Whats the truth about Sunscreen?

[markTHEblake]

Does anyone here really know about Sun screen? I mean really know.

Like most people i figured it was all the same, but apparently not. Some have chemicals that are absorbed into your skin with undesirable side affects, and others simply do not live up to their marketing.

This doctor i saw tells me i need sunscreen with moisteriser, and she recommended Hamilton Optimal. It costs about twice the normal el cheapo i would normally get, but it has worked as far as the dry and flakey skin was concerned.

Then i google this stuff trying to get it cheaper online and come across a dermatology site that says this Hamilton is junk and it provides a pathetic level of UV protection, not even half of the rated SPF.

Anyways, after reading a bunch of articles about this chemical and that, and getting totally confused, the sun screen that really works without compromising your health, appears to be these little tubes that cost around $70 or more. :shock:

Surely there is something out there for $20 in a black and gold pack or something that does the job without killing us with another disease.

[Johnny Canuck]

i picked up a litre of SPF30 Target brand for $9.60 this week. works for me.

[sms316]

Don't use the stuff.

[markTHEblake]

i picked up a litre of SPF30 Target brand for $9.60 this week. works for me.

Thanks, but thats not helpful info, as you cant know if it works, except maybe in 30 years.

[PeteyD]

Check the ingredients. For it to be effective it should have Titaniium and/or zinc in it.

[AndyP]

i picked up a litre of SPF30 Target brand for $9.60 this week. works for me.I use the Target stuff too. It was recommended by Choice several years ago.

[just]

Invisible Zinc is a physical sunscreen without nanoparticles and is available in most chemists and Woolies (I think) at a reasonable price.

[Grunt]

Banana Boat Sport used here, I used to use heaps of zinc when i sailed nothing else seemed to work.
I have to go to the docs soon to get a few spots looked at. Twenty years on the water has meant no sunscreen really worked well enough,

[Johnny Canuck]

wear a compression shirt on your arms.

[henno]

I am currently avoiding the nano-particle stuff until there is some regulation and/or testing done by more than those who have a vested interest in moving said product. Basically any of the "clear" suncreams I steer clear of.

The white shit is fine. Your hippy doctor is just acting the fool and getting all witch-doctory on you.

EDIT: Just beat me; avoid the nano-tech stuff.

[markTHEblake]

i think i might try SPF 100+
(its called aluminimum foil)

http://www.terressentials.com/truthaboutsunscreens.html

Who do you trust, the makers of these pharmaceuticals, or those who are sceptical of them.

[henno]

I believe the false sense of security thing regarding suncream. It's not 100% UV blocking and never has been. But to not wear it at all sounds a little counter-intuitive to that argument.

For the record, another family member of mine is about to succumb to melanoma-induced cancer. Wear suncream, and lots of it.

Bucket hats are still gay though.

[rodders]

How many have fallen off the twig from sun cancer as opposed to all the bad shit your Dr says may or may not be in sunscreen MTB?

That would be my first question.

Or is it conspiracy between the mass manufacturers and all the world governments.

I work on the basis it does what it says because that is why we have testing of products in Australia. Given how much it costs the public coffers in terms of health care for the ill, I'd be suspicious of claims that the sunscreen does not offer the protection it states on the bottle.

[markTHEblake]

The white shit is fine

which white shit do you use, that is not 'nano particle stuff'





Your hippy doctor is just acting the fool and getting all witch-doctory on you.

Uh uh, the romanian doctor didnt say anything. its me googling that is getting all the witch doctory stuff.

like this:
http://www.icpa4kids.org/research/articles/childhood/sunscreen.htm


just uncovered something i never knew. Not all sunscreens protect against UVA, unless they say they are broad spectrum. the SPF protection rating only applies to UVB, which seems to be the 'sunburn' factor. Yet it seems that UVA is the more damaging factor than UVB

[henno]

None of the "white shit" is nano-tech. Yet.

Most of the nano technology is only used to make the suncream "disappear", which is only a few products of the "clear" variety.

