Beauty

[MarenSeattle]

On 6/29/2014 nomless said: Guatmum, link ishttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2655355/Wearing-sunscreen-NOT-prevent-skin-cancer-Study-clai... I'm on my tablet and can't embed the link. They tested up to spf 50. DNA damage still occurred.

Here's a summary of the study:

The research team examined the molecular effects of UV light on the skin of 110 mice which had been genetically altered to be susceptible to melanoma.

They found that the use of SPF 50 sun cream would delay the formation of tumours, but could not stop it altogether.

Over a 15-month period they exposed the mice to weekly dose of UV radiation similar to that a person would be receive to if they spent an hour a week in a garden in southern England.

The mice which did not have any protection each developed tumours after an average of 5.3 months, and within seven months every single one had the cancer.

Another group of mice had their fur shaved and SPF50 sunscreen applied. These mice developed tumours after an average of 7.5 months, and each had grown melanoma within 15 months.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2655355/Wearing-sunscreen-NOT-prevent-skin-cancer-St...

As the article states, and we can read on any label of sun protection product we have, there is no claim that sunscreen can prevent skin cancer. They don't allow the term "sunblock" any more because NOTHING totally blocks the sun's UV rays.

I'm interested in what they used for the sunscreen. SPF is a rating system for UVB rays -- not UVA. So if they used something that only screened UVB rays, the UVA radiation (longer rays, by the way) could easily penetrate and damage.

The article also states that sunscreen does play a role in sun protection. A lot of people would read that headline and think it means sunscreen is ineffective and a waste of money, which would be too bad.

Interesting -- more studies need to be done and more clarification is needed for us lay people.

[suzyQ3]

A couple things about that study: The tabloid-ish headline doesn't jibe with the actual content of the article. They clearly state that sunscreen is one important factor but that people should also wear protective clothing. That's not particularly a novel piece of advice but always worth repeating.

Also, the study on 110 mice is relevant only to melanoma. While melanoma is the most dangerous form of skin cancer, basal cell can be a nightmare for many and squamous (often preceded by actinic keratoses -- my problem) can metastasize. And then there's that pesky premature aging thing, too.

Really, although the study is interesting as to the effects of UV and the suggestion that sunscreen might not be able to totally prevent melanoma, I don't see anything that would change the advice to stay out of the sun for any lengthy period of time or to be sure to use sunscreen and protective clothing.

[Kay SD]

I don't agree. I recently learned that titanium and zinc compounds used as physical sunscreens are not particularly natural, either. I use both physical and chemical sunscreens, the former mostly when I will be outside for extended periods. I use a primer to cut down on absorption of either type, and I wash my face really well to get it all off. I also learned that SPF of anything more than 30 nets only marginal benefits. It's more important to make sure it's broad spectrum, that you use enough, and that you reapply at the intervals specified on the product.

[Harpa]

On 6/29/2014 sun8shine said:

Here are the chemicals that EWG is concerned about:

Vitamin A, also known as retinyl palmitate and retinol – This ingredient is in about 20 percent of the beach and sport sunscreens and 12 percent of SPF moisturizers in this year’s database. It is used in regular makeup as an anti-aging ingredient.

Oxybenzone – This common chemical sunscreen filter shows up in nearly half of the beach and sport sunscreens in EWG’s database this year. It has several disadvantages: it soaks through skin, triggers allergic skin reactions in sensitive individuals and may disrupt the hormone system (Krause 2012).

________

Personally, I find the EWG probably needs to be taken with a grain of salt. They give "red lights" to many, many products overall not just sunscreen. I do try to use physical sunscreens only, bc I think that they work, are more comfortable for me and non-absorption seems the safer route.

That being said - I also use retinol... like most women I know.

We have to be vigilant, I just find the EWG to be pretty strident. It seems like they sometimes rely on low powered studies, outlier studies and a standard that says all chemicals must be proven safe (which is different from not proving that something is not harmful.)

I don't think the concern is with retinol; it is with the retinyl palmitate.

[winamac1]

There is no proof chemical sunscreens cause cancer. There is proof that not using SPF can cause cancer.