 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:43 am  Quote |
Here's an article I found in a magazine that I got with todays papers. It might help you decide what sunscreen to choose!
The debate over whether or not it’s beneficial to expose yourself to the sun’s rays has rumbled on for decades, and now some experts are even questioning the safety of sunscreens. Here’s the lowdown...
THE GOOD NEWS
Fact: the sun is good for you. It allows your body to make vitamin D, which helps protect us against various cancers (including, ironically, melanoma), as well as osteoporosis, diabetes and other chronic diseases.
If you have dark skin, just ten to 15 minutes of bright sunlight a day (not midday heat) on unprotected skin is sufficient. If you have fair skin, however, you should always wear a sunscreen. People who are outside a lot anyway will get plenty of sunlight even wearing a sunscreen, because no product blocks 100 per cent of ultra violet (UV) light, according to consultant dermatologist Dr Nick Lowe of the British Skin Foundation.
Most experts agree that sunscreens liberally and frequently applied can prevent skin ageing and probably many cases of skin cancer.
THE BAD NEWS
Fact: UV light from the sun causes skin damage. In a nutshell, UVA causes ageing and UVB burning. UVA can pass through clouds and glass and penetrates deeper into the skin, damaging collagen and elastin and speeding dryness, wrinkling and brown spots. It can also affect the immune system, damage DNA and may increase the risk of malignant melanoma. UVB rays are stronger and are primarily responsible for sunburn and skin cancers, but they’re blocked by glass.
THE DEBATE ON SUNSCREEN
The two choices are chemical sunscreens/filters and physical barriers/blocks.
Chemical sunscreens absorb the UV radiation and turn it into supposedly harmless thermal energy. Some experts say that the chemicals can penetrate deep below the dermis into the bloodstream where they act as ‘endocrine disrupters’, which may be linked to breast and other hormone-related cancers. Industry experts respond that although molecules from chemical sunscreens have been found in the body some days after use, they are at such low levels that they’re unlikely to cause any harm. However, it may also be that these screens allow potentially carcinogenic solar radiation into the body, where it can damage DNA. (There is also a less serious risk that chemical screens may aggravate allergies, such as asthma or eczema.)
Physical barriers and blocks are based mostly on the minerals titanium dioxide and zinc oxide which, in their natural state, reflect UV light away from the skin. The debate about these barriers centres on whether they remain on the skin surface. No one doubts that the bigger-sized particles do, but they leave a pasty white veil which takes some time to disappear and may not go completely until you bathe. So scientists came up with ‘micronised’ - finely powdered - versions of the minerals, and ultra-fine ones, also known as nanoparticles, which are 500 times thinner that a single hair. In order to keep these on the surface and provide an efficient barrier that doesn’t ‘drop off’, the particles are coated in other chemicals, such as silicates and aluminium hydroxide. Despite research showing that they do remain on the skin, some experts fear that the finer grades of the particles (particularly nano) may penetrate in the same way as chemicals, posing unknown risks. There’s also doubt over how well sunscreens protect against all skin cancers. There is evidence they protect against the less serious squamous cell cancer, but not against basal cell cancer or the potentially deadly malignant melanoma. Although the presumption is that by preventing sunburn and immune system/DNA damage, they should. But as use of sunscreens is going up, so is the rate of malignant melanoma; however, this may be down to not applying sufficient sunscreen frequently enough and staying in the sun longer.
Dr Lowe says it’s unlikely that chemical preps penetrate the dermis or pose a risk - they are strictly regulated to produce their sun-protection factor and could not be shown to work effectively if they did not stay on the skin surface, he says. But health expert Dr Weil has concerns about the safety of chemical sunscreens, and also advises avoiding nanoparticles and very finely micronised ones, particularly titanium dioxide (if products leave a white trace, they are unlikely to be bases on nanoparticles.) |
_________________
44, mixed race/olive complextion, combo/oily/always clogged skin, live in the UK |
|
|
|
|
Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:05 am Quote |
Good article. I hope all the people posting about s/s questions will read it.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 am Quote |
| This article is interesting but it's not a revelation. It doesn't help anyone trying to choose the right protection because it seems to be saying neither chemical or physical sunscreens are 'good.' In fact, I'm not sure what this article is trying to accomplish. The sun gives you cancer but your sunscreen could be harming you too? What's a pale girl to do??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:02 pm |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