And yes, broad spectrum is the way to go.

[sms316]

ParMaster wants to know what is the best type of sunscreen for 15 year olds who need to "moisturise" themselves?

[Oldplayer]

I ended up getting very dry and flaky white skin on my face and noticed that it improved greatly over winter when i did not use as much sunscreen. I went to the chemist and was put onto a different kind of sunscreen. It is free from chemical absorbers for very sensitive skin. It is free of PABA, whatever that is , it's derivitives or lanolin. Active ingredient in microfine titanium oxide and it sits on top of the skin and is more noticeable and looks like a white film. My skin has cleared up completely after using this for the last 3 months. It is also broad spectrum.

[KristianJ]

ParMaster wants to know what is the best type of sunscreen for 15 year olds who need to "moisturise" themselves?

Canola oil.

[moree golfer]

Can you tell us the brand Oldplayer?

[Eag's]

I have been using Sun Sense clear mist 30+ for years now and love the stuff.
I have tried a variety of brands, but nothing has protected me as well as this product has.
If I grow an extra limb I will be sure to let you all know ;)

[Hamo84]

I use UV triplegard SPF30+... never got burnt with it... its not cheap though, bout $12 for 250ml bottle...

[Oldplayer]

Can you tell us the brand Oldplayer?

It is Sun Sense low irritant cream by Ego.

[henno]

Ego are a great brand. I use heaps of their products (body wash, moisturiser etc). I'll have to have a look for their suncream.

[markTHEblake]

I have been using Sun Sense clear mist 30+ for years now and love the stuff.

But why do you choose this one? what do you know about it that makes it a healthy choice?

N.B it contains oxybenzone (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient.php?ingred06=704372) which has been reported to; (and is also somewhat restricted in Japan)

Produces excess reactive oxygen species that can interfere with cellular signaling, cause mutations, lead to cell death and may be implicated in cardiovascular disease.

Also spray ons are often remarked as more dangerous as they can be inhaled or get into the eyes.


I have tried a variety of brands, but nothing has protected me as well as this product has.Its a no brainer that sunscreens protect against sunburn. But its the 'silent' protection against UVA that is more important, and you will never know if that was effective ever.

The common thing I am reading now is that the increased use of sunscreens is not reducing the incidences of skin cancer, in fact its the opposite. This suggests that sunscreen may not be doing its job.

[goughy]

Woolies for me. Cheap, and I don't get burnt when I wear it.

[henno]

The common thing I am reading now is that the increased use of sunscreens is not reducing the incidences of skin cancer, in fact its the opposite. This suggests that sunscreen may not be doing its job.

Are you suggesting that suncream is increasing cancer risks? I think part of the increasing (is it even per capita?) rates of skin cancer have more to do with the fact that we live longer and lead more active lives than it does the effectiveness of suncream.

And before you run off on a tangent on the sedentary lives we lead these days, it's the sun of the 60's/70's/80's that's causing the cancers of today. Not to mention that most of the people who "tanned" in those days used no suncream at all - my parents included (50 and 52 years of age).

[markTHEblake]

Are you suggesting that suncream is increasing cancer risks?

thats what i am reading. the suggestions are that the high awareness of using sunscreen that protects us against sunburn leads us to spend more time in the sun - unknowingly exposing us to the UVA that is supposedly more dangerous.

I just did an 'analysis' on the Woolies Home Brand broad spectrum sun screen which my kids use (and Goughy) and based on the percentages of the three active ingredients two provided weak protection against UVA and the other provided none.

Fortunately my kids dont need it as they have more melanin than they can poke a stick at.

[henno]

the suggestions are that the high awareness of using sunscreen that protects us against sunburn leads us to spend more time in the sun - unknowingly exposing us to the UVA that is supposedly more dangerous.

That's a valid point. Suncream is not a "cure-all", it's just a "better than nothing" solution.

[Eag's]

No idea Blake I am not a Dermatologist. All I can go by is what is printed on the side of the bottle. Also this product was recommended to me by my doctor.
It is free of PABA, it's derivatives, and lanolin, has maximum UV-A & UV-B protection. The bottom line is I do not get burnt using this product, so until it is proven to me that I am harming myself, I will continue to do so.

I would be far more worried about what goes into our food these days rather than worrying about a sun screen.

[KristianJ]

That's a valid point. Suncream is not a "cure-all", it's just a "better than nothing" solution.

Yep, and it pays to be informed about the lesser known aspects of what's on offer so that we don't end up having to get spot after spot cut out later on. Plus, of course, it's only a small part of good sun protection.

Admittedly, I don't know too much about nano particle stuff, but it would seem that what I use most regularly (the Coles branded SPF30+) isn't nano. But it is broad spectrum and seems to at least prevent this fair skinned ranga from sunburn.

Interesting article I just found via Google:

http://nano.foe.org.au/node/291

[markTHEblake]

Henno, i think you will lap this one up.
http://www.ewg.org/cosmetics/report/sunscreen09/investigation/summary-of-findings

This is a frightening comment for me, being a white honkey that thought i have been doing the right thing for so long;
Many products lack UVA protection. Our analysis found that 4% of high SPF sunscreens (SPF of at least 30) protect only from sunburn (UVB radiation), and do not contain ingredient combinations known to protect from UVA, the sun rays linked to skin damage and aging, immune system problems, and potentially skin cancer. FDA does not require that sunscreens guard against UVA radiation.Lots more stuff about nano thingys (http://www.ewg.org/cosmetics/report/sunscreen09/investigation/Nanotechnology-Sunscreens) and detailed explanations of every ingredient, and 1700 odd products independantly rated (http://www.ewg.org/cosmetics/report/sunscreen09/Beach-Sunscreens). Unfortunately most of the well know australian brands dont make the list, though Bananaboat is, and was not rated well.

The only two that i can really find that rate well and available here are;
Soleo Organics (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/sunproduct.php?prod_id=247298)
Blue Lizard Sensitive (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/sunproduct.php?prod_id=260583)

[jaybam]

I am more worried about the bloody banana boat stuff i got staining my shirts. Leaves terrible marks on light coloured shirts :(

[markTHEblake]

Also this product was recommended to me by my doctor.

I'd be interested to know why your doctor recommended that, but i am guessing you are no different than me, we just trust them. :lol:

has maximum UV-A & UV-B protection. Thats an interesting point because I am led to believe that there is no rating method for UVA protection, so I am thinking how that was measured. So I had a look at the ingredients in your sunscreen (the links are below) and made a comment how much UVA protection it has,and it doesnt seem so great, although I may be misinterpreting the data. Where is our doctor?

4-methylbenzylidene camphor 4.0% (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient/700047/4-METHYLBENZYLIDENE_CAMPHOR/), - Weak
butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane 2.5% (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient/700596/AVOBENZONE_%28PARSOL_1789_%7C_BUTYL_METHOXYDIBENZO YLMETHANE%29/), - weak
octyl methoxycinnamate 3.0% (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient/704203/OCTINOXATE_%28OCTYL_METHOXYCINNAMATE%29/), less than weak
octyl triazone 2.0%, not a sun protectant
oxybenzone (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient/704372/OXYBENZONE_%28BENZOPHENONE-3%29/) 3.0% Weak

The bottom line is I do not get burnt using this product, so until it is proven to me that I am harming myself, I will continue to do so.Dont get me wrong here, am not arguing, just trying to establish if any particular sunscreen ticks all the boxes. If someone reckons theirs the good gear, i want to know why if i am going to use it, and the bottom line is that the sunburn protection factor has nothing to do with whether it protects against skin cancer.


I just read that site that KristianJ posted, thats interesting stuff too, and at least it makes some recommendations on what brands to support, as well as that EWG site i posted earlier.

[mike]

MTB you should give up golf and take up indoor cricket instead.




I would be far more worried about what goes into our food these days rather than worrying about a sun screen.

Good point.

