Science
10 sunscreen myths you can't afford to fall for
Attention sunscreen skeptics: The sun’s UV rays are coming for you, and you’re just making their job easier.
Summer is now upon us, which means more time in the sun — and more exposure to the ultraviolet radiation it emits. Longer-wavelength ultraviolet A rays can reach beneath the skin’s surface, causing it to age prematurely. Shorter-wavelength ultraviolet B rays affect the outermost layers of skin, causing sunburns and tans. (A third type of rays, ultraviolet C, is intercepted by Earth’s protective ozone layer.)
Both UVA and UVB damage the DNA in skin cells, causing mutations. These mutations can accumulate over time and cause tumors to grow. The more UV exposure you have, the greater the risk, according to the Skin Cancer Foundation.
Basal cell carcinoma is the most common type of skin cancer in the United States, followed by squamous cell carcinoma. About 5.4 million of these cancers combined are diagnosed each year, and they cause between 2,000 and 8,000 deaths, the American Cancer Society says.
Melanoma of the skin is both more rare and more deadly, affecting an estimated 100,640 Americans this year and resulting in 8,290 deaths, according to the National Cancer Institute.
Sunscreens can protect you from these malignancies in one of two ways. Chemical sunscreens contain ingredients such as avobenzone that absorb UV rays. Mineral sunscreens rely on zinc oxide or titanium dioxide to block or reflect the rays. Either way, the solar radiation is unable to penetrate the skin and corrupt your DNA.
Here are 10 sunscreen myths you can’t afford to fall for:
Myth 1: As long as you don’t get a sunburn, you’re safe.
The reality: You don’t need to get a sunburn to put your skin at risk. UV exposure will compromise the DNA of unprotected skin — even if your skin looks normal to the naked eye — and the effects are cumulative, said Dr. Henry Lim, a photodermatologist at Henry Ford Health in Detroit who studies the effect of sunlight on skin.
“Each time the skin is damaged by the sun, with or without sunburn reaction, there is some damage that the skin would have to repair,” Lim said. “If that subclinical damage goes on often enough for a long enough period of time, the skin’s ability to be able to completely repair all that DNA damage will be compromised.”
Myth 2: Your body needs vitamin D, and sunscreen will keep you from getting it.
The reality: It only takes a small amount of sun exposure to produce all the vitamin D your body needs. One study of white people in the Boston area determined that 5 to 10 minutes of sun on the face, arms and legs two or three times a week during the summer months was enough to produce sufficient amounts of vitamin D.
Even if you apply sunscreen, you’ll still get that minimum amount of sun exposure, Lim said. “When we use sunscreen, we don’t apply enough,” he said. “It’s just human nature.”
Dr. Anne Chapas, a dermatologist in Manhattan and clinical instructor at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, advises patients who are concerned about their vitamin D levels to protect their skin and seek out the nutrient in foods or take supplements.
“You do need vitamin D to be healthy, but there are multiple ways to get it,” she said.
Myth 3: The chemicals in sunscreen can cause cancer.
The reality: The active ingredients in sunscreens sold in the U.S. are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, which has determined that they are safe and effective. The National Academies add that “sunscreen use is not linked to higher rates of any type of cancer.”
In fact, it’s the reverse that’s true, Chapas said: “If you’re trying not to get cancer, then wear sunscreen.”
Myth 4: You don’t need to wear sunscreen when the UV index is low.
The reality: The UV index primarily measures UVB, which Lim calls “the sunburn spectrum.” Even if UVB is low, you still need to protect yourself from UVA.
“As long as there is light out there, there’s enough UVA” to induce tanning, cause wrinkles, and contribute to skin cancer risk, Lim said.
Chapas concurred. “Even on cloudy days, about 80% of the sun’s rays come through and you can can still get sun damage,” she said.
Myth 5: You don’t need sunscreen if you have dark skin.
The reality: People of every complexion can get sun damage and skin cancer. In fact, “skin cancer in patients with darker skin tones is often diagnosed in later stages, when it’s more difficult to treat,” said Dr. Seemal Desai, president of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Chapas added that since darker skin is apt to produce melanin in response to sun exposure, it may become discolored more readily than lighter skin.
Myth 6: Mineral-based sunscreens are safer than chemical sunscreens.
The reality: Both types are safe to use, but there are fewer unknowns with mineral sunscreens since they are not absorbed into the skin, Lim said.
