Slashdot Mirror
Miami Installs Free Public Sunscreen Dispensers In Fight Against Cancer
HughPickens.com writes: If you walk along South Beach in Miami right now, you will notice something strange, even by Florida standards: Dotting the sandscapes are sky-blue boxes that supply free sunscreen. In a novel experiment this year, the City of Miami Beach has put 50 free sunscreen dispensers in public spaces, and those dispensers are full of radiation-mitigating goo, free to any and all passersby. BBC reports that one in five people living in Florida will eventually suffer from skin cancer but the new campaign hopes that increasing people's awareness will lead to a change in behavior. "[The sunscreen dispensers'] visibility — even without additional messaging — could be a good cue to action," says Dr Richard De Visser, a psychologist who has researched health campaigns.
The sunscreen is the type that is effective at preventing cancer and premature skin aging: Broad-spectrum, water resistant, and SPF 30. You can buy a product that is labeled as higher than SPF 30, but it's almost always a waste, and potentially harmful. Above SPF 30, the difference is essentially meaningless. SPF 15 filters out about 93 percent of UV-B rays, SPF 30 filters out 97 percent, SPF 50 filters out 98 percent, and SPF 100 might get you to 99. The problem, though, is the psychology of the larger number. "We put on the "more powerful" sunscreens and then suddenly think we're Batman or some other superhero who can stay out in the sun indefinitely." says James Hamblin. "But no sunscreen is meant to facilitate prolonged exposure of bare skin to direct sunlight." Dr. Jose Lutzky, head of the melanoma program out Mount Sinai, says Florida is second behind California in incidence of melanoma but the trend is going in the wrong direction. "Unfortunately, our numbers are growing. That is really something we do not want to be first in."
The sunscreen is the type that is effective at preventing cancer and premature skin aging: Broad-spectrum, water resistant, and SPF 30. You can buy a product that is labeled as higher than SPF 30, but it's almost always a waste, and potentially harmful. Above SPF 30, the difference is essentially meaningless. SPF 15 filters out about 93 percent of UV-B rays, SPF 30 filters out 97 percent, SPF 50 filters out 98 percent, and SPF 100 might get you to 99. The problem, though, is the psychology of the larger number. "We put on the "more powerful" sunscreens and then suddenly think we're Batman or some other superhero who can stay out in the sun indefinitely." says James Hamblin. "But no sunscreen is meant to facilitate prolonged exposure of bare skin to direct sunlight." Dr. Jose Lutzky, head of the melanoma program out Mount Sinai, says Florida is second behind California in incidence of melanoma but the trend is going in the wrong direction. "Unfortunately, our numbers are growing. That is really something we do not want to be first in."
Waiting for the protests from the folks who believe Sunscreen actually causes cancer (chemicals in the lotion vs the sun's rays).
[John]
Shit better not happen!
For thousands or millions of years humans have spent their lives outside farming, hunting, gathering, etc. and haven't had as much cancer as we have in todays society. Now its coming out that the roundup sprayed onto all of our food likely causes cancer. I wonder if the chemicals in sunscreen might also have a link.
his alter-ego is just rich.
"We put on the "more powerful" sunscreens and then suddenly think we're Batman or some other superhero who can stay out in the sun indefinitely."
The reason why Batman can stay out in the sun indefinitely is not because he uses SPF 100. That's utter nonsense. The real reason is that he wears his underpants on the outside, thus adding a significant layer of protection. If you wear your underwear on the inside the extra protection is lost due to body warmth causing the underwear to expand and let UV light pass through nano holes (or larger, depending on the age of the garment).
"Miami Installs...." is not correct. Miami and Miami Beach are two different cities, separated by Biscayne Bay. Miami itself does not front on the ocean, so its own swimming beach is on Key Biscayne, an island with no direct driving connection to "The Beach". TFA doesn't say if that beach also got the dispensers.
