| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sdxl
Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 27
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Skin Biology isn't a reputable source. With blatant lies like avobenzone is the only approved chemical UV absorber in the EU, while the EU has the most approved UV absorbers anywhere in the world! You can't claim every UV absorber is a carcinogen. Nor can you claim every UV absorber is estrogenic. Yes, there are issues with some UV absorbers so avoid them, but don't forget UV is a carcinogen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
drtodorov
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 3177
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Generally, any source that provides product information and sells products in that category at the same time should be viewed with caution.
That said, UV absorbers, as any chemicals, organic or inorganic, should be evaluated on a case by case basis. You can't generalize unless you are talking of closely related chemicals, such as retinoids, and even then only to a limited degree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
jamesherried
Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 784
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sdxl wrote: | | Skin Biology isn't a reputable source. With blatant lies like avobenzone is the only approved chemical UV absorber in the EU, while the EU has the most approved UV absorbers anywhere in the world! You can't claim every UV absorber is a carcinogen. Nor can you claim every UV absorber is estrogenic. Yes, there are issues with some UV absorbers so avoid them, but don't forget UV is a carcinogen. |
Skinbiology is a reputable source of information. That doesn't mean I instantly believe everything I read there, but that's true of anything I read. I think you need to do your homework more carefully, avoid the "tunnel vision" way of viewing things and actually read what is on the skinbiology website. They do not make the claim that "every UV absorber is a carcinogen". They just alert people to the potential dangers of many ingredients found in sunscreens. And it is true that many sunscreens contain chemicals that are alien to the body, and when you introduce a molecule that is totally foreign to the body, it often causes negative side effects(such as DNA damage and cancer) because the body may not be equipped to handle that molecule effectively. A good example is chlorine in our drinking water and in our swimming pools and even in our showers and baths. A recent report indicates that people who drink chlorinated water have a 35% greater risk of devloping bladder cancer, and people who swim in chlorinated pools have a 57% greater risk of getting bladder cancer. It might even be a good idea to put a water filter in your shower ot bath. And that's why almost all drugs cause negative side effects. As far as UV light from the sun being a carcinogen goes, that may be true when you become a sun worshipper and get overdoses of UV radiation from the sun, but overdosing on anything can be bad for you. And remember that most of the free radicals in your body come from oxygen, the oxygen that you take in from air. So what are you going to do, stop breathing to avoid those free radicals? Of course not, because oxygen is essential to life.The latest evidence is that sunlight in moderate doses will not cause cancer, and "moderate doses" of sun on your unprotected skin are actually essential for good health. The skinbiology site takes that stand, and I believe it's the wisest approach. And there are other benefits from the sun other than Vitamin D (which is actually believed to be an anticarcinogen) such as the effects the sun can have on your hormone levels (such as DHEA and testosterone). In sum, I think you need to avoid taking a "black and white" view ' of things(the world isn't always that simple), and avoid making sweeping statements like "skinbiology is not a reputable source of information" simply because you may not agree with everything on their website. That would be like saying that smartskincare is not a reputable source of info simply because you may not agre with everything you read on here. And who knows? You may even have a commercial interest in selling chemical sunscreens that skinbiology speaks out against. Certainly the companies who make money off the sale of those products will see the statements on skinbiology as a threat, and they will retaliate to protect their business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
jamesherried
Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 784
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| drtodorov wrote: | Generally, any source that provides product information and sells products in that category at the same time should be viewed with caution.
That said, UV absorbers, as any chemicals, organic or inorganic, should be evaluated on a case by case basis. You can't generalize unless you are talking of closely related chemicals, such as retinoids, and even then only to a limited degree. |
Since there is no evidence to verify that the chemicals used in the inorganic sunscreens are indeed safe, anyone who chooses to use them does so at his or her own risk. And another question too is this: if parents choose to slather copious amounts of those chemical sunscreens on the skin of their children, what will the long-term effects be on growing children? At this point, nobody knows. Just like for years most people didn't know that the chlorine in our drinking water is actually a powerful oxidant that may cause cancer and heart disease, and let's not forget damage the skin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
drtodorov
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 3177
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the inorganic sunscreen Zinc Oxide has a well verified safety record. In fact, parent have 'slathered' it on their children for decades (most diaper rash creams are 40% zinc oxide) without any long-term side effects. Zinc oxide is not just sunscreen, it is also antiirritant and antiinflammatory. Might even be a mild anticarcinogen.
Last edited by drtodorov on Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
jamesherried
Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 784
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| drtodorov wrote: | | Well, the inorganic sunscreen Zinc Oxide has a well verified safety record. In fact, parent have 'slathered' it on their children of decades (most diaper rash creams are 40% zinc oxide) without any long-term side effects. Zinc oxide is not just sunscreen, it is also antiirritant and antiinflammatory. Might even be a mild anticarcinogen. |
That's good to know. And note that zinc oxide isn't one of the chemicals that skinbiology speaks out against. Also, I dont' think that skinbiology's stand in regards to this issue is biased by their desire to sell their products, because sunscreens are not their specialty anyway. In fact, the sunscreens they recommend are not even made by skinbiology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
joey
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject: zinc oxide |
|
|
Dr Tod,
if that diaper rash cream is 40% zinc oxide , can it be used as a sunscreen ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Peace
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject: Titanium Dioxide |
|
|
| I understand that titanium dioxide is a physical blocker like zinc oxide. Is titanium dioxide safe? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
drtodorov
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 3177
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:49 pm Post subject: Re: zinc oxide |
|
|
| joey wrote: | Dr Tod,
if that diaper rash cream is 40% zinc oxide , can it be used as a sunscreen ? |
Yes, but it is typically a very heavy pertrolatum-based paste that's hard to use as a cream, especially on the face. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blackandtan
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I didn't know that sunscreen can be rather harmful, in that case, what do you all recommend is the safest sunscreen brand to use? currently I use Dermatone all year round and in the summer-i use whatever is cheapest with spf 15-30. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
jamesherried
Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 784
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackandtan wrote: | | I didn't know that sunscreen can be rather harmful, in that case, what do you all recommend is the safest sunscreen brand to use? currently I use Dermatone all year round and in the summer-i use whatever is cheapest with spf 15-30. |
If you go to skinbiology, they have recommendations for what they consider to be the best and safest sunscreens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
propylene_glycol
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 34
Location: Colgate, WI
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Any sunscreen that does not contain PG is fine with me! lol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
xita
Joined: 09 Jun 2007
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I sincerely think that more expensive the product, more good for the skin. But along with it, I always prefer herbal based products. I think they are the best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
jamesherried
Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 784
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| xita wrote: | | I sincerely think that more expensive the product, more good for the skin. But along with it, I always prefer herbal based products. I think they are the best. |
It's unfortunate that you would fall prey to one of the biggest fallacies out there, that the more expensive a product is, the better it is for your skin. Sometimes more expensive products are better, sometimes not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
