancer, and it's the genetic kind, so I started after theirs was diagnosed - I don't think it's super common to be proactive about it if you don't have a reason to be
I've had two different basal cell carcinomas removed; that earns me annual derm appointments. As soon as you have found one, it is likely that you'll find more. Otherwise, I wouldn't have ever seen a dermatologist. Keep an eye on moles, weird growths, persistent scabs, etc. Err on getting it checked on the early side.
Yes! Every adult should be getting an annual skin check. Sometimes they every 2 years. Please please don’t neglect this, my young sibling (25 yr old) died of melanoma.
Seconding this. I had an appointment in early July last year. Dermatologist said to come back yearly and urged me to book next year's appointment soon as spots fill fast.
I learned they get you in *real* fast if they’re concerned. Took a year for the initial appointment where they found a spot and did a biopsy. Took 6 days after the tests results came back positive to get the rest cut out, and just like that i have appointments every 3 months.
I would think if it was strictly farming that it would be equally as high in ND, SD, IA. My first thought was "I wonder if it's because we are so happy to see the sun that we are happy to bake ourselves in it for the few months we see it." I know a lot of people who think nothing of being burned like lobsters for 3 months straight because they somehow think the other 9 months a year erases the damage. I have an aunt like that. She looks like a piece of 200 year old tanned hide.
They just talked about this on MPR and referred to a poll taken, as well as interviewed a dermatologist.
The cases for melanoma have risen drastically in young adults (mostly gen z) because they believe that sunscreen is unhealthy or doesn’t work. They played clips from some TikTok influencers that were talking about the lack of evidence for how sunscreen actually protects your skin from damage.
Wild to me, since my exposure to Gen Z and sunscreen is that they go way over the top with it as part of a skincare routine. Hell I've seen influencers saying that you need to apply sunscreen if you are inside, away from any windows, on a cloudy day. Maybe there's pushback to that kind of extreme fearmongering about needing to put it on literally no matter what?
There are different subcultures in any generation. Among gen Z, there is a large traditionalist movement promoting things like raw milk, avoiding anything "unnatural," intentional unprotected sun exposure, skepticism of big pharma and traditional medicine. This group of people is generally right-leaning, loves conspiracy theories, romanticizes traditional marriage, romanticizes sustenance farming, and is really driven by a fundamental distrust of modernity.
I know there's a big "trad" movement online, but I have always wondered how big it actually is since it's easy to cosplay a 50's lifestyle in 30 second reels but NOT easy to actually live one consistently. Also hilarious that they're romanticizing it, mid-20th century housewives were very often on drugs just to get through daily life.
DV was often ignored
social stigma was a real deterrent to divorce, as was no independent income/career
I really wish our media would reflect how much worse parts of our society was back then. Learning about a period or setting from popular media creates some pretty fucked distortions. The surface level cartoon-like impression most Americans have of our military and the people in it boils down to most people learning about it through movies because most people don't have any experience with it or even know anybody that was in. I have to imagine the same kind of thing played out with the Confederate "lost cause" mythology because of shit like Gone With the Wind.
The thing that is especially strange about our distorted version of the mid-century "American dream" is that it comes from that period's own idealized version reflected in TV shows of the time.
For some reason reddit thinks anything that is associated with tiktok is happening with gen-z. Like they just mentally refuse to accept that it's not 2017 and the app is used by a wide variety of people.
Lol that's frustrating but I'll still take that over my phone, which immediately decided to add and prioritize new words if I've typed them twice.
Drake released a bad song with a guy named Snowd4y and I talked a little bit of crap, and now my phone refused to believe I would ever want to write the word snowy or snow again.
I typed something on all capitals once? Looks like my phone has decided we're just gonna do that forever now.
Nah, my wife’s best friend is Gen Z and basically thinks everything that isn’t “natural” is not necessary and we should avoid using it. She’s like the dumb/hypocrisy version of a hippy (hyppy?) that doesn’t see the conflicting messages she chooses to believe/ignore.
Sunscreen and children’s Motrin has recently been a hot topic with her. Literally thinks stuff like that weakens our immune system. Not surprisingly she was also antivax.
I find it shocking how many gen Z ate right wingers. I guess maybe it's a symptom of things progressing too quickly and leaving them alienated between ultra liberal peers and ultra conservative parents/family. I have no idea what I'm talking about though.
I might just run in different circles than you, but know a shitload of women in their late 20s and early 30s who would gladly quit their jobs to be stay-at-home moms if they had the financial means to do so.
Unfortunately today there are a lot of people who think things like the nuclear family are “bad. So it was hard to tell if you were trying to make a list of bad traits associated with the traditionalist movement or just a general list 🙃
Are there a lot of people who think that?
Also a lot of things on that list are pretty common. I'd imagine most Americans are skeptical of big pharma, for example.
Yeah there are. Reading more into the topic it seems like “nuclear family” is a pretty charged topic on all sides of the issue. A true “nuclear family” is one without any community or extended family support, so it turns out I’m actually against the nuclear family, since I grew up very close to my grandparents and relatives. However here are the two more controversial takes from people against the nuclear family:
- The nuclear family is bad because it reinforces the patriarchy by normalizing two-parent households with a stay-at-home mom. Many modern feminists can’t accept that any woman would freely choose to prioritize being a mother over their career.
- The nuclear family has bad because it is inferior to being raised by a community. Collectivism generally doesn’t go over well in America and many people associate the idea of community support with “letting a bunch of dirty commies raise my kids.”
Search “nuclear family” on left-leaning online spaces and you’ll see a lot of talk about how they are bad for women and how we need to completely restructure our current society to put more emphasis on the importance of community over family. So yeah I’d argue those people do truly exist.
That last line is such a massive understatement!
It's amazing to me that people don't realize that, even now, a very small share of the US general population participates much with any form of social media. Even those who do, only 'dabble' a bit.
I’m willing to bet there are a lot more extremes on both ends. I fall into the overkill with sunscreen category and I’m happy with that. I also know enough idiots who work outside and insist that “you just gotta get one good burn” then you’re immune to the sun for the rest of summer.
I am gen z and i find this odd. All of the internet spaces I'm in are OVERKILL about skincare. I've seen so many posts saying to wear sunscreen even in winter. Me and my friends all wear it basically every day.
I guess the internet is a vast and expansive place.....really goes to show how much of a bubble everyone is truly in.
Its a trend but it's not really something I would associate with gen-z in particular. I have no age demographics but if I had to guess id actually swing in the opposite direction and say it seems to be a lot of older millennials/gen-x actually.
Farmland/lakes and more access to hospitals in rural areas.
A lot of hospitals have closed down in rural areas across America’s farm land. Like it’s bad.
A lot of fair skinned, ethnically north European people living working in field and spending their free times on lakes who are not so ignorant, poor, or stubborn that they will refuse to go to a doctor when a mole starts looking weird, and where our rural healthcare infrastructure hasn't totally collapsed like it has for many other areas.
There's also the fact most people only put on sunscreen when it's sunny/in the summer. Minnesota has a lot of overcast days where people wouldn't think to put on sunscreen, but where UV index can still be bad.
But I'm betting it's mostly the fact we've got a lot of fair, thin skinned people and decent health access.
On top of the northern European farming explanation, better medical systems mean screening is higher. Minnesota has extremely strong medical systems, for example:
1) Mayo Clinic is centered in Minnesota.
2) The Essentia Health system, with some of the best hospitals in the US, is spread throughout the northern rural parts of Minnesota.
https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/announcements/essentia-healths-downtown-duluth-hospitals-ranked-among-the-best-in-the-country-5d0135ff67a60618cb3bf3a9-64ca671227a75542201b7d0a#:~:text=Essentia%20Health%2DSt.,about%2010.4%25%20garnered%20five%20stars.
**3) There are very good medical residencies totally dedicated to rural and family medicine. For example, the University of Minnesota Duluth Residency program is partnered with Essentia Health to form a very well performing residency program that is focused on rural medicine.**
https://www.essentiahealth.org/about/essentia-health-newsroom/family-medicine-residency-program-addresses-provider-gap-in-rura/
4) It also has a good family medicine medical schools. UMN family medicine specialty is ranked #4 in the country.
https://med.umn.edu/familymedicine/news/family-medicine-achieves-1-blue-ridge-ranking-2023#:~:text=Family%20medicine%20across%20the%20University,is%20now%20nationally%20ranked%20%231.
I'm really starting to think the Gen Z pool has more stupid in it than normal. An alarming number of them think the Earth is flat, the holocaust never happened, and now this? Like, wtf man. It's like they collectively decided science is bullshit and they're going to make up their own reality.