Chapas said that’s one reason why she prefers mineral sunscreens. She also appreciates their versatility, since they can be applied on top of makeup or moisturizer. “The challenge is that some of these formulations have a whitish cast to them, so you have to find one that works with your complexion,” she said.
Myth 7: You can protect yourself from the sun by building up a “base tan.”
The reality: A tan can provide a small bit of protection, but it’s less than the equivalent of SPF 5, Lim said. That’s not nearly enough to make sunscreen unnecessary.
Besides, a tan itself is a sign of sun damage. “When our skin is exposed to UV light, it stimulates the production of melanin to prevent more UV from entering the skin and damaging the underlying skin cells,” Chapas said. “A tan isn’t healthy. A tan is actually your body trying to protect itself.”
Myth 8: The antioxidant astaxanthin will protect you from UV and act as an “internal sunscreen.”
The reality: There are two ways that antioxidants reduce the biological damage that comes with sun exposure, Lim said. When UVA rays harm DNA, they do so by causing oxidative damage to DNA, and antioxidants can help minimize it. In addition, when visible light interacts with the skin, it can cause cells to produce a type of destructive molecule called reactive oxygen species. Antioxidants can help counteract this process as well.
Including antioxidants in a sun protection regime makes sense, but they can’t do the job by themselves. “There are no pills that act as effectively as a sunscreen,” Chapas said.
If you do want to take an antioxidant to reduce sun damage, astaxanthin isn’t necessarily the best choice, Lim and Chapas agreed. The product Chapas recommends is from Heliocare.
Myth 9: The chemicals in sunscreen get into your bloodstream and build up over time.
The reality: There are no long-term studies of the blood of people who use sunscreen regularly, so there is no data to say whether this is true or false. However, the chemicals are excreted in urine, which is a sign that they don’t linger in the body, Lim said.
People who are wary of chemical sunscreens can opt for mineral sunscreens instead, he said.
Myth 10: You can keep sun damage at bay by wearing a good hat.
The reality: A wide-brimmed hat will definitely help protect you from the sun. This is particularly true for people who are bald or have thinning hair, since “we don’t have great sunscreens for hair-bearing areas,” Chapas said.
However, a hat will only block UV rays coming from above. Without sunscreen, you’ll still be vulnerable to rays that reflect off the water, sand, or urban surfaces like a sidewalk and come at your skin from below. (This is also why you need sunscreen even if you’re in the shade.)
“There are multiple actions we need to take,” Lim said. “Each one of them is helpful, but it’s not as good as when you put everything together.”
Science
U.S. Efforts to Cut Emissions Stalled in 2024 as Power Demand Surged
America’s efforts to cut its climate change pollution stalled in 2024, with greenhouse gas emissions dropping just a fraction, 0.2 percent, compared to the year before, according to estimates published Thursday by the Rhodium Group, a research firm.
Despite continued rapid growth in solar and wind power, emissions levels stayed relatively flat last year because demand for electricity surged nationwide, which led to a spike in the amount of natural gas burned by power plants.
The fact that emissions didn’t decline much means the United States is even further off-track from hitting President Biden’s goal of slashing greenhouse gases 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Scientists say all major economies would have to cut their emissions deeply this decade to keep global warming at relatively low levels.
Since 2005, United States emissions have fallen roughly 20 percent, a significant drop at a time when the economy has also expanded. But to meet its climate goals, U.S. emissions would need to decline nearly 10 times as fast each year as they’ve fallen over the past decade. That seems increasingly unlikely, experts say, especially since President-elect Donald J. Trump has promised to dismantle Mr. Biden’s climate policies and promote the production of fossil fuels, the burning of which generates greenhouse gases.
“On the one hand, it is notable that we’ve now seen two years in a row where the U.S. economy grew but emissions went down,” said Ben King, an associate director at the Rhodium Group. “But it’s far from enough to achieve our climate targets.”
The biggest reason that U.S. emissions have fallen in recent years is that electric utilities have been retiring their older, dirtier coal-fired power plants and replacing them with cheaper and less-polluting natural gas, wind and solar power. That trend mostly continued last year, with a few unexpected ups and downs.
The nation’s demand for electricity, which has stayed more or less flat for two decades, suddenly jumped by roughly 3 percent in 2024, in large part because scorching heat during the summer caused many Americans to crank up their air-conditioners. A smaller factor was that tech companies have been building more energy-hungry data centers in states like Virginia and Texas.
