• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

The importance of using the right sunscreen, every day!


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Eva Victoria

  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 28 January 2008 - 04:12 PM


Today it is common knowledge that UV rays harm our immune system, age our skin and at the worst can cause skin-cancer.

It is not enough to protect sun-exposed skin with a sunscreen and believing that you are doing the right thing though:( Not all sunscreens protect fully from harmful UVA-rays (320-400nm)!

The best are the ones that have min SPF30 and contain either the photo stable Mexoryl XS+XL (patented filters by L`Oreal, protection up to 387nm, partially up to 400nm) or Tinosorb M+S (protection up to 378nm, partially 395nm). None of these combinations are available in the US though :(


We have, of course, the good old particle filters like TiO2 and ZnO which can give just the right UVA protection if they are formulated correctly. It is a must that TiO2 (if micronized -protection up to 360nm-, particle size >100) is combined with ZnO. Min, content of active ingredients should be 20%! Under this the UVA protection wont be adequate. If ZnO used alone (not nano form which is prohibited in EU, allowed in the US and AU, particle size >35, protection 360nm)than the concentration should be between 20-25% (protection up to 520 nm, hence the white residue :). The general rule is that particle filters should leave a white-cast on the skin to be fully able to protect against the Sun`s harmful UVA rays (protection over 400nm!)

#2 rabagley

  • Guest
  • 215 posts
  • -0

Posted 28 January 2008 - 11:47 PM

Today it is common knowledge that UV rays harm our immune system, age our skin and at the worst can cause skin-cancer.

It should also be common knowledge that deficiency of sun exposure causes cancer throughout the body (including a dramatic increase in the risk of melanoma), that sun exposure does not mean sunburn (burns typically increase the chance of the lower-risk SCC and BCC cancers) and that given controlled exposure to the sun, unprotected skin will quite credibly 1) protect itself from moderate doses of UVA and UVB and 2) create substantial quantities of Vitamin D that will improve the functioning of systems and tissues throughout your body, including keeping the nastiest skin cancers (among many other cancers) away.

I've heard that exogenous Vitamin D3 can replace much of the cancer-protective effects of the sun without requiring skin exposure, but I wonder if that's enough to replace all of the effects. I'm guessing not, but I don't know what I might be missing...

I can't freaking wait for the rain to end in Southern California so I can get back out and do more running under the sun. Humans lived for millenia without sunscreen, and essentially without cancer. We're only beginning to return to their typical lifespan. To pretend that sunscreen is some sort of health panacea sounds about as wise as jumping on the "Margarine is better than butter, it's got trans-fats!" bandwagon 30 years ago.

The last bit is my opinion, of course... :)

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for AGELESS LOOKS to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 Grail

  • Guest, F@H
  • 252 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Australia

Posted 29 January 2008 - 01:51 AM

Humans lived for millenia without sunscreen, and essentially without cancer. We're only beginning to return to their typical lifespan.


What's your basis for this statement?

#4 Eva Victoria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 29 January 2008 - 08:47 AM

Humans lived for millenia without sunscreen, and essentially without cancer. We're only beginning to return to their typical lifespan.


What's your basis for this statement?


Don`t understand your question exactly. You mean why I say it is important to use a sunscreen that protects the skin in the entire UV-spectrum? Or are you asking why it is important to protect your skin?
The basis for these two questions woould be that it is scientifically proven and that our skin has a pre-programmed amount of UV-rays that it can take, which we overuse with our western-lifestyle.
The proof is in skin-cancer is on the rise :(

BTW: our ancestors did not stay in the Sun and were never laying and sunbathing either ;)

#5 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,384 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 29 January 2008 - 07:34 PM

BTW: our ancestors did not stay in the Sun and were never laying and sunbathing either


Maybe they didn't get excessive sun exposure but I think they probably got a few minutes to and hour everyday. Even in the shade they would receive some small exposure.

I take the "a little is good but a lot is bad" approach to sun exposure.

Also, thanks so much for the info on the best sunscreen ingredients.

#6 Grail

  • Guest, F@H
  • 252 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Australia

Posted 30 January 2008 - 01:21 AM

Humans lived for millenia without sunscreen, and essentially without cancer. We're only beginning to return to their typical lifespan.


What's your basis for this statement?

BTW: our ancestors did not stay in the Sun and were never laying and sunbathing either :)

A completely unfounded statement. They may not (note "may") have sat in the sun for no particular reason like modern humans do, but surely they spent a significant amount of time in the sun whilst migrating, hunting, gathering etc. In the hotter regions I doubt they would have had much clothing to protect them either. Hell, they may also have sat outside in the nice warm sun whilst carving away at their venus figurines, knapping or grinding stone tools or some such.

My previous post was not directed at you Eva, but at rabagley, whom I quoted.

@ rabagley: What makes you think that there were no instances of skin cancer amongst our ancestors, and what is your source that "We're only beginning to return to their typical lifespan"?

On a lighter note, there are some sunscreens in the SPF 40+ range that you almost have to use a trowel to apply. ;)

#7 edward

  • Guest
  • 1,404 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Southeast USA

Posted 30 January 2008 - 05:08 AM

Eva, what sunscreen do you use and is it available in the US?

