That's probably not her real schedule. It looks like clickbait and was probably invented by the author. (Who might be our prolific friend Chat-GPT.)

Besides 10:00pm to 5:30am is 7.5 hours, which is either optimal or (arguably) too much.

Lastly, there's no clear evidence tying sleep duration to cancer incidence. See, e.g.: https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-...

She starts exercising at 530 and goes to bed at 10. Im assuming she wakes up 30 mins before, and it takes her an hour to get to sleep.

They weren’t arguing the specific times, but the article itself reads as if AI generated and not as a real report of someone’s schedule, by someone who would know that person’s schedule.

The follow-on conclusion from that is that the times are highly suspect.

Yes, i think youre correct. I cant find an original source.

Why would you assume an hour? That’s considered to be quite a long sleep latency. Your average individual is at like between 10-20 minutes.

Yes, me too. I was just referring to the time between entering the bedroom and actually sleeping.

arguably too much sleep? what world are you living in that seven and a half hours of sleep is too much?

6hr, as per my comment. Its enough for some people, but average is 7-8. I go to sleep 45-60 mins after going to bed, and i wake 30mins before exercising. Im assuming that is fairly typical.

Yeah, that article definitely looks like ChatGPT imagination.

Where’s your scientific report that says sunlight significantly reduces lung cancer?

We shouldn’t have people making such claims on HN without providing references.

She was also home having dinner with her family by 6:30pm.

This seems key:

“ Following sun exposure advice that is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful to women's health.”

Thanks for the link. Now we know with certainty that lack of sunlight wasn’t a cause.

I think you have misinterpreted that sentence. It is saying that too little sun exposure is harmful to health in women. See also this study which found the same for men in Norway:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01695...

Yes, we agree. Very restrictive exposure in countries with low solar intensity “

Susan lived in Northern California. How’s the solar intensity where she lived?

“ sun exposure advice that is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful to women's health

Oslo is about half the UV of SF, so you would need to spend half as much time in the sun for the same benefit. If you are not outside much during the day, its still a risk factor no matter where you live. This would apply to most office workers.

“ Research on a link between vitamin D and cancer is mixed. Some studies have shown a link between low vitamin D levels in the body and a higher risk of getting cancer or dying from cancer. However, it’s not clear if taking vitamin D or having certain vitamin D levels might help prevent cancer. It’s also not clear if vitamin D can help control the growth and spread of cancer. More research is needed to know what role vitamin D does or does not play in helping to prevent or control cancer.”

https://amp.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/sun-and-uv/sun...

Yes indeed, it is sunlight that has the most evidence. Sun also releases nitric oxide in the skin, which reduces blood pressure, and high bp is associated with increased lung cancer hazard ratio, even for nonsmokers.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12936899/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-13399-4

Funny that watching YouTube was not one of the things she did, whereas most people spend hours on YouTube/social media.

I’ve tried to google with no success but is it known if she smoked or ever did? Or is she part of the unlucky cohort (~12.5%) of non-smokers that get lung cancer?