| |
 |
| Author |
Message |
maggieym
New Member
 
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 9
|
|
|
Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:56 am  |
what do u think about this article 
from http://www.terressentials.com/truthaboutsunscreens.html
There are companies that make sunscreens, and they call them organic, but they have synthetic chemicals in them. But that´s not the worst of it. According to our research, sunscreens give users a false sense of security in that while they effectively prevent sunburn, they do little or nothing to prevent skin cancer or the accelerated aging of the skin caused by sunlight.
There is a substantial body of evidence that shows that there is an increase in cancer when sunscreen products are used. We've done a lot of research into sunscreens. The bottom line is this: we have found no sunscreen ingredients which we consider to be safe.
So now you're thinking that the minerals titanium dioxide and zinc oxide might be "safe" sunblocks, right? Isn't that what "natural" personal care products manufacturers have suggested?
The shocking truth is the fact that both chemical sunscreens (avobenzone, methoxycinnamate, padimate-o and the like) and physical sunblocks (titanium dioxide and zinc oxide) have been found to generate free radicals when exposed to sunlight, which then can attack the nuclei of your skin cells and cause mutations. That´s right: they can cause skin cancer. Furthermore, sunscreen chemicals have been found to pass through the skin and mimic the effects of estrogen, which may disrupt the delicate balance of the body´s natural hormones.
The following excerpt is taken from a book called "Sunscreen Photobiology—Molecular, Cellular and Physiological Aspects": "Illumination of titanium dioxide suspensions with sunlight can degrade organic materials and purify drinking water, while illumination with short wave UV kills human cells. This work shows that the distinction between 'chemical' sunscreens and 'physical' sunscreens, attractive though it may be to those who market them, is not based on any significant difference. Both varieties have the potential to produce reactive species that can attack biological materials (human skin cells) when they are exposed to normal sunlight... What is established is that particles of titanium dioxide as large as 220 nm can enter human cells in culture, and so it seems entirely plausible that if titanium dioxide does pass through skin it could enter cells under the skin (carrying with it the absorbed UVA and UVB radiation and hydroxyl radicals)."
Titanium dioxide is now being used as a new treatment for window glass because it attacks and degrades anything that touches it, thereby helping to keep windows clean. You probably don't want to have anything attacking your skin!
Small amounts of sun are healthy. People and children should remain indoors (at work and school or play) during the hottest part of the day, and when they venture out they should be sure to cover themselves properly. Schedule gardening, errands, play, etc., for early morning or evening hours. Our recommendation for protection: Loose-fitting clothing, shady trees and big floppy hats. Organic cotton is a good way to go!
Read more: Sunscreens, Titanium Dioxide, Zinc Oxide and Color Cosmetics |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:58 am |
Scary. I thought I was PREVENTING skin cancer with sunblock. I'll have to read the entirety of the article more thoroughly.
Katie |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:06 am |
| I don't really buy into it, to be honest. My mom has worn sunscreen everyday since I was a child...I am sure that she has prevented more free radical damage from the sun than she has caused it from suncreen. Some points of the article are true...sun is good for you, but the hole in the ozone layer is not. I wouldn't stop wearing suncreen on the advice of this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:18 am |
I'm with Faith, although it's always good to read new stuff.
Seems to me though, the proof is out there. There are a lot of people who are cautious about the sun generally and have used sunscreen long-term and they have younger, healthier skin (unlike me who used to lap it up with no gloop on my face) with no signs of cancer.
And the thing about sunscreen is, no-one's going to sit in the midday sun and expect it to do something. I think most people realise it's a back-up, a secondary option after covering up and staying in the shade, don't they?
There is ,I've read before, some evidence that areas of the world which use sunscreen have higher rates of skin cancer than those where they're too poor to use it, but it's impossible to draw a simple 'therefore it causes cancer answer' out of that.
I wouldn't panic  Just be sensible. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:20 am |
I agree with Faith. I would rarely draw a conclusion on something based on one article, let alone an excerpt from an article.
It is also the case that when we are talking about active ingredients, it has been a long established fact that concentration of the ingredient is everything. Used properly, a particular compound can be most beneficial... Used in excess, in can be lethal.
At one point, I was very interested in pursuing a career in medicine. I became an attorney instead, but my interest in medicine and biochemistry persisted. I once read a fascinating and very humorous piece on carcinogens. The author, in poking fun at what was a widespread phenomenon at the time, i.e. identifying virtually EVERYTHING under the sun as a carcinogen, provided OVERWHELMING evidence that water could in fact be a carcinogen  - provided that you didn't drown first, of course.... |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:05 am |
The article is crap! 
In the first place, the word "organic" when used on sunscreens does not mean "organic" when used on human foods. Organic sunscreens simply refer to physical agents like titanium dioxide and zinc oxide.
