Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Clark Howard recently mentioned that half of all sunscreens tested by Consumer's Reports didn't provide the SPF protection indicated on the label. Here is the link: http://www.clarkhoward.com/consumer-rep ... reen-money
I subscribe to the print version of CR but so far there has not been any article about this. I assume it's coming, but would like to know what the BAD sunscreens are NOW. There doesn't seem to be any links to this. Anyone know where I can find this info?
I subscribe to the print version of CR but so far there has not been any article about this. I assume it's coming, but would like to know what the BAD sunscreens are NOW. There doesn't seem to be any links to this. Anyone know where I can find this info?
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Go to your local library.
Often they have a subscription and can help you find this information online, using their computers.
Often they have a subscription and can help you find this information online, using their computers.
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Even the poorly rates sunscreens protected okay. There were some that were rated SPF 30 that were more like SPF 15 in the tests, but that is still 15 times better than nothing!
Here is the link... http://www.consumerreports.org/sunscree ... rotection/
If you pay a few extra bucks a year for the online access (cheap if you get print), you can click on the ratings... http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/heal ... erview.htm
Here is the link... http://www.consumerreports.org/sunscree ... rotection/
If you pay a few extra bucks a year for the online access (cheap if you get print), you can click on the ratings... http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/heal ... erview.htm
Last edited by William4u on Mon May 23, 2016 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) reviews sunscreens for harmful additives and SPF. Here is the 2015 report: http://www.ewg.org/2015sunscreen/
No matter how long the hill, if you keep pedaling you'll eventually get up to the top.
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
SPF numbers are misleading. One would think that SPF 30 provides twice as much protection as SPF 15, but in reality it is much less than double.
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
I'm not sure why one would think that the SPF scale is linear in some sense unless you read its specification. But in any case, it is roughly linear in two aspects here:Swansea wrote:SPF numbers are misleading. One would think that SPF 30 provides twice as much protection as SPF 15, but in reality it is much less than double.
SPF 15 lets through about 7% of UVB rays; SPF 30 lets through about half that.
With regard to UVB rays, SPF 15 lets you stay in a particular outdoor setting without burning about 15 times as long as you would with no protection. SPF 30 allows twice that.
Of course, there are other questions: What about UVA? What about how well the sunscreen stays put in various conditions? What about mislabeling?
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Dr. Wang is director of dermatologic surgery and dermatology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center at Basking Ridge, NJ. Dr. Wang is a member of The Skin Cancer Foundation’s Photobiology Committee.
Published in the Spring 2010 Edition of Sun & Skin News
Q. Does a higher-SPF (sun protection factor) sunscreen always protect your skin better than a lower-SPF sunscreen? How high should I go?
A.Sunscreens with a higher SPF should offer more protection from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which is linked to the vast majority of skin cancers, as well as premature skin aging and eye damage. But the answer is not that simple.
UV radiation reaches the earth in the form of UVB and UVA rays. UVB radiation plays a key role in skin cancer, and SPF refers mainly to the amount of UVB protection a sunscreen offers. Thus, higher SPFs can help: [b]An SPF 15 sunscreen blocks 93 percent of UVB radiation, while an SPF 30 sunscreen blocks nearly 97 percent. [/b] Furthermore, higher SPF values offer some safety margin, since consumers generally do not apply enough sunscreen. To evaluate SPFs, testers apply two milligrams of sunscreen per square centimeter of skin. But in everyday life, most people apply from only 0.5 to one milligram per square centimeter of skin. Consequently, the actual SPF they achieve is approximately 1/3 of the labeled value.
- lthenderson
- Posts: 8499
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:43 am
- Location: Iowa
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
I haven't seen the study but the news report that I read on the subject said that if you use a sunscreen that utilizes minerals or states that it is a natural sunblock, chances are they don't work. I think something like 75% of those failed. The chemical sunscreens had a much better success rate of meeting their stated protection.Leesbro63 wrote:but would like to know what the BAD sunscreens are NOW.
-
- Posts: 1077
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:35 pm
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
I listen to clark howard.