Miami now gives out free sunscreen in a limited number of locations and this is news worthy of our attention? Why? Shit, my university in was giving out free condoms to new students in 1990 (and maybe before, I don't know) and it didn't make the news. I don't get it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I use sunscreen, but only when absolutely necessary, because we simply don't have enough data to make a conclusion about the health effects of absorbing the chemicals (and metals) into your skin. There is no proof or disproof either way, so you side with caution -- regardless of how accepted and ubiquitious the product has become in the mainstream. It's just plain common sense.
If there is money involved -- in any aspect of life -- then there is no place for trust. Period.
As for the people who refuse to even contemplate the issue, they are followers and it's simply their nature to reject any view that goes against the mainstream.
The sunscreen isnâ(TM)t free, it is just taxpayer funded. That said, I can picture the politicians that approved this having some monetary interest in sunscreen.
Nicotine from a patch enters the blood, but people assume chemicals in sunscreen don't? If you can't eat it, don't put it on your skin. But do go ahead and respond with the obligatory "water soluble" "hydrophobic" and "non-carcinogenic" arguments. It's always fun to see how successful corporate funded "science" propaganda has been lately.
We require the sun's rays in order to produce vitamin D (which isn't a vitamin), which has healing properties inside our bodies. Too little vitamin D and the body goes into "hibernation" mode, where it doesn't adequately fix damage; it does a quick job, and then does a better repair job when summer comes.
If one is wearing sunscreen, then "summer will never come" and the body will remain in a state of disrepair. Which benefits the health insurance industry (it's not a "health care" industry).
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Miami itself does not front on the ocean
And consequently, Miami has never dissed the ocean.
if you ever bothered to crawl out from under your shell, you'd need some sunblock, big time
Actually, you may be correct. Maybe this is news after all; the news being that US Luddites have, after almost half a century, have decided that perhaps wearing sunscreen is a good idea.
http://www.skincancer.org/medi...
I am Batman?
I'm guess they didn't go out of their way to use BP-2-free sunscreen...
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/n...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Nice to see they've finally found a use for all those old obsolete public telephone stands.
Way to go, FUD-thing!
10-15 minutes a day of exposure to direct sunlight is enough. Not to mention dietary sources, dickhead.
OTOH, hours per day of exposure to sub-tropical sunlight sans protection is enough to give you nightmares in your fifties, when your doctor starts telling you that "this lump has to go, and this one, and most of your ear, and this one, no, two, no three, on your scalp".
Of course, if you live above/below 60 degrees off the equator, you'll need all the exposure you can get, but for those of us in the rest of the world, we need to to be careful, because we don't have a risk of insufficient exposure, we run the risk of excessive exposure. See, it's all about context. The residents of Miami/Miami Beach don't face the risks of *insufficient* exposure, they face the risks of *excessive* exposure.
Too little, and you face the consequences of insufficient self-synthesized "vitamin D". Too much, and you face having multiple skin tumours.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Should say, "Miami uses some of the tax money it collects to buy sunscreen for some people in some locations."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So Miami Beach is a city, Miami beach (lowercase) is the beach of Miami, and Miami Beach beach is the beach of Miami Beach?
We put on the "more powerful" sunscreens and then suddenly think we're Batman or some other superhero who can stay out in the sun indefinitely.
Wait... since when is Batman analogous to someone who stays out in the sun all day? I'm am pretty sure Batman is the "dark knight" who mostly goes out after dark. That was the most confusing example anyone could possibly have come up with.
SPF 15 filters out about 93 percent of UV-B rays, SPF 30 filters out 97 percent, SPF 50 filters out 98 percent, and SPF 100 might get you to 99.
Sounds like we need a new labeling system. Perhaps they should say "XX% percent protection for Y hours."
FREEEEEEEEEEE!
Feel the bern
My wife goes to a dermatologist a couple of times per year and talked to her about SPF numbers and her dermatologist was pretty adamant about using some SPF number above 30.
I was kind of surprised, because I know I had read that SPF numbers above some number (30, even, maybe) were only marginally more effective.