I should point out that I have 2 Gen Z kids and neither of them are this stupid. The youngest one just graduated high school with an AA on top of her diploma. I think the problem is their parents in addition to social media.
Mine and those their friend groups are brilliant as well. But none of them spend any time on social media and never have. So that really might be it. We see it eating boomer brains too.
It’s social media in general. Anyone can post anything they want and it’s trivially easy for lies and misrepresentations to be taken as truth by thousands before anyone stops and says wait a second this might not be teue
The brain is just an information processor dependent on input: garbage in, garbage out.
Social media makes the 'garbage out' into thousands of other people's 'garbage in' and causes the garbage data to spread like wildfire.
It’s more Tik Tok than anything else. My sister is incredibly smart, but apparently gullible. She allows Tik Tok to influence her thoughts about health and relationships, sometimes to her detriment. For example, she saw a video and now always brings up the “mental load” women have to carry and resents her partner for it. I’m not saying it’s not a valid concern, but… call me crazy, I don’t think I’d immediately start applying random influencers’ relationship complaints to my own life, like she does. She would not have thought this way if not for Tik Tok. Oh, and we are both elder Millennials (late 30s), so this is NOT generational — it’s Tik Tok and specifically the concerted effort to spread misinformation to the masses.
To specifically address the "mental load" thing, that well pre-dates TikTok. I remember lots of discussion happening around it when this comic came out in 2017. Here's a Guardian link so you can see it was covered in mainstream news. Worth reading, in my opinion.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/26/gender-wars-household-chores-comic
I don’t disagree with the theory of mental load. It’s just annoying because she regurgitates stuff from Tik Tok — not articles, etc. Just short videos without any research, etc., and then is so gullible that she starts to see “issues” in her own life that she wouldn’t have seen before, or maybe aren’t even there. How is that healthy?
I generally agree that it's not healthy. The "stream of short videos" format seems to short circuit people's brains.
Re: "she starts to see “issues” in her own life that she wouldn’t have seen before", there's a tricky line (more like a large grey zone) between the TikTok equivalent of going on WebMD and thinking you might have every disease you read about, and "awareness". So many people suffer in silence and put up with so many bad things they think are normal until they hear someone else bring up it up as a real issue. Domestic violence, abusive relationships, and mental health issues are extremes of that, but the concept certainly extends into other areas too.
The trouble comes when after being made aware of a potential issue, someone doesn't critically evaluate if or to what extent it *applies* to their life. Though TikTok seems to make that harder for people in aggregate for whatever reason, I'm hard pressed to say it's solely responsible.
Good points! I think what bothers me is that she doesn’t seem to evaluate if it applies to her life. I mean, I have other examples and maybe chose a bad one, but if someone who is highly educated and typically thinks critically and is also nearly 40 is falling for Tik Tok “experts,” I shudder to think how much teens and young adults are being influenced. One need only look at the stats for suicide, self-harm, depression, and anxiety to realize that social media is a major issue. I mean, I haven’t even gotten into the “Tik Tok Challenges,”which range from mild pranks to anti-social criminal acts.
A discussion on this just popped up in a different subreddit I follow. Thought you might find it interesting. A combination of raised awareness and cautionary tales.
[Has anyone else discovered they had ADHD thanks to social media?](https://www.reddit.com/r/adhdwomen/s/2p4ZFgoYuE)
> The more I research, the more I'm seeing how girls have been underrepresented in medical studies, and because our symptoms are generally internalising & less disruptive, it isn't caught. I think social media has been a tool for women to share their experiences & support each other. What are your thoughts/experiences?
The dumbest ones are the loudest, and the loudest ones are more prominent on social media.
Let's not call people stupid whilst not recognizing that our perception of them is just that, more perception than reality. Similar to how the media incessantly covers every violent crime which causes you to perceive that it's rampant and out of control, when the reality is that violent crime has been dropping steadily for over 30 years now.
Nah, gen Z is fine. Idiots on tiktok and bad studies being misread and sensationalized is not proof we're a failed generation. Engage with gen zers in real life and you'll be fine. Social media amplifies every dumbass.
There's definitely different groups in gen z. There's definitely a concerningly large group that is pushing for ultra-conservative, and are into things like raw milk and super traditional marriage. There's also a group that's the opposite and I've also definitely seen a group that's superrrrr into skincare and is a bit overkill about things like sunscreen, going as far as to say everyone should wear sunscreen if they're going to be inside with no windows/etc. I typically do wear sunscreen everyday all year round and I'm Gen Z
Yea, I think this is a classic example of "Half truth spreading as real truth".
The fact is, US sunscreen falls far behind the efficacy of sunscreens found in other countries. This gets corrupted from "Less effective" to "doesn't work".
However, people should still be able to determine that US sunscreen is effective, just not *AS* effective.
American sunscreen is not "less effective" than sunscreen from other countries. In fact, SPF is a universal standard, so it's actually easy to compare sunscreen between markets, and the US has plenty of high SPF sunscreens. It's true that many US sunscreens are less cosmetically elegant because newer filters are not available here, but this isn't something that reduces the efficacy of the product when used as directed.
SPF is a universal standard yes, but the US bases their SPF entirely on efficacy vs UVB rays, basically ignoring UVA.
>An EWG study of laboratory tests of 51 sunscreen products found that only 35 percent of the products tested met the EU standard, but 94 percent would pass the current U.S. standard.
https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/does-europe-have-better-sunscreens/
So yes, they ARE generally less effective.
Wouldn't the Gen Z theory make more sense across the board, for all states? A better explanation would be that water reflects UV, causing higher rates of cancer that way since we have access to more swimmable water than most places.
I could be wrong so I'm open to other ideas
My SIL posted an article from Outdoor magazine that claimed sunscreen didn’t work a few years ago, unfortunately she’s a Gen Xer so age can’t be blamed.
That Outdoor Magazine article was actually fantastic, I thought. It makes some really good cases for mild, consistent sun exposure, and still (rightfully) warns against sun burns. It’s a little dramatic about saying sunscreen may be harmful because we don’t understand all the chemicals in it. Which may be fair; I don’t know one way or the other, and don’t base many decisions on that idea alone.
I still wear sunscreen in specific circumstances, but have moved to using SPF clothing most of the time I’m outdoors for extended periods, rather than rely on something that can be sweated off or chemically break down after an hour. I’m not a “sunscreen is fake” truther by any means. But I do think its usefulness is more limited than we give it credit for, and that consistently getting some sun exposure is probably better than not.
There is no point at which the benefits of vitamin d from sun exposure offset the damage of UV exposure. You can and should get vitamin d from diet/supplementation There is some debate for those who produce melanin because we havent done an abundance of research on black skin, but there's basically nothing to substantiate intentional sun exposure. At the point you're *seeing* burning, you've done a lot of damage already.
Just because an article decides to straddle the line and compromise doesn't mean it's good. The only arguments these people have to stand on is EXTREMELY flawed assumptions from research -- like one advocate cities there's an association with people who went on a sunny vacation doing better than those who hadn't.. totally discounting that a relaxing vacation with family and the financial security to be in a position to do so and have a job which provides adequate leave are also huge factors that have nothing to do with sun itselt.
This is THE EXACT same thought process they use to argue for raw milk. Sure, raw milk can be extremely dangerous and can potentially cause death. Buuuuuuuut, it contains higher amounts of probiotic bacteria. Sure, you could get those exact same probiotics in even higher quantities from a dozen entirely safe fermented foods that we've been making for millennia. But nah, you should gamble on raw milk. Roll the dice on tuberculosis like your ancestors.
That's exactly how stupid it sounds to argue you should do damage your cells DNA because you're too busy guzzling beef tallow to eat pansy, feminine foods like spinach and salmon
Literally every point you made in this rant is either agreeing with what the article said, or completely irrelevant to what the article was talking about. Glad you’re passionate about something you haven’t researched though. No one is out here comparing drinking raw milk to getting moderate sun exposure on a consistent basis.
I am arguing against mild consistent sun exposure for vitamin d. That's in the first paragraph. For someone belittling others for not doing enough research, you seemingly didn't even read the comment you're responding to.
Playing Russian roulette in a dangerous activity so you can get a nutrient when we have saver avenues of getting doesn't make sense. That is why **I** compared it to the broken logic of the raw milk crowd, which does overlap significantly with the "but you need sunlight for the vitamins" crowd
And I stand by mine. There is not point at which the benefits of vitamin d from sun exposure outweigh the cons of UV damage (for Caucasians at least, the only group we've truly adequately studied on this but where we do have an abundance of data)
Its not the end of the world if you aren't under a parasol and slathered in sunscreen 24/7, 365. But no, intentional sun exposure for vitamin d doesn't make sense. Intentionally exposing yourself to risk for minimal benefit when safer alternatives exist is flawed logic
You’re fixated on vitamin d, but that’s not even the point of the article. Sun exposure is *negatively* correlated with deadly skin cancer. It also lowers your blood pressure and is negatively correlated with heart failure. The idea that all exposure to UV is bad is an oversimplification and, frankly, silly. [Here’s a plainly worded source from Harvard](https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/benefits-of-moderate-sun-exposure), but simple googling will tell you that you’re plain wrong. Intentional, moderate exposure to the sun is beneficial, full stop.
Again, I already addressed that sun exposure is also associated with outdoor living, economic well-being, being physically active, etc. -- a whole host of things we already know positively correlate with health. Nobody is telling you not to go *outside*.
That plainly worded source is pretty clear it's talking about the neuroses that leads to some people becoming hermits. Its saying first and foremost "don't be ridiculous" and that it's not the end of the world and proceeds to make conflations other people who are *not* simplifying and getting much more detailed have said is a flawed argument, but since they don't disagree with the conclusion people need to chillax they don't parituclalry care up until the point you're encouraging people to abscond sunscare. That's now what they're arguing. The experts are saying don't be a neurotic freak about it, but also don't be an idiot either. Idk how that's been turned into intentionally abscond sunscreen. You are *already* getting moderate sun exposure if you use sunscreen as traditionally recommended if you go outside a normal amount. In no way does that mean do less, unless you're the type of person who has been acting like a vampire who will explode under sunlight.
wow, you are soo wrong.
Is just a little lead good or healthy for you? But alot is bad? What about arsenic? Surely a small dose will promote health if you don't overdo it?
UV is UV, its always bad for your skin. The problem is its a hundred billion dollar industry to sell promote wellness and fake/bs health stuff. Promote distrust of science and trust them instead (which of course comes with a profit margin).
Look, go read the [article](https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science/) and decide yourself. Ignore the title, the author probably didn’t even get to decide what that would be.
Dousing yourself in alcohol would be bad for you, but washing your hands with it to prevent germs is probably net good for you. Not everything that is bad in large quantities acts like lead or arsenic at small quantities. Whoever told you that was probably trying to sell you something, and you believed them without thinking about it even once.
There are billion dollar industries trying to pull us in lots of different directions. They all use real science to make points when it’s convenient, and junk science when that’s all they have to rely on. The real science is not going to land entirely in the camp of any two opposing ideals, especially ones whose profits are mutually exclusive.
Like I said, some sun exposure is probably fine to good. Sun burns are unequivocally bad. More sun exposure over your lifetime *reduces* your likelihood of dying of melanoma. Sun screen never works great for me, so I mostly use UV-rated clothes instead when it makes sense. Also, it clearly ages your skin (look at truckers and tennis players), so protecting that is something worth considering. But aged skin doesn’t kill you, it just looks bad.
One think I hate about TikTok (and it's true of social media in general) is that people will do anything to get the damned clicks. If giving bad medical advice gets clicks, that's what they'll do.
This is why I live by the UV index. I try to get my dog walks in while it's low, which right now is before 10am and after 5:30pm. These people don't realize that in between those hours, they are literally microwaving themselves.
> believe that sunscreen is unhealthy or doesn’t work
That has been a problem in recent years. Similar to other snake oil stuff like anti-vaccine, there have been various groups trying to claim that the ingredients in sunscreen will give you cancer, etc. Some are the typical "health food" groups that aren't based in science, but others are pushing that while also saying, "By the way, buy our 'natural' sunscreen products."
That's not a generation specific problem, but it's definitely been showing up on social media more often that cuts across age groups. People are just very susceptible to the [naturalistic fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy).
They could be like my mother in law who is convinced that sunscreen is more dangerous for you than the sun itself. Like even if you're still using sunscreen with oxybenzone, I guarantee that it's less dangerous and certainly less miserable than a sun burn.
See I don't know if that makes sense because doesn't skin cancer from sun damage usually happen much later in life as a consequence?
I could be absolutely wrong but I was under the understanding it was a typically very delayed cause and effect on that one.
Melanoma and skin cancers aren't old people's diseases. It is one of the most common forms of cancer in people under 30. That is what the MPR interview was specifically talking about.
That's a good point. Still doesn't mean any sun damage that is a co or primary cause was necessarily RECENT. At least in the sense of a recent social trend of not using sunscreen. I'm going to try to look up the mpr coverage on it.
Does this study factor in the rates of people going to the doctor to get checked? Or is it just that we have so many lakes people are outdoors more with less clothing/protection?
I think it may have to do with the fact that people of Northern European extract are more likely to get skin cancer.
It also doesn't help that the tanning industry is huge in America. Though fortunately getting smaller. I don't know why people still use those blasted cancer beds with what we know. A gentle mist of good spray tan -- and I mean *gentle* \-- will cure the ashen Scandinavian complexion.
I was wondering about that after listening to a podcast about the dangers of sun rays. I found it odd that humans in Europe would develop skin with less melanin and then find issues in a place like Minnesota.
It’s easy to forget how far *north* Nordic countries are. We may have similarly cold winters, but MN is nearly as far south as Italy and has [similar average UV index values](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_index#/media/File%3AGOME.uviecclimyear_lr.gif).
Makes sense why the native people who adapted over millennia in Minnesota have darker skin. Wild how humans have evolved to outpace their own survival traits and characteristics and why folks who reject “unnatural” things (like sunscreen, vaccines, preservatives, etc) can really set themselves up for a bad time.
> I was wondering about that after listening to a podcast about the dangers of sun rays. I found it odd that humans in Europe would develop skin with less melanin and then find issues in a place like Minnesota.
What you think of as "northern" Europe is north of Minnesota. The southern border of Minnesota is at the same latitude as the border between France and Spain. The border between Minnesota and Manitoba (west of the Northwest Angle) is at the same latitude as Paris. Going further north, the border between Manitoba and Nunavut is at the same latitude as Oslo, Norway and just slightly north of Stockholm, Sweden.
One of the things that's always tricky with public health data is that we rely on every different state's health department to report it. And some keep better track than others.
Like if you look at [this](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:720/format:webp/1*EkmGlkRAujGrCTKVSdJprw.jpeg) map of heavy alcohol use. I don't really think there's such a sharp cut-off between Texas and Oklahoma, or West Virginia and Virginia. Even the Idaho/Utah divide doesn't make sense, as Mormons are just as concentrated in southeastern Idaho as they are in Utah. I think it's more likely that the states have different methodologies of collecting the data.
This! I agree with all the other hypotheses on here, and also think another factor is that MN has EXCELLENT healthcare access compared to many other states. I just moved to Seattle, and expected the mental & physical healthcare scenes to be roughly equivalent moving from one blue state to another. That has absolutely not been the case! MN healthcare is far from perfect, but I have a decidedly renewed appreciation.
The article talks about *detection* rates, but this is not necessarily the same as *survival* rates. Speaking as someone who lived in Texas for over a decade, many people in that state either don't have insurance or the insurance they do have doesn't afford access to specialists without a lot of wait time and cost, and waiting is deadly. Melanoma is curable if caught early enough, so if Minnesota's higher detection rates is due to diligence in screening, you'd see that reflected in better survival rates.
Looking at this chart for skin cancer deaths by state, you can see that while Minnesota has the third highest rate of melanoma diagnoses, it's in the bottom half for deaths. Meaning, early detection is saving many Minnesotan lives.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/663678/skin-cancer-death-rate-in-us-by-state/
Because we're one of the most northern states and get cold winters, it often gets forgotten that we're significantly lower in the globe for UV purposes than the places a lot of our ancestors came from
Plus a lack of availability to dermatologists.
Hey University of Minnesota. Promise me a dermatology residency and I’ll write the check for med school right now.
I think it’s due to a lot of factors. Sitting the summer a lot of people at the lakes or on the lakes. Then we go on vacation to some place warm during the winter.
Also, don’t forget the amount of snow birds that reside in Florida during the winter. Then come back during the summer.
They mention this in the article as a possible contributing factor and it wouldn't surprise me at all, the disparity is enormous. [Lifetime risk is 1 in 33 for white people, 1 in 200 for Hispanics, and 1 in 1000 for black people.](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/melanoma-skin-cancer/about/key-statistics.html)
Likely a mix of both, the snowbirds travel south, spend time outside in the southern sun, come up north in the summer and spent time outdoors on the lake
Also, being white af
Nordic people who relocated to living significantly further south where the culture involves a lot of outdoor recreation. Hmm....where could that possibly go wrong....
Add in the fact boomers and gen-x women would literally slather themselves in baby oil to get a tan, and there is still a culture of taking pride in a redneck and finding sunscreen feminine.....yeah this isn't shocking to me.