#8 Alien65

  • Guest
  • 115 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

Posted 01 February 2008 - 06:54 AM

I am one of those unfortunate people who has patches of psoriasis, mainly on my elbows. I bought into the anti sun thing and stayed out of it for the last 6 years. But being an old person, wrinkled skin still appeared in spite of the 30 or so supplements I take every day and my elbows were disgusting. I am fortunate enough to live in Phoenix AZ with a private 3rd floor patio. So I have been sunning for an hour a day and my psoriasis is vastly improved. Instead of sun screen I use virgin coconut oil and now have incredibly soft wrinkles. I do not use sunscreen but, instead, use common sense and limit my exposure.

#9 Eva Victoria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 02 February 2008 - 06:01 PM

Eva, what sunscreen do you use and is it available in the US?


Hi Edward!
I use different sunscreens: La Roche-Posay: Fluide Extreme SPF50+ (PPD28, MexorylXS+XL; not av. in US), Nivea: Light Sensation SPF30 (TinosorbM+S, not av. in US), and my very own designed sunscreen which is made by Kobo Chemicals SPF40/PPD18 (mixture of ZnO+TiO2-the latter in micronized form).
I also used to use Clinique Super CityBlock SPF25 years ago, but I cannot recommend it because of lack of proper UVA protection:( Neither can I recommend any sunscreens sold in the US for the same reason. It is high time that the FDA does something about allowing proper UVA-filters into the US!!! (We have 28 filters in EU, 9 of them are for UVA; the US has 16 filters whereas 2 of them are against UVA: Avobenzone and Zinc Oxide. But Avobenzone is allways used together with Octyl Methoxycinnamate (USname:Octinoxate) which makes it not photostable :( (Both Avb. and OMC are unstable SS; both alone or together can be stabilized with Tinosorb or Octocrylene).

Conclusion: you just have to order sunscreens from Europe!!! (L`Oreal group can be bought through the net: Vichy, La Roche-Posay-but not th ones that are av. in the US!!!they lack UVA prot. from 340nm!, Helena Rubinstein, Garnier. These sunscreens are also sold in Canada.

What to look for on the ingredients label when buying a sunscreen?
Parsol 1789 Butyl methoxy dibenzoylmethane BMDM UVAII-I
Escalol 6300 4-methyl benzylidenecamphor MBC
Mexoryl SX Terephtalylidene dicamphor UVAII
sulfonic acid

TDSA
Mexoryl XL Drometrizole trisiloxane DMTS UVAI
Uvinul N 539 Octocrylene OC
Uvinul T 150 Octyltriazone OT
Titanium dioxide TiO2 UVB-UVAII
Zinc oxide ZnO UVAII-I
Tinosorb® M (USAN Bisoctrizole, INCI Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol) UVAI Tinosorb® S (USAN Bemotrizinol, INCI Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine) UVAII Octocrylene
  • Diethylhexyl Butamido Triazone
A good sunscreen is composed of several chemical compounds to be able to achieve full protection against UVB and UVA rays and to be able to stay photostable in sunlight!

#10 oregon

  • Guest
  • 83 posts
  • 1

Posted 02 February 2008 - 06:31 PM

Today it is common knowledge that UV rays harm our immune system, age our skin and at the worst can cause skin-cancer.

UV rays are wonderful. They protect us of from cancer, boost our health and well being.

Sun screens should be banned. You don't really have to worry that much about skin cancer unless you burn yourself in the sun.

No wonder Cubans live longer than Americans.

#11 Eva Victoria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 03 February 2008 - 12:45 PM

Today it is common knowledge that UV rays harm our immune system, age our skin and at the worst can cause skin-cancer.


UV rays are wonderful. They protect us of from cancer, boost our health and well being.

In moderate amount (it is actually more than enough to be outside 2 min/day from mid April-mid Sept. to have enough Vit. D- which is the substance that "protects" us from cancer.
But did you know that UVA rays after 1 min exposure kill your immune-cells in skin (and deeper in your body)? Hence weakening your very own protection against for example cancer?
(see P53/ T-helpcells: regulates the cell cycle and hence functions as a tumor suppressor.)

You can also see cell apoptis after just 1 min UVA radiation (even where the skin has been covered up :(

Sun screens should be banned. You don't really have to worry that much about skin cancer unless you burn yourself in the sun.

WRONG :( you dont have to burn yourself. UVA rays are just as dangerous (or more since you cannot see their effect immediately).

No wonder Cubans live longer than Americans.

Indeed ;) But they have more melanin in their skin as well, unless your skin is black:) hence they are better protected! :)



#12 Eva Victoria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 03 February 2008 - 12:48 PM

I am one of those unfortunate people who has patches of psoriasis, mainly on my elbows. I bought into the anti sun thing and stayed out of it for the last 6 years. But being an old person, wrinkled skin still appeared in spite of the 30 or so supplements I take every day and my elbows were disgusting. I am fortunate enough to live in Phoenix AZ with a private 3rd floor patio. So I have been sunning for an hour a day and my psoriasis is vastly improved. Instead of sun screen I use virgin coconut oil and now have incredibly soft wrinkles. I do not use sunscreen but, instead, use common sense and limit my exposure.


