| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Wed May 17, 2006 12:08 pm  |
I ofter read articles in the Washington Post on nanotechnology and today came across a reference to this report on nanoparicles in skincare by the Friends of the Earth:
http://www.foe.org/camps/comm/nanotech/nanocosmetics.pdf
My thoughts on this: I think that the Friends of the Earth are biased but they do raise some interesting points and concerns. I have been following the whole nanotechnology thing for a while now because for some odd reason I find it very interesting. This is definetly something that I want to look into more to see what both sides are saying!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed May 17, 2006 12:57 pm |
| I find it really scary. Wish they had named some products but I guess there are too many. Sort of scary like GMOs. Thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed May 17, 2006 1:42 pm |
| Most of this is scare nonsense. The picture had things like carbon nanotubes which are not used in products or for that matter in any bio apllication yet (I, in fact, am helping on a project to assess the toxicity of these). The "nanomaterials" used in most cosmetics are not on the scale of 1nm and are things like liposomes that help penentration into the skin are biocompatible and have shown no toxicity. The particles used in cosmetics are also more like microns in size and will not likely hurt you unless you inhale them. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu May 18, 2006 6:06 am |
The potential dangers from nanotechnology were in the news here yesterday. Sunscreens were specifically mentioned and one link led to a report about the use of zinc oxide nanoparticles being used in some Australian sunscreens. No conclusions were reached one way or another as to the safety and whether they penetrated the skin.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu May 18, 2006 7:46 am |
| Bethc, there is a listing of products, a HUGE listing in this document. Just scroll down to about page 22 to the end. Its all there. You'll be shocked as to whos doing it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu May 18, 2006 9:23 am |
sharky would you know of a good source of information that would refute some of the claims in the Friends of the Earth report?
I don't mind if it is somewhat technical but keep in mind that I am not a scientist! |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu May 18, 2006 10:12 pm |
| interesting. I use skinceuticals physical formula and that is on the list. But what does it mean that the manufacturer says they contain nano content? I'm not going to freak out at this article mostly because i just ordered a new tube of sunscreen, and i intend to use it. Now days the newspapers, magazines, and evening news are there to tell you everything is bad for your health and safety...i wonder if they target all products that have titanium dioxide or zinc oxide. Unfortunately, those are the only ingredients I can put on my face without turning rosy red in the sun:/ |
_________________
Extremely fair/sensitive skin(mild rosacea)that burns very easy.acne is rare/skin is dry.27 years old. |
|
|
|
|
Fri May 19, 2006 8:05 am |
purpleturtle Skinceuticles openly advertises that their sunscreens contain z-cote (I think that the one you use may also contain titanium dioxide but am not sure) which according to the Friends of the Earth is a nanoparticle zinc oxide. I don't know what the size of z-cote is to say if it is a nanoparticle or not. Does anyone know if z-cote is a microparticle or a nanoparticle? I think they are targeting all zinc oxide and titanium dioxide products that they believe contain nanoparticles.
I use Olay Complete SPF15 and SPF30 which are on the list in the report and I am not going to stop using them at this time. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri May 19, 2006 10:37 am |
| it listed on the site that i clicked on that it was a microparticle. Either way I am not going to fuss about a suncreen that works perfectly well with me. |
_________________
Extremely fair/sensitive skin(mild rosacea)that burns very easy.acne is rare/skin is dry.27 years old. |
|
|
|
|
Sun May 21, 2006 2:10 am |
Does this apply to all Mineral Makeup then? And to all mineral sunscreens? How do you know if a product or minerals are nano size or not?
I would think mineral makeup would be? Since they are trying to make it look as smooth and fine as chemical makeup? Is mineral makeup more dangerous then chemical makeup now? It's so confusing! I'm going to have to write every company! 
Here are some more articles: http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=445
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1165709.htm
"This is now a known carcinogen Titanium dioxide (TiO2) has been noted (US
Federal Register, 43FR38206, 25 August 1978) to
be an unsafe physical sunscreen because it
reflects and scatters UVB and UVA in sunlight.
However, TiO2 absorbs about 70% of incident UV,
and in aqueous environments this leads to
the generation of hydroxyl radicals which can
initiate oxidations. Using chemical methods, we
show that all sunscreen TiO2 samples tested
catalyze the photo-oxidation of a representative
organic substrate (phenol). We also show that
sunlight-illuminated TiO2 catalyses DNA damage
both in vitro and in human cells. These results
may be relevant to the overall effects of sunscreens."
http://www.healthy-communications.com/information_about_sunscreens.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon May 22, 2006 10:24 am |
BYRG thanks for posting the links, I will have to read them when I have the time.
