Talk:Sunscreen/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Umbelliferone 2 Dosing 3 uhmmmmmm 4 nonlinear 5 UVA vs. UVB 6 Chemical Sunscreen Health Disaster 7 sunscreen prevents enlargement of the prostate? 8 Helioplex 9 Umbelliferone 10 Photoprotection 11 Titanium dioxide 12 UVA protection 13 hours sun is most intense 14 FDA /Colipa 15 Weasel words 16 Smell of sunscreen 17 Sunscreen Expiration 18 Citation 19 Zinc oxide safest chemical 20 Source doesn't seem to back up claim. 21 Alien Mutation & Burning Jacob 22 History Section Delete - accept or reject? 23 History 24 Link / reference number 8 is now a dead link

Umbelliferone

I am putting up a short article on umbelliferone, and I was curious to know if it deserved a mention here. I have seen multiple references elsewhere to its use in sunscreen, but it isn't mentioned here. Has it fallen out of favour, has it been banned, or should it get a mention here? I know that a lot of people these days are interested in natural sources of things like this (you can get umbelliferone from carrots!), so I thought it was worth asking the question. Walkerma 07:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Dosing

The dosing section contradicts itself.

"...research has shown that the best protection is achieved by application 15–30 minutes before exposure, followed by one reapplication 15–30 minutes after the sun exposure begins ... Sunscreen needs to be reapplied within 2 hours in order to remain effective. "

The idea behind this is as follows. Apply sunscreen first time, it will be a bit patchy. Leave 15-30 minutes, then reapply means that a more even coat is applied. The reapplication after 2 hours of exposure is because the sunscreen wil photodegrade, rub off, or wash off over time Valueaddedwater (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For something with potentially harmful effects if used improperly, shouldn't there be a clearer consensus, or at least an advisory that it is under debate?

I would disagree and say that section is pretty clear. It offers two paragraphs with different points of view, and each has a reference, and no opinions (original research) on either one, as it should be. There is no "clear consensus" in the article simply because there is no consensus in the medical community. There is new evidence coming out that indicates that people that use lots of sunscreen and avoid UV have a significantly higher incidence of all cancers, possibly due to a vitamin D deficiency and/or a side effect of the chemicals in sunscreen. I haven't added any links to this effect myself as the evidence is still coming in, but the risks of exposure/sunscreen/avoidance are clearly not fully understood. Pharmboy 00:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

uhmmmmmm

I have lived in 5 different regions of the United States and have NEVER EVER EVER heard sun tan lotion refer to the kind that helps you get a tan. maybe you guys mean OUTSIDE of the united states? RoyalAbidi 19:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

nonlinear

I no u didnt the equation to calculate spf which is just (n-1)/n, where n is the number of erythmeal doses. One erythmeal dose being a single flash of UV causing erythmea (reddening) of a skin sample. It doesn't mean you can stay in the sun that much longer, although it might work for some of the SPF's.. coz its nonlinear just look at the graph. Anyway the paragraph I added clarifies this but I havent erased the incorrect comment in the intro which says its the number of times longer you can stay in the sun. apr2005.

UVA vs. UVB

There appears to be some discrepency between the first paragraph that says UVA and UVB both cause sunburn, and the paragraph that states that UVA doesn't cause sunburn, only cell aging, and invisible effects.

Chemical Sunscreen Health Disaster

The page The Chemical Sunscreen Health Disaster, although it is little bit misleading, it is very interesting read. Mykhal 22:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a bogus source and has no place in this discussion.

sunscreen prevents enlargement of the prostate?

There's no mention here of whether sunscreen prevents enlargement of the prostate?! Capybara 14:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Helioplex

Is there any truth to the new Neutrogena products containing "Helioplex" to stabalize the UVA blockers to not break down after two hours (Washington Post).

Does anyone actually know what the wonder ingredient Helioplex is? Depending on how you read it its either a patented blend of Avobenzone and Oxybenzone (AKA Butyl Methoxy Dibenzoyl Methane / Parsol 1789, and Benzophenone 3) or some material not recognised by the FDA as a sunscreen so therefore exempt. Photostable claims in Europe have been available since the mid 90's, with companies like L'Oreal and others using materials such as Octocrylene or 4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor to do the job. Benzophenone 3 is not now commonly used in Europe, except in budget products due to it being considered as a skin irritant, and having to be declared on front of pack warning style

Umbelliferone

I am putting up a short article on umbelliferone, and I was curious to know if it deserved a mention here. I have seen multiple references elsewhere to its use in sunscreen, but it isn't mentioned here. Has it fallen out of favour, has it been banned, or should it get a mention here? I know that a lot of people these days are interested in natural sources of things like this (you can get umbelliferone from carrots!), so I thought it was worth asking the question. Walkerma 07:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Photoprotection

Photoprotection should not redirect here. Photoprotection generally can refer to any number of processes. The one that I was looking for was protection of the photosynthetic apparatus in plants. This disambiguation should be cleared up! lithiumscream 19:18, 12 April 2007

Titanium dioxide

Titanium dioxide is a white powder. When applying sunscreen, skin keeps its color, yet titanium dioxide gives a good protection without "whitening" the skin. How can it work so good on UV spectrum while it's invisible to the visible spectrum? --Abdull 12:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only is TiO2 white: it's brilliant white. It's considered one of the best pigments for white paint, toothpaste, etc. So it's hardly "invisible to the visible spectrum". Its usage seems to be limited only by its expense (unprocessed powder costs about $60 per pound).