While power companies installed large numbers of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries last year to meet rising demand, natural gas use also rose to record highs, while coal use declined only slightly. The net result was that emissions from the power sector increased an estimated 0.2 percent, according to the Rhodium Group.
At the same time, transportation, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gases, saw an 0.8 percent rise in emissions last year. Gasoline and jet fuel consumption both increased as Americans continued to drive and fly more after the pandemic. Nearly 10 percent of new car sales in 2024 were less-polluting electric vehicles, but those models still make up a small fraction of total cars on the road and have yet to put a major dent in transportation emissions.
On the flip side, emissions from America’s industrial sector — which includes steel, cement and chemicals — fell by 1.8 percent in 2024. Some of that may have been the result of lost output, as two hurricanes and a strike at the nation’s ports disrupted some factory activity in the fall, Mr. King said.
“It’s a reminder that there’s always some bumpiness in emissions,” Mr. King said. “It’s not just a question of how many electric vehicles are on the road or how much solar we’ve installed. A big portion of our economy still relies on fossil fuels.”
One of the most striking findings in this year’s data was that emissions from oil and gas operations dropped roughly 3.7 percent in 2024. Even though the United States produced record amounts of oil and near-record amounts of natural gas last year, many companies appear to have curbed leaks of methane, which is the main ingredient in natural gas and which can seep into the atmosphere and contribute significantly to global warming.
Over the past few years, the Biden administration and several states have adopted new regulations that require oil and gas producers to detect and fix methane leaks. Many companies also have financial incentives to capture methane to sell rather than vent it into the air.
Between 2014 and 2024, U.S. companies appear to have reduced the amount of methane that escaped, per each cubic feet of gas they produced, by 40 percent, according to the Rhodium Group.
Several experts have estimated that greenhouse gases generated in the United States could start dropping sharply in the years ahead if many clean energy policies stay in place, particularly the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into low-carbon energy technologies such as electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear reactors, green hydrogen and batteries.
While Mr. Trump has pledged to scrap many of Mr. Biden’s subsidies and tax credits for electric vehicles and low-carbon energy, it remains to be seen whether Congress will agree.
That law has not yet had a major impact on the country’s emissions, said Mr. King, since it takes time for new factories to open and power plants to get built. But, he said, data shows that low-carbon energy and transportation now make up fully 5 percent of total U.S. private investment.
“That’s a leading indicator that things are changing quickly,” he said.
Science
How to protect yourself from the smoke caused by L.A. wildfires
You don’t have to live close to a wildfire to be affected by its smoke. With severe winds fanning the fires in and around Pacific Palisades, the Pasadena foothills and Simi Valley, huge swaths of the Southland are contending with dangerous air quality.
Wildfire smoke can irritate your eyes, nose, throat and lungs. The soot may contain all kinds of dangerous pollutants, including some that may cause cancer. The tiniest particles in smoke can travel deep into your lungs or even enter your bloodstream.
Conditions like these aren’t good for anyone, but they’re particularly bad for people in vulnerable groups, including children, those with asthma or other respiratory conditions, people with heart disease and those who are pregnant.
Here’s what you should know to keep yourself safe.
Stay indoors
Minimize your exposure to unhealthy air by staying inside and keeping your doors and windows shut.
If you have a central heating and air conditioning system, you can keep your indoor air clean by turning it on and keeping it running. Make sure the fresh-air intake is closed so that you’re not drawing in outdoor air.
Keep your pets inside
They shouldn’t breathe the unhealthy air either.
Check your air filters
Clean filters work better than dirty ones, and high-efficiency filters work better than regular ones. The California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District recommend filters with a MERV rating of 13 or higher.
You might consider using portable high-efficiency air cleaner in a room where you spend the most time. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has information about them here, and CARB has a list of certified cleaning devices here.
Don’t pollute your indoor air
That means no burning candles or incense. If your power is out and you need to see in the dark, you’re much better off with a flashlight or headlamp.
If you’re cold, bundle up. This is not the time to start a cozy fire in the fireplace. Don’t use a gas stove or wood-fired appliances, since these will make your indoor air quality worse, not better, the AQMD says.
The CDC also advises against vacuuming, since it can stir up dust and release fine particles into the air.