I think that this would only apply to nanoparticle sunscreens or mineral makeup. I guess you would have to contact companies and request the information about whether they use nanoparticles or not. I am not so sure that mineral makeup would be likely to be nanoparticle. The main reason they use small particles in sunscreens is because zinc oxide and titanium dioxide have a whitist cast when the particles are larger. By making the particles very small they become clearer and therefore do not give a whitist cast to the skin. With mineral makeup I don't know if there would be as big an incentive to make the particles small since it is colored anyway. But perhaps it would help make it look smoother...
This whole nanoparticle thing is something that I really don't know enough about to make a decision one way or the other. However, from what I have read so far I do feel fairly comfortable using sunscreens with z-cote. And for some reason I do feel more comfortable with microfine zinc oxide than with microfine titanium dioxide but I could not offer any proof to back up this belief. Perhaps I will change my mind when I read more about this nano stuff! |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue May 30, 2006 10:01 am |
| well out of curiousity to this I emailed both skinceuticals company and my mineral makeup company aromaleigh. i talked about the nanotechnology article in my email and asking about if they do contain nanoparticles in their products. Both answered overnight which is very fast in my opinion and happily stated they did NOT use nanoparticles, but micronized, that that they felt strongly that micronized gave better results without harm to us users. No more fussing about mineral sunscreens or makeups...i shall continue using them and being satisfied:) |
_________________
Extremely fair/sensitive skin(mild rosacea)that burns very easy.acne is rare/skin is dry.27 years old. |
|
|
|
|
Tue May 30, 2006 10:27 am |
purpleturtle thanks for clarifying that! I was thinking that the particles in sunscreens and mineral makeup were not true nanoparticles and I am glad that you got a definite answer on this. It seemed to me that the Friends of the Earth were calling things nanoparticles when they were not really nanoparticles!
If anyone is interested here is a link for ZinClear which is actually a nanoparticle(30nm) sunscreen ingredient:
http://www.advancednanotechnology.com/zinclear.php |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue May 30, 2006 11:58 am |
| thanks purpleturtle! |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:36 am |
| v.interesting, want to learn more about it |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:36 am |
| v.interesting, want to learn more about it |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:40 pm |
| I was reading an article about this last night, after searching for info about Zelens Fullerene cream, and the article went on to list a huge number of other well known manufacturers who use this in their products. |
|
|
|
|
|
StoneSkin44
New Member
 
Joined: 21 Apr 2010
Posts: 1
|
|
|
Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:01 pm |
| hello, nanotechnology on skincare? isn't that a bit too harsh? i mean, not all of us has some inherited major skin disease or an acquired phenomena. some of us just want to be moisturized. but if nanotechnology can do that to your skin cells, and you'd never have dry skin or callouses, would you do that?! |
_________________
the limitless expansion of one's mind |
|
|
|
|
Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:54 pm |
I have been reading a ton of studies on this for years. Especially since it all started with my research on my Mercedes paint! 
I became quite concerned because some new companies came out with nanotechnology car cleaner and wax that repels dirt, dust and water. It was "superior" to old wax due to the fact that the particles could fill in where there were an abscess and do with with "organic" products. they just created the particles to be smaller than the dirt, dust and water particles. However, there was a huge concern there that when one would use this product, it would seep into the skin as well as the ground (when the product would land on the ground) and cause possible harm.
Now I am researching this technology in skincare. The universal conclusion is that there are no "long term" research to reach a absolute conclusion to the harmful effects. |
_________________
29, Asian/Caucasion, extremely sensitive skin prone to post inflamatory hyperpigmentation, eczema, milia and breakouts. Under control and want to keep it that way! |
|
|
|
|
Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:13 pm |
The link isn't working, can anyone locate the article/pdf?
On a side note, the derm Leslie Baumann said on a blog that nano zinc oxide would not be a bad thing, as zinc is not harmful if it is absorbed. I wish I could find the link but cannot remember where it is. |
_________________
42, have used tretinoin since age 18! Replenix CF serum and eye cream, RAMicro, Glytone 2 lotion every other day |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:20 am |
What is aggravating about the nanotechnology issue is that, because of lack of a labeling requirement in the US, consumers are unable to make their own choices about using them. Because the regulatory bodies currently have a "safe till provenly otherwise" standard instead of a "must be proven safe in order to include them" standard with respect to nanoparticles, scientific uncertainty as to their safety in humans means that, for now, nanoparticles can be freely incorporated in cosmetic and sunscreen products. But companies do not have to label nanoparticle-containing products as such, so consumers cannot make our own choices about whether to use or not in the face of that scientific uncertainty.
As it stands currently, there is some research that suggests that at least some nanoparticles can be toxic, meaning that it is reasonable for a consumer to want to make her own choice about them. Too bad that under US regulatory labelling law, we can't get the information needed to be able to make our own personal choices. |
_________________
Late 50's, fair warm-toned skin, dryish except in T zone; regular user of CSRx Vitamin C, Avene Diacneal, Avene tinosorb sunscreen, Pro Light LED, and experiments on and off with many products. |
|
|
|
| Mon Jan 27, 2025 8:32 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. |
|
 |
|
