 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:12 am  |
OOh, it has a lot of oils and plant extracts and the zinc oxide is not coated.
The oils might clog pores (for those prone to acne), the plant extracts might aggravate dermatatis (for those with sensitive skin) and the uncoated zinc oxide might generate free radicals. Yes, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide can also generate free radicals if they are not coated or otherwise treated in a way that counters the free radicals.
I would much rather have silicones and polymers in my physical sunscreen. Silicones and polymers are film formers that help the minerals in the physical sunscreen to be evenly dispersed in the solution and on the skin. Coating of the particles also protects agains formation of free radicals. Making a good sunscreen is not so easy. You have to ensure even distribution of the minerals or you may end up with patchy coverage. Much though I am in support of "natural" ingredients in skin care products, but I think all natural ingredients may not be the best thing for physical sunscreens. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:26 am |
mlrox - do you have any studies orlinks of sorts to support your claim on the free radical connection to physical SS? I believe I've heard this before, but its on nano-size particles.
I only found this on the Smartskincare website (not a lot of time to look)and it says the free radicals in TiO2 and ZnO are when they are nano-sized. The MeanSol SS does not say it is nano-sized, but they do say they are uncoated. Might be a good idea to contact that mfgr and ask?
| Quote: |
| Titanium dioxide nanoparticles appear to have much greater photocatalytic activity than regular titanium dioxide powder and might trigger formation of harmful free radicals when exposed to sunlight |
AND
| Quote: |
| ... zinc oxide nanoparticles are far more reactive/catalytic than regular zinc oxide powder and might promote the formation of harmful free radicals when exposed to sunlight. |
This is part of the reason I stay away from nano-sized SS (if I know it is one). Usually, if the SS is not white going on - its nano or micro-nized. Not sure what ingredient has to be on the list to show it's coated. |
_________________
early 60's, fair skin, combo skin, very few fine lines, vertical lip lines, crows feet & 11's, fighting aging! Using Palancia HF, dermarollers, CPs, Retin A Micro, Safetox, AALS, Clairsonic |
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:35 am |
This info on nano-sized particles is one reason why I really like the Skin Biology Suntan Lotion. I know that TiO2 is NOT micro or nano sized, is uncoated and has a ton of anti-oxidants to aid in sun-protection. It does not have a lot of TiO2 in it, just enought to offer a decent amt of protection, plus it has the CPs in it for skin remodeling.
I used this the last two summers with really good results. I did not reapply during the day, though. If I needed extra protection, I would top the SB one with a different physical SS. I think this year, I will try to bring it along with me for reapplication thru a full day in the sun and see how that goes. |
_________________
early 60's, fair skin, combo skin, very few fine lines, vertical lip lines, crows feet & 11's, fighting aging! Using Palancia HF, dermarollers, CPs, Retin A Micro, Safetox, AALS, Clairsonic |
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:04 am |
| foxe wrote: |
This info on nano-sized particles is one reason why I really like the Skin Biology Suntan Lotion. I know that TiO2 is NOT micro or nano sized, is uncoated and has a ton of anti-oxidants to aid in sun-protection. It does not have a lot of TiO2 in it, just enought to offer a decent amt of protection, plus it has the CPs in it for skin remodeling.
I used this the last two summers with really good results. I did not reapply during the day, though. If I needed extra protection, I would top the SB one with a different physical SS. I think this year, I will try to bring it along with me for reapplication thru a full day in the sun and see how that goes. |
Hi Foxe, I think people are hung up on the SPF of a product. I too use SB Suntanning Lotion when outdoors in the summer. No burning. Part of the key to how it works is to apply the body lotion after tanning. I think it must be the combination of Titianium Dixoide and CPs. I also use DayCover and have for years with no other SS on my face other than my MMUP.
Also, too high an SPF usually found in chemical SS prevents the body from getting the necessary amt of sun needed. On both ends of the spectrum, too little sun can be just as harmful as too much.
People who avoid the sun completely are at greater risk for getting internal cancer.
I like the principle of how Physical SS's work vs. more harmful chemical ones.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:03 am |
| foxe wrote: |
mlrox - do you have any studies orlinks of sorts to support your claim on the free radical connection to physical SS? I believe I've heard this before, but its on nano-size particles.
I only found this on the Smartskincare website (not a lot of time to look)and it says the free radicals in TiO2 and ZnO are when they are nano-sized. The MeanSol SS does not say it is nano-sized, but they do say they are uncoated. Might be a good idea to contact that mfgr and ask?
| Quote: |
| Titanium dioxide nanoparticles appear to have much greater photocatalytic activity than regular titanium dioxide powder and might trigger formation of harmful free radicals when exposed to sunlight |
AND
| Quote: |
| ... zinc oxide nanoparticles are far more reactive/catalytic than regular zinc oxide powder and might promote the formation of harmful free radicals when exposed to sunlight. |
This is part of the reason I stay away from nano-sized SS (if I know it is one). Usually, if the SS is not white going on - its nano or micro-nized. Not sure what ingredient has to be on the list to show it's coated. |
http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/ask-doctor5.html
I first read about this issue on one of the EDS threads. I didn't know about it before. If you do a search, you may find some of the old threads. |
|
|
|
|
 |
Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:08 pm |
Maybe this will sort out some of the issues regarding the free radical connection to physical sunscreens.
Australian Government
Department of Health and Ageing
Therapeutic Goods Administration
A review of the scientific literature on the safety of nanoparticulate titanium dioxide or zinc oxide in sunscreens.
http://www.tga.gov.au/npmeds/sunscreen-zotd.pdf
Background, Summary and Conclusions:
| Quote: |
The potential for titanium dioxide (TiO2) and zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles in sunscreens
to cause adverse effects depend primarily upon the ability of the nanoparticles to reach viable
skin cells.
To date, the current weight of evidence suggests that TiO2 and ZnO nanoparticles do not
reach viable skin cells, rather, they remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer layer
(stratum corneum) of the skin that is composed of non-viable, keratinized cells.
There is evidence from isolated (in vitro) cell experiments that ZnO and TiO2 may induce
free radical formation in the presence of light and this free-radical generation may cause cell
damage (photo-genotoxicity with ZnO). However, recent work suggests that the photogenotoxicity
seen in these studies (with ZnO) may be due to an UV-induced experimental artifact in an in vitro assay, rather than the presence of the nanoparticles.
There is evidence from isolated cell experiments that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide can induce free radical formation in the presence of light and that this may damage these cells (photo-mutagenicity with zinc oxide). However, this would only be of concern in people using sunscreens if the zinc oxide and titanium dioxide penetrated into viable skin cells. The weight of current evidence is that they remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer dead layer (stratum corneum) of the skin.
Currently, there is no in vivo evidence to indicate possible toxicity of nanoparticulate TiO2 or ZnO in people using sunscreens. To date, the current weight of evidence indicates the particles remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer dead layer (stratum corneum) of the skin. |
In simple English, Zinc Oxide and Titanium Oxide regardless of the size of the particles sit on the surface of the skin. Free radicals are not an issue because the Stratum Corneum is composed of dead skin (you can't induce free radical damage to something that is already dead). Although the study cites nanoparticles, some of the references examined looked at micronized particles as well. HTH |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:10 pm |
| Lacy53 wrote: |
Maybe this will sort out some of the issues regarding the free radical connection to physical sunscreens.
Australian Government
Department of Health and Ageing
Therapeutic Goods Administration
A review of the scientific literature on the safety of nanoparticulate titanium dioxide or zinc oxide in sunscreens.
http://www.tga.gov.au/npmeds/sunscreen-zotd.pdf
Background, Summary and Conclusions:
| Quote: |
The potential for titanium dioxide (TiO2) and zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles in sunscreens
to cause adverse effects depend primarily upon the ability of the nanoparticles to reach viable
skin cells.
To date, the current weight of evidence suggests that TiO2 and ZnO nanoparticles do not
reach viable skin cells, rather, they remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer layer
(stratum corneum) of the skin that is composed of non-viable, keratinized cells.
There is evidence from isolated (in vitro) cell experiments that ZnO and TiO2 may induce
free radical formation in the presence of light and this free-radical generation may cause cell
damage (photo-genotoxicity with ZnO). However, recent work suggests that the photogenotoxicity
seen in these studies (with ZnO) may be due to an UV-induced experimental artifact in an in vitro assay, rather than the presence of the nanoparticles.