Take care when cleaning up
You don’t want your skin to come into contact with wildfire ash. That means you should wear long sleeves, pants, gloves, socks and shoes. The AQMD even wants you to wear goggles.
If you’re sweeping up ash outdoors, get a hose and mist it with water first. That will keep it from flying up in the air as you move it around. Once the ash is wet, sweep it up gently with a broom or mop. Bag it up in a plastic bag and throw it away.
It’s a good idea to wash your vehicles and outdoor toys if they’re covered in ash. Try not to send ashy water into storm drains. Direct the dirty water into ground areas instead, the AQMD advises.
Those with lung or heart problems should avoid clean-up activities.
Discard spoiled food…
If you lost power for a significant length of time, the food in your refrigerator or freezer may be spoiled.
Food kept in a fridge should stay safe for up to four hours if you’ve kept the door closed. If you’ve been without power for longer than that, you’ll need to toss all perishable items, including meat, poultry, fish, eggs, milk and cut fruits and vegetables. Anything with “an unusual smell, color, or texture” should be thrown out as well, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease and Control Prevention.
Refrigerated medicines should be OK unless the power was out for more than a day. Check the label to make sure.
…even if it was in the freezer
Your freezer may be in better shape, especially if it’s well-stocked. Items in a full freezer may be safe for up to 48 hours if it’s been kept shut, and a half-full freezer may be OK for up to 24 hours. (The frozen items help keep each other cold, so the more the better.)
If items have remained below 40 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) or you can still see ice crystals in them, they may be OK to use or refreeze, according to the federal government’s food safety website.
Ice cream and frozen yogurt should be thrown out if the power goes out for any amount of time. Meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, milk and most other dairy products need to go if they were exposed to temperatures above 40 degrees F for two hours or longer. The same goes for frozen meals, casseroles, soups, stews and cakes, pies and pastries with custard or cheese fillings.
Fruit and fruit juices that have started to thaw can be refrozen unless they’ve started to get moldy, slimy or smell like yeast. Vegetables and vegetable juices should be discarded if they’ve been above 40 degrees F for six hours or more, even if they look and smell fine.
Breakfast items like waffles and bagels can be refrozen, as can breads, rolls, muffins and other baked goods without custard fillings.
Consider alternative shelter
If you’ve done everything you can but your eyes are still watering, you can’t stop coughing, or you just don’t feel well, seek alternative shelter where the air quality is better.
Hold off on vigorous exercise
Doing anything that would cause you to breathe in more deeply is a bad idea right now.
Mask up outdoors
If you need to be outside for an extended time, be sure to wear a high-quality mask. A surgical mask or cloth mask won’t cut it — health authorities agree that you should reach for an N95 or P-100 respirator with a tight seal.
Are young children at greater risk of wildfire smoke?
Very young children are especially vulnerable to the effects of wildfire smoke because their lungs are still rapidly developing. And because they breathe much faster than adults, they are taking in more toxic particulate matter relative to their tiny bodies, which can trigger inflammation, coughing and wheezing.
Any kind of air pollution can be dangerous to young children, but wildfire smoke is about 10 times as toxic for children compared to air pollution from burning fossil fuels, said Dr. Lisa Patel, clinical associate professor of pediatrics at Stanford Children’s Health. Young children with preexisting respiratory problems like asthma are at even greater risk.
Patel advises parents to keep their young children indoors as much as possible, create a safe room in their home with an air purifier, and try to avoid using gas stoves to avoid polluting the indoor air.
Children over the age of 2 should also wear a well-fitting KN95 mask if they will be outdoors for a long period of time. Infants and toddlers younger than that don’t need to mask up because it can be a suffocation risk, Patel said.
What are the risks for pregnant people?
Pregnant people should also take extra precautions around wildfire smoke, which can cross the placenta and affect a developing fetus. Studies have found that exposure to wildfire smoke during pregnancy can increase the risk of premature birth and low birth weight. Researchers have also linked the toxic chemicals in smoke with maternal health complications including hypertension and preeclampsia.
What about other high-risk populations?
Certain chronic diseases including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other respiratory conditions can also make you particularly vulnerable to wildfire smoke. People with heart disease, diabetes and chronic kidney disease should take extra care to breathe clean air, the CDC says. The tiny particles in wildfire smoke can aggravate existing health problems, and may make heart attacks or strokes more likely, CARB warns.
