Not so long ago, people like my Aunt Muriel thought of sunburn as a necessary evil on the way to a “good base tan.” She used to slather on the baby oil while using a large reflector to bake away. Aunt Muriel’s mantra when the inevitable burn and peel appeared: Beauty has its price.


Was she ever right about that price – but it was a lot higher than any of us at the time recognized. What sun addicts didn’t know then was that we were setting our skin up for damage to its structural proteins and DNA. Hello, wrinkles, liver spots, and cancers. No matter where your complexion falls on the Fitzpatrick Skin Type scale, ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun or tanning beds will damage your skin.

Today, recognition of the risks posed by UV rays has motivated scientists, myself included, to study what’s going on in our cells when they’re in the sun – and devise modern ways to ward off that damage.

UV light that affects our skin has a shorter wavelength than the parts of the electromagnetic spectrum we can see. Inductiveload, NASA, CC BY-SA

What happens when sun hits skin

Sunlight is composed of packets of energy called photons. The visible colors we can see by eye are relatively harmless to our skin; it’s the sun’s (UV) light photons that can cause skin damage. UV light can be broken down into two categories: UVA (in the wavelength range 320-400 nanometers) and UVB (in the wavelength range 280–320 nm).

Our skin contains molecules that are perfectly structured to absorb the energy of UVA and UVB photons. This puts the molecule into an energetically excited state. And as the saying goes, what goes up must come down. In order to release their acquired energy, these molecules undergo chemical reactions – and in the skin, that means there are biological consequences.

Interestingly, some of these effects used to be considered helpful adaptations – though we now recognize them as forms of damage. Tanning is due to the production of extra melanin pigment induced by UVA rays. Exposure to the sun also turns on the skin’s natural antioxidant network, which deactivates highly destructive reactive oxygen species (ROS) and free radicals; if left unchecked, these can cause cellular damage and oxidative stress within the skin.

We also know that UVA light penetrates deeper into the skin than UVB, destroying a structural protein called collagen. As collagen degrades, our skin loses its elasticity and smoothness, leading to wrinkles. UVA is responsible for many of the visible signs of aging while UVB light is considered the primary source of sunburn. Think “A” for aging and “B” for burning.

DNA itself can absorb both UVA and UVB rays, causing mutations which, if unrepaired, can lead to non-melanoma (basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma) or melanoma skin cancers. Other skin molecules pass on absorbed UV energy to those highly reactive ROS and free radicals. The resulting oxidative stress can overload the skin’s built-in antioxidant network and cause cellular damage. ROS can react with DNA, forming mutations, and with collagen, leading to wrinkles. They can also interrupt cell signaling pathways and gene expression.

The end result of all of these photoreactions is photodamage that accumulates over the course of a lifetime from repeated exposure. And – this cannot be emphasized enough — this applies to all skin types, from Type I (like Nicole Kidman) to Type VI (like Jennifer Hudson). Regardless of how much melanin we have in our skin, we can develop UV-induced skin cancers, and we will all eventually see the signs of photo-induced aging in the mirror.

Filtering photons before the damage is done

The good news, of course, is that the risk of skin cancer and the visible signs of aging can be minimized by preventing overexposure to UV radiation. When you can’t avoid the sun altogether, today’s sunscreens have got your back (and all the rest of your skin too).

Sunscreens employ UV filters: molecules specifically designed to help reduce the amount of UV rays that reach through the skin surface. A film of these molecules forms a protective barrier either absorbing (chemical filters) or reflecting (physical blockers) UV photons before they can be absorbed by our DNA and other reactive molecules deeper in the skin.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration regulates sunscreens as drugs. Because we were historically most concerned with protecting against sunburn, 14 molecules that block sunburn-inducing UVB rays are approved for use. That we have just two UVA-blocking molecules available in the United States — avobenzone, a chemical filter, and zinc oxide, a physical blocker — is a testament to our more recent understanding that UVA causes trouble, not just tans.

