This Is What You Look Like In Ultraviolet has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg on that post.

There are a couple of good points about this video, a couple of bad ones, and several things he didn't mention that he should have.
The good - yes people usually use too little, and don't reapply as often as they should, they also don't realise that water resistant doesn't mean water proof, and don't reapply after going in the water.

The bad - he didn't debunk that study at all - conducting perfect studies are next to impossible, that doesn't mean this study was not useful in guiding decision making. Then he turned around, and without even referring to a study, said that sunscreen is "good", as if we should completely disregard a large study done across many years, but take his word for something 'because he says so'. There is actually no proof that sunscreens are good, only that they reduce the rate of burning if used as directed, and they may reduce the rates of some cancers, but the important thing is that the wavelengths that are causing the burning are not necessarily the ones that are doing the most DNA damage - so sunscreens should only be used as a last resort, the DNA will still suffer UV damage no matter what SPF you use if you stay out too long in the hot part of the day (usually 10-4).

Things he didn't mention - if you leave sunscreen on too long and continue to stay out in the sun, the UV rays react with the sunscreen in the deeper layers of the dermis to form free radicals (which can be cancer forming compounds). So using it improperly could potentially increase your risk of getting cancer.

This is not even to mention the numerous dodgy compounds that are often in sunscreens that have had very little testing done on them over the long term to ensure they are safe for human use. Or the fact sunscreens (even broad spectrum ones) provide very little UVA protection, and little to no infrared protection (which also causes damage).

So in my opinion, sunscreens have the potential to be good, but a far better option is to get your sun when the sun is not at it's hottest so you get enough vitamin D, then the rest of the day, cover yourself with effective clothing/wide brimmed hat if you are outside. If you absolutely have to be outside and it is impossible to wear proper clothing then follow his advice and make sure you use the sunscreen as directed, as this is far more important than going for an SPF higher than about 15. Just be prepared to buy a lot of sunscreen because you will be very surprised how much you have to use to cover yourself properly.

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.

*health

Adding video to channels (Health) - requested by ant.

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.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I'm not with him on this one. A little too cavalier in dismissing the research.

Also, not to get all granola crunchy, but human skin evolved to absorb sunlight, not phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid.