I understand where you're coming from, however there are a few things that might really surprise you.

1. Go to 1:23 in the video - that quote is not from the study, it is from an article about the study. You can check the study itself if you want to be sure:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12251/full#joim12251-tbl-0002

Here are the actual summarised conclusions from the study:
"The results of this study provide observational evidence that avoiding sun exposure is a risk factor for all-cause mortality. Following sun exposure advice that is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful to women's health"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24697969

These claims are in line with the results of the study. If he was to debunk the study's conclusions he would have to expose these claims as being untrue/exaggerated - which they are not. It does mention in the study something similar, but only in the results section, and it kind of has to because... those were the results. The claims made that are based on the results are appropriate.

2. He talks about how there might be confounders but fails to mention that the study has thought of that, found out the important ones, and adjusted for them. The study adjusted for: comorbidity, age, smoking habits, education level, marital status and disposable income.

3. He talks about how the study had no control group because it is not a RCT - this is a statement designed to mislead people who don't know much about study design. There are a number of different types of studies, and the reality is that many types of studies simply cannot have a control group - this is one of those types. I mean seriously, what control would you use, a group of humans that had to avoid 100% of sunlight for 20 years?? Yes please, sign me up for a 50% chance of being in that group. (edit: ok it looks like @ant will volunteer) Just because a study doesn't have a control doesn't mean the results are invalid, and if he was being less deceptive he would have admitted as much.

4. He states RCT's have shown that sunscreen prevents melanoma and skin ageing. There are also studies that show that these processes happen despite the use of sunscreen. Either way, so what? The research done in the Swedish study looks at all cause mortality - a far more important statistic - it demonstrates that there are potentially benefits of sun exposure that outweigh the risks, a pretty big deal.
A recent article about research showing that damage occurs (albiet at a reduced rate) despite sunscreen use:
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/press-release/new-clues-to-skin-cancer-development-show-sunscreen-is-not-enough

Now, how about the statistical significance of the research? The 95% confidence interval for the results of the study does not cross 1 - in fact the confidence interval is well above 1. What this means is that if the same study was repeated many times, the chances of getting a different result are extremely slim.

I think he did. He said the study shows a 1.5% to 3% difference between the two groups, though i think he should have referred to how significant that is, statistically speaking - i.e. what are the uncertainties, cos if it's ±2% uncertainty then the results are practically meaningless. He also said that the study only took sun-time into account, and spoke about the habits associated with people that avoid sun altogether - difficult to exercise and be active without exposing yourself to sun. He mentioned vitamin D deficiency - which is synthesised by sunlight in humans, and deficiency has an impact on all kinds of health issues. Finally he mentioned that there wasn't a control group - average people who neither hid from the sun nor bathed in it, because that would help them narrow their uncertainties or identify critical problems with the study.

And they wonder why we drink so much coffee.. Try to stay awake without any sunlight.. Yeah, you pretty much have to if you want to stay sane...

It's filmed in southern Finland, you go 500km north and it's way more drastic. But since most of the people live in the south, this shows how it is for majority of people. I live smack dab in the middle, it's not far from this. We get sunsets around 15:00 in the winter and no street lights in the summer. Around mid summer, there's enough light so you can read a book 24/7 outside. At this time of year, sunset is around 21:30 and only getting later day by day. Two months from now, it doesn't set at all..

Yes there is ant-It's called sunlight and and about-towner afternoons, at least twice a week. OH, and you must encounter 3 people physically per walk, and initiate conversation...Perhaps a puppy or kitty might help?? Crafts or hobbies are good, get you a good knot-tying guide or maybe take up toothpick art or philatelic.

Ok, so is the giant clear ball with it's mount, the specialized miniature solar cells able to handle focused sunlight, and the tracking device cheaper than normal PV cells with normal trackers? I can't imagine it is, so while neat, I fear this tech won't fly in normal applications. Maybe in designer homes and places with high wind, but high wind areas should probably be using windmills/turbines and flat mounted solar.

Less time under the vag-laser and more sunlight and meat on your thighs sister, and yeah, fuck HD-tech discussions, someone sneaked a screaming shorn-porn beaver onto the Videosift, and one attached to a woman in desperate need for less attention and more cheeseburgers.

...and that's how the Space Nazis were able to construct their moon base in secret over the course of ~70 years.

But yeah, when people talk about the "dark" side of the moon, they're talking about the side that never faces us; the concealed side; the side we're "in the dark" about. There's no side of the moon that never sees sunlight, despite what many people will tell you.

So now I've read some more comments here and also on youtube on the video.
I stand by what I said in the second comment (also: only one video on the account, no info on the aftermath in the description, weird cut off moment of the video, candles on even though there is sunlight on the wall).

Having said all that, it is a puzzle, and I am not an authority on either fake videos or house fires. I mean, I was pointing out that I thought it was an *incredibly* good fake, so then it is not easy to detect it is fake (see e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWCbYevSbI for a very bad fake incl. analysis).

@Velocity5-sunlight w/adequate ultraviolet B rays is necessary for the proper absorption as well as the conversion of D into active metabolites-You need the sunlight or a tanning bed-No artificial sunlight that filters UV is effective.
There is no "just take supplements" option...except for the one where you take supplements, continue your cave-like existence, and develop osteoarthritis at 40.

Who needs human interaction or sunlight anyhow? Filtered air, bottled water, electricity and internet-Boom.

Recycled mix (using old asphalt with other "stuff" that can be put into mix to get rid of it..like rubber tires) doesn't lay as well as new asphalt mix or hold up as well.

Since old mix uses old asphalt, it typically has oil, gasoline, diesel, etc soaked into it. All of these substances degrade/eat asphalt over time. It's why they don't use asphalt around fuel pumps, because all of the constant and pure spillage would eat holes in it. Turns the asphalt gummy...goes right into it and sometimes thru to the sub-grade rock and then soil. Also motorcycle kick stands don't do well on asphalt, contaminated or not..especially on hot days. Asphalt will become pliable on really hot days and a focused direct pressure like a motorcycle kickstand can punch a hole into it that be deep enough to let the bike tip over. Use a wood block or piece of plywood to fix this and spread the pressure.

I used to work in the asphalt business, mostly rolling it. My dad worked in it more substantially than myself working on airport jobs, highways, etc. Many of those jobs won't allow old asphalt to be used in their mix. And they are big enough to force plants to switch over from remixed (old and new) to all new mixes. You'll notice that jobs done with the new mixes hold up much longer, look better, lay better, hold their heat better during the laying process, and come out much smoother looking and less "dirty looking" upon finish. I am guessing at this, but I believe it to be because the asphalt has more tar and less other chemicals and the tar is able to absorb any dirt you might pick up when you move to existing surfaces onto the new asphalt. Where the remix (containing old) has gasoline, etc breaking down the tar and less fresh tar to begin with, so that little bit of dirt you pick up transfers to the remix asphalt like a magnet.

Highways probably won't have as much surface area covered in long term spillage as stop and go traffic where it will be focused at the lights, stop signs, along edge of the streets where people park. But the highway will have big sections of highly contaminated asphalt where semis flip, car wrecks occur, etc. So these same sections if they are remixing it on the go, will end up with a bunch of really bad asphalt on or just after it if they don't throw it out.

And to clarify a few things upon incase people are unfamiliar.

Asphalt plants are usually multi purpose. They are usually a stone quarry with an asphalt plant situated somewhere on site. They filter and crush the stone into piles for sub grade work of various needs. And they draw from these piles to feed the asphalt plant. They do new mix and recycled mix (old mix) which I'll explain below. They also often times have sealer (the black coating you put on parking lots and driveways), I'll explain it below. Roofing tar, regular/asphalt tar, and crack filler..and I'll cover these below as well.

The plants have some human guesswork involved, they have to estimate tonnage and how much tar should be added. They screw up pretty often. It wasn't unheard of for us to get super tarry asphalt mixes where it was like goo coming out of the truck. Or no-tar mixes where it was just slightly black painted rocks. Or mixes where we called them "burnt" where they pumped in their cleaning mixture into the mix and it was breaking down the mixture to help get it out of the hoppers of the plant. These were usually people being trained who hit the wrong button without realizing it.