Here is a clark stinks post addressing your concerns. In summary, it says that the "bad" sunscreens are pretty good.
http://mb.clarkhoward.com/showthread.ph ... -Sunscreen
Here is a clark stinks post addressing your concerns. In summary, it says that the "bad" sunscreens are pretty good.
http://mb.clarkhoward.com/showthread.ph ... -Sunscreen
Or, you can ... decline to let me, a stranger on the Internet, egg you on to an exercise in time-wasting, and you could say "I'm probably OK and I don't care about it that much." -Nisiprius
Dangers to others
If you are swimming in the ocean, then you should consider this: How Sunscreen May Be Destroying Coral Reefs
http://time.com/4080985/sunscreen-coral-reefs/
http://time.com/4080985/sunscreen-coral-reefs/
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
The Environmental Working Group website, ewg.com, is pretty good at telling you if a sunscreen actually works. Even if you disagree with them about the health/safety of chemical sunscreens, their website is useful for weeding out completely ineffective sunscreens.lthenderson wrote:I haven't seen the study but the news report that I read on the subject said that if you use a sunscreen that utilizes minerals or states that it is a natural sunblock, chances are they don't work. I think something like 75% of those failed. The chemical sunscreens had a much better success rate of meeting their stated protection.Leesbro63 wrote:but would like to know what the BAD sunscreens are NOW.
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 12:58 pm
- Location: Green Bay, WI
- Contact:
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Also, along this same thought is that too much sunscreen may be harmful. It is hard to know who to trust with all the information available.
http://www.tanningtruth.com/
http://www.mercola.com/
If anyone knows of reputable peer-reviewed studies on balancing skin exposure to UV rays to create vitamin D with healthy doses of sunscreen please let me know.
http://www.tanningtruth.com/
http://www.mercola.com/
If anyone knows of reputable peer-reviewed studies on balancing skin exposure to UV rays to create vitamin D with healthy doses of sunscreen please let me know.
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
So not only do We have to worry about whether sunscreens actually provide the stated protection, but now we have to worry about trading one risk for another.
What's the common sense Bogleheads non-medical but good-consumer answer here?
What's the common sense Bogleheads non-medical but good-consumer answer here?
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
I look at the EWG ratings and pick a sunscreen off that list that works, isn't horribly toxic, i.e., isn't rated above a 5, isn't prohibitively expensive, and is available in my local drugstore. The one I've settled on for me and my kids is Coppertone Water Babies Pure & Simple. It's $8.99 a bottle at Target and is rated a 3 by EWG. We live in the Deep South; so lack of Vitamin D is never going to be an issue for us. YMMV on that.Leesbro63 wrote:So not only do We have to worry about whether sunscreens actually provide the stated protection, but now we have to worry about trading one risk for another.
What's the common sense Bogleheads non-medical but good-consumer answer here?
- quantAndHold
- Posts: 10141
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
No idea about peer reviewed studies, but my dermatologist told me that even in the middle of winter, I only need a few minutes of sun exposure a day to get an adequate supply of vitamin D. I live almost in Canada, so I took that to mean that vitamin D wasn't a problem unless I never went outside.amazonchic wrote:
If anyone knows of reputable peer-reviewed studies on balancing skin exposure to UV rays to create vitamin D with healthy doses of sunscreen please let me know.
- Youngblood
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:18 am
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Check out Vanicream. I use the spf 30 version. It is available at Amazon and has a rating of 1 from EWG.
The SPF 50 version scares children and worried my wife (face was too white) hence the change.
Youngblood
The SPF 50 version scares children and worried my wife (face was too white) hence the change.
Youngblood
"I made my money by selling too soon." |
Bernard M. Baruch
-
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:39 am
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Be sure that your sunscreen is not out-of-date, also. Sunscreen is one product that loses its effectiveness. There was just a story on our local news (in Florida) a week ago.
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Leesbro63 wrote:So not only do We have to worry about whether sunscreens actually provide the stated protection, but now we have to worry about trading one risk for another.
What's the common sense Bogleheads non-medical but good-consumer answer here?
Take a vitamin d3 supplement and go outside unprotected for short periods. Use a mineral based sunscreen when you are outside for extended periods. Simple right? If only it were that simple
I am a fair skinned almost-ginger (hair is not super red) and I use Kiss My Face SPF-30.
-
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:00 pm
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Living in Florida for a fairskinned person has never been fun. But I never liked wearing sunscreen as it made my skin feel clammy and I never trusted I got it everywhere. Always long sleeve shirts and pants even when swimming at the beach. If I wore shorts it would be towards the later hours when the sun was a good ways close to sunset. When I was in the Marines I joined Recon and didn't realize they were mostly shorts and tshirts on the beach. I caked up in 50 proof sunscreen multiple times a day. Carried a bottle in my pocket everywhere, especially when we wore these special swim trunks with pockets.
I get a lot of weird looks even when wearing pants, long sleeve shirt, and huge hat on a hot summer day but it beats missing a spot and getting roasted.
I get a lot of weird looks even when wearing pants, long sleeve shirt, and huge hat on a hot summer day but it beats missing a spot and getting roasted.