[markTHEblake]

MTB you should give up golf and take up indoor cricket instead.
used to play 3 days a week, Got carried off the field twice, its way too dangerous.

Good point.

dont get me started on food, i need this one out of my system first.

[mike]

Unfortunately, with sunscreen and food labels, we just have to take their word for it.

If my death is caused by eating too many apples I'm going to be mighty pissed off.

[henno]

If my death is caused by eating too many apples I'm going to be mighty pissed off.

Diabetes. Frutarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism) (yes, frutarians) suffer from this quite a bit.

[Johnny Canuck]

Ego are a great brand. I use heaps of their products (body wash, moisturiser etc). I'll have to have a look for their suncream.

Did you get free iron covers when you purchased the body wash and moisturiser?

[henno]

Did you get free iron covers when you purchased the body wash and moisturiser?

I mix sand and gravel into it to fend off the gay spirits.

[WBennett]

Ego are a great brand. I use heaps of their products (body wash, moisturiser etc).

You are more Yoss than Yoss.

[markTHEblake]

Check the ingredients. For it to be effective it should have Titaniium and/or zinc in it.
you appear to be right on the money Pete :smt038

and i found suggestions that it should have at least 7% of either

[PeteyD]

The 7% is new to me, but I guess that is the sort of number they are looking at.

[Bruce]

I checked a few of the links you were looking at there Blakey and think tinfoil would be a good choice as it will match the hat. Those sites read like classic FUD piles.

They say some components "have been linked to" or "could cause" <something bad> but don't cite the study. Other complaints are that sunscreen components are treated "with chemicals" as if that automatically makes it bad, ignoring that everything in the world is a chemical of some sort.

I couldn't find a single cite that linked increase in skin cancer despite the use of sunscreen. Every article I could find in the first 2 pages of google results indicated lack of sunscreen use was the issue rather than the opposite.

This article summed it up for me:
Headline Expert fears skin cancer rate rising
Quote from article I can't really definitely say it's on the increase but that's what we fear.

The Choice study that recommended the Target brand is probably the best general advice.

[henno]

Speaking of chemicals, everyone should be worried about the alarming use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in almost all of our food and drinks. In recent years, even our rain has shown high levels of this deadly chemical, which is odorless, colourless and can be lethal to humans.

For more information: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

[Yossarian]

I've heard that we are all pretty much dying. We should do something about that.

[just]

You can, I have this charity, "The Human Fund", it's totally against dying people. In fact the slogan is "Money for People". Pretty good hey.

[Yossarian]

Where can I donate?

[just]

Just send me a cheque for $20,000 and I'll sort it out.

[Yossarian]

Tax deductible? And do I get a little sticker or toy to show what a good person I am?

[Daves]

Well I can give you a Sunscreen to steer clear of!.

I have been using a couple of cheaper sunscreens; Auscreen and one a friend's packaging company gets made up for them. Both are quite effective, but they dry my skin out badly. My daughter went and bought me some Invisible Zinc, UV Triplegard Summer Skin it is called. According to the packaging it is SPF 30+ UVA/UVB broad Spectrum with Zinc Oxide as the primary and only active ingredient. Dear as poison and totally useless! Tonight I look like a red Badger! Burnt everywhere I used this crap, and I wore a wide brimmed cricket hat today as well!. Were I used the cheap stuff not a sign of any sun burn in the slightest! Pissed off big time!

[henno]

I have the auscreen stuff at home. It seems to go alright for me.

[markTHEblake]

They say some components "have been linked to" or "could cause" <something bad> but don't cite the study.You must not have looked very hard - the EWG site is a comprehensive database with references, like this (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient.php?ingred06=704095)

I am far more concerned about the sunscreens lack of protection against UVA rather than worry about what chemicals are in some of them, so don't worry about a tin foil hat.

UVA Rays dont cause sunburn, so you cant judge a sunscreen by how sunburnt you dont get.


UV Triplegard Summer Skin it is called. According to the packaging it is SPF 30+ UVA/UVB broad Spectrum with Zinc Oxide as the primary and only active ingredient

now thats a worry, cos Zinc oxide is supposed to be the best stuff! But what is the % content?