There is evidence from isolated cell experiments that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide can induce free radical formation in the presence of light and that this may damage these cells (photo-mutagenicity with zinc oxide). However, this would only be of concern in people using sunscreens if the zinc oxide and titanium dioxide penetrated into viable skin cells. The weight of current evidence is that they remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer dead layer (stratum corneum) of the skin.
Currently, there is no in vivo evidence to indicate possible toxicity of nanoparticulate TiO2 or ZnO in people using sunscreens. To date, the current weight of evidence indicates the particles remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer dead layer (stratum corneum) of the skin. |
In simple English, Zinc Oxide and Titanium Oxide regardless of the size of the particles sit on the surface of the skin. Free radicals are not an issue because the Stratum Corneum is composed of dead skin (you can't induce free radical damage to something that is already dead). Although the study cites nanoparticles, some of the references examined looked at micronized particles as well. HTH |
Thanks for this...I just bought some SuprSun and was starting to worry that I couldn't use it after reading some of these posts! |
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:06 pm |
| Good job bringing up that info Lacy. I think I will be using that SB Suntanning Lotion even more often (instead of topping it with another SS) after reading that one. I think the less use of certain ingredients, the better and the SB lotion has only a little bit of just TiO2 in it. |
_________________
early 60's, fair skin, combo skin, very few fine lines, vertical lip lines, crows feet & 11's, fighting aging! Using Palancia HF, dermarollers, CPs, Retin A Micro, Safetox, AALS, Clairsonic |
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:13 pm |
| Lacy53 wrote: |
Maybe this will sort out some of the issues regarding the free radical connection to physical sunscreens.
Australian Government
Department of Health and Ageing
Therapeutic Goods Administration
A review of the scientific literature on the safety of nanoparticulate titanium dioxide or zinc oxide in sunscreens.
http://www.tga.gov.au/npmeds/sunscreen-zotd.pdf
Background, Summary and Conclusions:
| Quote: |
The potential for titanium dioxide (TiO2) and zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles in sunscreens
to cause adverse effects depend primarily upon the ability of the nanoparticles to reach viable
skin cells.
To date, the current weight of evidence suggests that TiO2 and ZnO nanoparticles do not
reach viable skin cells, rather, they remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer layer
(stratum corneum) of the skin that is composed of non-viable, keratinized cells.
There is evidence from isolated (in vitro) cell experiments that ZnO and TiO2 may induce
free radical formation in the presence of light and this free-radical generation may cause cell
damage (photo-genotoxicity with ZnO). However, recent work suggests that the photogenotoxicity
seen in these studies (with ZnO) may be due to an UV-induced experimental artifact in an in vitro assay, rather than the presence of the nanoparticles.
There is evidence from isolated cell experiments that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide can induce free radical formation in the presence of light and that this may damage these cells (photo-mutagenicity with zinc oxide). However, this would only be of concern in people using sunscreens if the zinc oxide and titanium dioxide penetrated into viable skin cells. The weight of current evidence is that they remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer dead layer (stratum corneum) of the skin.
Currently, there is no in vivo evidence to indicate possible toxicity of nanoparticulate TiO2 or ZnO in people using sunscreens. To date, the current weight of evidence indicates the particles remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer dead layer (stratum corneum) of the skin. |
In simple English, Zinc Oxide and Titanium Oxide regardless of the size of the particles sit on the surface of the skin. Free radicals are not an issue because the Stratum Corneum is composed of dead skin (you can't induce free radical damage to something that is already dead). Although the study cites nanoparticles, some of the references examined looked at micronized particles as well. HTH |
Thank you for posting this! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:04 am |
| Adding my thanks, Lacy53. It's reassuring that there are authorities out there who consider there is not enough evidence for free radical production being an issue. It has been bugging me for some time since I first read about it on this forum. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:24 am |
| m1rox wrote: |
| Adding my thanks, Lacy53. It's reassuring that there are authorities out there who consider there is not enough evidence for free radical production being an issue. It has been bugging me for some time since I first read about it on this forum. |
Actually, I don't think they have very carefully considered the cumulative effect. While the absorption rate is low with one application it is not taking into account using this on a long-term basis. That would still be a concern for me.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:40 pm |
| Star Model wrote: |
| m1rox wrote: |
| Adding my thanks, Lacy53. It's reassuring that there are authorities out there who consider there is not enough evidence for free radical production being an issue. It has been bugging me for some time since I first read about it on this forum. |
Actually, I don't think they have very carefully considered the cumulative effect. While the absorption rate is low with one application it is not taking into account using this on a long-term basis. That would still be a concern for me. |
Yes, I think we should keep an open mind on this matter. There is a recent report from Australia that nanoparticle zinc oxide can be absorbed into the body:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2830477.htm
It may not produce any obvious deleterious health effects in the short-term but we really don't know what would happen with long-term use. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:43 pm |
| m1rox wrote: |
Yes, I think we should keep an open mind on this matter. There is a recent report from Australia that nanoparticle zinc oxide can be absorbed into the body:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2830477.htm
It may not produce any obvious deleterious health effects in the short-term but we really don't know what would happen with long-term use. |
Very interesting article, mlrox. The article stated they used 1 version with nanoparticles and 1 version with large zinc particles. And Both versions showed the zinc being absorbed.
