Millions of Americans Warned to Avoid the Sun in 7 States
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Millions of Americans across seven states in the Southwest are facing high levels of ultraviolet (UV) radiation levels from the sun later this week, a forecast map from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed.
Why It Matters
Per official guidelines from the EPA and National Weather Service (NWS), levels in this area present an "extreme" risk of harm from unprotected sun exposure.
A forecast map shows which areas could see the highest UV levels later this week.
A forecast map shows which areas could see the highest UV levels later this week.
EPA
What To Know
The UV index runs on a scale of one to 11. The levels, and their corresponding advice are as follows:
1—2: Low—Minimal risk from UV rays for the average person.
Wear sunglasses on bright days.
In winter, snow can reflect UV and nearly double exposure.
Use SPF 30+ sunscreen if you burn easily.
3—5: Moderate—Moderate risk of harm from unprotected sun exposure.
Cover up, wear a hat and sunglasses.
Use SPF 30+ sunscreen.
Stay in the shade near midday when the sun is strongest.
6—7: High—High risk of harm from unprotected sun exposure.
Limit sun time between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Wear protective clothing, sunglasses, and SPF 30+ sunscreen.
8—10: Very High—Very high risk of harm; sun protection is essential.
Take extra precautions including wide-brimmed hats and long sleeves.
Minimize exposure between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Be aware: white sand and similar surfaces reflect UV and increase exposure.
11+: Extreme—Extreme risk of harm; unprotected skin can burn in minutes.
Avoid sun exposure from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Reapply SPF 30+ sunscreen every 2 hours.
Seek shade, wear full coverage, and use sun protection.
According to the EPA's UV index forecast for May 10, solar noon, parts of Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and California could see levels of at least 11 on this day.
Solar noon is the time when the sun reaches its highest position in the sky at a given location.
At this level, officials advise that skin "can burn in minutes," and exposure during midday hours, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., should ideally be avoided.
What People Are Saying
Anthony Young, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology, dermatology, at King's College, London told Newsweek: "The UV index (UVI) is a measure of the sunburning power of sunlight … The higher the UVI the shorter the time you need in the sun to burn."
Richard Weller, professor of medical dermatology, at the U.K.'s University of Edinburgh told Newsweek that sunlight can cause photoaging—premature aging of the skin as a result of prolonged and repeated exposure to UV radiation.
"Sunburn is a risk factor for melanoma skin cancer, which is the most serious of the skin cancers," he added.
What Happens Next
The UV index forecast map is created daily using NWS forecast data.
Those interested in finding the time of solar noon in their location can use the sunrise-sunset-solar noon calculator at the NOAA website.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Mailbag: Urge Rep. Kim to vote ‘no' on taking basic health care away from people
Americans will live sicker and die sooner if Congress approves massive cuts to Medicaid, marketplace plans and private insurance. But it's not too late for Rep. Young Kim to stand up for her constituents, including the nearly 358,000 people in her district who rely on Medicaid. This week, I joined the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network to deliver a clear message at Rep. Kim's Anaheim office: Vote 'no' on taking basic health care away from nearly 11 million people nationwide. Instead of working to lower costs, Congress is moving quickly to slash at least $793 billion over 10 years from Medicaid and raise the costs of premiums and services for millions of people. As a cancer survivor who relies on Medicaid for lifesaving care, I call on Rep. Kim to vote against these devastating cuts that make it more difficult and more expensive for people to get the care they need. Dolly LinFullerton When I was 18, spending the summer in Corona del Mar with friends from USC, my goal was simple: to be the darkest person on the beach. I don't know if I succeeded, but I tried. After two-plus months of surfing and laying in the sun almost every day — without sunblock — I was extremely tan. Back then, in 1967, no one ever suggested I didn't belong here. But if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had been rounding up thousands of people a day like they are now, I easily could have been mistaken for an undocumented immigrant. That possibility never crossed my mind back then but it certainly would today. Imagine living legally in the U.S. for 30 years — working, paying taxes, and raising a family — only to be detained or arrested at a car wash or Home Depot because of how you look. It's no wonder thousands of day laborers have gone into hiding. The fear of being wrongfully deported without due process isn't just stressful — it's paralyzing. When Donald Trump ran for office, he promised to deport the 'worst of the worst.' I naively assumed he meant convicted drug lords, killers, and rapists — not mothers and fathers trying to support their families. Yet, this is exactly what's happening. Because arrest and deportation numbers are lagging behind White House expectations, aides have convinced the president that a sweeping crackdown is necessary — even if it pushes the bounds of constitutionality. The last line of the Pledge of Allegiance reads, 'with liberty and justice for all.' I wish more Americans understood that living in fear, as millions are doing now, is not liberty. And being rounded up in an ICE raid, as so many are today, is not justice. Denny FreidenrichLaguna Beach I agree with Councilmember Twining that 'There is a clear need to turn down the rhetoric and restore civility during Huntington Beach Council meetings.' What has led to this incivility is the frustration that the City Council has taken a MAGA ideological position on most issues. These include anti-LGBTQ, anti-DEI and human rights, book banning and elimination of citizen committees. Since the citizen comments at council meetings require no response from the council, there is no exchange of points of view, nor any way to hold the council members accountable. In the past, my husband and I have volunteered on citizen committees. They offer opportunity for two-way exchanges. Despite the fact that more than half of H.B.'s population are not MAGA devotees, the City Council has chosen to simply not listen to the 'other side.' Their disdain for opposing opinions is evident in their voting. 