"According to our research, sunscreens give users a false sense of security in that while they effectively prevent sunburn, they do little or nothing to prevent skin cancer or the accelerated aging of the skin caused by sunlight."
Well, if they really had done their research, they would be well advised to explain what this means. The simple truth is that only a few sunscreens in the market today provide photostable UVA protection, which is the culprit for photoaging. For people not aware of this, they would be wearing an SPF 50 which would protect them from burning but not photoaging (UVA) because they UVA agent degraded from the sunlight.
That part about sunscreens generating free radicals is part bulls***. Sunscreens cannot block or filter 100% of the sun's rays, and the small percentage which gets to your skin generates free radicals. It is sunlight that generates free radicals.
It is partly true that chemical sunscreens, in absorbing UV rays, generate some free radicals, but this has been shown to far outweigh the amount of free radicals generated compared to NOT wearing sunscreens. Logically, which would give a person more chances of skin cancer - wearing sunscreen or not wearing sunscreen?!
The new generation of micronised physical agents, especially titanium dioxide, has been shown to produce free radicals. This is because micronised titanium dioxide acts by both reflecting and absorbing UV rays. However, coated micronised titanium dioxide is quite safe. And another study has shown that titanium dioxide, regardless of particulate size, has not been shown to enter the skin.
Please, don't just believe everything you read. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:11 am |
Ha, ha, Katee,
I agree. I'd take this and some of the other "hysterical" websites' info with a grain of salt. While it is true that some sunscreen ingredients (notably avobenzone and oxybenzone) when not combined properly with other stabilizing ingredients can produce free radicals when exposed to sunlight, certainly they do not produce MORE free radicals than UV light on unprotected skin. I have never seen any proof that zinc oxide or titanium dioxide produce free radicals and breakdown in the presence of UV light. While neither one can provide the best UVA protection (except if you bathe in it maybe), certainly it would be better to use something rather than nothing at all.
And, of course, we all have our good old vitamin C serums to prevent free radical damage in any case. If you don't want to use sunscreen, at least add a nice big whopping dose of antioxidants internally and externally, plus hats, gloves, long sleeves, sunglasses, etc. to protect your skin from free radical damage.
The sunscreens I use that are "stable" (do not break down in presence of sunlight but like all sunscreens should be reapplied regularly) are Coppertone Faces Oil-Free SPF 30, Shiseido spf 55 lotion or cream and the best of all but hard to get Bioderma Lait, PPD 20/30. Hopefully, the FDA will approve use of Mexoryl next month and we will have a very effective ingredient that is stable available in the US marketplace. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:17 am |
| A bit off topic, but could someone explain "photostable" to me. I know someone did before, but I can't find it. How do I know if my suncreen is ok? |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:51 am |
Photostable means that the sunscreen agent wouldn't break down in sunlight rendering it effective. What this further means is that if you are wearing a photounstable sunscreen, you might as well not apply it at all, because unstable agents break down and produce free radicals, not to be mention that false sense of security thinking that you are protected.
Your sunscreen is photostable if the main actives are: zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, Mexoryl SX, Mexoryl XL, Tinsorb M, Tinsorb S, Avobenzone stablised with Octocylene. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:55 am |
when they don't put the author of the article or who did the research or any stats I call bullshit.
Gotta prove it to me and that doesn't do it!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:36 am |
| Hopefully that is just rubbish. My policy is to keep covered up whenever possible. We wear spf/upf clothing when we go out on the water. I even wear them for snorkelling if it's too warm for a wetsuit. I run early in the mornings when the sun is still low and I use sunblock and a hat. We play tennis in the afternoon when the court is mostly in the shade. Even then I wear a visor, sunglasses and sunblock. I'm really paranoid because my grandfather was blonde and fair and he had several surgeries to remove skin cancer from his face. He spent years working outdoors on the roads in Ontario as a surveyor with no sun protection. |
_________________
Owner at GS & Company at Semiahmoo Shopping Centre |
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:03 pm |
Thanks Bad Bird,
Looks like mine is ok  |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:44 pm |
| It is an interesting article but best to do some more research- I think i will sometime. I will usually wear sunscreen when I know I will be in the sun for extended periods. You need some sunlight on your skin to create Vitamin D i think, as our food no longer contains enough of it and the skin will manufacture it when sunlight hits it. I think all things in moderation maybe, including little bit of sun. I heard only ten minutes or something to get RDI. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:11 pm |
OOPS!! TYPO!!!
I meant "Photostable means that the sunscreen agent wouldn't break down in sunlight rendering it INeffective"!!!
 |
|
|
|
|
| Sat Dec 21, 2024 6:10 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. |
|
 |
|
|