I think the original sentence meant TiO2 doesn't stain skin any color, including white. EncMstr 21:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

All comes down to the size of the grains of the white powder. Pigmentary TiO2 has a larger particle size compared to the ones used in Sunscreen which are usually referred to as microfine TiO2

UVA protection

Quote from the article: "the higher the SPF, the more protection a sunscreen offers against UVB (the ultraviolet radiation that causes sunburn) and UVA (more associated with longer-term skin damage)". I'm not quite sure I agree with this and I'm not quite sure the article agrees with this either, as it is stated further down that (good) UVA protection doesn't necessarily correlate with (good) UVB protection. Being a bit anal here. emp^2 11:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Being very anal here, SPF is only related to protection against burning by UVB, and is always considered separately from any measure of UVA protection such as the Star rating system used in the UK, and some other EU countries. If you want to split hairs you could say that a (say) SPF 15 with low UVA, will protect the skin from less incident UV radiation, than a SPF15 with a high UVA rating, but from an industry and legal standpoint, SPF rates for burning and only for UVB.

hours sun is most intense

Probably the reason for the discrepacy (10 to 2 vs 10 to 4) is that the 10 AM to 2 PM figure is for the sun time at a given location on a specific date which can be very different from offical time. One instance in France; dispite the prime meridan running thru the middle of the country is on Central European Time and like the rest of the EU also observes "Summer Time" as well; so it's effectely 2 hours ahead of the sun during the summer. (This is similar to much of Russian Siberia; much of Alaska, the UP of Michigan, and others) So to be on the safe side; some experts started calling for 10 AM to 4 PM offical time. Jon 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

FDA /Colipa

This particular wiki is very FDA monograph oriented. There are two other systems used outside the USA (Broadly speaking the results are the same, but the methods and the approved sunscreens can vary a little bit) I think we need to update on Australian legislation, and also the standard Colipa methodolgy used in the EU and the rest of the world

Weasel words

I'm removing this paragraph because its in my opinion dubious content has a complete lack of references:

Many people apply sunscreen when participating in outdoor activities during the summer. However, experts suggest wearing sunscreen throughout the year to prevent cumulative damage from UVA rays, which are prevalent throughout the year, and to lower the risk of skin cancer. It is recommended that sunscreen be applied 30 minutes before exposure to the sun. Sunblock and sunscreen should also be used as just one form of protection from the sun. Care should be taken to always avoid the sun between the hours of 10 and 2, when the sun's rays are the strongest; it is also notable that some experts suggest between 10 and 4. Protective clothing, such as wide-brimmed hats, UV 400 sunglasses, and tightly woven clothes with long sleeves and long pants should be worn. Because about 50 percent of the sun's rays can stream through windows, including those in the car, some dermatologists and skin experts have a UV shield applied to their car windows, which can shield as much as 99 percent of the sun's harmful rays. Sunscreen should therefore be considered only one defense against the sun, and used in conjunction with other methods.

Han-Kwang 08:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Smell of sunscreen

Most sunscreens seem to have the same unique smell. I think the ingredient(s) that cause this smell should be mentioned in this article, if anyone knows. dearly 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sunscreen Expiration

There should be some mention on what happens to sunscreen's effectiveness past its expiration date. Many people have sunscreens lying around that have passed their expiration date but that have the same appearance and consistency as before. It is unclear whether continued use will provide any less protection than before the sunscreen's expiry date. --Robert 05:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation

"Suntan lotion is used to attract UV rays in order to better tan where sunblock is used to deflect UV radiation."

There's no citation for this claim.

Jawareham 09:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Zinc oxide safest chemical

Almost all sunscreen lotions have health/safety concerns, due to the chemicals in them. So, avoiding direct sun exposure, by hats and clothing etc, esp when the sun is high in the sky, is the best thing to do. If you do need a lotion, zinc oxide (old-fashioned non-nano) seems the safest; it has long been used as a skin cream on babies etc. Any clear-invisible chemical probably has safety concerns -- only something opaque-white that obviously blocks the sun in a direct physical way is likely to be safe. There is no magic! The best source of zinc oxide in the US seems to Burt's Bees (Herbal Defense Ointment etc), but it is not sold as a sun screen, and does not have a SPF rating.-69.87.203.105 11:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice advertisement. BTW that is all rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Source doesn't seem to back up claim.