'My way or the highway' is the council meeting undercurrent. In other words, community members from the left and center know they are speaking to deaf ears. If Twining and other council members want civil interchanges, then they need to stop their autocratic decision-making and actions and do what is best for all Huntington Beach residents, not just their MAGA constituents. Judith A. Lewis Retired Los Angeles County sheriff's captainHuntington Beach I am so disgusted. The mayor of Huntington Beach, Pat Burns, was caught on hot mic calling a constituent 'Another f—ing cow' during Tuesday's City Council meeting. Instead of being grateful to a courageous young woman for sharing her thoughts during public comments, he chose to disparage her. Burns also called other council members who were not on the side of the conservative council majority 'pieces of s**t' last year. My personal experience speaking to the council has not been quite this dramatic. When I have spoken, which is often, the mayor yawns, chats with others or stares at the ceiling. He leans far back in his chair to make it clear that he isn't listening. My input is unwanted. Burns rigidly supports an extreme MAGA agenda. He clearly doesn't care about the people of Huntington Beach. I call for the resignation of Pat Burns in his failure to represent all of us, to treat all constituents with respect and to behave professionally as he represents our beleaguered city. Goodbye, Pat Burns. Nora PedersenHuntington Beach
New York Post
6 hours ago
- New York Post
Standing up to bullying, unscientific transgender activist mob
Almost no one does wicked things in the knowledge that what they are doing is wicked. It is a truth that should be universally acknowledged that in order to do something truly evil, a person needs to believe that what they are doing is good. Until somebody steps in and says 'no.' This week there was an extraordinary development in one of the great medical and social scandals of our time. Advertisement Alex Byrne is a professor of philosophy at MIT. This week he outed himself as one of the authors of the review published last month by the Department of Health and Human Services. Or rather he outed himself after being hounded and exposed by demonic maniacs online. The review goes over treatments of so-called 'gender dysphoria' in minors. Advertisement The fact that the authors of the DHHS review even tried to remain anonymous tells us a lot about the toxicity of this whole debate. The review itself is considerate and moderate. It weighs up the actual evidence and simply suggests that American authorities should align with the emerging consensus among experts and politicians in Europe. Which is that things have been done in the name of treating 'gender dysphoria' are a medical and ethical nightmare. For over a decade now, the 'be kind' brigade has been insisting that 'trans' should be the next civil rights issue of our age. No less a graveyard of thought than Time magazine had a cover in 2014 saying that transgender issues should be 'America's next civil rights frontier.' Advertisement That is a very loaded way to present a complex issue. After all, talk about 'civil rights' brings two particular struggles to mind. The first is the struggle to ensure that ethnic minorities — in particular African-Americans — have equal rights to everyone else in the United States. That issue was addressed and answered by force of moral argument six decades ago. The second issue that it brings up is the fight for gay rights, which also started some six decades ago. Since that time, the moral argument of the gay rights movement has also been accepted. Advertisement Nobody today wants to be a bigot who removes rights from black Americans or gay people. But by presenting the complex issue of trans as the inevitable next step in a campaign for ever more rights, our societies in the West took a mad turn. After all, the acceptance of other arguments were based on the idea that the people getting their rights were equals — and that society would not need to change itself or alter its fundamentals in order to grant these rights. The moral force of both movements were founded on the basis of 'Just like us.' And that is how they succeeded. The 'trans-rights' movement, by contrast, turned everything completely on its heads. They insisted not just that some people feel that they have been born in the wrong body, but that nobody is born with any discernible biological sex. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters They insisted that because some people feel a confusion about their sexual identity nobody has a fixed biological identity. That — as some of us said from the start — was madness. It would be like the gay rights movement saying 'We're here, we're queer — and as a result there is no difference between men and women.' I doubt the gay rights cause would have succeeded if that was the track that campaigners chose. Advertisement But that was where the trans movement went. And of course the landmine which they trod on — and which was gone along with for far too long — was the explosive issue of children. As the DHHS review notes, the whole idea of 'gender affirming care' (note how manipulative that phrase is) was based on unbelievably weak evidence. Even before you get to issues of life-changing surgery, there was the imposition of 'puberty blockers.' These could be handed out after minimal consultation to any child who simply felt concern about the onset of puberty and worried about the changes to their body. They were handed out with no long-term studies of their effects. Advertisement Too few professionals warned that these medications could cause lifelong sexual disfunction, infertility and much more. The ones that did raise alarms or even questions were hounded by the dementors of our age — both online and off. But how did anyone think a child could make an informed decision about such a measure? Studies from Sweden, the Netherlands, Britain and other countries have confirmed what many of us said, which is that young people — including those who might grow up to just be gay — would be 'trans-ed' by the health industry. And live to deeply regret it. 'Gay conversion therapy' may have become a taboo. But converting gay people into approximations of the opposite sex became deemed 'progressive.' Advertisement We were told that if a child who had 'gender dysphoria' was not medicated with cross-sex hormones, or did not have a double-mastectomy then a range of things would happen. We were told that 'trans children' (another fallacious category) would 'kill themselves.' Or that any criticism of such procedures was 'disappearing' or even 'genociding' trans people. I have lost count of the number of American parents I have spoken to who were told by doctors that they had to 'trans' their child and were given the slogan if, say, the child was a biological male, 'Would you rather have a trans daughter or a dead son?' Parents were literally bulldozed into agreeing to life-altering surgeries and medical experiments being run on their children. Advertisement Now a smidgen of sanity has been brought to the debate. Future generations will look back at this period and marvel at what we allowed. They will coo with amazement that we gave life-altering drugs and performed life-altering operations on young people not old enough to vote, drive or drink alcohol. But we can already tell why it happened. It happened because pseudo-science was waved by crazed progressives bullies, who in the name of 'kindness' did things that were wicked beyond words.
6 hours ago
Kennedy's vaccine committee to vote on flu vaccines and controversial preservative
ATLANTA -- U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new vaccine advisory committee backed another option to protect infants against a dangerous virus — before turning to questions about fall flu vaccines and a preservative in a small fraction of them that some antivaccine groups have falsely tied to autism. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Thursday took up protections against RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus, a common cause of cold-like symptoms that can dangerously inflame infants' tiny airways. In 2023, U.S. health officials began recommending two new measures to protect infants — a lab-made antibody for newborns and a vaccine for pregnant women — that experts say likely drove an improvement in infant mortality. That first antibody, called nirsevimab, proved to be 63% to 76% effective against emergency department visits for infants over the last year. On Thursday, the vaccine panel voted 5-2 that another newly approved antibody shot, Merck's clesrovimab, should be used similarly. The ACIP, created more than 60 years ago, helps the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determine who should be vaccinated against a long list of diseases, and when. Those recommendations have a big impact on whether insurance covers vaccinations and where they're available. Kennedy was a leading voice in the antivaccine movement before becoming the nation's top health official. He fired the previous 17-member panel this month and replaced it with a seven-member group that includes several vaccine skeptics. At its June meetings, the committee usually refreshes guidance for Americans 6 months and older to get a flu shot, and helps propel the annual fall vaccination campaign. Presentations prepared for Thursday's meeting suggest that the panel may do much the same this year. But there's also a flu-related vote that promises controversy. It concerns thimerosal, a form of mercury that's been added to vaccines since the early 20th century to preventing bacterial contamination in multi-dose vials. Kennedy has long held there was a tie between thimerosal and autism, and also accused the government of hiding the danger. Study after study has found no evidence that thimerosal causes autism. But since 2001, vaccines manufactured for the U.S. market and routinely recommended for children 6 years or younger have contained no thimerosal or only trace amounts, with limited exceptions. Thimerosal was placed on the meeting agenda shortly after Kennedy's new vaccine advisory was named last week. Before the vote, the committee will hear from Lyn Redwood, the former president of what is now known as Children's Health Defense — an antivaccine group founded by Kennedy. Some public health experts contend the thimerosal discussion will unnecessarily raise doubt in vaccines while possibly also making them more expensive and harder to get this fall. At the panel's meeting Wednesday, Chrissie Juliano, executive director of the Big Cities Health Coalition, lamented the ouster of the former ACIP panel and the agenda of the new one. Her organization, which represents large city health departments, 'is deeply concerned that many routine vaccines may soon become inaccessible or unaffordable for millions of Americans if ACIP makes changes based on ideology rather than science," she said. "The stakes are simply too high to let that happen.' ___ Neergaard reported from Washington. ___
