The use of sunscreen versus tanning oils goes up, and skin cancer rates increase exponentially.
Is that length of sun exposure related, or is it the chemicals in the sunscreen?
Remember, it’s the same people that want us to stay inside all the time that also perpetrate the AGW hoax, and every other socialist lie we’ve been fed for the last century.
EVERY SINGLE ENVIRONMENTALIST PREDICTION OF THE LAST 60 YEARS HAS BEEN WRONG!
>>Remember, it’s the same people that want us to stay inside all the time that also perpetrate the AGW hoax, and every other socialist lie we’ve been fed for the last century.
EVERY SINGLE ENVIRONMENTALIST PREDICTION OF THE LAST 60 YEARS HAS BEEN WRONG!<<
You conflate AGW with the direct affect of sunscreen oils. The latter does have a direct and scientifically measurable affect on coral and other sea life. It is not climatics but the measurements are clear. When lazzai-faire MEXICO gets concerned then we need to take notice.. It is a few bucks to get the organic stuff. Make the tiny investment.
Its a dangerously false sense of security created by reduced pain thereby causing people to extend exposure time.
The problem is sunscreen coverage is never 100 percent. Those difficult parts of the body not covered by sunscreen end up being exposed far longer than if the person had no sunscreen and ceased exposure once doing so became painful.
Those difficult areas like eyelids, nostrils, scalp, etc get fried but because the total surface area is relatively small, the person doesn't get significant pain and cease exposure.
Ultimately, only one cell needs to mutate to kill a person.
Other issues are that large area application is not uniform and re-application is haphazard. Sunscreen wears off unevenly due to contact with clothing, towels, furniture, sand, water, etc.
“Is that length of sun exposure related, or is it the chemicals in the sunscreen?”
People don’t use sunscreen properly and stay out in the sun. Liberals say to go outside. People do. Liberals then claim dangers from it.