I use whatever broad spectrum UVA/UVB spray-on SPF 50+ I can buy cheapest and re-apply every couple of hours or when I've been in the water much or toweled off. I never get sunburn and seldom get much of a tan, either, so I figure it must be working.
Several of my family members, myself included, have had exactly this happen. It wasn't from wearing sunscreen but from not getting enough outdoor time (we all work or otherwise spend a lot of time at home). Tests showed us all critically low on vitamin D and somewhat low on calcium (due to lack of D).
If you search then you will find that this is actually a huge problem. Many people think more people die of low vitamin D (which can cause numerous issues including heart failure) than skin cancer. Thankfully there are some fairly large movements (particularly in places like Australia) to educate people on the importance of getting enough sun exposure.
Supplements can help but they can not provide the amount of D that your skin can. Plus your skin is self regulating so that you don't get too much D (which can also be a problem because it's a fat-soluble vitamin).
I never knew this was a thing until I experienced the worst part of the symptoms (dizziness, passing-out, bruising, etc). Even been in the ER because of it (they said I was perfectly fine but they don't test for vitamin levels). Finally I got tested and found my D levels extremely low.
Just driving to work here will give you enough exposure to the needed rays. It's blazingly hot in the morning and raining in the afternoon. My dermatologist told me the UV index is so high here that he'll see sun damage on people that have long commutes moreso on their left side.
I prefer the glow of my monitor.
Indeed. Standard advice for people who are Vit D deficient says "Go outside. It is not sufficient to go somewhere with sunlight, the light must hit your skin directly. However DO NOT SUNBATHE". Vit D deficiency is a minor annoyance, treatable with a cheap readly available product. Skin cancer kills people. So if for some reason you're obliged to choose, don't choose skin cancer, thus, do not sun bathe. A mile walk on a sunny day is fine. Lying on the beach for four hours is asking for trouble.
Sounds to me that a glass of milk a day would've done you all a world of good.
I don't like putting chemicals on my skin, so I just wear a giant sombrero. Here is a selfie of me and my cool lid:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6W-JqB-...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Did you miss the part where even SPF 50 only filters out 98%? Not to mention the fact that the protection level fades over time, and most people don't put on enough to reach anywhere near that level.
So, sooner or later this will get contaminated, or someone will mess with it ... and then people are going to get some nasty things from these dispensers.
You can try to do nice things, but anything dispensing a liquid into the grubby hands of the general public is likely to go horribly wrong fairly quickly.
I'm betting in a few months some lab tests will tell us these things are just plain nasty.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It's about the amount of sun power that's not blocked. If SPF 50 blocks 98% and SPF 100 blocks 99%. Then the remaining sun power that hits you with SPF 50 is 2% and with SPF 100 it's 1%. So you accurately get double the protection with double the SPF. Maybe the cream only lasts for a few hours, which is why they have dispensers everywhere, so you can restore your protection regularly.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Depends on where they are... vitamin D is not added to milk in many countries.
Are you serious? That stuff has proteins. They call all kinds of trouble.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
or they could remove it, picture the politicians that approved its removal having some monetary interest in skin cancer
As I said, supplements simply can not replace the amount of vitamin D that UV exposure can. This really is a huge problem in modern society especially with all the sunscreen bullshit (never go outside without sunscreen, makeup with sunscreen, etc, which is all marketing for profit) and working inside. Search for the information and prove it to yourself, it's there.
Generally the darker your skin, the more UV exposure you need.
You also need to consider your skin color. I'm quite a bit darker than my GF, and I can stay outside in the sun with no problem, unless I'm at a pool. My GF can get fried much quicker if she doesn't use sunscreen.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
If one is wearing sunscreen, then "summer will never come" and the body will remain in a state of disrepair. Which benefits the health insurance industry (it's not a "health care" industry).
The geek tends to think like an adolescent.
Although most babies born in 1900 did not live past age 50, life expectancy at birth now exceeds 83 years in Japan --- the current leader ----and is at least 81 years in several other countries.
