What is the UV index in the weather forecast? What to know about staying safe in the sun
Weather forecasts often include the UV index for the day, a scale ranging from low to extreme. The higher the number, the greater the risk. In 2024, UV levels were very high or extreme on 151 days.Here's everything to know about UV radiation, why it hits harder in Arizona, how it affects human health and ways you can protect yourself:
Ultraviolet radiation is a form of energy emitted by the sun. Although it is just outside the visible spectrum, meaning we can't see it, it has powerful effects on the environment and the human body.There are three types: UVA, UVB and UVC. They vary depending on wavelength — the shorter the wavelength, the more harmful the radiation. UVC is the most damaging type of radiation, but it is completely blocked by Earth's ozone layer. 'But UVA and UVB can make it through,' Saffell said. 'The clouds don't block that radiation, so even when it looks cloudy outside, we still have that exposure.' UVB, the medium wavelength radiation, cannot penetrate beyond the skin's superficial layers. It causes delayed tanning and burning, skin aging and is responsible for most skin cancers. UVA is the longest wavelength, accounting for about 95% of the UV radiation that reaches the ground. This type of radiation can penetrate deeper layers of the skin, leading to immediate tanning and burning and contributing to aging and skin cancer risk. The UV index is categorized by exposure categories ranging from low to extreme. The scale is from 1 to 11+. Low exposure is 1 to 2, moderate is 3 to 5, high is 6 to 7, very high is 8 to 10 and extreme is 11+. Different levels of UV exposure come with various risks. There is less danger during low and moderate exposure, but unprotected skin can burn in minutes with extreme exposure.
UV radiation levels change throughout the year depending on the season, the time of day and geographic location. In Phoenix, late spring and early summer bring the highest UV readings as the sun reaches its highest angle in the sky in the northern hemisphere. Other factors like altitude affect UV intensity. The higher you are, the less atmosphere there is to absorb radiation. UV levels increase by roughly 10% with every 1,000 meters or 3,280 feet of elevation. Various surfaces can increase UV reflection and resulting exposure, like water, sand and concrete. In Phoenix, UV radiation is especially intense due to its southern latitude and high sun angle during the summer. On the summer solstice, the sun reaches its peak and climbs to nearly 88 degrees overhead at noon, meaning its rays hit the ground more directly than in cities farther north. 'If you go up to New York City, they're at a different latitude than we are in Phoenix,' Saffell said. 'The sun angles don't get as high in New York City as they do down here. The closer you are to the equator, the higher your sun angle is going to be, so you get more radiation.' Phoenix's dry air and frequent clear skies only intensify exposure, especially compared to places with thick cloud cover and higher humidity. The atmosphere above Phoenix does little to filter out UV rays. Number of days in each UV exposure category in Phoenix in 2024Extreme - 16 daysVery high - 135 daysHigh - 45 daysModerate - 124Low - 45
Arizonans are familiar with the effects of sun exposure, with sunburns, freckles and tan lines. But doctors say the health risks go far deeper.'There are two main categories of skin damage that come with the sun,' said Dr. Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski, co-director of the Skin Cancer Institute at the University of Arizona. 'One is skin cancer, and the second is photoaging.' Over time, UV exposure breaks down elastic fibers and collagen in the skin, leading to early wrinkling and pigmentation changes. Curiel-Lewandrowski said doctors can even see how the sun affects the skin under a microscope, comparing skin from the face or forearms with protected areas like the lower back with protected areas like the lower back reveals dramatic contrasts. But the biggest risk is skin cancer. UV radiation is a known carcinogen, and skin cancers, including both melanoma and more common non-melanoma types, are sharply increasing. But mortality from skin cancer is decreasing, according to Curiel-Lewandrowski.'When you think about UV exposure and skin cancer, it's no different than thinking about smoking and lung cancer,' Curiel-Lewandrowski said. 'The more sun you put into your skin early in life, the more skin cancers you're going to have later.' Arizona's high UV index puts people at an elevated risk, especially during its long summers and the outdoorsy lifestyles. The most common skin cancers arise from long-term exposure accumulated over years. 'Sun protection is key,' she added. 'Enjoy your time out there early in the morning or later in the day. Cover up, wear protective clothing and apply sunscreen.'
Here are some ways to reduce your risk:
Avoid midday sun - UV is strongest from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Wear protective clothing - long sleeves, brimmed hats and UV-blocking sunglasses can help
Use sunscreen - broad-spectrum SPF 30 or higher, reapplied about every two hours
Seek shade - especially during prime UV hours or when outside for long periods
Living in the desert means living with the sun, as well as understanding how to stay safe. You'll feel the sun's heat before a sunburn, but UV damage can happen just as quickly.
Hayleigh Evans writes about extreme weather and related topics for The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com. Email her with story tips at hayleigh.evans@arizonarepublic.com.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: How watching the UV index can help you avoid the risks of sun exposure
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
FDA names former pharmaceutical company executive to oversee US drug program
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Food and Drug Administration on Monday named a longtime pharmaceutical executive to run the agency's drug program, the latest in a string of leadership changes at the agency. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary announced that Dr. George Tidmarsh, a cancer and pediatric specialist, will direct the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, which regulates the safety and effectiveness of all U.S. drugs. His appointment comes a month after the center's acting director, Dr. Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay, announced her retirement. As the agency's top drug regulator, Tidmarsh will be charged with following through on a number of commitments made by Makary and his boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., including reviewing the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone. The FDA is also scrutinizing certain uses of other long-established drugs, including antidepressants and hormone-replacement drugs for menopause. Tidmarsh founded and led several pharmaceutical companies, including Horizon Pharmaceuticals, maker of an anti-inflammatory medication for arthritis. He has also served as an adjunct professor at Stanford University. The FDA's drug center is the agency's largest unit, with nearly 6,000 staffers responsible for reviewing the safety and effectiveness of new drugs and monitoring the use and marketing of older drugs. About 2,000 FDA staffers have been laid off as part of widescale cuts to the federal health workforce overseen by Kennedy. More than 1,000 others have taken buyouts or early retirement, while many others are reportedly searching for new jobs. The departures have threatened basic FDA operations, including the timely review of new drugs. FDA's drug center hasn't had a permanent director since January, when Dr. Patrizia Cavazzoni stepped down days before President Donald Trump took office. Nearly all of the FDA's senior leadership positions have turned over in recent months, either due to retirements, resignations or actions by administration officials placing them on administrative leave. FDA center directors typically hold their positions for years or even decades, serving across multiple administrations, whether Republican or Democrat. In May, Makary named Dr. Vinay Prasad, a prominent critic of the FDA's COVID response, to run the agency's vaccine center. He was also named to the post of FDA chief medical officer. Prasad joined the agency after his predecessor, longtime vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks, was forced out in March. The head of FDA's tobacco center was also forced to step down in April. A permanent replacement has not yet been named. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Matthew Perrone, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Medscape
28 minutes ago
- Medscape
Prevention, Screening, Treatment: Impact on Cancer Deaths
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello. I'm Dr Maurie Markman from City of Hope, and I'd like to discuss a very important study. I think many of you may have heard about this, but it's important to emphasize what these investigators reported in terms of the impact of what we are doing in the cancer world today and, in my opinion, what the focus needs to be on in the future. The paper I'm referring to is "Estimation of Cancer Deaths Averted From Prevention, Screening, and Treatment Efforts, 1975-2020," published in JAMA Oncology . This was a very interesting effort; there was modeling done, and assumptions were made, in order to do what these investigators did. But this is, I think, very high-quality and reasonable data science. The paper outlines the assumptions made in coming to the conclusions reached by these investigators. They looked at breast, cervix, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers — obviously, major cancers — and specifically looked at what the impact has been over the past 45 years of these three different strategies in averting deaths: prevention, screening, and actual treatment. The bottom line, as reported by these investigators, is that over this 45-year period, 5.94 million deaths have been averted in these five cancers combined, due to the efforts of countless numbers of individuals, researchers, clinicians, public health officials, government regulators, etc. It's an incredible and an enormously positive contribution to society and to individual patient health. They note, and this is a powerful message, that 8 of the 10 deaths, 80%, that had been averted were due to efforts in cancer prevention and screening. It may come as a surprise to some, but not to all, because of our often very intense focus and money spent on treatments for established and advanced cancers over the past decades. There's no intent either in this paper or by me to denigrate — in any way, shape, or form — the enormous efforts that have been made in treatment. But if you look at the question of deaths averted, the vast majority have come from prevention and screening efforts. And clearly, there's cost involved in these efforts, but far less than that associated with development of treatments. They're even more specific in this paper: Screening, according to these investigators, has been responsible for essentially all reduction in cervix cancer, which we certainly know from the enormous contributions of the Pap smear screening and now HPV screening: 25% of breast cancer deaths were averted due to screening; 56% from prostate cancer; 79% of deaths from colorectal cancer; and, of course, from lung cancer, 98% of the impacts on cancer deaths has resulted from a reduction in smoking. So, overall a tremendous impact, a positive impact. So many individuals and organizations avert deaths, but it's critical to remember the role of prevention and screening. And as we move forward to the future, as we look at the epidemic we have of obesity in this country and the concern about the risk of alcohol on the risk for cancer, it is important to remember the critical role to the present but also for the future of prevention and screening. Thank you for your attention.