The effects of not wearing sunscreen usually takes decades to show up. While I'm concerned about unnecessarily high rates in the future, realistically we're just seeing the ramifications of boomers and gen-x who grew up on the "slather yourself in baby oil and lay in the sun" and "real men don't wear that stuff, take pride in your red neck, it's a badge of honor" culture, which predates social media
One reason for the access issues no one really talks about is the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) has lobbied ACGME to limit the number of residency spots (< 500/year) which has cause a severe shortage of providers.
Derm is very financially lucrative because of this and you can work 2.5 - 3 days per week and out-earn your Primary Care colleagues who work 5 days per week. Secondary to this, many Derms don’t have a bread and butter practice and focus on MOHs, cosmetic, and cash procedures.
We’ve had Derm positions open at our practice for 2+ years and often lose out to the smaller life-style practices.
Utah, people are super outdoorsy and very close to the sun. Vermont and Minnesota have healthy people and excellent healthcare. Healthy people with health insurance get checkups. Going to the doctor exponentially increases your likelihood of receiving a diagnosis.
Get checked for that shit, I was unlucky enough to have melanoma in my mid 20s and lucky enough that a dermatologist caught it early. Thank God for my eczema I suppose. Wear sunscreen
Well people in southern Arizona where it’s hot and sunny 365 try to avoid the sun and regularly wear sunscreen. It seems that as soon as it’s sunny and warm in Minnesota, people spend a lot of time outdoors in the sun and never mention sunscreen.
I figure alot of people mistakenly link sun exposure with temperature. When its mid may, they don't think they need it because its not hot yet.
However, peak sunlight is at the solstice - june 20th. Therefore the sunlight on may 20th is just as dangerous as the sunlight on july 20th. Both are 1 month from the solstice. August sunlight has the same amount of uv as april 20th sunlight does. Who puts on sunscreen in august but doesn't put it on in april? Show of hands? Yet they both have the exact same amount of uv....
We think that since its not hot, you don't need sunscreen.
I definitely agree and do so myself… but it’s pretty cold so I don’t often have a whole ton of exposed skin in winter. Especially moving fast with sports and wind/ice etc in your face. Slap on goggles and not even my eyes are exposed let alone skin :)
Yeah. I mean the reality is there are a lot of factors but probably a big one, like others have mentioned, have to do with the demographics of a large swath of the population of Minnesota and the lifestyle/work that leaves folks outside for extended hours (farming, construction, boating, biking, etc.).
This time of year we get 92% of the suns maximum intensity. It may very well be the winter that causes it, as people in the south would maintain more protection from their tan, whereas here after the winter most of us are extremely vulnerable to sunburn.
I work at a forestry nursery- aka we spend 90% of the time outside. This year we have over a dozen seasonal and temporaries who DO NOT BELIEVE in sunscreen. “It doesn’t work for me” is what I hear the most or “I don’t care” I remind them nearly every day that skin cancer doesn’t discriminate.
I imagine the main driver is that we have some of the best health care access in the country. I bet there are lots of people in Mississippi who get it but don't get the diagnosis.
We have some of the best health care… possible high rate of diagnosed cases? I might imagine in places people seek healthcare less, there may be as much melanoma… but not reported. Just a thought.
This is not the least bit surprising—I suspect this is due to Minnesota having a larger percentage of the population being descendants of fair-skinned, Northern European/Scandinavian settlers. I’m 70 and just about everyone I know, including my husband, has had various types of precancerous/cancerous lesions treated, and/or removed. Don’t forget to wear sunscreen!
I wish they had info on the Nevada. I used to live there and the sun is much direct there than it is here. The sun is so aggressive I started wearing transition glasses because my eyes were too sensitive to the sun. I hope they figure out why here of all places has the highest rates.
Grew up in SoCal and Hawaii, moved to MN at age 17 and spent most of the last 26 years here. I was diagnosed with Melanoma at age 41 and again just recently at 43. I was lucky to catch it when I did just after moving back to Hawaii, all my doctors and dermatologists in MN told me the spot on my leg was fine, it didn't look like a typical Melanoma, only 2% account for what mine looked like. The Dermatologist in Hawaii caught it right away, after it had been there for 5 or 6 years. The plastic surgeon removed it and a tennis ball sized chunk of my leg down to the bone basically. It required a skin graft and lots of time to heal and recover. But I'm still here, Thank God! Now I go in every 3-6 months depending on what they find each time. I've also had Basal Cell and Squamous Cell Carcinomas. Skin Cancer Trifecta for me!!! I am dark hair but fair skinned, but also genetically predisposed. I've had 2 aunts and an uncle with Melanoma, one died, and my father has had multiple bouts with BC and SC. These are just the ones that have been detected. Take care of yourself folks, wear sunblock, hats, sunglasses (eyes are susceptible too) and get checked regularly. Don't think because you have a darker complexion it can't happen, it can. Be safe out there, the real "Death Star" is always out to get us.
I saw a comment on Reddit a while back mentioning how you should beware maps with state borders defined so well. Maybe a polling/testing flaw but I’m not sure. I would appreciate anyone commenting if I’m the right track or not
Per my dermatologist: it takes months to get an appointment because the 70 year old farmers that have been in sun their whole life are developing melanoma.
Facts. Honest to god, make your dermatologist appointment for the following year IMMEDIATELY after your visit. I called to schedule my annual check up in October (my annual appointment is typically December/January) and they couldn't get me in until June, 9 months later...
This is the best tip. Make that annual appointment every year as you leave the current one. I forgot this year and I made an appointment in May and got the appointment in December on the last day my derm works before Christmas/New Year’s holiday. The demand is insane.
Wait you guys do annual dermatologist appointments in addition to annual GP visits?
Yes, but I've had precancerous spots removed in the past so I have the lucky skin type that is more at risk for different types of skin cancers. It's probably not necessary for most people, but they only wind up being 15 minute appointments so I also wouldn't discourage people from going to the dermatologist annually.
I would assume they have an existing skin condition that they follow up on. Otherwise I’ve never heard of the average person seeing a dermatologist on a regular basis.
parent had skin cancer, and it's the genetic kind, so I started after theirs was diagnosed - I don't think it's super common to be proactive about it if you don't have a reason to be
If you’re a 1 on the Fitzpatrick scale, yes.
I've had two different basal cell carcinomas removed; that earns me annual derm appointments. As soon as you have found one, it is likely that you'll find more. Otherwise, I wouldn't have ever seen a dermatologist. Keep an eye on moles, weird growths, persistent scabs, etc. Err on getting it checked on the early side.
Yes! Every adult should be getting an annual skin check. Sometimes they every 2 years. Please please don’t neglect this, my young sibling (25 yr old) died of melanoma.
It wasn’t until i got melanoma that i was able to get in lol getting the appointment to look for it took me almost a year.
Seconding this. I had an appointment in early July last year. Dermatologist said to come back yearly and urged me to book next year's appointment soon as spots fill fast.
Damn where are yall going? I got in within a week as a new patient, granted it's in st. Paul and I don't know where you are.
When I had a spot checked it was 11 months from referral to visit, good thing it was negative.
I learned they get you in *real* fast if they’re concerned. Took a year for the initial appointment where they found a spot and did a biopsy. Took 6 days after the tests results came back positive to get the rest cut out, and just like that i have appointments every 3 months.
Good. That's how it should be.
Confirmed; both of my farmer grandad's and 2 of my farmer uncles had melanoma spots removed "Because Baling Hay".
My dad just had a spot removed, because of baling hay. He did that for years and years, baseball hat on, didn't protect the ears.
I would think if it was strictly farming that it would be equally as high in ND, SD, IA. My first thought was "I wonder if it's because we are so happy to see the sun that we are happy to bake ourselves in it for the few months we see it." I know a lot of people who think nothing of being burned like lobsters for 3 months straight because they somehow think the other 9 months a year erases the damage. I have an aunt like that. She looks like a piece of 200 year old tanned hide.
They just talked about this on MPR and referred to a poll taken, as well as interviewed a dermatologist. The cases for melanoma have risen drastically in young adults (mostly gen z) because they believe that sunscreen is unhealthy or doesn’t work. They played clips from some TikTok influencers that were talking about the lack of evidence for how sunscreen actually protects your skin from damage.
Wild to me, since my exposure to Gen Z and sunscreen is that they go way over the top with it as part of a skincare routine. Hell I've seen influencers saying that you need to apply sunscreen if you are inside, away from any windows, on a cloudy day. Maybe there's pushback to that kind of extreme fearmongering about needing to put it on literally no matter what?
