Should you wear sunscreen when it's cloudy in S.F.? Here's what experts say
That's a reasonable question in San Francisco, especially given that it's the city's coldest, foggiest summer in recent memory.
But experts say there's no ambiguity: You still need to wear sunscreen. Weather — even our eternal fog — should not play a role in your decision.
'There's a significant or clinically meaningful amount (of skin-damaging radiation coming through), even if it is foggy,' said Dr. Sungat Grewal, co-director of laser surgery and cosmetic dermatology at UCSF.
On foggier days, clouds scatter and absorb a portion of ultraviolet radiation from the sun, but a lot still gets to the ground — especially UVA rays (which primarily cause skin aging), and to a lesser extent UVB rays (which primarily cause sunburn). Both types can lead to cancer.
Up to 80 to 90 percent of UV rays can penetrate fog and clouds, according to Dr. Estelle Kahn, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente.
All UV radiation contributes to your risk of getting skin cancer, and the damage is cumulative — meaning the problem is not just one day, but rather total exposure throughout your lifetime.
Grewal recommends wearing tinted, broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher, every day. 'Broad spectrum' protects against both types of ultraviolet light, whereas SPF mainly refers to UVB protection. The tinted element is more for cosmetic purposes — fighting aging — but still important to consider, both Grewal and Kahn said. Tinted sunscreen blocks visible light, which leads to pigmentation and other skin appearance issues.
'The best sunscreen is the one that you like … and are going to want to use every day,' Grewal said.
The UV index, found at weather.com, the Environmental Protection Agency's SunWise UV Index app or your preferred weather app, shows considerable variation during the day in San Francisco. On Friday in San Francisco, for example, the index — which runs on a scale of 1 to 11 — showed 2 until around 9:30 a.m., but then soared to 10 around 1 p.m.
While you can forgo sunscreen if the index is at 1 or 2, indices of 3 and upward warrant sun protection, according to the EPA — and a 1 or 2 can very quickly become a higher number, with 8 or more considered 'very high to extreme.' The National Weather Service calculates the UV index using both UVA and UVB rays.
Winter months have a lower UV index. But Kahn said you still need to wear sunscreen then. She reiterated that UV radiation is invisible and doesn't correlate with temperature.
Chronicle meteorologist Greg Porter's advice? 'Don't base your sunscreen choice on the cloud cover, certainly in this city.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
6 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
In the age of Ozempic, is there still a role for weight-loss surgery?
As weight-loss medications like Ozempic exploded across the U.S. over the past four years, bariatric surgeons faced a bit of an existential crisis: Were their jobs about to become obsolete? For the first time, health care providers have a combination of highly effective therapies to offer patients with obesity, a condition that has long been one of the most difficult to treat. The outlook is especially exciting for patients who are severely overweight — including those who are considered too heavy for surgery. Indeed, there may exist a future where drugs and other interventions prevent people from ever becoming obese and needing weight-loss surgery. But that future is far off, say surgeons and other weight-loss experts. In fact, even as millions of Americans are now taking drugs that dramatically improve weight loss, surgeons say their tool may be more powerful than ever. 'A massive amount of people have tried these medications, so the question becomes: 'How well do they work and is there a role for bariatric surgery in the era of these drugs?'' said Dr. Jonathan Carter, a UCSF surgeon who specializes in minimally invasive procedures. Bariatric surgery has for decades been the most effective and durable weight-loss tool available. The specific procedures vary, but the most common operation now is the gastric sleeve surgery, in which a large portion of the stomach is removed. Roughly a quarter of a million Americans undergo a bariatric procedure each year. The surgeries are highly effective for weight loss — patients can lose about a third of their body weight within two years, and they generally keep off most of those pounds long-term. The side effects with the sleeve procedure are minimal and may include gas, bloating and nutritional deficiencies that can be alleviated with diet. Meanwhile, more than 1 in 10 Americans have now taken the newest weight-loss medications. On these drugs, patients can lose about 15% of their weight, but they must remain on the drugs for life — those who stop gain all of the weight back. Side effects are similar to the surgery. The drugs and the surgery work somewhat similarly by essentially quashing people's hunger and cravings. And though the surgery is more expensive at the outset — about $12,000 to $15,000 — it's cheaper in the long-term compared to drugs that cost about $1,000 a month. Both treatments are often, but not always, covered by insurance. With the surgery, 'You take someone who is 100 pounds overweight and their knees hurt and they have sleep apnea,' said Carter, 'and you do a one-hour intervention and a year later they've lost 100 pounds and their knees don't hurt and the sleep apnea is gone. It's like a butterfly coming out of a cocoon.' But bariatric surgery has never been a popular weight-loss option for those who need it most. Of all Americans who are eligible for surgery, only about 1% undergo the procedure. Surgeons and weight-loss experts say that's largely been due to misconceptions about the procedure and stigma around obesity. 