Medscape
28 minutes ago
- Medscape
A Review of Transnasal Cooling for Migraine Relief
Transnasal evaporative cooling as an acute treatment for migraine has been tested in two randomized clinical trials showing some level of efficacy and tolerability as well as safety. CALM1 Accrual Issues The first, CALM 1, was presented as a virtual poster at the 2023 American Headache Society meeting. Although this study enrolled 87 patients with migraine with or without aura, only 24 were randomized to the CoolStat Transnasal Thermal Regulating Device (CoolTech LLC). This comprised 15 minutes of air flow as soon as they arrived at their local testing center during an attack. CoolStat device in use The primary endpoint was pain relief at 2 hours; pain freedom, relief of most bothersome symptom, and tolerability were also measured at 2 and 24 hours. Three air flow rates were tested: 24, 18, and 6 liters per minute (LPM). It was originally assumed that the 6 LPM flow rate would act as the sham, but it turned out to be the most effective rate. In this group, 8 of 9 patients reported pain relief at 2 hours with 4 of them being pain free. Patients treated with the other doses reported a similar rate of pain relief, but none were fully free of pain at 2 hours. There were no adverse events in the lowest flow rate group and only mild events in the other groups. The study was terminated due to insufficient accrual rates. The company decided to do a second study with a smaller portable device which patients could use at home earlier in the course of their migraine attack. CALM 2 At Home Treatment The CALM 2 study used a 2 LPM dose as the sham: This used an inactive drying agent and patients experienced the sensation of treatment including saline mist. This small, phase 2, dose range-finding trial tested active doses of 4, 6, and 10 LPM. Patients treated their migraine for 15 minutes within 1 hour of pain onset using the Mi-Helper, an investigational device similar in size to a sleep apnea machine. The Mi-Helper The Mi-Helper No other treatment was allowed for 2 hours. Of the 172 adults randomized, 128 used the device and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Only 74 were included in the efficacy analysis because the others did not fully follow the protocol for a variety of reasons. In this study, the 10 LPM air flow rate was the most effective, producing pain freedom at 2 hours in 8 of 17 patients, vs 4 of 25 sham-treated patients. This difference was statistically significant. Two-hour pain relief was seen in 70.6% of this group vs 56% of the sham group, a difference that did not reach statistical significance. Sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 hours with no rescue treatment was numerically but not significantly higher than sham with the 10 LPM dose. Results for the other air flow rates (4 and 6 LPM) were not statistically significant. The most common adverse events, scattered across the three active-treatment groups, were rhinorrhea, nasal irritation, ear pressure, nasal congestion, sore throat, and jaw pain. More events occurred in the 10 LPM group (with none in the sham group), but no patient discontinued the trial because of side effects. How Does it Work? The proposed mechanism of action for Mi-Helper, according to Steve Schaefer, the CEO of Cooltech, is that it 'noninvasively cools and inhibits structures of the pterygopalatine fossa, including the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) and the maxillary division of the trigeminal nerve.' The device delivers dry room-temperature air into one nostril with a nebulized saline mist for comfort and to facilitate evaporation. The evaporation from liquid to gas requires energy drawn from the surrounding tissues, particularly the vascularized membranes of the nasal turbinates. This purportedly results in a localized cooling effect targeting the structures of the pterygopalatine fossa, including the SPG and maxillary division of the trigeminal nerve (V2), both areas integrally involved with migraine and cluster headache. This hypothesis has yet to be corroborated; no preclinical trials have shown any electrical effect on the SPG. The Mi-Helper is not the same as remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) or other electrical stimulation devices that are already cleared by the FDA for the acute care and/or prevention of migraine attacks. REN uses electrical stimulators and works on various combinations of peripheral nerves involved with migraine. [By way of disclosure, I recently authored a poster on REN.] What Next CALM 3, a third, larger, phase 3 trial of the Mi-Helper is underway. It will test a 10 LPM dose of dehumidified air against a 2 LPM sham. According to CEO Steve Schaefer, it should be completed in September, 2025. I believe that we need to see data from at least two carefully done phase 3 trials at the correct flow rate (10 LPM), in an appropriate number of patients, before we will know if this device can successfully treat migraine, but the results so far are very promising.