[Daves]

You must not have looked very hard - the EWG site is a comprehensive database with references, like this (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient.php?ingred06=704095)

I am far more concerned about the sunscreens lack of protection against UVA rather than worry about what chemicals are in some of them, so don't worry about a tin foil hat.

UVA Rays dont cause sunburn, so you cant judge a sunscreen by how sunburnt you dont get.



now thats a worry, cos Zinc oxide is supposed to be the best stuff! But what is the % content?

The packaging says 200mg/g which would be 20% by my calculation.

My wife tells me (now!) that she has used Invisible Zinc products before and had the same poor results.

[henno]

An interesting article was just posted on abc.net.au:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/08/2839381.htm

[markTHEblake]

Nice one Henno. In any case it seems that the only sunscreen I could find that has a high enough concentration of Zinc Oxide of 10% are not nano-particle ones.

I am using this one now daily, and a stronger version for playing golf.
http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Blue-Lizard/Anti-Aging-SPF-30.html

[markTHEblake]

When dealing with one of my customers I happened to notice she specialises in Sunscreens, so I asked her if I was on the right track that the more Zinc/Titanium Oxide the better the sunscreen is. Her answers are quoted below (with permission), Daves, you might be interested to notice she recommended Invisible Zinc, which I have already purchased and used at golf yesterday, so far so good.

Associate Professor Jane Hanrahan, Faculty of Pharmacy, Uni of Sydney.
She also suggested checking out

http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/35/5/148/51
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20121011/Sun-protection-an-interview-with-Jane-Hanrahan.aspx


I don't really do research on sunscreens, but I do teach pharmacy students about them (and therefore got the request to write an article for Australian Prescriber) - but the good news is that I have nothing to lose/gain from anything I say about them

In terms of sun protection the greater the amount of the metal oxides the better - however the more Zn/Ti oxides the more likely you are to look like you are painted white (which most people don't like), which is why most sunscreens have a mixture of active ingredients (Zn/Ti Oxides as well as organic chemicals) to give a good broad spectrum protection without the painted effect.

Essentially all sunscreens that are rated 50+ should give you the same protection because they are all tested and rated under identical conditions, as long as you apply the correct amount. All sunscreens with a rating greater than SPF 15 (for UVB protection) must also offer good protection against UVA (cancer causing) as well so all the 30-50+ sunscreens should all offer good protection against both sunburn and skin cancer.

From memory Invisible Zinc has the highest amount of zinc oxide (20-22%) and they have worked out a formulation that stops the painted look, but it is really expensive. Banana Boat Mineral also has around 20% zinc oxide, not sure what it looks like when it is on.

The only real trial that has ever been done on a large scale with sunscreens was in the 1990s in Nambour and participants were given broad spectrum 16 (pretty high protection in the early 90s) to use everyday, and this has included followup every 5 years since then, and is still showing decreased rates and severity of melanoma and sqamous cell carcinoma compared to the control group (who just used sunscreen when ever they felt like it or not as they had before the trial. Since all the participants were over 25, they had already accumulated a lot of sun damage before the trial (which may be why the trial did not show any significant effect on basal cell carcinoma).


by far the biggest factor in sunscreens not being effective (for either sunburn or other damage) is not enough being applied (5ml for face and neck and 5ml for each arm and leg, and 10 ml for torso, 35 ml in total) and remembering to reapply it after 2-3 hrs and swimming)

[Daves]

When dealing with one of my customers I happened to notice she specialises in Sunscreens, so I asked her if I was on the right track that the more Zinc/Titanium Oxide the better the sunscreen is. Her answers are quoted below (with permission), Daves, you might be interested to notice she recommended Invisible Zinc, which I have already purchased and used at golf yesterday, so far so good.