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Find a sunscreen that provides a level of protection you're comfortable with, and move on with your life.Leesbro63 wrote:So not only do We have to worry about whether sunscreens actually provide the stated protection, but now we have to worry about trading one risk for another.
What's the common sense Bogleheads non-medical but good-consumer answer here?
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
I did that. Then starting hearing Clark Howard (who I trust big time) and reading more here.Casper wrote:Find a sunscreen that provides a level of protection you're comfortable with, and move on with your life.Leesbro63 wrote:So not only do We have to worry about whether sunscreens actually provide the stated protection, but now we have to worry about trading one risk for another.
What's the common sense Bogleheads non-medical but good-consumer answer here?
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Then buy one of the ones that Howard recommends, which he identifies right at the start of that article. I'm as pale as they come (hence my username), but I find sunscreen to be among the things that aren't worth spending a lot of time thinking about. There are a ton of good ones out there, and as people here have pointed out, even one doesn't totally meet the SPF claim on the label is going to provide ample protection. Find one that suits your needs and be done with it.Leesbro63 wrote:I did that. Then starting hearing Clark Howard (who I trust big time) and reading more here.Casper wrote:Find a sunscreen that provides a level of protection you're comfortable with, and move on with your life.Leesbro63 wrote:So not only do We have to worry about whether sunscreens actually provide the stated protection, but now we have to worry about trading one risk for another.
What's the common sense Bogleheads non-medical but good-consumer answer here?
- quantAndHold
- Posts: 10141
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
So I read the linked article. It says nothing at all about sunscreens being dangerous. It just says they may not have all of the SPF protection they say they do. There's a big difference between having something less than the bottle claims, and it being dangerous. A sunscreen labeled SPF 30 that is actually only SPF 15, properly applied, will still protect you just fine.
I found the article on the CR website. There are 3 that tested at less than SPF 15:
I found the article on the CR website. There are 3 that tested at less than SPF 15:
- yesto cucumbers natural SPF 30
- Banana Boat Kids Tear-Free Sting Free lotion SPF 50
- CVS Kids Sun Lotion SPF 50
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Leesbro63 wrote:So not only do We have to worry about whether sunscreens actually provide the stated protection, but now we have to worry about trading one risk for another.
What's the common sense Bogleheads non-medical but good-consumer answer here?
Avoid sunscreens and cover up instead. There is quite a variety of clothing specifically intended to block harmful sunlight. A good hat with a brim is one really helpful item. For biking I have some specialist clothing for exactly this purpose.
My dermatologist agrees with me and recommends cover up over sun screens far and away. One also avoids any nasty chemical reactions and mess. You can also be sure your protection is as intended and not washing off or too thin to start with.
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
This is a disputed idea. Some doctors think we have a large percentage of people(30-40%) with vitamin D deficiencies and most of them are getting 2 mins of sun/day:) Some people think the test is just BS:) there is also a debate if low vitamin D is a cause or a symptom.quantAndHold wrote:No idea about peer reviewed studies, but my dermatologist told me that even in the middle of winter, I only need a few minutes of sun exposure a day to get an adequate supply of vitamin D. I live almost in Canada, so I took that to mean that vitamin D wasn't a problem unless I never went outside.amazonchic wrote:
If anyone knows of reputable peer-reviewed studies on balancing skin exposure to UV rays to create vitamin D with healthy doses of sunscreen please let me know.
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
+1chx wrote:I'm not sure why one would think that the SPF scale is linear in some sense unless you read its specification. But in any case, it is roughly linear in two aspects here:Swansea wrote:SPF numbers are misleading. One would think that SPF 30 provides twice as much protection as SPF 15, but in reality it is much less than double.
SPF 15 lets through about 7% of UVB rays; SPF 30 lets through about half that.
With regard to UVB rays, SPF 15 lets you stay in a particular outdoor setting without burning about 15 times as long as you would with no protection. SPF 30 allows twice that.
This is exactly right, and I'm glad you pointed it out. I'm not sure why people think that SPF is some sort of arithmetic conspiracy. It's really basic math, but I've seen various news stories claiming that since the move from SPF 50 to SPF 100 (for example) only moves the percentage of UVB blocked from 98% to 99%, there must be something wrong.
I agree with this too. Well said.Of course, there are other questions: What about UVA? What about how well the sunscreen stays put in various conditions? What about mislabeling?
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
You have to remember the average American can't add fractions or tell you the difference between an atom and a molecule.R2D2 wrote:+1chx wrote:I'm not sure why one would think that the SPF scale is linear in some sense unless you read its specification. But in any case, it is roughly linear in two aspects here:Swansea wrote:SPF numbers are misleading. One would think that SPF 30 provides twice as much protection as SPF 15, but in reality it is much less than double.
SPF 15 lets through about 7% of UVB rays; SPF 30 lets through about half that.
With regard to UVB rays, SPF 15 lets you stay in a particular outdoor setting without burning about 15 times as long as you would with no protection. SPF 30 allows twice that.
This is exactly right, and I'm glad you pointed it out. I'm not sure why people think that SPF is some sort of arithmetic conspiracy. It's really basic math, but I've seen various news stories claiming that since the move from SPF 50 to SPF 100 (for example) only moves the percentage of UVB blocked from 98% to 99%, there must be something wrong.
I agree with this too. Well said.Of course, there are other questions: What about UVA? What about how well the sunscreen stays put in various conditions? What about mislabeling?
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Actually, that's a very astute comment. Perhaps sunscreen units of measurement need to be revised. Most would assume that a sunscreen rated at 15 is only half as good as one at 30. And that a 70SPF would be more than 2x as effective as a 30.Rodc wrote: You have to remember the average American can't add fractions or tell you the difference between an atom and a molecule.
Yes, for any consumer unit, it needs to be somewhat dumbed down.
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Of course you often need to apply both insect repellent and sunscreen when outside, so that creates another problem, which is the varied interactions between the two. My understanding that combination products aren't recommended, but that just complicates your sunscreen decision further.
-
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2014 4:14 pm
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Locked for review.
"If you think stocks are like physics, you believe there must be smart people who can measure exactly where the Dow Jones Industrial Average will be in five months." -Morgan Housel
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Upon further review, discussions of medical advice (health benefits of Vitamin D, etc.) is off-topic. Controversy surrounding SPF is somewhat derailing the discussion.
Please stay focused on the OP's question, which is:
Please stay focused on the OP's question, which is:
This thread is now unlocked.Leesbro63 wrote:Clark Howard recently mentioned that half of all sunscreens tested by Consumer's Reports didn't provide the SPF protection indicated on the label. Here is the link: http://www.clarkhoward.com/consumer-rep ... reen-money
I subscribe to the print version of CR but so far there has not been any article about this. I assume it's coming, but would like to know what the BAD sunscreens are NOW. There doesn't seem to be any links to this. Anyone know where I can find this info?
-
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 8:02 am
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Removed
Last edited by acanthurus on Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2533
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:26 am
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
To OP.
Why not just buy sunscreen and try it by putting it on one arm and nothing on the other and spend a day outside in the sun. Bad sunscreen would be apparent.
This is not rocket science. You seem to be over thinking this.
Why not just buy sunscreen and try it by putting it on one arm and nothing on the other and spend a day outside in the sun. Bad sunscreen would be apparent.
This is not rocket science. You seem to be over thinking this.
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Hold on.... while this sounds reasonable, my concern is that he'll only be able to tell if it blocked UVB (which causing sunburn), not UVA (which causes premature ageing).Shallowpockets wrote:To OP.
Why not just buy sunscreen and try it by putting it on one arm and nothing on the other and spend a day outside in the sun. Bad sunscreen would be apparent.
This is not rocket science. You seem to be over thinking this.
That's why Consumer Reports ratings and the like are useful (assuming they measure this).
Re: Ineffective/Dangerous Sunscreens
Personally I am not alarmed by the testing/rating of sunscreens; however, I am concerned that people do not use enough, or reapply often, in order to get the labeled SPF.
The whole "shot glass" of sunscreen thing is ridiculous. If I applied this much I would look like a fool who fell in a vat of Elmer's glue. I would smell like it, too, and feel noticeably sticky. My eyes would gradually become watery and irritated from the chemicals. And, acne.
I do not sunbathe or try to tan. I wear huge hats, sun sleeves, and avoid the sun at high noon. I put sunscreen on my face, if I will be outdoors a while. And, I expect my moderate use of sunscreen will help me, but not 97-100% prevent harmful effects of sun.
The whole "shot glass" of sunscreen thing is ridiculous. If I applied this much I would look like a fool who fell in a vat of Elmer's glue. I would smell like it, too, and feel noticeably sticky. My eyes would gradually become watery and irritated from the chemicals. And, acne.
I do not sunbathe or try to tan. I wear huge hats, sun sleeves, and avoid the sun at high noon. I put sunscreen on my face, if I will be outdoors a while. And, I expect my moderate use of sunscreen will help me, but not 97-100% prevent harmful effects of sun.