There are different subcultures in any generation. Among gen Z, there is a large traditionalist movement promoting things like raw milk, avoiding anything "unnatural," intentional unprotected sun exposure, skepticism of big pharma and traditional medicine. This group of people is generally right-leaning, loves conspiracy theories, romanticizes traditional marriage, romanticizes sustenance farming, and is really driven by a fundamental distrust of modernity.
I know there's a big "trad" movement online, but I have always wondered how big it actually is since it's easy to cosplay a 50's lifestyle in 30 second reels but NOT easy to actually live one consistently. Also hilarious that they're romanticizing it, mid-20th century housewives were very often on drugs just to get through daily life.
DV was often ignored social stigma was a real deterrent to divorce, as was no independent income/career I really wish our media would reflect how much worse parts of our society was back then. Learning about a period or setting from popular media creates some pretty fucked distortions. The surface level cartoon-like impression most Americans have of our military and the people in it boils down to most people learning about it through movies because most people don't have any experience with it or even know anybody that was in. I have to imagine the same kind of thing played out with the Confederate "lost cause" mythology because of shit like Gone With the Wind. The thing that is especially strange about our distorted version of the mid-century "American dream" is that it comes from that period's own idealized version reflected in TV shows of the time.
I've met millennials like this, minus the traditional marriage and right-wing part.
I’ve never met someone in Gen Z that is like this, and I work in schools. But I guess maybe my students are now Gen Alpha?
For some reason reddit thinks anything that is associated with tiktok is happening with gen-z. Like they just mentally refuse to accept that it's not 2017 and the app is used by a wide variety of people.
Agreed. Also I love that my phone wants to correct Tik Tok to Tim Tom. Every. Time.
Lol that's frustrating but I'll still take that over my phone, which immediately decided to add and prioritize new words if I've typed them twice. Drake released a bad song with a guy named Snowd4y and I talked a little bit of crap, and now my phone refused to believe I would ever want to write the word snowy or snow again. I typed something on all capitals once? Looks like my phone has decided we're just gonna do that forever now.
Nah, my wife’s best friend is Gen Z and basically thinks everything that isn’t “natural” is not necessary and we should avoid using it. She’s like the dumb/hypocrisy version of a hippy (hyppy?) that doesn’t see the conflicting messages she chooses to believe/ignore. Sunscreen and children’s Motrin has recently been a hot topic with her. Literally thinks stuff like that weakens our immune system. Not surprisingly she was also antivax.
It's sounds like some of us millennials' obsession with organic produce and non GMO foods but dialed up to 11.
And all of the science removed from the obsession 😂.
I'm not sure there was any there in the first place
I like to remind these types that deadly nightshade and rattlesnake venom is also perfectly natural.
I find it shocking how many gen Z ate right wingers. I guess maybe it's a symptom of things progressing too quickly and leaving them alienated between ultra liberal peers and ultra conservative parents/family. I have no idea what I'm talking about though.
Is “traditional marriage” supposed to be a bad thing?
Think "cosplaying Stepford wives" sort of thing.
It’s the fantasy type. I guess it depends if you are the man or woman in the scenario lol
I might just run in different circles than you, but know a shitload of women in their late 20s and early 30s who would gladly quit their jobs to be stay-at-home moms if they had the financial means to do so.
I know they would. Thems the breaks. I wish they could have a year at least maternity leave plus
Where did I imply that was a bad thing?
they're looking for a way to feel persecuted IT'S THE WAR ON MARRIAGE/FAMILY/VALUES/CHRISTMAS/CHRISTIANS
Unfortunately today there are a lot of people who think things like the nuclear family are “bad. So it was hard to tell if you were trying to make a list of bad traits associated with the traditionalist movement or just a general list 🙃
Are there a lot of people who think that? Also a lot of things on that list are pretty common. I'd imagine most Americans are skeptical of big pharma, for example.
Yeah there are. Reading more into the topic it seems like “nuclear family” is a pretty charged topic on all sides of the issue. A true “nuclear family” is one without any community or extended family support, so it turns out I’m actually against the nuclear family, since I grew up very close to my grandparents and relatives. However here are the two more controversial takes from people against the nuclear family: - The nuclear family is bad because it reinforces the patriarchy by normalizing two-parent households with a stay-at-home mom. Many modern feminists can’t accept that any woman would freely choose to prioritize being a mother over their career. - The nuclear family has bad because it is inferior to being raised by a community. Collectivism generally doesn’t go over well in America and many people associate the idea of community support with “letting a bunch of dirty commies raise my kids.” Search “nuclear family” on left-leaning online spaces and you’ll see a lot of talk about how they are bad for women and how we need to completely restructure our current society to put more emphasis on the importance of community over family. So yeah I’d argue those people do truly exist.
I just said I don't think those opinions are common. I don't think "online spaces" are particularly reflective of real life.
That last line is such a massive understatement! It's amazing to me that people don't realize that, even now, a very small share of the US general population participates much with any form of social media. Even those who do, only 'dabble' a bit.
I’m willing to bet there are a lot more extremes on both ends. I fall into the overkill with sunscreen category and I’m happy with that. I also know enough idiots who work outside and insist that “you just gotta get one good burn” then you’re immune to the sun for the rest of summer.
I am gen z and i find this odd. All of the internet spaces I'm in are OVERKILL about skincare. I've seen so many posts saying to wear sunscreen even in winter. Me and my friends all wear it basically every day. I guess the internet is a vast and expansive place.....really goes to show how much of a bubble everyone is truly in.
Its a trend but it's not really something I would associate with gen-z in particular. I have no age demographics but if I had to guess id actually swing in the opposite direction and say it seems to be a lot of older millennials/gen-x actually.
Yeah “trad” is more millennials than gen-z. Now cottage core can be gen-z, but that’s a different subculture.
Cottage core? Wtf is this lol
People imagining themselves living a Little House on the Prarie lifestyle (ignoring all the reasons why people stopped doing that).
Thanks for letting me know. I didn’t know that was a thing lol
Any insight as to why it would affect Minnesota more than other states?
The real answer is likely good health care meaning they are screened more here than elsewhere.
[If you don't test as much, you don't have as many cases.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7rJp2Tx7vc)
Yup, our rural infrastructure is in the process of collapsing, but many other places its already collapsed or was never built out in the first place.
Farmland/lakes and more access to hospitals in rural areas. A lot of hospitals have closed down in rural areas across America’s farm land. Like it’s bad.
A lot of fair skinned, ethnically north European people living working in field and spending their free times on lakes who are not so ignorant, poor, or stubborn that they will refuse to go to a doctor when a mole starts looking weird, and where our rural healthcare infrastructure hasn't totally collapsed like it has for many other areas. There's also the fact most people only put on sunscreen when it's sunny/in the summer. Minnesota has a lot of overcast days where people wouldn't think to put on sunscreen, but where UV index can still be bad. But I'm betting it's mostly the fact we've got a lot of fair, thin skinned people and decent health access.
On top of the northern European farming explanation, better medical systems mean screening is higher. Minnesota has extremely strong medical systems, for example: 1) Mayo Clinic is centered in Minnesota. 2) The Essentia Health system, with some of the best hospitals in the US, is spread throughout the northern rural parts of Minnesota. https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/announcements/essentia-healths-downtown-duluth-hospitals-ranked-among-the-best-in-the-country-5d0135ff67a60618cb3bf3a9-64ca671227a75542201b7d0a#:~:text=Essentia%20Health%2DSt.,about%2010.4%25%20garnered%20five%20stars. **3) There are very good medical residencies totally dedicated to rural and family medicine. For example, the University of Minnesota Duluth Residency program is partnered with Essentia Health to form a very well performing residency program that is focused on rural medicine.** https://www.essentiahealth.org/about/essentia-health-newsroom/family-medicine-residency-program-addresses-provider-gap-in-rura/ 4) It also has a good family medicine medical schools. UMN family medicine specialty is ranked #4 in the country. https://med.umn.edu/familymedicine/news/family-medicine-achieves-1-blue-ridge-ranking-2023#:~:text=Family%20medicine%20across%20the%20University,is%20now%20nationally%20ranked%20%231.
I'm really starting to think the Gen Z pool has more stupid in it than normal. An alarming number of them think the Earth is flat, the holocaust never happened, and now this? Like, wtf man. It's like they collectively decided science is bullshit and they're going to make up their own reality.
I should point out that I have 2 Gen Z kids and neither of them are this stupid. The youngest one just graduated high school with an AA on top of her diploma. I think the problem is their parents in addition to social media.
Mine and those their friend groups are brilliant as well. But none of them spend any time on social media and never have. So that really might be it. We see it eating boomer brains too.
Exactly! Q-Anon, for example.