'If you've been treating patients with obesity for decades, you always felt like, 'Yes, I have a great treatment, I can do these surgeries and do them safely, I believe in them whole-heartedly,'' said Dr. Dan Azagury, a Stanford University bariatric surgeon. 'But you were still limited in your capacity to treat patients.' Azagury took over Stanford's Lifestyle and Weight Management Center in February 2020, about a year before Ozempic, the first blockbuster weight-loss drug, blew up. Over the next 18 months, the number of patients on weight-loss medications jumped from 50 to 2,000. He said friends would often ask him if he would be out of a job soon. The drugs, though, have in some ways validated the surgical interventions, Azagury said. Weight loss has notoriously been a fraught topic in doctors offices, with patients feeling judged and doctors feeling frustrated by their lack of treatment options. 'A lot of times doctors would just say that you should eat less,' Azagury said. 'And I think patients intrinsically didn't see obesity as a medical condition,' he said. The success of recent weight-loss drugs, though, has made that conversation more palatable both to patients and providers, Azagury said. And he believes that is making some patients more amenable to a surgical option. There are, broadly, now three buckets for treating weight loss: diet and exercise, medication and surgery. The first option is likely best for people who don't have a lot of weight to lose and who are not facing any immediate complications related to their weight. They can manage their own treatment, or get a referral to a community or private weight-loss program. From there, patients with more serious obesity can decide if medication or surgery — or both — is the best option for them. Some people may be resistant to the idea of any surgical procedure and opt for medication. Others may decide that they would rather not deal with weekly injections for the rest of their life and prefer a one-time operation. Many patients, though, will end up with multiple interventions over their lifetime. They may start with medication and eventually decide they want a more permanent solution. Or they may get bariatric surgery and a few years later decide to start a medication if their weight is creeping back up. Mandy Hinz, 47, fought with her weight all her life, and it's only in the past two years that she finally felt like she had options. She had inquired about bariatric surgery about 20 years ago but was told she would need to lose 100 pounds before doctors would consider it safe. After that, she was up and down, peaking at about 415 pounds on her 5-foot, 3-inch frame. She started Ozempic in early 2023, and though the drug made her feel 'super sick,' she stuck with it and lost about 30 pounds. Around that time, Hinz, a Sacramento resident, was referred to the bariatric program at UCSF, and in October 2023, she finally got a gastric sleeve. She got down to about 200 pounds from the surgery, then started a different weight-loss drug and lost another 20 pounds. Though she's still obese for her height, Hinz said she's not interested in losing much more weight. 'I'm 180 and completely happy,' Hinz said. 'My journey has been absolutely amazing.' She noted that even with all of the tools at her disposal, losing the weight was never easy. And she has friends for whom even the newest therapies aren't solving all of their weight issues. But for Hinz, the weight-loss drugs finally unlocked a path that had never felt accessible to her. 'Being big my whole life, I missed out on a lot of stuff,' she said. Walking up and down stairs had become difficult, or spending a day on her feet at an amusement park. 'Now I can run up and down the stairs, I can walk around the amusement park the whole day. I went on my first hike a year and a half ago. It's like, let's go, let's do this.' Azagury said he's most thrilled for the patients — and their doctors — who have the most weight to lose, and especially those for whom a combination of medical and surgical therapies could be life-saving. 'The worst thing for a bariatric surgeon is when you get a patient in your clinic and it's too late — their condition is so bad that surgery is unsafe,' Azagury said. 'The conversation is, 'You have a condition I can treat, but I can't treat you.' It's the worst conversation. And I never have to have it anymore. Now I can tell them: 'I can't do surgery, but I have a good alternative for you.''
