User talk:Gerriet42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Gerriet42, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Melchoir 02:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hi there

We seem to be reverting each other's work, so maybe it would make sense to talk and discuss what we can agree on and agree to disagree. Benzophenone is not a component of sunscreens so I removed FEBS Lett ref from there, its irrelevant - at least in my view. More significant is the Padimate O article. I am trying to do several things with my edits, two of which sould be fairly okay with you: upgrade English, use wiki-format (links, capitalizing subheaders). The place where we seem to differ is the degree to which you want to help the reader extrapolate from the photocarcinogenicity of Micher's ketone to the conclusion that Padimate O is causing melanoma. I feel that you are speculating and over-reaching (but surely you dont see it that way!). So let's talk for a while (we can discuss it on this site, if that's okay) and see if we can iron out some consensus. These reversion cycles really set editors on edge, beyond reason. Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, It was not written that benzophenone was an ingredient in sunscreens. However it was written that derivatives of benzophenone are used as sunscreen ingredients. I would like to keep this in the article, because it is a point that had been criticized repeatedly by researchers. [1][2][3]
Are you aware, that most epidemiological studies show an increased melanoma risk for sunscreen users compared to non users? See[4][5][6][7][8]
You should read the Kerry Hanson paper. They measure the concentration of ROS inside the skin and they compare sunscreen treated with untreated skin. They see, that after the sunscreen had time to penetrate into the skin the concentration of ROS is substantially higher than in the untreated skin.[9]
About Padimate O: I think that Knowland and McKenzie say exactly what I wrote: These findings are an indication for a photocarcinogenic effect of padimate O. These findings are in agreement with those from Xu et al. They have shown that human melanocytes suffer more DNA damage from UV-illumination when in contact with padimate O then they do without this sunscreen ingredient.[10] Even at a very low concentration of 25 μmol/l the combination of padimate O with solar UV exposure can selectively damage this type of human skin cells. This concentration of the sunscreen ingredient is likely to be achieved in the skin.[10] Gerriet42 (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the note. The thing that some of us are leery about is turning these articles into advice columns, since advice is specifically discouraged in this encyclopedia and anything verging on original research. Benzophenone is a very common building block and is, formally, a structural component of many hundreds of species, some good and some bad. While I can see your point on the wording of the padimate-O, I question the value of adding every mention of any skeletal connection between all benzophenone species and the parent molecule. The article on benzophenone would be unwieldy and the core information (what is it and what are is main properties) would be diluted out. Why not connect sunscreens to benzene too, since sunscreens are benzene derivatives? So you can see what I mean, hopefully. More later, off to work. --Smokefoot (talk)

[edit] References

  1. ^ Damiani E. Carloni P. Biondi C. Greci L. (2000). "Increased oxidative modification of albumin when illuminated in vitro in the presence of a common sunscreen ingredient: protection by nitroxide radicals - fractionated studies". Free Radical Biology and Medicine 28 (2): 193-201. 
  2. ^ Damiani, E.; Greci, L.; Parsons, R.; Knowland (1999). "Nitroxide radicals protect DNA from damage when illuminated in vitro in the presence of dibenzoylmethane and a common sunscreen ingredient.". Free Radic. Biol. Med. 26: 809 – 816. 
  3. ^ Knowland, John; McKenzie, Edward A.; McHugh, Peter J.; Cridland, Nigel A. (1993). "Sunlight-induced mutagenicity of a common sunscreen ingredient.". FEBS Letters 324(3): 309-313. 
  4. ^ Garland C, Garland F, Gorham E (1992). "Could sunscreens increase melanoma risk?". Am J Public Health 82 (4): 614-5. PMID 1546792. 
  5. ^ Westerdahl J; Ingvar C; Masback A; Olsson H (2000). "Sunscreen use and malignant melanoma.". International journal of cancer. Journal international du cancer 87: 145-50. 
  6. ^ Autier P; Dore J F; Schifflers E; et al (1995). "Melanoma and use of sunscreens: An EORTC case control study in Germany, Belgium and France". Int. J. Cancer 61: 749-755. 
  7. ^ Weinstock, M. A. (1999). "Do sunscreens increase or decrease melanoma risk: An epidemiologic evaluation.". Journal of Investigative Dermatology Symposium Proceedings 4: 97-100. 
  8. ^ Vainio, H., Bianchini, F. (2000). "Cancer-preventive effects of sunscreens are uncertain.". Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health 26: 529-31. 
  9. ^ Hanson Kerry M.; Gratton Enrico; Bardeen Christopher J. (2006). "Sunscreen enhancement of UV-induced reactive oxygen species in the skin". Free Radical Biology and Medicine 41 (8): 1205-1212. 
  10. ^ a b Xu, C.; Green, Adele; Parisi, Alfio; Parsons, Peter G (2001). "Photosensitization of the Sunscreen Octyl p-Dimethylaminobenzoate b UVA in Human Melanocytes but not in Keratinocytes.". Photochemistry and Photobiology 73 (6): 600-604. 

[edit] Proposed deletion of Sunscreen discrepancy

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Sunscreen discrepancy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 06:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made my case on the talk page of sunscreen controversy, why your intentions should not be carried out. As far as I can tell, sunscreen is a lotion you apply to your skin, not a list of numbers as your suggested title implies. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 07:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You want a suggestion? How about just "sunscreen"? Or "sunscreen controversy"? I see no reason to make any change to the status quo.
By the way, if your intention is to "correct misinformation" or similar propaganda, Wikipedia is not the right place to do it. You have to adhere by the neutral point of view policy. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 07:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You write,

Why are people accusing me of violating the neutral point of view policy? All I want is that the many concerns which have been written in the scientific literature about sunscreen are properly represented in the popular press.

Then do so, but do not rename an article that does not need to be renamed. Every single one of your suggestions will only serve to create confusion. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 07:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: sunscreen discrepancy and sunscreen controversy

Please consider using the move function instead; or, if the title change is controversial, consider requested moves. --slakr\ talk / 07:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

You are correct. I have been overagressive in editing and have been assuming bad faith in edits such as this one. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)