I've probably been the top sunscreen mythbuster online for the last decade, so I have thoughts! It's super cool that sunscreen misinfo is being formally studied! Big props to the authors for recognising this problem. But there's misinfo in the paper, and IMO the main claims aren't well-supported…
Timothy Caulfield@caulfieldtim.bsky.social · 2mo ago📣 Our NEW study 👇 Sunscreen is overwhelmingly promoted on TikTok, but content with #misinformation exhibits proportionally high levels of audience interaction dx.plos.org/10.1371/jour... by @marcozenone.bsky.social @cherylepeters.bsky.social et al. 🙏 #Cancer #Sunscreen
![a picture of a smiling face under an umbrella labeled: 1.6m = 5'2" (me in chunky shoes)
below is a block of text from diffey b, sun protection: a risk management approach, 2017 which reads:
as an example, we estimate the PF for beach umbrella which has a UV transmittance of 1%, a diameter of 1.6 m and is at a height 1 m above the ground. the SVF is calculated on a horizontal surface located vertically underneath the center of the umbrella, mimicking the UV exposure received by someone stretched out underneath. for a simple structure such as this example, the SVF can be canculated by [math] which equals 0.68. This results in a PF of 2.6, which responds to a transmission of 38%. This value compares favourably with measurements made around the middle fo the day in mid-july in valencia with an umbrella of the same radius and height above the ground, in which a mean transmission of 34% was obtained over the period of measurement. we can see that even when in the shade of direct sunlight, 20% or less of the sky needs to be visible if the protection is to be worthwhile (pf > 10)](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ywbm3iywnhzep3ckt6efhoh7/bafkreid4h7wvacrxyvyhh5ldxmmiqo464llfcq6in37utztqapc2txk6ue)