"I guess the critical thing was that we didn't find large amounts of it getting through the skin. The sunscreens contain 18 to 20 per cent zinc oxide usually and ours was about 20 per zinc. So that's an awful lot of zinc you're putting on the skin but we found tiny amounts in the blood of that tracer that we used." |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:48 pm |
| m1rox wrote: |
| Star Model wrote: |
| m1rox wrote: |
| Adding my thanks, Lacy53. It's reassuring that there are authorities out there who consider there is not enough evidence for free radical production being an issue. It has been bugging me for some time since I first read about it on this forum. |
Actually, I don't think they have very carefully considered the cumulative effect. While the absorption rate is low with one application it is not taking into account using this on a long-term basis. That would still be a concern for me. |
Yes, I think we should keep an open mind on this matter. There is a recent report from Australia that nanoparticle zinc oxide can be absorbed into the body:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2830477.htm
It may not produce any obvious deleterious health effects in the short-term but we really don't know what would happen with long-term use. |
This is an interesting article. Isn't there a different between nano and micro particles? |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:52 pm |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| m1rox wrote: |
Yes, I think we should keep an open mind on this matter. There is a recent report from Australia that nanoparticle zinc oxide can be absorbed into the body:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2830477.htm
It may not produce any obvious deleterious health effects in the short-term but we really don't know what would happen with long-term use. |
Very interesting article, mlrox. The article stated they used 1 version with nanoparticles and 1 version with large zinc particles. And Both versions showed the zinc being absorbed.
"I guess the critical thing was that we didn't find large amounts of it getting through the skin. The sunscreens contain 18 to 20 per cent zinc oxide usually and ours was about 20 per zinc. So that's an awful lot of zinc you're putting on the skin but we found tiny amounts in the blood of that tracer that we used." |
Actually this is part of an ongoing study being conducted in conjunction with The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) which is Australia's national science agency. Here is an earlier article about some of the research previously performed:
http://abc.gov.au/news/stories/2008/02/18/2166072.htm?site=news
The most recent press release was the first time zinc oxide was identified in the blood and urine of subjects. In a further interview, Dr. Gulson said:
“We have not found that ‘zinc oxide nanoparticles can be absorbed by the body”
“Our study has shown that zinc from sunscreen can reach the blood in small amounts. We have not found any difference between conventional zinc oxide sunscreens and nanoparticle sunscreens and we don’t know what form the zinc is in.”
“It is also worth noting that in our study the increase in zinc we saw in blood was about one thousandth of the normal levels of zinc in blood.”
I also found this in another online article:
"Some interesting points are also revealed by the study: Both sunscreens with nanoparticles and larger particles (non-nano, > 100 nm) led to very similar results, indicating that the particle size of the zinc oxide in the sunscreen formulation was not a decisive factor for the dermal absorption of zinc. The authors also make clear that it is not known yet due to limitations of the isotope methodology, whether zinc oxide (nano)particles penetrated the skin, or whether it was dissolved zinc ions.
The study does not address the impacts that zinc nanoparticles might have on the body's cells or immune system and does not say whether the amounts of zinc found would be critical.
After all, any possible effects of nanoscale sunscreen ingredients in the body need to be balanced against the efficacy of the sunscreen to prevent skin damage through UV radiation - where zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticle sunscreens are particularly promising."
