Sunlight filtered by a window is very different from natural sunlight.
There are two main reasons this is a very poor indicator for sunlight exposure:
- since UV that is filtered out by glass will cause good metabolic reactions, this example takes out the positive of sunlight
- sunlight has a natural "stop it" mechanism. Feeling that you are getting a sunburn would naturally cause you to avoid sunlight, creating therefore a macro regulation mechanism. This is absent from light behind a glass.
So this is showing the exact point I was making that people take something that is not natural sunlight and falsely equate the two.
- sunlight has a natural "stop it" mechanism. Feeling that you are getting a sunburn would naturally cause you to avoid sunlight, creating therefore a macro regulation mechanism. This is absent from light behind a glass.
You seriously suggest the we have mechanism to prevent sunburns? Like the thing people get all the time while at the beach?
It must be very inefficient mechanism since all I remember is that when I notice it i am already sun burned.
So you suggest that even after getting sunburns, people do not avoid sunburns, and are thus at a much lower level of cognitive function than most of the animal kingdom?
You haven't replied to any of the points I'm making, all while making gross scientific errors such as equating glass filtered sunlight to sunlight, so I won't interact any further.
- since UV that is filtered out by glass will cause good metabolic reactions, this example takes out the positive of sunlight
- sunlight has a natural "stop it" mechanism. Feeling that you are getting a sunburn would naturally cause you to avoid sunlight, creating therefore a macro regulation mechanism. This is absent from light behind a glass.
So this is showing the exact point I was making that people take something that is not natural sunlight and falsely equate the two.