The plants have to clean the mixtures out of the hopper (where they dump it into the truck) to cycle over to a new mixture they keep in on-site silo looking things that stir and heat it. Which the silos also have to be cleaned at the end of the day or heated all night lest they hardened and stop up the whole thing. They usually stop heating all night as it gets closer to winter season because they don't do enough business to make it worthwhile.

Ok mixtures:

I didn't mention base mix anywhere...but it's why they typically have to switch over to different mixes, because places need base mix instead of finish layer....the layer you see when finished looks less rocky than base and is pliable.

Base mix = larger aggregate rocks, much more rocky. Doesn't have much fine rock in it. It's meant to be something you can quickly lay that will hold up the weight of heavy vehicles right away. Usually this is only used on fresh roadways where they are laying directly over rock sub-grades. It makes it easier to lay the finish layer smoothly, makes for a cleaner looking job by locking the rock and it's dust in...and is cheaper than using all finish. You can almost go from laying base mix to laying finish layer right on top of it with no delay. You can't do this with two layers of finish, because it's too pliable and it has to cool down for the heavy vehicles to drive over it without squishing it out and messing up the layer you just laid.

New mix asphalt = Tar mixture with aggregate like fine almost sand like rocks along with larger rocks to give it stability larger rocks are maybe the size of your pinkie nail at the largest. Tar is mixed throughout, the whole mix is constantly stirred and heated inside the plant, drawn into the hopper and dumped in a truck that pulls underneath. I am told that this mix used to be even better in the past, but now air regulations require them to "inject" their dust from rock crushing into the mixes so again this can cause the mix to be less tarry due to the dust being absorbed and they can completely ruin it by injecting too much.

SCAM ALERT: Look below remix as it pertains to both.

Remix (old and new) asphalt = Very similar to new mix, except they grind up old asphalt that they have sitting on-site in the stone quarry congealing into a big pile depending on it's contamination. This will depend on percentage they are legally required/allowed to put into these mixes. Less of the remix in the mixture, the better it is....less contaminates. Sometimes they even put rubber tires and other rubber products into the mixture. Although they don't do that much here. SOMETIMES it is desirable to have rubber in the mixture like running tracks, where they are springy. This is a special mixture, and it's a massive PITA to lay because it's really gummy and sticks to everything along the process.

SCAM ALERT: They typically do this to older people. But someone will stop and tell you they are working on a big site close, and they are going to have some extra material at the end. Usually you would dump this at the plant or somewhere you have set aside. They want to help you get a new looking driveway. They will lay the asphalt less than an inch thick. It will look really good when they finish. A year later it will be broken apart in most cases. Because they didn't tar, and they laid it too thin. You can lay asphalt thinner if you tar really well....but you want to lay it at least a inch and a half per layer or so. Sometimes you have to lay it thin near man holes and drains to not block water. So don't go crazy on somebody because of this if you see them doing it in certain places. Generally they try to average an inch and a half across a job per layer on finish. Thicker on base mixes since it has larger rocks in it and it has to be at least as thick as the biggest rock in it.

Sealer (the black coating you put on parking lots and driveways) - This is almost like a black paint in some circumstances. Some of it has chemicals, I think creosote, which react to the sunlight and cure it to seal it to the asphalt. Depending on what you buy, you may have to mix water into it to make it suitable for the task. Some come pre-mixed and you just have to stir. Usually you put two coatings on new asphalt, one coat if it's been sealed before. Sealer WILL NOT make your driveway last longer by any noticeable degree. It will make it look dark, and repel chemical spills to some degree. However chemicals will still penetrate as you can't clean up everything that drops. ALSO, sealer makes your driveway much slicker. This is why they don't use sealer on roadways, if they are using some kind of treatment it's something else because sealer fills in all of the fine holes in asphalt and makes it more slippery because of this..especially in the rain. Sealer has to cure for a couple days, you can't drive on it and it can't get wet. So listen to them when they say they don't want to seal it due to weather. Don't let them seal it in the spring or fall. Do it in the summer so it's nice and hot and not much moisture. Sealer looks more brown going down than black. But it cures to black.....it almost looks like chocolate cake mix. Dunno if they taste the same.