But I agree, all of this is interesting and we need to keep an open mind. |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:59 am |
Even if zinc is absorbed into the body, it may not have adverse effects. After all, some of the supplements (multivitamins etc) contain zinc.
Does anybody know if absorption of titanium dioxide might be harmful? |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:19 am |
| m1rox wrote: |
Even if zinc is absorbed into the body, it may not have adverse effects. After all, some of the supplements (multivitamins etc) contain zinc.
Does anybody know if absorption of titanium dioxide might be harmful? |
From my reading, it seems the zinc is the one they are talking about more than the TiO2 in terms of absorbtion.
Are zinc (the mineral supplement) and zinc oxide the same thing? I was also wondering about this. (Will check on this later - GTG) |
_________________
early 60's, fair skin, combo skin, very few fine lines, vertical lip lines, crows feet & 11's, fighting aging! Using Palancia HF, dermarollers, CPs, Retin A Micro, Safetox, AALS, Clairsonic |
|
|
|
|
Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:48 am |
| m1rox wrote: |
| Even if zinc is absorbed into the body, it may not have adverse effects. After all, some of the supplements (multivitamins etc) contain zinc. |
This was going to be my question - I take a zinc supplement everyday. I didn't think that absorbing zinc into the body was harmful - it's supposed to be beneficial for the skin. |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:27 am |
| foxe wrote: |
| m1rox wrote: |
Even if zinc is absorbed into the body, it may not have adverse effects. After all, some of the supplements (multivitamins etc) contain zinc.
Does anybody know if absorption of titanium dioxide might be harmful? |
From my reading, it seems the zinc is the one they are talking about more than the TiO2 in terms of absorbtion.
Are zinc (the mineral supplement) and zinc oxide the same thing? I was also wondering about this. (Will check on this later - GTG) |
ZO and zinc the mineral are 2 different things. While the body needs zinc, too much zinc will rob copper which can lead to accelerated aging.
Latest research is leaning towards around a 7:1 Zinc to Copper Ratio. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:45 am |
| Keliu wrote: |
| m1rox wrote: |
| Even if zinc is absorbed into the body, it may not have adverse effects. After all, some of the supplements (multivitamins etc) contain zinc. |
This was going to be my question - I take a zinc supplement everyday. I didn't think that absorbing zinc into the body was harmful - it's supposed to be beneficial for the skin. |
The article that mlrox linked to stated to just be aware if your zinc level was elevated. But, remember the article also said that they found "tiny" amounts. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:23 am |
Yes, in the article, they are talking about absorption of zinc but I am more concerned about absorption of titanium dioxide as I understand it might be more potentially toxic compared to zinc. Does anyone have info on titanium dioxide?
This is an old study, but it seems to suggest that microfine titanium dioxide can penetrate into the deeper layers of the skin (not just sitting on the surface).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8961584
These articles seem to suggest that titanium dioxide nanoparticles could be potentially toxic and carcinogenic:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20077182
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20017923
Despite the report of the TGA posted above, the research is still on-going into the potential hazards of nanoparticles and this article suggests that nanoparticles are capable of producing reactive species, which in biological systems lead to oxidative stress.
From my reading on zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in sunscreens, many physical sunscreens do contain nanoparticles and the labelling of physical sunscreens which contain nanoparticles is not regulated (by law) therefore we do not know if what we are applying on our skin has nanoparticles or not. If the sunscreen is non-whitening, it very likely has nanoparticles. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:25 am |
| m1rox wrote: |
but I am more concerned about absorption of titanium dioxide as I understand it might be more potentially toxic compared to zinc. Does anyone have info on titanium dioxide?
|
2nd. This is my concern too. I am not concerned about the ZO, but I am about the titanium dioxide. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:37 am |
| m1rox wrote: |
Yes, in the article, they are talking about absorption of zinc but I am more concerned about absorption of titanium dioxide as I understand it might be more potentially toxic compared to zinc. Does anyone have info on titanium dioxide?
This is an old study, but it seems to suggest that microfine titanium dioxide can penetrate into the deeper layers of the skin (not just sitting on the surface).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8961584
These articles seem to suggest that titanium dioxide nanoparticles could be potentially toxic and carcinogenic:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20077182
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20017923
Despite the report of the TGA posted above, the research is still on-going into the potential hazards of nanoparticles and this article suggests that nanoparticles are capable of producing reactive species, which in biological systems lead to oxidative stress.