The statement "Although one might believe that this effect is due to sunscreens being used more in regions where people are more exposed to UV light, this is not what is claimed by this study: Melanome incidence correlates strongly with the use of chemical sunscreens independently of the actual UV exposure" is sourced to [1] but I can't find where that article makes the claim that is sourced. PenguiN42 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes,I've jsut found the same thing. The source goes back to Garland, Cedric F., et al. Could sunscreens increase melanoma risk? American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 82, No. 4, April 1992, pp. 614-15, http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/82/4/614. The bit of their letter relevant to this particular claim says:

"Worldwide, the countries where chemical sunscreens have been recommended and adopted have experienced the greatest rise in cutaneous malignant melanoma, with a contemporaneous rise in death rates. In the United States, Canada, Australia, and the Scandinavian countries, melanoma rates have risen steeply in recent decades, with the greatest increase occurring after the introduction of sunscreens.13-17 Death rates in the United States from melanoma doubled in women and tripled in men between the 1950s and the 1990s.18 The rise in melanoma has been unusually steep in Queensland, Australia, where sunscreens were earliest and most strongly promoted by the medical community.19 Queensland now has the highest incidence rate of melanoma in the world.20 In contrast, the rise in melanoma rates was notably delayed elsewhere in Australia,20 where sunscreens were not promoted until more recently."

Which is fine, but not quite the same thing. This is not strong evidence for sunscreens directly causing cancers. I'm not trying to do original research, but you would, for example, get the same pattern if you use sunscreens that have no effect on cancer, but which do allow you to spend more time comfortably in the sun. This is the point that the Garlands make later in the article. Richard Keatinge 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Alien Mutation & Burning Jacob

Where in the world did these two statements come from?!?

“The SPF of a sunscreen is a laboratory measure of the effectiveness of alien goo on human skin; the higher the SPF, the more protection from being mutated into that specific alien species.”

“The SPF can be measured by applying sunscreen to the skin of Jacob and measuring how long it takes before Jacob catches fire.”

Neither is cited, nor does either provide factual non-fiction information. The comments seem to belong in a section titled "little known myths about SPF" not on a page where people are searching for credible information. Niagra19 07:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

History Section Delete - accept or reject?

The history section has been tagged for a while now, and does contradict itself, plus offers no cites. It also appears to offer little real information, and editing won't fix it, as it needs a complete rewrite. Because it seems to offer no verifiable info at this time, I would vote to delete the section until someone can write a proper history section. accept or reject please. Pharmboy 13:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section needs major cleanup. I've changed the section to reflect historical continuity and removed some items that I couldn't find reasonable citations for. I was concerned that the only references online to some of those items were nearly word-for-word the same as this page, which made me wonder if all those other sources got their information from wikipedia... nicely circular, and none of the correct...? Hence why I removed some of them. I haven't figured out how to add citations for the things I put in yet, so in case I haven't figured it out, here they are:

1. http://www.pizbuin.com/brand_story.jsp 2. Has the sun protection factor had its day? - Education and Debate by Brian Diffey, British Medical Journal, January 15, 2000.

I'm sure there are better citations out there, so please feel free to add them. Meanwhile, in case anyone wants it, I've included the old text below. Mystif17 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The section you edited looks better and makes a bit more sense, thanks! Pharmboy 21:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

History

This article or section appears to contradict itself. Please help fix this problem.

The ancient Greeks used olive oil as a type of sunscreen. However, this was not very effective. Throughout the early twentieth century, H.A. Milton Blake, a South Australian chemist, as well as several other inventors attempted to create an effective sunscreen but failed.

It was not until 1944 that the first effective sunscreen was invented. At that time, World War II was in full swing and many soldiers were getting serious sunburn. A pharmacist named Benjamin Greene decided to create something that would save the soldiers from the sun’s harmful rays. In his wife’s oven, he created a sticky, red substance which he called "red vet pet" (red veterinary petrolatum), which worked primarily by physically blocking the sun's rays with a thick petroleum-based product similar to Vaseline. Greene tested it on his own bald head. It did not work nearly as well as modern sunscreens.

Sunscreen has come a long way since its initial days. Modern products have much higher protection factors than Greene's sunscreen, and modern products can also be water- and sweat-resistant. But there are also negative effects. Some people rely too much on the product and do not understand the limitations of the sun protection factor (SPF); they assume that buying anything over SPF 30 will automatically prevent them getting burnt no matter how long they can stay in the sun. Too much sunbathing is one of the major causes of skin cancer across the world.

An effective sunscreen had already been developed in 1938 by the Swiss chemistry student Franz Greiter, after he had severely burnt himself during an ascent of the Piz Buin on the border between Switzerland and Austria. He named his product, which he had developed in a small laboratory in his parents' home, Gletscher Creme or in English: Glacier Cream. Still existing examples of the 'Glacier Cream' have shown to have a SPF of 2 and thus could be classed as an effective sunscreen.

Link / reference number 8 is now a dead link

Sorry I don't know how to edit very well and I'd probably make a mess.

If this is a redundant post, please delete it too, just trying to help

- 31/10/2007 Scott

Scottylans 21:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Appreciate the help. Actually, when you are not sure what to do, doing what you just did is exactly the right thing: tell someone. I fixed it by leaving the fact, removing the citation, and putting in a tag for citation. The fact is surely true, but it make a broad enough claim that it needs a citation, thus the tag. Thanks for the help. Pharmboy 01:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

--Reference number 1 & 17--

Hi please edit reference 17 as it is similar to reference 1.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.