The FDA also has enacted strict labeling requirements — most obviously about SPF (sun protection factor). On labels since 1971, SPF represents the relative time it takes for an individual to get sunburned by UVB radiation. For example, if it takes 10 minutes typically to burn, then, if used correctly, an SPF 30 sunscreen should provide 30 times that – 300 minutes of protection before sunburn.

“Used correctly” is the key phrase. Research shows that it takes about one ounce, or basically a shot glass-sized amount of sunscreen, to cover the exposed areas of the average adult body, and a nickel-sized amount for the face and neck (more or less, depending on your body size). The majority of people apply between a quarter to a half of the recommended amounts, placing their skin at risk for sunburn and photodamage.

In addition, sunscreen efficacy decreases in the water or with sweating. To help consumers, FDA now requires sunscreens labeled “water-resistant” or “very water-resistant” to last up to 40 minutes or 80 minutes, respectively, in the water, and the American Academy of Dermatology and other medical professional groups recommend reapplication immediately after any water sports. The general rule of thumb is to reapply about every two hours and certainly after water sports or sweating.

In the U.S., the FDA regulates sunscreens available to consumers. Sheila Fitzgerald via Shutterstock.com

To get high SPF values, multiple UVB UV filters are combined into a formulation based upon safety standards set by the FDA. However, the SPF doesn’t account for UVA protection. For a sunscreen to make a claim as having UVA and UVB protection and be labeled “broad spectrum,” it must pass FDA’s broad spectrum test, where the sunscreen is hit with a large dose of UVB and UVA light before its effectiveness is tested.

This pre-irradiation step was established in FDA’s 2012 sunscreen labeling rules and acknowledges something significant about UV-filters: Some can be photolabile, meaning they can degrade under UV irradiation. The most famous example may be PABA. This UVB-absorbing molecule is rarely used in sunscreens today because it forms photoproducts that elicit an allergic reaction in some people.

But the broad spectrum test really came into effect only once the UVA-absorbing molecule avobenzone came onto the market. Avobenzone can interact with octinoxate, a strong and widely used UVB absorber, in a way that makes avobenzone less effective against UVA photons. The UVB filter octocrylene, on the other hand, helps stabilize avobenzone so it lasts longer in its UVA-absorbing form. Additionally, you may notice on some sunscreen labels the molecule ethylhexyl methoxycrylene. It helps stabilize avobenzone even in the presence of octinoxate and provides us with longer-lasting protection against UVA rays.

Next up in sunscreen innovation is the broadening of their mission. Because even the highest SPF sunscreens don’t block 100% of UV rays, the addition of antioxidants can supply a second line of protection when the skin’s natural antioxidant defenses are overloaded. Some antioxidant ingredients my colleagues and I have worked with include tocopheral acetate (Vitamin E), sodium ascorbyl phosophate (Vitamin C), and DESM. And sunscreen researchers are beginning to investigate if the absorption of other colors of light, like infrared, by skin molecules has a role to play in photodamage.

As research continues, one thing we know for certain is that protecting our DNA from UV damage, for people of every color, is synonymous with preventing skin cancers. The Skin Cancer Foundation, American Cancer Society, and American Academy of Dermatology all stress that research shows regular use of an SPF 15 or higher sunscreen prevents sunburn and reduces the risk of non-melanoma cancers by 40% and melanoma by 50%.

We can still enjoy being in the sun. Unlike my Aunt Muriel and us kids in the 1980s, we just need to use the resources available to us, from long sleeves to shade to sunscreens, in order to protect the molecules in our skin, especially our DNA, from UV damage.

Kerry Hanson is a research chemist at the University of California, Riverside.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • Getting outside despite your 9‑to‑5 job can improve your mental health – here’s how to spend time in nature during and around working hours
    Photo credit: Todd Lookingbill – Urban parks are great places to soak in the outdoors without planning an elaborate trip.

    The modern workday unfolds largely indoors. Long hours spent commuting, sitting in meetings and staring at screens can make time outdoors feel like a luxury. Finding time for nature in an already packed workday can feel impossible, especially if you think nature only “counts” when it involves hiking boots and camping gear.