From my reading on zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in sunscreens, many physical sunscreens do contain nanoparticles and the labelling of physical sunscreens which contain nanoparticles is not regulated (by law) therefore we do not know if what we are applying on our skin has nanoparticles or not. If the sunscreen is non-whitening, it very likely has nanoparticles. |
Mlrox - I don’t know what to say about the absorption of TiO2. It would be a concern to me too. You seem to have found some studies not included in that link that Lacy provided on the previous page from the TGA of Australia. Lacy's link http://www.tga.gov.au/npmeds/sunscreen-zotd.pdf
The first article/link was already reviewed in the link that Lacy provided. There must be some degree of doubt regarding the value of this study based on a few facts. The authors indicated there were inadequacies in the study based on “limited sample size;TiO2 found near limit of detection and a lack of statistically significance difference betweenthe test group and controls. Further limitations of this study may include the population ofsubjects sampled (old and diseased) and the lack of match controls (cadaver skin)?” This study seems to have been discounted by the TGA group.
The 2nd and 3rd links you provided are newer abstracts written in ’09 and ’10. The TGA’s article is an update on an original review done in 1996 and updated annually. This one was last updated in July 2009. The links for your studies show the first one was done sometime in 2009. TGA concluded in their review that there is no in vivo evidence to indicate possible toxicity of nanoparticulate TiO2 or ZnO in people using sunscreens.
On the 2nd link given, and with this being an abstract, the method of study is not listed – whether is it in-vivo or in-vitro. It is possible that the study was done in vitro and then the findings would not apply to the summary provided by TGA (that there is no in vivo evidence to indicate possible toxicity….). Not sure this would give us as much to worry about if we use TGA’s method of reviewing.
The 3rd link is another abstract and speaks about the need to look at the size of the particles before determining if they are toxic as one size is not representative to the whole group. ” At this time it is inappropriate to consider the findings for one TiO(2 )form as being representative for TiO(2 )particulates as a whole, due to the vast number of available TiO(2 )particulate forms and large variety of potential tissue and cell targets that may be affected by exposure.” This seems to just be someone saying we have to look at everything in a study.
This 4th study you provided seems to say that they studied whether in vitro studies can actually predict in vivo results (they think so). UH –OH. Those reviews provided by TGA look like they might be in jeopardy
My take on all this – use less of these darn SS and just stay in the shade more or cover up more (and I WILL be using the Skin Bio Suntanning Lotion more often- esp since its theory is to use very little of the TiO2 and include a ton of anti-oxidants like CPs to combat the damaging effects of the sun). |
_________________
early 60's, fair skin, combo skin, very few fine lines, vertical lip lines, crows feet & 11's, fighting aging! Using Palancia HF, dermarollers, CPs, Retin A Micro, Safetox, AALS, Clairsonic |
|
|
|
|
Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:52 am |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| Keliu wrote: |
| m1rox wrote: |
| Even if zinc is absorbed into the body, it may not have adverse effects. After all, some of the supplements (multivitamins etc) contain zinc. |
This was going to be my question - I take a zinc supplement everyday. I didn't think that absorbing zinc into the body was harmful - it's supposed to be beneficial for the skin. |
The article that mlrox linked to stated to just be aware if your zinc level was elevated. But, remember the article also said that they found "tiny" amounts. |
I wonder what the harmful effects of zinc absorption (Or TiO2) is - is it the free radicals that have been mentioned (aging)? Even if a 'tiny' amount is absorbed every time we use a SS, then a cummulative amount will remain in the skin or system. That could be a worry.
Dr. Pickart evens said "The problem here would be years of use. If 0.001% penetrated the skin each time they are used, in one year there would be 0.3% in the skin - a rather high amount."
And I'm left here scratching my head... |
_________________
early 60's, fair skin, combo skin, very few fine lines, vertical lip lines, crows feet & 11's, fighting aging! Using Palancia HF, dermarollers, CPs, Retin A Micro, Safetox, AALS, Clairsonic |
|
|
|
| Thu Apr 25, 2024 8:22 am |
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. |
|
 |
|
|
