> Cutaneous melanoma (CM) accounted for around 331,700 cancer cases globally in 2022
> An estimated 267,353 (95% uncertainty intervals [UI]: 242,818, 278,638) CM cases were UVR attributable globally in 2022
UVR = Ultraviolet radiation
Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is the vast majority of melanoma cases in the US at least:
> The percentages of melanomas that were cutaneous, ocular, mucosal, and unknown primaries were 91.2%, 5.2%, 1.3%, and 2.2%, from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9781962/
tl;dr ~80% of Cutaneous melanoma cases are attributable to UV exposure.
Please be careful and charitable in reading others' words, especially as they relate to scientific topics.
OP did not say that melanoma has no sun exposure risk but that it is lower than the risks associated with other cutaneous cancers (e.g., SCC and BCC) and it would seem that's true based on the very short search I performed.
Yes, but OP said that in response to a comment attributing melanoma to sun exposure, in a conversation where nobody had brought up SCC or BCC. It's still a misleading comment, in my opinion.
> Yes, but OP said that in response to a comment attributing melanoma to sun exposure, in a conversation where nobody had brought up SCC or BCC.
In a thread about a trial for a melanoma drug, which has nothing to do with the discussion of sunscreen. Sunscreen was brought up because it is a culture-war topic, the fact that melanomas are not as associated with sun exposure was brought up as the standard opposite-side reply to a culture-war topic.
Clearly your unrelated accusation was brought up to silence the other side and accuse them of dishonesty. Your follow-up is to accuse them of some conversational violation (mentioning something that wasn't brought up) which doesn't exist.
It's fine to see debate, but this is not debate. At most, consistent daily sunscreen use is associated with a 30-50% reduction in melanoma, and some of the ingredients in US sunscreens are themselves associated with cancer.
What would be helpful is a link to a study showing a general reduction in melanomas during a general increase in the use of sunscreen. I'd be able to point that out to friends who questioned me about the efficacy of using it.
edit: that one sentence reply is already trying to snowball into a pile on. Now to mention this fact has become "bizarre." Can't wait until it becomes "unhinged."
I think the problem is that it takes 30 years for the effects to start showing.
This data [1] shows incidence of melanoma by the age of 30 dropping by half in Australia, presumably as a result of a sun safety campaign that started in the late 80s (not just encouraging sunscreen but also more shade, hats, covering up, etc.). Yet melanoma rates here in general increase but it’s more and more skewed towards the older.
You're confusing me with u/addisonl. Please check usernames before accusing people of trying to "silence the other side."
To quote a blog post I wrote on why we can be confident sun exposure causes cancer: "Green et al. (2011) conducted a 10-year study (n=1621) in Nambour, a town in Queensland, Australia. Participants were randomly assigned to daily or discretionary sunscreen application. After 10 years, 11 melanomas were found in the daily group and 22 in the discretionary group."
But you should read the full post for more context on why we have much better data than randomized controlled trials, and why correlation studies on this subject are nearly useless due to the impossibility of finding reliable proxy variables: https://hedonicescalator.substack.com/p/contra-byrnes-on-uv-...
Saying "some of the ingredients in US sunscreens are themselves associated with cancer" is meaningless without more specificity. As the meme goes, this HackerNews comment is known to the state of California to cause cancer: the bar for something to be "associated with cancer" is incredibly low. Are there any particular chemicals or chemical classes you were worried about?
And I will remind you that, in contrast, we are 100% sure that sunlight causes cancer. We know exactly what kinds of DNA damage it creates (chiefly cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers, which I discuss in my blog post) and we can find cancer-causing mutations in melanoma samples directly downstream of that damage (C->T mutations, for example, ones that disable the key p53 tumor suppressor gene). We know how this shit works! Are there some sunscreen formulas that might be dangerous? Possibly, I don't have them all memorized, but the solution is to find a different brand... not to instead expose yourself to one of the best-studied carcinogens around.
>Clearly your unrelated accusation was brought up to silence the other side and accuse them of dishonesty. Your follow-up is to accuse them of some conversational violation (mentioning something that wasn't brought up) which doesn't exist.
the comment you are replying to is HedonicEscal8r's first comment in this comment chain.
>that one sentence reply is already trying to snowball into a pile on
no... it is correcting your comment that is accusing HedonicEscal8r of having multiple comments in this chain. HedonicEscal8r was not the one to make the comment that you describe as an "unrelated accusation" to "silence the other side".
common courtesy would be to say "oops, i didn't read the usernames, my bad" instead of accusing someone else entirely of "trying to snowball into a pile on" for calling you out on the mistake.
pessimizer misattributes a comment to someone who didn't write it. i mention it, get accused of "piling on", and then get downvoted. hn can be so fucking weird.
By pointing out that it is true using a reference?
> the reply
The reply misunderstood the first comment and went on to discuss something a)interesting but b) not germane to whether melanoma is the skin cancer with the highest sun exposure risk.
I have no idea what you mean by context as this small discussion is quite self-contained. Think of this as making sure everyone realizes two homophones actually are distinct words.