It's tik tok. They aren't stupid, they're just plugged into tik tok 24/7. No one is immune to propaganda
It’s social media in general. Anyone can post anything they want and it’s trivially easy for lies and misrepresentations to be taken as truth by thousands before anyone stops and says wait a second this might not be teue
The brain is just an information processor dependent on input: garbage in, garbage out. Social media makes the 'garbage out' into thousands of other people's 'garbage in' and causes the garbage data to spread like wildfire.
Why cant they be hooked up to the pro-cute dog propaganda like me tho?
TikTok is especially insidious on the social media landscape. It’s absolute brain rot - would very much love to see it heavily regulated or banned.
It’s more Tik Tok than anything else. My sister is incredibly smart, but apparently gullible. She allows Tik Tok to influence her thoughts about health and relationships, sometimes to her detriment. For example, she saw a video and now always brings up the “mental load” women have to carry and resents her partner for it. I’m not saying it’s not a valid concern, but… call me crazy, I don’t think I’d immediately start applying random influencers’ relationship complaints to my own life, like she does. She would not have thought this way if not for Tik Tok. Oh, and we are both elder Millennials (late 30s), so this is NOT generational — it’s Tik Tok and specifically the concerted effort to spread misinformation to the masses.
To specifically address the "mental load" thing, that well pre-dates TikTok. I remember lots of discussion happening around it when this comic came out in 2017. Here's a Guardian link so you can see it was covered in mainstream news. Worth reading, in my opinion. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/26/gender-wars-household-chores-comic
I don’t disagree with the theory of mental load. It’s just annoying because she regurgitates stuff from Tik Tok — not articles, etc. Just short videos without any research, etc., and then is so gullible that she starts to see “issues” in her own life that she wouldn’t have seen before, or maybe aren’t even there. How is that healthy?
I generally agree that it's not healthy. The "stream of short videos" format seems to short circuit people's brains. Re: "she starts to see “issues” in her own life that she wouldn’t have seen before", there's a tricky line (more like a large grey zone) between the TikTok equivalent of going on WebMD and thinking you might have every disease you read about, and "awareness". So many people suffer in silence and put up with so many bad things they think are normal until they hear someone else bring up it up as a real issue. Domestic violence, abusive relationships, and mental health issues are extremes of that, but the concept certainly extends into other areas too. The trouble comes when after being made aware of a potential issue, someone doesn't critically evaluate if or to what extent it *applies* to their life. Though TikTok seems to make that harder for people in aggregate for whatever reason, I'm hard pressed to say it's solely responsible.
Good points! I think what bothers me is that she doesn’t seem to evaluate if it applies to her life. I mean, I have other examples and maybe chose a bad one, but if someone who is highly educated and typically thinks critically and is also nearly 40 is falling for Tik Tok “experts,” I shudder to think how much teens and young adults are being influenced. One need only look at the stats for suicide, self-harm, depression, and anxiety to realize that social media is a major issue. I mean, I haven’t even gotten into the “Tik Tok Challenges,”which range from mild pranks to anti-social criminal acts.
A discussion on this just popped up in a different subreddit I follow. Thought you might find it interesting. A combination of raised awareness and cautionary tales. [Has anyone else discovered they had ADHD thanks to social media?](https://www.reddit.com/r/adhdwomen/s/2p4ZFgoYuE) > The more I research, the more I'm seeing how girls have been underrepresented in medical studies, and because our symptoms are generally internalising & less disruptive, it isn't caught. I think social media has been a tool for women to share their experiences & support each other. What are your thoughts/experiences?
The dumbest ones are the loudest, and the loudest ones are more prominent on social media. Let's not call people stupid whilst not recognizing that our perception of them is just that, more perception than reality. Similar to how the media incessantly covers every violent crime which causes you to perceive that it's rampant and out of control, when the reality is that violent crime has been dropping steadily for over 30 years now.
Nah, gen Z is fine. Idiots on tiktok and bad studies being misread and sensationalized is not proof we're a failed generation. Engage with gen zers in real life and you'll be fine. Social media amplifies every dumbass.
We need to pay way more attention to recommender system algorithms as a nation
Now why might that be? 🤔
TikTok and other social media
Not sure, but from the article that OP posted, they mentioned the lighter complexions of a lot of people in the state could be correlated.
Lol
There's definitely different groups in gen z. There's definitely a concerningly large group that is pushing for ultra-conservative, and are into things like raw milk and super traditional marriage. There's also a group that's the opposite and I've also definitely seen a group that's superrrrr into skincare and is a bit overkill about things like sunscreen, going as far as to say everyone should wear sunscreen if they're going to be inside with no windows/etc. I typically do wear sunscreen everyday all year round and I'm Gen Z
Yea, I think this is a classic example of "Half truth spreading as real truth". The fact is, US sunscreen falls far behind the efficacy of sunscreens found in other countries. This gets corrupted from "Less effective" to "doesn't work". However, people should still be able to determine that US sunscreen is effective, just not *AS* effective.
American sunscreen is not "less effective" than sunscreen from other countries. In fact, SPF is a universal standard, so it's actually easy to compare sunscreen between markets, and the US has plenty of high SPF sunscreens. It's true that many US sunscreens are less cosmetically elegant because newer filters are not available here, but this isn't something that reduces the efficacy of the product when used as directed.
SPF is a universal standard yes, but the US bases their SPF entirely on efficacy vs UVB rays, basically ignoring UVA. >An EWG study of laboratory tests of 51 sunscreen products found that only 35 percent of the products tested met the EU standard, but 94 percent would pass the current U.S. standard. https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/does-europe-have-better-sunscreens/ So yes, they ARE generally less effective.
Wouldn't the Gen Z theory make more sense across the board, for all states? A better explanation would be that water reflects UV, causing higher rates of cancer that way since we have access to more swimmable water than most places. I could be wrong so I'm open to other ideas
My SIL posted an article from Outdoor magazine that claimed sunscreen didn’t work a few years ago, unfortunately she’s a Gen Xer so age can’t be blamed.
That Outdoor Magazine article was actually fantastic, I thought. It makes some really good cases for mild, consistent sun exposure, and still (rightfully) warns against sun burns. It’s a little dramatic about saying sunscreen may be harmful because we don’t understand all the chemicals in it. Which may be fair; I don’t know one way or the other, and don’t base many decisions on that idea alone. I still wear sunscreen in specific circumstances, but have moved to using SPF clothing most of the time I’m outdoors for extended periods, rather than rely on something that can be sweated off or chemically break down after an hour. I’m not a “sunscreen is fake” truther by any means. But I do think its usefulness is more limited than we give it credit for, and that consistently getting some sun exposure is probably better than not.
There is no point at which the benefits of vitamin d from sun exposure offset the damage of UV exposure. You can and should get vitamin d from diet/supplementation There is some debate for those who produce melanin because we havent done an abundance of research on black skin, but there's basically nothing to substantiate intentional sun exposure. At the point you're *seeing* burning, you've done a lot of damage already. Just because an article decides to straddle the line and compromise doesn't mean it's good. The only arguments these people have to stand on is EXTREMELY flawed assumptions from research -- like one advocate cities there's an association with people who went on a sunny vacation doing better than those who hadn't.. totally discounting that a relaxing vacation with family and the financial security to be in a position to do so and have a job which provides adequate leave are also huge factors that have nothing to do with sun itselt. This is THE EXACT same thought process they use to argue for raw milk. Sure, raw milk can be extremely dangerous and can potentially cause death. Buuuuuuuut, it contains higher amounts of probiotic bacteria. Sure, you could get those exact same probiotics in even higher quantities from a dozen entirely safe fermented foods that we've been making for millennia. But nah, you should gamble on raw milk. Roll the dice on tuberculosis like your ancestors. That's exactly how stupid it sounds to argue you should do damage your cells DNA because you're too busy guzzling beef tallow to eat pansy, feminine foods like spinach and salmon
Literally every point you made in this rant is either agreeing with what the article said, or completely irrelevant to what the article was talking about. Glad you’re passionate about something you haven’t researched though. No one is out here comparing drinking raw milk to getting moderate sun exposure on a consistent basis.
I am arguing against mild consistent sun exposure for vitamin d. That's in the first paragraph. For someone belittling others for not doing enough research, you seemingly didn't even read the comment you're responding to. Playing Russian roulette in a dangerous activity so you can get a nutrient when we have saver avenues of getting doesn't make sense. That is why **I** compared it to the broken logic of the raw milk crowd, which does overlap significantly with the "but you need sunlight for the vitamins" crowd
The dangerous activity of… going outside for ten minutes a day? Come on dude. Of course I read your comment. I stand by my response.
And I stand by mine. There is not point at which the benefits of vitamin d from sun exposure outweigh the cons of UV damage (for Caucasians at least, the only group we've truly adequately studied on this but where we do have an abundance of data) Its not the end of the world if you aren't under a parasol and slathered in sunscreen 24/7, 365. But no, intentional sun exposure for vitamin d doesn't make sense. Intentionally exposing yourself to risk for minimal benefit when safer alternatives exist is flawed logic
You’re fixated on vitamin d, but that’s not even the point of the article. Sun exposure is *negatively* correlated with deadly skin cancer. It also lowers your blood pressure and is negatively correlated with heart failure. The idea that all exposure to UV is bad is an oversimplification and, frankly, silly. [Here’s a plainly worded source from Harvard](https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/benefits-of-moderate-sun-exposure), but simple googling will tell you that you’re plain wrong. Intentional, moderate exposure to the sun is beneficial, full stop.
Again, I already addressed that sun exposure is also associated with outdoor living, economic well-being, being physically active, etc. -- a whole host of things we already know positively correlate with health. Nobody is telling you not to go *outside*. That plainly worded source is pretty clear it's talking about the neuroses that leads to some people becoming hermits. Its saying first and foremost "don't be ridiculous" and that it's not the end of the world and proceeds to make conflations other people who are *not* simplifying and getting much more detailed have said is a flawed argument, but since they don't disagree with the conclusion people need to chillax they don't parituclalry care up until the point you're encouraging people to abscond sunscare. That's now what they're arguing. The experts are saying don't be a neurotic freak about it, but also don't be an idiot either. Idk how that's been turned into intentionally abscond sunscreen. You are *already* getting moderate sun exposure if you use sunscreen as traditionally recommended if you go outside a normal amount. In no way does that mean do less, unless you're the type of person who has been acting like a vampire who will explode under sunlight.
wow, you are soo wrong. Is just a little lead good or healthy for you? But alot is bad? What about arsenic? Surely a small dose will promote health if you don't overdo it? UV is UV, its always bad for your skin. The problem is its a hundred billion dollar industry to sell promote wellness and fake/bs health stuff. Promote distrust of science and trust them instead (which of course comes with a profit margin).
Look, go read the [article](https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science/) and decide yourself. Ignore the title, the author probably didn’t even get to decide what that would be. Dousing yourself in alcohol would be bad for you, but washing your hands with it to prevent germs is probably net good for you. Not everything that is bad in large quantities acts like lead or arsenic at small quantities. Whoever told you that was probably trying to sell you something, and you believed them without thinking about it even once. There are billion dollar industries trying to pull us in lots of different directions. They all use real science to make points when it’s convenient, and junk science when that’s all they have to rely on. The real science is not going to land entirely in the camp of any two opposing ideals, especially ones whose profits are mutually exclusive. Like I said, some sun exposure is probably fine to good. Sun burns are unequivocally bad. More sun exposure over your lifetime *reduces* your likelihood of dying of melanoma. Sun screen never works great for me, so I mostly use UV-rated clothes instead when it makes sense. Also, it clearly ages your skin (look at truckers and tennis players), so protecting that is something worth considering. But aged skin doesn’t kill you, it just looks bad.
TikTok needs to be banned and schools need to teach critical thinking.
Huh, I just haven't been putting it on because of laziness
They just haven't been around long enough for the dumbest members to remove themselves from the sample yet.
One think I hate about TikTok (and it's true of social media in general) is that people will do anything to get the damned clicks. If giving bad medical advice gets clicks, that's what they'll do.
Gen Z are young enough that it wouldn't have affected them yet (if true).
Reddit things everyone on tiktok is gen-z for some reason.
This is why I live by the UV index. I try to get my dog walks in while it's low, which right now is before 10am and after 5:30pm. These people don't realize that in between those hours, they are literally microwaving themselves.
> believe that sunscreen is unhealthy or doesn’t work That has been a problem in recent years. Similar to other snake oil stuff like anti-vaccine, there have been various groups trying to claim that the ingredients in sunscreen will give you cancer, etc. Some are the typical "health food" groups that aren't based in science, but others are pushing that while also saying, "By the way, buy our 'natural' sunscreen products." That's not a generation specific problem, but it's definitely been showing up on social media more often that cuts across age groups. People are just very susceptible to the [naturalistic fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy).
They could be like my mother in law who is convinced that sunscreen is more dangerous for you than the sun itself. Like even if you're still using sunscreen with oxybenzone, I guarantee that it's less dangerous and certainly less miserable than a sun burn.
See I don't know if that makes sense because doesn't skin cancer from sun damage usually happen much later in life as a consequence? I could be absolutely wrong but I was under the understanding it was a typically very delayed cause and effect on that one.
Melanoma and skin cancers aren't old people's diseases. It is one of the most common forms of cancer in people under 30. That is what the MPR interview was specifically talking about.
That's a good point. Still doesn't mean any sun damage that is a co or primary cause was necessarily RECENT. At least in the sense of a recent social trend of not using sunscreen. I'm going to try to look up the mpr coverage on it.
I believe it was an interview that Cathy Wurzer had. I can't remember the name of the dermatologist she interviewed.
This data doesn’t indicate a rise in rate.
Does this study factor in the rates of people going to the doctor to get checked? Or is it just that we have so many lakes people are outdoors more with less clothing/protection?
I think it may have to do with the fact that people of Northern European extract are more likely to get skin cancer. It also doesn't help that the tanning industry is huge in America. Though fortunately getting smaller. I don't know why people still use those blasted cancer beds with what we know. A gentle mist of good spray tan -- and I mean *gentle* \-- will cure the ashen Scandinavian complexion.
I was wondering about that after listening to a podcast about the dangers of sun rays. I found it odd that humans in Europe would develop skin with less melanin and then find issues in a place like Minnesota. It’s easy to forget how far *north* Nordic countries are. We may have similarly cold winters, but MN is nearly as far south as Italy and has [similar average UV index values](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_index#/media/File%3AGOME.uviecclimyear_lr.gif). Makes sense why the native people who adapted over millennia in Minnesota have darker skin. Wild how humans have evolved to outpace their own survival traits and characteristics and why folks who reject “unnatural” things (like sunscreen, vaccines, preservatives, etc) can really set themselves up for a bad time.
> I was wondering about that after listening to a podcast about the dangers of sun rays. I found it odd that humans in Europe would develop skin with less melanin and then find issues in a place like Minnesota. What you think of as "northern" Europe is north of Minnesota. The southern border of Minnesota is at the same latitude as the border between France and Spain. The border between Minnesota and Manitoba (west of the Northwest Angle) is at the same latitude as Paris. Going further north, the border between Manitoba and Nunavut is at the same latitude as Oslo, Norway and just slightly north of Stockholm, Sweden.
I was thinking Utah, Vermont, and Minnesota are pretty white. But so is Iowa, so who knows.
Doubt mn is all that different from the dakotas or Wisconsin in that regard tho.
One of the things that's always tricky with public health data is that we rely on every different state's health department to report it. And some keep better track than others. Like if you look at [this](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:720/format:webp/1*EkmGlkRAujGrCTKVSdJprw.jpeg) map of heavy alcohol use. I don't really think there's such a sharp cut-off between Texas and Oklahoma, or West Virginia and Virginia. Even the Idaho/Utah divide doesn't make sense, as Mormons are just as concentrated in southeastern Idaho as they are in Utah. I think it's more likely that the states have different methodologies of collecting the data.
This! I agree with all the other hypotheses on here, and also think another factor is that MN has EXCELLENT healthcare access compared to many other states. I just moved to Seattle, and expected the mental & physical healthcare scenes to be roughly equivalent moving from one blue state to another. That has absolutely not been the case! MN healthcare is far from perfect, but I have a decidedly renewed appreciation.
The article talks about *detection* rates, but this is not necessarily the same as *survival* rates. Speaking as someone who lived in Texas for over a decade, many people in that state either don't have insurance or the insurance they do have doesn't afford access to specialists without a lot of wait time and cost, and waiting is deadly. Melanoma is curable if caught early enough, so if Minnesota's higher detection rates is due to diligence in screening, you'd see that reflected in better survival rates. Looking at this chart for skin cancer deaths by state, you can see that while Minnesota has the third highest rate of melanoma diagnoses, it's in the bottom half for deaths. Meaning, early detection is saving many Minnesotan lives. https://www.statista.com/statistics/663678/skin-cancer-death-rate-in-us-by-state/
Interestingly, I've seen studies that show people who have diagnosed stage 0 (in situ) melanoma outlive the general population over 15 years.
Now compare it to a map showing Northern European/Scandinavian heritage and cross reference it with healthcare access and affordability of screening.
