Stay in Touch
Get sneak previews of special offers & upcoming events delivered to your inbox.
-
Blogs & Forums
-
Forums
-
Blogs
-
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
HD - one other thought I wanted to toss by you. I saw some commercial for sunscreens recently, focusing on the fact that skin cancer is on the rise as compared to certain other cancers and I couldn't help but ponder about the possible part that chemical sunscreen ingredients might be playing in that.
When you think about it (and this is solely my take) as the use of chemical sunscreens has increased over the last 30 plus years, so has the rate of skin cancer. The appeal of tanning started in the 50's yet little was really available in the way of sunscreens. The rate of skin cancer back then was also much lower than in more recent years, when primarily the use of chemical sunscreen ingredients simultaneously grew and grew.
As I think about it, I can't help but think there may well be some connection. My parents generation, for example, was one of the first to really spend time in the sun, at beaches, pools, golfing and just generally being outside with very little in the way of true sunscreens. That same generation also appears to have had a notably lower skin cancer rate than more recent ones are seeing - connection or co-incidence?
It has puzzled me for awhile why certain countries seem to be experiencing such an increase in skin cancer while other countries, many with much greater sun exposure and far less use of SPF's, don't seem to be having these similar increases.
Just my brain puttering around ................ 
Thoughts? And please feel free to tell me my brain is a bit off kilter - it won't offend me. 
HD - one other thought I wanted to toss by you. I saw some commercial for sunscreens recently, focusing on the fact that skin cancer is on the rise as compared to certain other cancers and I couldn't help but ponder about the possible part that chemical sunscreen ingredients might be playing in that.
When you think about it (and this is solely my take) as the use of chemical sunscreens has increased over the last 30 plus years, so has the rate of skin cancer. The appeal of tanning started in the 50's yet little was really available in the way of sunscreens. The rate of skin cancer back then was also much lower than in more recent years, when primarily the use of chemical sunscreen ingredients simultaneously grew and grew.
As I think about it, I can't help but think there may well be some connection. My parents generation, for example, was one of the first to really spend time in the sun, at beaches, pools, golfing and just generally being outside with very little in the way of true sunscreens. That same generation also appears to have had a notably lower skin cancer rate than more recent ones are seeing - connection or co-incidence?
It has puzzled me for awhile why certain countries seem to be experiencing such an increase in skin cancer while other countries, many with much greater sun exposure and far less use of SPF's, don't seem to be having these similar increases.
Just my brain puttering around ................
Here's an interesting piece on tanning -- it actually started coming into vogue in the 1920's, thanks to Coco Chanel. When I grew up during the 50's, our mothers were still wearing gloves and hats, but I think that was more a fashion than a conscientious effort to protect against the sun.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_tanning
After a couple of decades of buying sun products whose sole purpose was to promote deeper and faster tanning, they came up with PABA (in the 70's?) . The claim to fame was to block UVB rays (no nasty burns!) but let the UVA rays through, so we could still acquire a "healthy"(!) tan. :-)
Then SPF, which as I've been screaming about, is ONLY a rating against UVB rays -- it was still believed UVAs were pretty innocuous. Then the FDA finally approved a UVA product -- avobenzone. Joseph Segal, the QVC founder, brought it to QVC in Hydron and it was the first I'd heard of it. For a long time, I could only find it in the Hydron or a couple of Avon products.
Yet the FDA still used the SPF rating -- still no UVA protection info, and the general public STILL believes if it has a high SPF, they're safe. Makes my blood boil
THEN they discovered avobenzone degrades in the sun, so started whipping up other chemicals to help with the protection and stability. By the way, avobenzone offers NO UVB protection, yet it's in almost every chemical-based sunscreen.
I don't understand the resistance to zinc. It used to be because of the lifeguard nose look, but it's come a long way. It protects ALL spectrum of UVA and UVB. Titanium, which everything seems to contain, protects against the UVB range but only two of the three UVA rays. Literally, zinc does it all!
I understand I'm over the edge about this, but people just won't listen and believe they're fully protected when they're not. I hold the FDA responsible for not educating the people and bringing the sun rating system into this century.
ETA: Valuable piece from EWG:
http://www.ewg.org/2014sunscreen/the-trouble-with-sunscreen-chemicals/
Maren, I don't think anyone is resistant to zinc as much as you think? I don't get that impression at all when talking with others about it so I'm not sure why you you think that? The only reason I personally am cautious about it is because often too high of zinc irritates my skin. That is why I like the Andalou CC- it is one of the few with 20% zinc that doesn't not in any way irriate my skin. There are quite a few people that cannot tolerate zinc at a higher level like that. But I don't think anyone avoids or resists it for any other reason, not that I can see anyway.
I feel that way because people continue to use sunscreens with chemicals, MINIMAL zinc (if any) feel that Titanium is the same as zinc, etc.
Plus, there really is a hit/miss process in finding one that is pleasing to wear.
I should probably rephrase -- not resistant to zinc, but indifferent, not really realizing the benefits.
I wish I could find a definitive answer to what percentage of zinc does the job. One Derm said "at least 10%" -- so is 10% enough? Is more better? Can't seem to nail that down, but going by that, I kinda feel that 10% is a good starting point if you're not going to be out frying in the sun all day -- runs to the store, to work, etc. But that's just IMO.
That is a valid concern -- the reaction. They always make zinc sound so innocuous "they use it for diaper rash!" but there are those (obviously) who have their limit. :-)
That being said, I wonder what it is about Andalou's that causes it to be non-irritating for you?
And I applaud and bow to you for your continuing search, lots of people would have given up. Seems like your effort was rewarded? 
Footer Navigation and Information
*You're signing up to receive QVC promotional email.
Manage Your Account
Find recent orders, do a return or exchange, create a Wish List & more.
Get More with QCard®
Enjoy 12+ VIP Savings Events a year (& more!).
Work with Us
Stay Connected
Download Our QVC Apps
This is Shopping Brought to Life.
Privacy StatementGeneral Terms of Use
QVC is not responsible for the availability, content, security, policies, or practices of the above referenced third-party linked sites nor liable for statements, claims, opinions, or representations contained therein. QVC's Privacy Statement does not apply to these third-party web sites.
© 1995-2025 QVC, Inc. All rights reserved. | QVC, Q and the Q logo are registered service marks of ER Marks, Inc. 888-345-5788