Get ready for the next emergency
Living in Southern California means another wildfire is coming sooner or later. To prepare for the bad air, you can:
- Stock up on disposable respirators, like N95 or P-100s.
- Have clean filters ready for your A/C system and change them out when things get smoky.
- Know how to check the air quality where you live and work. The AQMD has an interactive map that’s updated hourly. Just type in an address and it will zoom in on the location. You can also sign up to get air quality alerts by email or on your smartphone.
- Know where your fire extinguisher is and keep it handy.
- If you have a heart or lung condition, keep at least five days’ worth of medication on hand.
Times staff writer Karen Garcia contributed to this report.
Science
Punk and Emo Fossils Are a Hot Topic in Paleontology
Mark Sutton, an Imperial College London paleontologist, is not a punk.
“I’m more of a folk and country person,” he said.
But when Dr. Sutton pieced together 3-D renderings of a tiny fossil mollusk, he was struck by the spikes that covered its wormlike body. “This is like a classic punk hairstyle, the way it’s sticking up,” he thought. He called the fossil “Punk.” Then he found a similar fossil with downward-tipped spines reminiscent of long, side-swept “emo” bangs. He nicknamed that specimen after the emotional alt-rock genre.
On Wednesday, Dr. Sutton and his colleagues published a paper in the journal Nature formally naming the creatures as the species Punk ferox and Emo vorticaudum. True to their names, these worm-mollusks are behind something of an upset (if not quite “anarchy in the U.K.”) over scientists’ understanding of the origins of one of the biggest groups of animals on Earth.
In terms of sheer number of species, mollusks are second only to arthropods (the group that contains insects, spiders and crustaceans). The better-known half of the mollusk family tree, conchiferans, contains animals like snails, clams and octopuses. “The other half is this weird and wacky group of spiny things,” Dr. Sutton said. Some animals in this branch, the aculiferans, resemble armored marine slugs, while others are “obscure, weird molluscan worms,” he said.
Punk and Emo, the forerunners of today’s worm-mollusks, lived on the dark seafloor amid gardens of sponges, nearly 200 million years before the first dinosaurs emerged on land. Today, their ancient seafloor is a fossil site at the border between England and Wales.
The site is littered with rounded rocky nodules that “look a bit like potatoes,” Dr. Sutton said. “And then you crack them open, and some of them have got these fossils inside. But the thing is, they don’t really look like much at first.”
While the nodules can preserve an entire animal’s body in 3-D, the cross-section that becomes visible when a nodule is cracked open can be difficult to interpret “because you’re not seeing the full anatomy,” Dr. Sutton said.
Paleontologists can use CT scans to see parts of fossils still hidden in rock, essentially taking thousands of X-rays of the fossil and then stitching those X-ray slices together into one digital 3-D image. But in these nodules, the fossilized creatures and the rock surrounding them are too similar in density to be easily differentiated by X-rays. Instead, Dr. Sutton essentially recreated this process of slicing and imaging by hand.
“We grind away a slice at a time, take a photo, repeat at 20-micron intervals or so, and basically destroy but digitize the fossil as we go,” Dr. Sutton said. At the end of the process, the original fossil nodule is “a sad-looking pile of dust,” but the thousands of images, when painstakingly digitally combined, provide a remarkable picture of the fossil animal.
Punk and Emo’s Hot Topic-worthy spikes set them apart from other fossils from the aculiferan branch of the mollusk family. “We don’t know much about aculiferans, and it’s unusual to find out we’ve suddenly got two,” Dr. Sutton said.
Stewart Edie, the curator of fossil bivalves at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, said that Punk and Emo’s bizarre appearances shook up a long-held understanding of how mollusks evolved. Traditionally, scientists thought that the group of mollusks containing snails, clams and cephalopods “saw all of the evolutionary action,” said Dr. Edie, who was not involved with the new discovery. “And the other major group, the aculiferans, were considerably less adventurous.” But Punk and Emo “buck that trend,” he said.
The new alt-rock aculiferans reveal the hidden diversity of their group in the distant past and raise questions about why their descendants make up such a small part of the mollusk class today. “This is really giving us an almost unprecedented window into the sorts of things that were actually around when mollusks were getting going,” Dr. Sutton said. “It’s just this little weird, unexpected, really clear view of what was going on in the early history of one of the most important groups of animals.”
-
Business1 week ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports1 week ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics1 week ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics7 days ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics5 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health4 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
Ivory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades