Are sunburns more extreme in New Zealand?

[tony873004]

I'm in Christchurch, New Zealand at the moment, on the South Island. After spending a little too much time in the sun, and getting a red face, a few locals have told me that it's much easier to get sunburned in New Zealand than the in the rest of the world. Their reasoning is that they are close to Antarctica, where the ozone layer is thin, and that their air doesn't have much pollutants in it, allowing more rays to reach the ground.

But I'm wondering if this is just an urban myth? I've always thought that the ozone thinning was a winter event, and its summer here now. And at latitude 43 South, they're closer to the equator than to the South Pole. Plus, we're at sea level, with the whole height of the atmosphere to protect us.

So what do you think? Are the locals right? Is "the sun stronger here"?

[cjl]

I have doubts. The only time I have encountered a faster-than-average sunburn is while skiing, at elevations of 12000+ feet ASL. That seems to have a far larger impact than the factors you mentioned (though I guess it is possible...)

[01101001]

But I'm wondering if this is just an urban myth? I've always thought that the ozone thinning was a winter event, and its summer here now.

It begins in their spring (August-October).

NASA OZone Hole Watch (http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole.html)

The ozone hole grows throughout the early spring until temperatures warm and the polar vortex weakens, ending the isolation of the air in the polar vortex. As air from the surrounding latitudes mixes into the polar region, the ozone-destroying forms of chlorine disperse. The ozone layer stabilizes until the following spring.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/meteorology_ytd.png

[Occam]

Yes

[tony873004]

Yes
Well a "yes" with no explanation is only going to make me think you've bought in to the urban legend. :). I notice you're from NZ. Beautiful country you have here.

[jumbo]

The worst place for sunburns that ive been to is Lake Titicaca. I stayed on Amantani island there. Whilst not overly hot the sun was fierclely strong and the weather very clear. (And unbelievably cold at night. 8 blankets wasnt enough!) IIRC that area being 12,500 feet up and given its weather and the reflection from the lake has one of the highest UV idences in the world on avarage. Skin cancer cases are common.

[BigDon]

(I first read the title as "sideburns" and was thinking someone had never been to Tennissee)

[PhantomWolf]

I'm going to have to agree with Occam on this. I would have just put a yes, but you will burn faster and worse down here, evidenced by the higher rates of skin cancers. The UV levels are higher during the NZ summer than in other parts of the world.

[clop]

I live in Australia and the official statistics are that 1 in 3 people here will develop skin cancer at some point during their life.

clop

[PhantomWolf]

I live in Australia and the official statistics are that 1 in 3 people here will develop skin cancer at some point during their life.

clop

Aust suffers the same UV issues we do though. ;)

[geonuc]

It seems to be a function of latitude:

http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/world_uvi.html

[triplebird]

I have a Lonely Planet Australia guide that says more or less this same thing: that the Southern Hemisphere's UV is far more intense than the North's (and fair-skinned North Americans/Europeans should take precautions with sunblock/clothing)

[Occam]

In the peak of summer, burn time is just a few minutes. If at the beach, it is very important to re-apply sunblock after towel drying and to wear a hat to protect the scalp. Today, of course, the cloud cover is so heavy that light is struggling to get through it. The temperature is still 27 degrees C, though. As we say here, if you don't like the weather, just wait half an hour.

[Larry Jacks]

What I remember reading is that since the Earth is fairly near perihelion during the southern hemisphere's summer, the sun's rays are somewhere around 6% more intense than summer in the northern hemisphere. If that's accurate then someone would burn faster during a southern hemisphere summer.

Here in Colorado, the sun is more intense due to the elevation. I burned easily before moving here and have to be careful or I'll burn very rapidly here.

[korjik]

I would think that the problem is more of less aerosols and higher solar flux than the ozone hole. Especially as far north as 43 degrees.

It is also dependent on how 'edged' the hole is also. If the O3 concentration is significantly lower as far north as 43 then I could be wrong.

[Ivan Viehoff]

It seems to be a function of latitude:

http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/world_uvi.html
Good link. That map completely debunks the NZ-is-the-worst myth. Anyone who thinks otherwise is invited to spend an hour sunbathing at midday in Malaysia or Bali or some other place near the equator to discover what really strong UV exposure means. But actually please don't, because it will be a very painful experience. I know this because I once went snorkelling for an hour in Malaysia and got my armpits very badly burnt, not being a place normally requiring sun lotion.

That map also shows that altitude matters, hence the very highest levels in the highlands of Peru and Bolivia. So whoever said Titicaca was spot on.

What the map does show is that the Southern Hemisphere has higher UV levels than equivalent latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere - that hole really is worse in the South.

From my personal experience of long periods of riding a bicycle all day in NZ and South America, what is terrible about the sun in temperate latitudes in mid-summer is the long day-length - the period of time when the sun is high enough in the sky to burn you lasts about 10 hours. Whereas in somewhere like Bolivia it is only about 6 hours. Also, at temperate latitudes the sun is always illuminating a substantial part of your body, because the sun is never very high in the sky. Whereas at low latitudes the sun gets very high in the sky, so it is not actually illuminating much of your body, if you have a good wide-brimmed hat. I got through a lot more sun lotion in southern Chile/Argentina than in Bolivia.

[Mungascr]

Yep, Australia has, I'm pretty sure, the highest rate of malignant melanomas -skin cancers in the world.

The UV hole over Antartica & the Sthn Hemisphere is larger too Ithinkand was also the first one to develop.

Onteh positiev side we have thebest skies I reckon - we can see all the first magnitude stars (although Deneb,Capella and Vega areallvery low as seen here in Adelaide) and indeed all stars down toabout 33rd brightest plus Omega Centauri, the Magellanic Clouds, the Southern Cross, the False Cross, Eta Carinae, 47 Tucanae, etc ... ;-)

[jumbo]

That map also shows that altitude matters, hence the very highest levels in the highlands of Peru and Bolivia. So whoever said Titicaca was spot on.
That was me. (Spot on..first time for every thing i guess)
I just recall it being vastly bright when the sun was out.

Whereas at low latitudes the sun gets very high in the sky, so it is not actually illuminating much of your body, if you have a good wide-brimmed hat. I got through a lot more sun lotion in southern Chile/Argentina than in Bolivia.
Im very fair skinned so my big hat literally saved my skin in Peru. In Iceland i wasnt wearing it when in the hydrothermal lagoon and i got one of the worst sunburns ive ever had.

[geonuc]

Yep, Australia has, I'm pretty sure, the highest rate of malignant melanomas -skin cancers in the world.
Perhaps, but even so, might there be lifestyle factors that contribute? Purely anecdotal, but having lived in Queensland, I'd say the average Aussie is a bit more of a sun-worshipper than most.

[Argos]

Living over the tropic of Capricorn, I have extracted 5 potentially malignant lesions [so far]. My advice: use sunscreen SPF 60 when travelling south of the Equator.

[cjl]

What the map does show is that the Southern Hemisphere has higher UV levels than equivalent latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere - that hole really is worse in the South.


No. What it shows is that currently, the southern hemisphere has higher UV levels than the northern hemisphere, demonstrating quite clearly that summer and winter are not myths.

To say that the southern hemisphere overall has higher UV than the northern hemisphere, you need charts for the seasons in the other configuration - perhaps in the middle of July, and then compare the two charts. The reason for that chart to be so unbalanced is simply that it is currently summer in the southern hemisphere.

EDIT: like this one: http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/archives/uvief/2007/07/uvief20070706_w.gif
Note that in July, the northern hemisphere has a proportionally MUCH higher UV level.

[jumbo]

The july image is interesting. You can see on it that the UV level on the west of south america was still rather high on that date. This extends many hundreds of miles southwards.

[Ivan Viehoff]

No. What it shows is that currently, the southern hemisphere has higher UV levels than the northern hemisphere, demonstrating quite clearly that summer and winter are not myths.

To say that the southern hemisphere overall has higher UV than the northern hemisphere, you need charts for the seasons in the other configuration - perhaps in the middle of July, and then compare the two charts. The reason for that chart to be so unbalanced is simply that it is currently summer in the southern hemisphere.

EDIT: like this one: http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/archives/uvief/2007/07/uvief20070706_w.gif
Sorry, my daft mistake there, assuming that it was an annual chart...
But if you compare those two charts, the southern summer looks a bit more illuminated than the northern summer, though the date you have for the northern map is a bit further from the solstice. The northern map again clearly shows the higher UV in highlands such as the Himalayas, Iran, Turkey, etc.

Actually, one would expect the southern hemisphere to have slightly more intense light in summer than the northern, without any ozone holes, because the southern summer happens when the earth is closer to the sun.

The maps are "clear sky" maps, and the clarity of the air (including clouds) certainly affects the sun-burn risk. That's why we get sun-burn risk index forecasts in the summer in Britain, which is entirely an air clarity forecast.

I can confirm that sun lotion is needed in places like Iceland. Although often murkily dark under thick cloud, the air is often very clear when the sun does come out. In summer, the sun is as high in the sky as it might be in April in Britain (up to about 47 degrees above the horizon), and you certainly need sun lotion on a bright April day in Britain.

The reason that there is so much melanoma in Australia is that people whose recent ancestors mostly came from high latitude countries have come to live in a relatively low latitude country. They bring with them a culture which includes exposing your body to the sun when comfortable to do so, and find the local climate provides a greater opportunity to do that. That is rather why they like living there, in many cases. Moreover they are genetically less well protected against that exposure. People whose recent ancestors have lived for longer in lower latitudes mostly have either cultural traditions of not exposing themselves so much, and/or better genetic protection against it (for example in the case of societies such as native Australians who didn't wear many clothes). Those same people who have the better genetic protection against the sun tend to suffer vitamin-D deficiency when they come to live in high latitudes.

[KaiYeves]

(I first read the title as "sideburns" and was thinking someone had never been to Tennissee)
OMG, so did I, and I was just going to post that!