You’re talking about exposure to ionizing radiation. This means there is a chance each UV photon that hits exactly in the right spot will cause permanent DNA changes that eventually lead to cancer. So the right answer when asking how many invisible bullets you want to be shot with until one is fatal is “as few as practical”.
You can get vitamin D from a tablet.
Now, yes, a lack of sun may cause depression and you die from that, or other malfunctions, and most humans don’t die from skin cancer.
So I don’t see it in terms of ‘micromorts’, I see it in terms of ‘the outdoor activity had better be really fun’ and “i’m going to protect myself as much as practical”.
Hanging out on a beach with potential mates? Worth the risk. Mowing or weeding your lawn? I’m gonna wait til dusk or use a lot of protective gear.
each UV photon that hits exactly in the right spot will cause permanent DNA changes that eventually lead to cancer
Pretty sure this is incorrect. It’s not the damage that causes cancer, but the failure of the body to heal/repair it. Such failures can be caused for example by you being very old, and therefore healing slower, or by getting a sunburn (= too much exposure in a short time, overwhelming repair capability).
I think the most important thing here is that things scale very much not linearly.
See also this, which argues/claims that more sun exposure (without getting sunburnt) actually leads to less cancer than getting less UV total, but with sunburns:
Liu et al. 201487 found that hypertension is reduced by UVR-induced nitric oxide independent of vitamin D. They showed that stores of nitrogen oxides in the human skin are mobilized to the systemic circulation by exposure of the body to UVA radiation, causing arterial vasodilation and a resultant decrease in blood pressure independent of vitamin D, confirming the hypothesis of Feelisch et al. 2010.88 These results correlate with the findings of Afzal et al. 201477 that genetically low 25(OH)D levels were associated with increased all-cause mortality but not with cardiovascular mortality, indicating that a mediator other than vitamin D may be involved in cardiovascular mortality, and with the results of Tunstall-Pedoe et al. 201589 challenging vitamin D’s alleged role in cardiovascular disease.
You’re talking about exposure to ionizing radiation. This means there is a chance each UV photon that hits exactly in the right spot will cause permanent DNA changes that eventually lead to cancer. So the right answer when asking how many invisible bullets you want to be shot with until one is fatal is “as few as practical”.
You can get vitamin D from a tablet.
Now, yes, a lack of sun may cause depression and you die from that, or other malfunctions, and most humans don’t die from skin cancer.
So I don’t see it in terms of ‘micromorts’, I see it in terms of ‘the outdoor activity had better be really fun’ and “i’m going to protect myself as much as practical”.
Hanging out on a beach with potential mates? Worth the risk. Mowing or weeding your lawn? I’m gonna wait til dusk or use a lot of protective gear.
Pretty sure this is incorrect. It’s not the damage that causes cancer, but the failure of the body to heal/repair it. Such failures can be caused for example by you being very old, and therefore healing slower, or by getting a sunburn (= too much exposure in a short time, overwhelming repair capability).
I think the most important thing here is that things scale very much not linearly.
See also this, which argues/claims that more sun exposure (without getting sunburnt) actually leads to less cancer than getting less UV total, but with sunburns:
It’s not just about Vitamin D. An example:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19381980.2016.1248325