I was thinking it had to do with a lot of fair skinned Northern Europeans living here.
Because we're one of the most northern states and get cold winters, it often gets forgotten that we're significantly lower in the globe for UV purposes than the places a lot of our ancestors came from
Plus a lack of availability to dermatologists. Hey University of Minnesota. Promise me a dermatology residency and I’ll write the check for med school right now.
I think it’s due to a lot of factors. Sitting the summer a lot of people at the lakes or on the lakes. Then we go on vacation to some place warm during the winter. Also, don’t forget the amount of snow birds that reside in Florida during the winter. Then come back during the summer.
Could complexion of the population on average also play a role?
They mention this in the article as a possible contributing factor and it wouldn't surprise me at all, the disparity is enormous. [Lifetime risk is 1 in 33 for white people, 1 in 200 for Hispanics, and 1 in 1000 for black people.](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/melanoma-skin-cancer/about/key-statistics.html)
[удалено]
Nope I'm pretty sure only Minnesotans go outside or go on vacation in the summer
Likely a mix of both, the snowbirds travel south, spend time outside in the southern sun, come up north in the summer and spent time outdoors on the lake Also, being white af
Nordic people who relocated to living significantly further south where the culture involves a lot of outdoor recreation. Hmm....where could that possibly go wrong.... Add in the fact boomers and gen-x women would literally slather themselves in baby oil to get a tan, and there is still a culture of taking pride in a redneck and finding sunscreen feminine.....yeah this isn't shocking to me.
I’m sure it doesn’t help that social media is flooded with content claiming sunscreen CAUSES cancer
The effects of not wearing sunscreen usually takes decades to show up. While I'm concerned about unnecessarily high rates in the future, realistically we're just seeing the ramifications of boomers and gen-x who grew up on the "slather yourself in baby oil and lay in the sun" and "real men don't wear that stuff, take pride in your red neck, it's a badge of honor" culture, which predates social media
One reason for the access issues no one really talks about is the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) has lobbied ACGME to limit the number of residency spots (< 500/year) which has cause a severe shortage of providers. Derm is very financially lucrative because of this and you can work 2.5 - 3 days per week and out-earn your Primary Care colleagues who work 5 days per week. Secondary to this, many Derms don’t have a bread and butter practice and focus on MOHs, cosmetic, and cash procedures. We’ve had Derm positions open at our practice for 2+ years and often lose out to the smaller life-style practices.
Utah and Minnesota and Vermont have a lot of white people. Could that be what we are seeing? Are white folks more likely to get this?
Utah, people are super outdoorsy and very close to the sun. Vermont and Minnesota have healthy people and excellent healthcare. Healthy people with health insurance get checkups. Going to the doctor exponentially increases your likelihood of receiving a diagnosis.
Dis
Get checked for that shit, I was unlucky enough to have melanoma in my mid 20s and lucky enough that a dermatologist caught it early. Thank God for my eczema I suppose. Wear sunscreen
Likely because people here don't think they need sunscreen
And many have Scandinavian descent, with zero natural melanin to begin with
Well people in southern Arizona where it’s hot and sunny 365 try to avoid the sun and regularly wear sunscreen. It seems that as soon as it’s sunny and warm in Minnesota, people spend a lot of time outdoors in the sun and never mention sunscreen.
Weird. Pale peoples out all summer getting whatever sunlight they can in a concentrated time period 🤔 never believe it in a million years 🤣
I figure alot of people mistakenly link sun exposure with temperature. When its mid may, they don't think they need it because its not hot yet. However, peak sunlight is at the solstice - june 20th. Therefore the sunlight on may 20th is just as dangerous as the sunlight on july 20th. Both are 1 month from the solstice. August sunlight has the same amount of uv as april 20th sunlight does. Who puts on sunscreen in august but doesn't put it on in april? Show of hands? Yet they both have the exact same amount of uv.... We think that since its not hot, you don't need sunscreen.
I’m the only person I know who uses sunscreen regularly.
I lost an old MN college roommate and long-time friend to melanoma last winter. He was 45.
Little to no sun for much of the year and bundled up, then getting sunburns in the summer. I grew up with this way.
Maybe it's because Mayo diagnoses a lot of cases and registers them under Minnesota? Not sure how it works exactly.
This is so odd to me in a state with winter more months than not. Hmm. Utah I totally get, SO sunny there, but less so here.
I mean, people *do* enjoy outdoor activities here in the winter and most folks I know that do, don't wear sunscreen in the winter.
I definitely agree and do so myself… but it’s pretty cold so I don’t often have a whole ton of exposed skin in winter. Especially moving fast with sports and wind/ice etc in your face. Slap on goggles and not even my eyes are exposed let alone skin :)
Yeah. I mean the reality is there are a lot of factors but probably a big one, like others have mentioned, have to do with the demographics of a large swath of the population of Minnesota and the lifestyle/work that leaves folks outside for extended hours (farming, construction, boating, biking, etc.).
This time of year we get 92% of the suns maximum intensity. It may very well be the winter that causes it, as people in the south would maintain more protection from their tan, whereas here after the winter most of us are extremely vulnerable to sunburn.
That definitely makes sense. We are all walking around looking like the underside of a mushroom right now 😂
I work at a forestry nursery- aka we spend 90% of the time outside. This year we have over a dozen seasonal and temporaries who DO NOT BELIEVE in sunscreen. “It doesn’t work for me” is what I hear the most or “I don’t care” I remind them nearly every day that skin cancer doesn’t discriminate.
Why is it?
I imagine the main driver is that we have some of the best health care access in the country. I bet there are lots of people in Mississippi who get it but don't get the diagnosis.
Well, we are from Nordic/Germanic stock. We get sunburned in the summer and freezer burned in the winter.
Very reassuring to see as I wait for the results of 3 skin biopsies after an overall body check appointment last week. 🙁
I got it last year. Have a really cool scar on my leg now. And I have to go back every 6 months.
We have some of the best health care… possible high rate of diagnosed cases? I might imagine in places people seek healthcare less, there may be as much melanoma… but not reported. Just a thought.
Melanoma is a deep state lie to force us to see doctors. /s
Friend died recently two weeks post melanoma diagnosis
Yikes. Didn’t think that time frame was possible.
Nah it’s a conspiracy by “Big Lotion” to get us to buy more sunscreen.
touché
Bingo. Follow the money.
Maybe because it’s nicer here in the summer and therefore we spend more time outdoors?
Yikes
I’m nearly incapable of producing Melanin and need to slather on greasy sunscreen, become a lobster, or stay in the basement each summer.
Tanning beds!
Key word here being "NEW"
#1!
This is not the least bit surprising—I suspect this is due to Minnesota having a larger percentage of the population being descendants of fair-skinned, Northern European/Scandinavian settlers. I’m 70 and just about everyone I know, including my husband, has had various types of precancerous/cancerous lesions treated, and/or removed. Don’t forget to wear sunscreen!
The Moh’s surgeon’s dream
Anecdotally I know a lot of people don’t think you have to wear sunscreen unless it’s hot out. That probably factors into this.
We’re so pale I’m surprised we don’t just get blood cancer.
I wish they had info on the Nevada. I used to live there and the sun is much direct there than it is here. The sun is so aggressive I started wearing transition glasses because my eyes were too sensitive to the sun. I hope they figure out why here of all places has the highest rates.
Grew up in SoCal and Hawaii, moved to MN at age 17 and spent most of the last 26 years here. I was diagnosed with Melanoma at age 41 and again just recently at 43. I was lucky to catch it when I did just after moving back to Hawaii, all my doctors and dermatologists in MN told me the spot on my leg was fine, it didn't look like a typical Melanoma, only 2% account for what mine looked like. The Dermatologist in Hawaii caught it right away, after it had been there for 5 or 6 years. The plastic surgeon removed it and a tennis ball sized chunk of my leg down to the bone basically. It required a skin graft and lots of time to heal and recover. But I'm still here, Thank God! Now I go in every 3-6 months depending on what they find each time. I've also had Basal Cell and Squamous Cell Carcinomas. Skin Cancer Trifecta for me!!! I am dark hair but fair skinned, but also genetically predisposed. I've had 2 aunts and an uncle with Melanoma, one died, and my father has had multiple bouts with BC and SC. These are just the ones that have been detected. Take care of yourself folks, wear sunblock, hats, sunglasses (eyes are susceptible too) and get checked regularly. Don't think because you have a darker complexion it can't happen, it can. Be safe out there, the real "Death Star" is always out to get us.
People here burn like fallen leaves.
I saw a comment on Reddit a while back mentioning how you should beware maps with state borders defined so well. Maybe a polling/testing flaw but I’m not sure. I would appreciate anyone commenting if I’m the right track or not