    But a growing body of research suggests that nature’s benefits don’t require an exotic vacation getaway or weekend adventure. Even brief, routine interactions with green space can reduce stress, improve mood and promote overall well-being.

    I spent the spring of 2026 teaching and studying urban landscapes in Denmark, a country consistently ranked among the happiest in the world. I expected to find thoughtfully designed parks, courtyards and bicycle paths. I did see those things. But what surprised me was how seamlessly people moved through those spaces as part of their ordinary lives.

    These green spaces weren’t aspirational destinations, reserved for special occasions. They were places to eat lunch, meet friends, walk through on the way home from work, or just pause for a few quiet moments. Getting outside seemed a part of the natural rhythm of the day.

    Denmark‘s outdoor culture stemmed not only from the creation of a meticulously planned network of parks, but also from the way green spaces were fundamentally woven into the routines of everyday life.

    A wooden bench in an outdoor park
    A wooden bench in one of Copenhagen’s forest therapy parks invites people to sit and soak in their surroundings. Todd Lookingbill

    Everyday parks, everyday benefits

    Evidence linking time spent in nature with health benefits has increasingly shaped public policy. In the U.S., for example, the National Park Service’s Healthy Parks Healthy People and ParkRx initiatives reflect a growing recognition that access to parks contributes to well-being.

    For many Americans, however, the word “park” brings to mind iconic national parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Yet visiting parks of all kinds can improve your overall health. The greatest public health value may come not from the parks people visit once in a lifetime but from those close enough to visit again and again.

    My own research on Civil War battlefield parks illustrates this point. These are parks that were established to commemorate historic conflicts that were frequently fought on the fringes of major metropolitan areas. Consequently, many of these landscapes preserve forests, grasslands and trails within easy reach of millions of Americans.

    Because they’re accessible without extensive travel or planning, they can become places people return to repeatedly – such as during a lunch break or after work. Reframing the notion of “park” opens up millions of acres of land for everyday uses.

    Designing for everyday nature

    At the University of Richmond, where I work, a stream restoration projects became an opportunity to rethink how nature fits into campus life. Landscape architects designed an Eco-Corridor, as the project became known. It has walking paths, gathering spaces and seating areas for quiet reflection alongside flowing streams and native vegetation.

    The result was a landscape that supports biodiversity and improves water quality while also creating places for students, faculty and staff to walk between meetings, eat lunch alfresco or spend a few quiet moments outside during the workday. Its ongoing care depends on an army of volunteers who spread mulch, remove invasive plants and tend the community garden. For these volunteers, stewardship between classes and meetings meant another opportunity to interact with nature.

    A group of young people walking along a concrete path lined with trees and shrubbery.
    Students walk through the ‘Eco-Corridor’ at the University of Richmond. Haley Herrmann

    What we learned was that nature doesn’t have to compete with work, studying or everyday responsibilities. Thoughtful landscape design can make spending time outdoors, even if only for a few short minutes, feel like a normal part of the day.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years
    Photo credit: Canva – Researchers found what's preventing us from living longer.
    ,

    New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

    Humans can live much longer if certain barriers are addressed.

    According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest person lived to the ripe age of 122 years old. Such a lifespan is an incredible feat, but what if the average person could beat that record by 34 years? Recent research done in Russia has led scientists to believe that the average human lifespan could be up to 156 years.

    The researchers at Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center developed a mathematical model that allowed them to “switch on” a variety of aging mechanisms. This allowed them to calculate a human’s lifespan where mortality risk never increased with age. After experimenting with different scenarios and conditions, they found the biggest barriers to longevity were caused by non-renewable tissues and somatic mutations.

    What are these barriers against longer life?

    Somatic mutations are DNA changes within a cell. They accumulate over time during a human’s life and cannot be reversed with any existing therapy. These DNA errors that pile up in our cells contribute to the aging process.

