Right, it’s saying that race matters in this context because sun exposure skin cancer is rare in African Americans. The article is trying to make an argument that the American Academy of Dermatology needs to reconsider the opinion in your first quote.
Your original comment was effectively ‘why does everything have to be about race?’ and it matters in this context.
Discussing differences by race and implying racism are two quite different things. This article engaged in the latter, when only the former appears relevant in light of the facts.
The article is making the case that black people are being given sun exposure advice catered to white people. That's a pretty basic example of systemic racism. It's not vile bigotry, but it doesn't need to be—it's just a bias grounded in race. Still racism. Let's not be afraid of using accurate language just because that language is politicized.
Radiation safety, including UV safety, operates on the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle - "This principle means that even if it is a small dose, if receiving that dose has no direct benefit, you should try to avoid it." [1] I'd imagine that this is the principle that the American Academy of Dermatologists bases their guidance on. Skin colour has nothing to do with it; radiation = bad.
It's generally a damned good principle to live by. We know for certain that higher UV exposure = higher risk of melanoma. It may be a lower risk for people with darker skin, but where do you draw the line for how dark is dark enough to not need to bother with sunscreen? The article states that it's rare in African Americans, but not nonexistent. In the absence of other evidence, why not avoid UV exposure?
This article presents emerging studies that suggest that UV exposure does have some direct benefits and that avoiding it may be especially harmful to people with darker skin. If there's enough evidence to support the findings, the AAD should absolutely change its advice. That's the scientific process. The article uses the example of margarine to illustrate the point; we've gotten it wrong before.
Given the above, are you certain that the term "racism" is accurate here? What can we attribute to bias that can't be explained by a lack of scientific evidence?
Changing the definitions of words (it’s “systemic racism” not “vile bigotry”) is no different than changing the premises of a debate in order better favor your beliefs. It is the rhetorical equivalent of gerrymandering. Even worse is the insistence that these new words are as true and constant as natural laws like gravity, when in reality, these ideas are just made up by non-scientist academics and activists. No real science is performed to test their validity.
You say “systemic racism”, I say “the article cites one guy and gives his voice more weight than an entire industry body in order to contort this into a story about (maybe) racism”.
Science is messy. Doctors are very cautious by training and experience. So yes, they encourage everyone to use sunscreen until the preponderance of scientific evidence suggests otherwise. This is not racism in any form. To suggest otherwise is a slap in the face to people who have been subjected to real racism.
I didn't change the definition of anything. Racism is bias based upon race, plain and simple.
> No real science is performed to test their validity.
This is a ludicrous argument. Which scientific experiment do you want me to perform, exactly, to discover the definition of racism? It's a word, not a physical law.
> To suggest otherwise is a slap in the face to people who have been subjected to real racism.
And a true scottsman would never put sugar in his porridge, yes, yes.
Your original comment was effectively ‘why does everything have to be about race?’ and it matters in this context.