It wasn't until the 20th century that mortality rates began to decline within the older ages. Research for more recent periods shows a surprising and continuing improvement in life expectancy among those aged 80 or above.
The progressive increase in survival in these oldest age groups was not anticipated by demographers, and it raises questions about how high the average life expectancy can realistically rise and about the potential length of the human lifespan. While some experts assume that life expectancy must be approaching an upper limit, data on life expectancies between 1840 and 2007 show a steady increase averaging about three months of life per year.
Global Health and Aging
In 1925, your life and health insurance client will be dead in 25 years. In 2015, your 25 year old client stands a good chance of living another 60 years. Which do you think yields a better return?
No one thinks about aging when they are young, but by the time you do, you'll wish you had used sunscreen your entire life. It's the only "anti-aging" cream that works, not by stopping aging but it does protect your skin from the leathery, splotched look of old age caused by years of unprotected UV radiation exposure. To be really useful, it should be worn daily before going out into the sun, even going from the house to the car, and they do make products that don't feel like Vaseline good for it. L'Oreal makes several that work. Think of it like not brushing your teeth when you don't use it and you should be okay.
You have to let stupid people kill themselves. That's how evolution works! They're messing with the natural order.
One of the theme parks I go to often has had free sun-lotion and soft drinks for about 15 years. It prevents problems. Less people getting sunstroke or dehydrated is less work for your hospitals and emergency staff. You can also recoup the costs when more people visit your area and use your hotels.
On the flip side, think of the financial savings from public insurance treating fewer people for skin maladies. Your skeptical view is almost the default for /., to the point of being a platitude. To me, this is similar to requiring motorcycle helmets and the financial savings long term.
The responses to this show me how stupid the slashdot population actually is. Fucking hell guys, this is a real scientifically proven problem (a couple minutes of your search time will prove this).
10-15 minutes is no where near enough for most people with darker skin (ie. most of the world's population). I mean, fuck, I'm only olive skinned and I need at least 30 minutes to an hour at the most "dangerous" UV exposure at the highest levels to even begin to get the benefits. I don't start to get red skin until an hour or two and that's with no previous exposure (ie. coming out of winter). In the summer I can withstand 4 to 6 hours without my skin becoming red and 8 to 10 hours before I start to "burn". Darker complications have even longer times.
I assume by the moderation that most of slashdot is made up of minority pasty white cave-dweller homebodies with brain-damage caused by vitamin D and/or B12 deficiency. You are the abnormal outliers.
Thank you very much, dorks. There is a reason you're the outliers of the human race; please don't lock me in a cell and drain my superior blood for your nefarious purposes due to your weak genes, assholes.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
if you live above/below 60 degrees off the equator, you'll need all the exposure you can get, but for those of us in the rest of the world, we need to to be careful, because we don't have a risk of insufficient exposure, we run the risk of excessive exposure.
Finland is between 60 and 70 degrees, and some of us still manage to get skin cancer.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I don't mean to be flippant - cancer is a dreadful disease - but I live near the beach in the melanoma capital of the world (Queensland, Australia), and I see a LOT of pale-skinned tourists sunning themselves for hours at the beach in summer. Trying to get a year's worth of sun in a two-week holiday is the wrong way to go about it.
The vista of bikinis is a wonderful sight, but I hope they're using sunscreen.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
I live near the beach in the melanoma capital of the world (Queensland, Australia), and I see a LOT of pale-skinned tourists sunning themselves for hours at the beach in summer. Trying to get a year's worth of sun in a two-week holiday is the wrong way to go about it.
This is pretty much the problem in Finland with its short summers. We only get a few weeks of warm and sunny weather each year, so a lot of people consider it a national duty to spend all that time sunbathing.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I wonder how many homeless will use it as "lotion"
I wonder what brand of FREE sunscreen was given? Interesting info regards sunscreen: http://www.activistpost.com/20...