Associate Professor Jane Hanrahan, Faculty of Pharmacy, Uni of Sydney.
She also suggested checking out

http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/35/5/148/51
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20121011/Sun-protection-an-interview-with-Jane-Hanrahan.aspx

Thanks Blakey, fits with what I have read elsewhere. The visible issue is where Nanotechnology comes in with some Sunscreens. Basically, the metal compounds are made much smaller and this makes them "disappear" when rubbed in. There seems to be a school of thought that may result in the oxides being absorbed into the body through the skin, with potentially detrimental health impacts. Haven't found a lot of definitive research on this as yet.

I have done a bit of checking of ingredients for new 50+ Sunscreens. Some do still have Zn or Ti Oxides in them, others seems to have moved away from using them.

[backintheswing]

In terms of sun protection the greater the amount of the metal oxides the better - however the more Zn/Ti oxides the more likely you are to look like you are painted white (which most people don't like), which is why most sunscreens have a mixture of active ingredients (Zn/Ti Oxides as well as organic chemicals) to give a good broad spectrum protection without the painted effect.

Not sure Ashes cares judging by some of the pics from the GSM.

[Ashes]

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20121011/Sun-protection-an-interview-with-Jane-Hanrahan.aspx

I think she missed some zeros in the suggested application rates.

[Lobsta]

Sunscreens:

Go for higher SPF, but over 30+, a lot of it is in the wrist. Most companies 30+ sunscreen was already of the standard that it exceeded 50+ anyway. The powers that be were just hesitant to bring in 50+ as a classification over worries about its accuracy and applicability. SPF stands for Sun Protective Factor, and is a measure of how many times longer a product protects you from the sun compared to your skin. So SPF 30+ means that you can stay out in the sun for 30 times longer without getting burned compared to just your skin. The issues arise as the higher the SPF, the more the variance in people's skin's natural protection could actually make that incorrect. Most companies that I have spoken to have made no change to the sun protective ingredients in their products. Any changes between the 30+ and 50+ formulation have been just moisturising/skincare ones that they have wanted to do for a while, but didn't want to pay to get it re-tested to still be SPF rated.

The best sunscreens combine physical blockers (Zinc and/or Titanium Oxides) with chemical blockers (long, unpronounceable words with numbers in them). The nano-particle thing is crap and designed by sellers of boutique products to scare people in to paying more for inferior products. Nano-particles ensure even application of the sun protective parts of the sunscreen. Thick zinc products are actually some of the poorest products, as if applied too thin, the increased particle size of the physical blockers can clump together, causing inconsistent sun protection, while still making people think that they are protected because the area is coloured in.

My recommendations:

Best sun protection: Ego SunSense Ultra Lotion. One of the first to get the SPF 50+ rating. Was the best before then also. Recommended by quite a few mole check Dr surgeries. Plain and simple is the best one out there IMO.

Best functional: Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body. Not the sport one. http://www.neutrogena.com.au/sun/sun-protection . Even though its only 30+, as I said before, there is every possibility that it would pass the 50+ test if the company bothered to get it tested. But as the company tries to market it as a skin care product with SPF, I'm not sure they see the value in paying for the testing for what is likely an arbitrary distinction. If you reapply 30+ using the appropriate timing, then you won't get burned. These also are only chemical blockers, no physical, but 30+ is 30+, and I'm giving this recommendation for one main functional reason which is: This is easily the least greasy sunscreen I've used since they took Banta Sunscreen Gel off the market (which was the ****ing tits for playing water polo). This Neutrogena stuff is great for golf as you can spray it on quickly before a game, don't need to rub it in much because the spray gives nice even coverage anyway, and you won't end up accidentally doing a Lefty and launching your club on the first few shots, because you aren't left with greasy palms. Word of warning, watch out as it starts to run out. Like all aerosols, as it gets to the end of the can, it starts to come out in spits and spurts. This can result in some interesting burn/tan patterns if you aren't careful about it being applied evenly.

When it comes down to it, if its got the SPF, it'll work. The majority of people who get burned when using sunscreen is because they didn't reapply as they should have, or didn't give it time to absorb before swimming, or, as MTB said, didn't use enough or apply evenly.

Lobby