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
New York has increased PFAS regulations as understanding has improved
Aug. 2—PFAS, a class of chemicals used to make nonstick cooking pans and waterproof clothing among hundreds of other applications, have become a serious health concern for officials across the country and in New York. PFAS, formally per- and polyflouroalkyl substances, are a class of chemicals that were heavily used from the 1940s to the late 2000s, although they persist in some applications to this day. Produced by companies like 3M, contamination can come from a variety of sources and typically results in contamination of the water table. They're known as 'forever chemicals' because there's no way to fully remove them from the water or soil they contaminate, and they don't break down fast enough to disappear over even centuries. They build up in the environment including plants and animals, causing health problems for them and also moving up the food chain. People who consume high levels of PFAS, or a smaller volume over a long period of time, can develop rare cancers, pre-eclampsia or a whole host of other chronic illnesses and diseases. In 2016, New York was one of the first states to urge the federal Environmental Protection Agency to acknowledge that PFAS contamination is a major concern — joined with Vermont and New Hampshire, they pushed the EPA to implement its first health advisory for PFAS consumption later that year. New York was the first state in the country to regulate PFAS, specifically the chemical perflourooctanoic acid or PFOA, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. Officials took a wide survey of businesses, fire departments, fire training centers and federal Department of Defense facilities that year as well. State DEC officials collected 25,000 gallons of PFAS-containing firefighting foam up to 2018. In 2016, federal officials acknowledged that Fort Drum in Jefferson County had contaminated water near the Wheeler-Sack Army Airfield, resulting in the closure of nearly a half-dozen on-post water wells and a multi-million dollar federal grant to restore water sufficiency on post. In 2018, officials in New York were expressing disappointment with federal efforts to regulate and address PFAS. The EPA maintains a list of over 100 contaminants that are proven to harm human health, but officials have identified over 80,000 potentially toxic substances to be concerned about. "The federal government is charged with having a monitoring system to potentially add other chemicals to the ones we are required to test, but the EPA has not been moving fast enough," said Brad J. Hutton, former deputy commissioner for the state Public Health Office, speaking with the Watertown Daily Times in 2018. Action has come since then. In 2019, the EPA launched a PFAS action plan, outlining a roadmap for addressing chemical contamination in water and soil. In January of 2024, the EPA moved to ban nearly 330 'inactive' PFAS compounds from use or processing without an agency review, effectively taking the substances off the market. Inactive substances are those that aren't used in any major manufacturing, import or export operations in any U.S. territories. In April 2024, the EPA finalized a rule regulating six PFAS contaminants, including PFOA. The EPA also designated PFOA and PFOS, another similar compound, as hazardous to human health under the terms of the federal 'Superfund' law, allowing for cleanup and cost recovery from polluters. Questions arose in 2025 over whether the Trump administration would change or drop any of the new regulations adopted after his first term ended in 2021, and in May, the new EPA administrator and former New York gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin announced the agency would keep the Biden-era restrictions for PFOA and PFOS, another PFAS chemical, but would drop regulations and reconsider findings for four other substances including PFNA and HDFO-DA. The latter substance is known colloquially as 'GenX' and was a next-generation replacement to more harmful substances like PFOA. 