If you are sealing your own driveway, do not get it on you. It burns like a mother, I've gotten it on myself and if you don't clean it off right away it will burn you like a really bad sunburn after being exposed to sunlight for awhile. Some people are not bothered by creosote (if this is the correct chemical in sealer)...but better to not find out..because it hurts if you are.

SCAM ALERT: People will seal your driveways with motor oil or even too watered down sealer. They look very similar going down. There is no easy way to tell the difference besides knowing what they smell like. The first rain will turn your motor oil covered driveway into a mess. We have gypsies in the area pretend to be local businesses and pull things like this, it's bad. They disappear at the end of summer and the businesses are left with people pissed off.

Roofing tar - Runnier and less thick than regular tar. It's meant to be pumped onto roofs and run down to fill in holes and places water can get in. If you use this on your driveway, you're pretty much going to end up with a huge mess for years. Because it will continually heat up in the sun and liquify again being tracked into your house over and over and over.

Regular/asphalt tar - Use this, like in the video, along curb sides and between old and new layers to help seal out water and keep the layers sticking together as you put down the new layer. You wouldn't need to tar between a base and finish layer if they were laid a day or two apart because the base layer would heat up again from the finish layer and stick. However if the base layer is older..like a couple weeks or a month. You would probably tar between them. Anything else..you tar between...concrete, old asphalt. The only exception would be sub-grade rock, however sometimes you even tar this, especially if it's in a grade critical location...where you can't have the asphalt humping up even a little. But on a typical driveway, the rock layer has enough jags and spaces that a layer of asphalt will cling to it just fine.

Crack filler - You would use this before sealing your driveway, not after. You can also use it alone to fill in gaps in your driveway and try to seal out water. So it doesn't get into the crack, freeze and blow your driveway up. The best crack filler is rubberized, so it will expand and contract. Plus it also isn't as prone to liquify again in the heat and stick to your car tires and shoes. It has to be heated up substantially to liquify, but I've seen non-rubberized begin to liquify in direct sunlight on a 95+F degree day. I try not to step on the cracks on the really hot days, as I'd rather not find out if it's going to stick to my shoes.

Be damn the violence, future serial killers of America unite, be it Doom or Civilization, GTA or Mario Cart, what of the retarded social and motor skills created in 2 generations of peepatrons? I have noticed a direct correlation between lack of Vitamin D in the form of limited exposure to sunlight and Cheetos-stained crisp finger, as well as a general lack of interest in the vagina or practical skills and video-gaming, so please, "let them legalize homicide and debut this thrilling and encouraging youth-sensation, our hope-for-the-future, an exciting new video first-person-atrophizer and herding platform, Couch-Killers"!!

Isn't everything we see an optical effect?

Did a bit of googling. Apparently they are called Leaping Sundogs, or Crown Flash.

"The answer lies in this: ice crystals, especially long needles, tend to become aligned with the ambient electric field.

So what you are seeing is sunlight reflecting off ice crystal faces that are constantly being oriented by the developing electric field just above the [cumulonimbus] top. Then there is a discharge in the cloud, and the field collapses momentarily, and the crystals begin to realign again. Then this just keeps happening over and over."

My guess was so wrong, and so much more boring too

I wonder how much Nike paid for product placement in the scene where the messenger runs from Marathon to Athens and shouts "Sneakers!" while his hard, chiseled abs glint in the dim grey cloudy sunlight... then collapses in glory.

@dystopianfuturetoday

i think i got my argument down to one word.
took some time because you know me..
i comment like i think:rambling and incoherent.

the word is transparency.

if this dragnet is SO needed and SO vital to national security and catching brown people.
then lets allow this giant pig into the courts and lets discuss the value of this particular intelligence gathering.
lets shine a bit of light in those dark corners yea?

a healthy democracy needs sunlight and fresh air the breathe.