    Many human organs like the liver and skin continually replace cells and regrow damaged portions of themselves. However, there are two organs that can’t do this: the brain and the heart. Brain tissue (neurons) and heart tissue (cardiomyocytes) cannot regenerate. This proves to be the most prominent biological limit that shortens our lifespans. This explains why issues like dementia and heart disease are prominent causes of death and morbidity later in life. Since those organs’ tissues don’t replace damaged cells, they’re prone to irrevocably decline over time.

    “The key finding of the study is the discovery of substantial differences between tissue types. Neurons and cardiomyocytes, which lack the ability to divide, turned out to be the main limiting factors: when all other causes of aging are eliminated, somatic mutations alone reduce the theoretical median lifespan from 1,759 years (for a hypothetical non-aging human organism) to 156 years,” said Evgeny Efimov, a research intern at the Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center, researcher at AIRI, and one of the key authors of the study.

    This suggests that somatic mutations and DNA damage is what ultimately prevents humans from living indefinitely, even if our brains and hearts regenerated cells like other organs.

    So what’s next?

    Now knowing these biological limitations, the researchers hope to study other areas of aging impacting the human lifespan that could plausibly be reversed. This includes mitochondrial dysfunction, telomere shortening, epigenetic drift, and loss of proteostasis. 

    The hope is to have a clearer priority list of issues for future therapies to tackle. This is not just to possibly extend life, but to improve lives in general. By developing a fully comprehensive theory of aging, Skoltech hopes to pinpoint which aspects of aging are within our scope to address. After all, thoroughly studying each puzzle piece that makes up human life gives us a better understanding of the whole.

    Of course, other impactful factors in a person’s lifespan can be addressed today. As most know, things like diet, sleep, and exercise are among them. A person’s living environment can also negatively impact their lifespan if it doesn’t have clean air, access to clean water, and so on.

    For now, the best method for living long is to follow instructions from your physician. Whether you make it to 156 years or not, living well is best for whatever time you’re given.

  • Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture
    Photo credit: PeopleImages/iStock via Getty Images – What kids are doing on tablets seems to matter more than how long they use them.

    Concerns surrounding young people’s screen time are widespread.

    Australia became the first country to ban social media for users under 16 in December 2025, and Denmark, France and the U.K. have since announced similar restrictions to begin this year.

    In the U.S., as of mid-2026, more than 30 states have passed laws banning or restricting cellphones in K–12 classrooms; in 2023, the U.S. surgeon general issued a formal advisory on social media and children’s and adolescents’ mental health; and bestselling books tell parents that smartphones are “rewiring” their children’s brains.

    These concerns and policies are part of a quickly changing national and international conversation around how young people spend time on screens and its relationship to their overall health and development. My reading of the mounting research on this issue across disciplines is that the popular narrative blaming screens and smartphones for an adolescent mental health crisis runs well ahead of the current evidence.

    I study adolescent digital media use and its influence on social, emotional and academic outcomes. A growing body of research suggests that one-size-fits-all solutions are not the answer and that managing appropriate use of digital media needs to take into account a child’s developmental milestones, how parents and adults around them use media, and the ways kids use it to connect and learn with friends and family.

    Screen time: From monolith to multifaceted

    Wide adoption of digital media and the internet broadened the range of experiences young people could have online. At the same time, the digital age introduced newfound uncertainties. As with the advent of radio, comic books and arcades, adults worried about how children might interact with or be affected by internet use.

    In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics first recommended in 1999 that parents and caregivers keep children under 2 away from screens. In the decades since, professional guidance largely treated children’s media use as a behavior to be mitigated.

    Policies introduced by the academy in 2013 and 2016 continued to advise that school-age kids and adolescents – those ages 5 to 18 – be restricted to no more than two hours of “entertainment” screen time a day. The goal was to curb risks associated with heavy media use, among them disrupted sleep, online safety, cyberbullying and physical inactivity.

    Originally created for young people’s engagement with stationary media that tend to be confined to one room or context – for example, watching television – these hourly limits became outdated with the integration of smartphones and other digital devices into everyday life. Compared with watching television, online media was far more difficult to track and define, and more nuanced in its use.

    Developmentally beneficial activities such as education, socializing and leisure have come to rely on the internet to extend and maintain face-to-face connections. Remote schooling and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic only accelerated this digitization of daily life.

    In my view, adopting strict time limits and restrictions could pose risks to children’s well-being, autonomy and development, for example, by harming adolescent self-esteem.

    The latest guidelines

    In January 2026, the American Academy of Pediatrics retired its decade-old framework that had largely organized its advice around hourly screen limits. The new policy statement on children, adolescents and digital media diverges from this blanket approach. Instead, it suggests parents consider the larger picture in which this media use exists rather than lumping all screen use together.

    Similar to the World Health Organization’s 2019 guidance for children under 5, the American Academy of Pediatrics still advises that parents avoid screen media for children younger than 18 months. This recommendation is largely because extended use by children by themselves can be problematic for many young children, crowding out important developmental milestones.

    Both the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics also recommend that when children under 24 months use screens, they should be limited to content and devices that encourage children and caregivers to interact. For ages 2 to 5, screen time – including TV and interactive apps on devices – may be extended to more solo use, provided it’s high-quality digital media designed around learning goals in mathematics and reading. But recreational use should be limited to roughly an hour per day.

    For school-age children and teens, the newest guidance has begun to step away from fixed screen time limits and asks families to weigh online activity in the context of everyday life.

    Doing so recognizes that a child’s digital experiences are shaped by diverse factors rather than the hours spent online. Current guidelines call on caregivers to distinguish among types of media, from television and social media to video games and interacting with artificial intelligence chatbots. They also call for taking into account a child’s individual characteristics, such as their interests and personality, family members’ own use of screens, and the type of content children are spending time on.

    Rethinking screen time

    Moving beyond strict screen time limits includes questioning the kind of digital activities kids and adolescents participate in. Do the activities encourage time spent interacting with others online, which can help young people develop important skills and competencies?

    Scrolling an algorithm-based, auto-playing video feed likely does not equate to the same opportunities as video-chatting with friends, creating digital art or working with teammates in a multiplayer game. Research suggests these different uses relate to development in different ways and can help kids develop varying skill sets pertaining to everyday life and schooling.

    Indeed, a large review of current research found that young people who take part in a range of digital activities, such as browsing the web, online gaming or interacting on social media, show positive associations with social connection, identity exploration, civic participation and learning.

    A woman and two small children look at tablet screen
    Parental involvement in young children’s screen time has developmental benefits. Cultura Creative/Tetra images via Getty Images

    Using these guidelines at home

    The current evidence suggests parents and caregivers are best positioned to be digital instructors. Cutting children off altogether can carry its own risks for social and emotional development. Caregiver mediation of children’s screen time can produce widely different outcomes and effects, depending on whether the guidance is supportive or controlling.

    Considering your own digital media use is the first step: Are family members engaging in problematic or heavy media use that children in the household might emulate? What applications and uses are most common in the family, and what positive or negative effects might they have, depending on the child’s age? How could these digital activities be safely integrated with other everyday experiences to increase their benefit for children? Conversely, what online time might be better spent on face-to-face experiences?

    The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Family Media Plan tool turns these ideas into concrete questions. For example, it recommends working out what each child needs from digital technology, what activities screens might be crowding out, and where their family or household can build in screen-free time. The recommendation is to talk with each child about why they are drawn to particular apps or online activities, what they encounter while browsing, and what might be lost when kids bring phones to gatherings such as mealtimes.

    The debate over young people’s screen time is not going away. But the most up-to-date guidelines, and the growing body of research behind them, make a strong case for a more holistic approach. The guidelines treat digital media as a complex, diverse and evolving environment that children need to learn to navigate in the digital age. The risks and rewards depend, as with any developmental setting, on the child, the content and what online time might be crowding out.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Health Stories

Research

New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

Health

Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture

Care

ER doctor and mom sets the record straight for parents of kids with e-bikes and e-scooters

Health

May cause joy: The full-spectrum health benefits of dance