'GenX' was later found to be similarly harmful to human health, and is similarly able to persist in the environment. "We are on a path to uphold the agency's nationwide standards to protect Americans from PFOA and PFOS in their water," Zeldin said. "At the same time, we will work to provide common-sense flexibility in the form of additional time for compliance. This will support water systems across the country, including small systems in rural communities, as they work to address these contaminants. EPA will also continue to use its regulatory and enforcement tools to hold polluters accountable." Zeldin pushed the compliance deadline for the new regulations, and promised to establish an outreach program focused on reaching noncompliant water systems, especially those in rural and small communities, to connect them with resources to bring their projects into compliance with the new rules. The initial rules required water systems to properly filter and remove the six contaminants by 2029, but the changes made by Zeldin push the broad deadline for PFOA and PFOS compliance to 2031. The EPA also has plans to establish an exemption framework to give noncompliant systems even more time to fix their systems, but the specifics for that aren't out yet. That move was lauded by some water district officials, including the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators Director, Alan Roberson. "With the current compliance date of 2029, states and water systems are struggling with the timeframes to complete the pilot testing, development of construction plans, and building the necessary treatment improvements. EPA's proposed extension of the compliance date and increased technical assistance will address the number of systems that would be out of compliance in 2029 due to not being able complete all of these tasks on time," Roberson said. Most of these changes aren't official yet — the EPA still has to introduce the new rules and usher them through the process, which could be done as early as the spring of next year. Solve the daily Crossword
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Should you wear sunscreen when it's cloudy in S.F.? Here's what experts say
How much can the sun damage our skin if we can't even see it? That's a reasonable question in San Francisco, especially given that it's the city's coldest, foggiest summer in recent memory. But experts say there's no ambiguity: You still need to wear sunscreen. Weather — even our eternal fog — should not play a role in your decision. 'There's a significant or clinically meaningful amount (of skin-damaging radiation coming through), even if it is foggy,' said Dr. Sungat Grewal, co-director of laser surgery and cosmetic dermatology at UCSF. On foggier days, clouds scatter and absorb a portion of ultraviolet radiation from the sun, but a lot still gets to the ground — especially UVA rays (which primarily cause skin aging), and to a lesser extent UVB rays (which primarily cause sunburn). Both types can lead to cancer. Up to 80 to 90 percent of UV rays can penetrate fog and clouds, according to Dr. Estelle Kahn, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente. All UV radiation contributes to your risk of getting skin cancer, and the damage is cumulative — meaning the problem is not just one day, but rather total exposure throughout your lifetime. Grewal recommends wearing tinted, broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher, every day. 'Broad spectrum' protects against both types of ultraviolet light, whereas SPF mainly refers to UVB protection. The tinted element is more for cosmetic purposes — fighting aging — but still important to consider, both Grewal and Kahn said. Tinted sunscreen blocks visible light, which leads to pigmentation and other skin appearance issues. 'The best sunscreen is the one that you like … and are going to want to use every day,' Grewal said. The UV index, found at the Environmental Protection Agency's SunWise UV Index app or your preferred weather app, shows considerable variation during the day in San Francisco. On Friday in San Francisco, for example, the index — which runs on a scale of 1 to 11 — showed 2 until around 9:30 a.m., but then soared to 10 around 1 p.m. While you can forgo sunscreen if the index is at 1 or 2, indices of 3 and upward warrant sun protection, according to the EPA — and a 1 or 2 can very quickly become a higher number, with 8 or more considered 'very high to extreme.' The National Weather Service calculates the UV index using both UVA and UVB rays. Winter months have a lower UV index. But Kahn said you still need to wear sunscreen then. She reiterated that UV radiation is invisible and doesn't correlate with temperature. Chronicle meteorologist Greg Porter's advice? 'Don't base your sunscreen choice on the cloud cover, certainly in this city.'