My concerns are only about healthy skin. Eczema or Psoriasis benefit from moderate amount of UVB exposure! (Still you should protect your skin against UVA-rays (they dont have any benefitial effect for your skin (on the contrary: they age your skin before its time :(

#13 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 04 February 2008 - 04:42 AM

Today it is common knowledge that UV rays harm our immune system, age our skin and at the worst can cause skin-cancer.

UV rays are wonderful. They protect us of from cancer, boost our health and well being.

Sun screens should be banned. You don't really have to worry that much about skin cancer unless you burn yourself in the sun.

No wonder Cubans live longer than Americans.

Oregon, you should really qualify a rash statement like this if you want people to take you seriously. UVB rays have some advantages (make vit. D) and disadvantages (cause sunburn). UVA as far as I can see have only disadvantages; they age your skin. Being less energetic than UVB, they probably are not able to engage in photochemistry as readily. I can't rule out that they don't do something useful, but I don't think anyone knows of anything. As Eva points out, you don't need very much UVB at all to make D, and you don't seem to need any A. This suggests that a sunscreen with high UVA filtration but moderate UVB filtration might be useful. If it were the other way around, you might be lulled into a false sense of security by the lack of burning, but you'd actually be damaging your skin more heavily.

Cubans living longer than Americans? Maybe it's the cigars. Maybe it's a hormetic response to listening to Castro's four hour long speeches.

#14 oregon

  • Guest
  • 83 posts
  • 1

Posted 04 February 2008 - 04:15 PM

Besides from what I wrote, I am not really comfortable putting all these chemicals on my body. I don't even know how to pronounce them. They all get absorbed through skin and INTO your body.

Just look what they were putting in baby cosmetics:

http://www.latimes.c...a...1&cset=true

I would not be surprised if these chemicals in sun screens actually cause skin cancer.

Yesterday I saw a very sad TV program. One woman used to warn other women about the dangers of HRT therapy back in 1969. She used to write articles for women magazines. However, the same magazines also were running HRT ads by drug companies. Eventually her section was removed from all these magazines.

Sorry guys, I don't really have time to argue so I will stop reading this thread. I believe I wrote everything I had in mind.

#15 Eva Victoria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 04 February 2008 - 07:04 PM

Humans lived for millenia without sunscreen, and essentially without cancer. We're only beginning to return to their typical lifespan.


What's your basis for this statement?

BTW: our ancestors did not stay in the Sun and were never laying and sunbathing either ;) And they did not live as long as we do hence the accumulated UV damage was significantly less!

A completely unfounded statement. They may not (note "may") have sat in the sun for no particular reason like modern humans do, but surely they spent a significant amount of time in the sun whilst migrating, hunting, gathering etc. In the hotter regions I doubt they would have had much clothing to protect them either. Hell, they may also have sat outside in the nice warm sun whilst carving away at their venus figurines, knapping or grinding stone tools or some such.

Maybe ;)
But you forget one fundamental difference in our ancestors skin colour: they were black. Black people have a natural UVB protection of SPF 15 (meaning they can filter 93% of damaging UVB rays, and SPA 5,5 of UVA protevtion (83,5% protection.) as oppossed to UVB prot. of SPF 5 and UVA prot. of SPA 1.8 in white people :(

My previous post was not directed at you Eva, but at rabagley, whom I quoted.

@ rabagley: What makes you think that there were no instances of skin cancer amongst our ancestors, and what is your source that "We're only beginning to return to their typical lifespan"?

On a lighter note, there are some sunscreens in the SPF 40+ range that you almost have to use a trowel to apply. :)

;) There are several badly formulated sunscreens, I`m afraid :(
A good sunscreen should give full photostable protection and should be cosmetically acceptable (among others: easy to apply!!!)
But in the future we are going to have so much better tachnologies when it comes to protecting our skin against radiation, that today sunscreens are going to be a laugh! :)
Just hold on so long! :)


Edited by Eva Victoria, 04 February 2008 - 07:06 PM.


#16 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,137 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 04 February 2008 - 07:09 PM

Cubans living longer than Americans? Maybe it's the cigars. Maybe it's a hormetic response to listening to Castro's four hour long speeches.


No it's the rice and beans... involuntary CR.

#17 Grail

  • Guest, F@H
  • 252 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Australia

Posted 04 February 2008 - 11:41 PM

[Maybe :)
But you forget one fundamental difference in our ancestors skin colour: they were black. Black people have a natural UVB protection of SPF 15 (meaning they can filter 93% of damaging UVB rays, and SPA 5,5 of UVA protevtion (83,5% protection.) as oppossed to UVB prot. of SPF 5 and UVA prot. of SPA 1.8 in white people :(


Fair enough, but I think it was missleading when you said "millennia". The evidence we have for at least the last twenty thousand years points to varied skin colours. It would have been a very, very long time ago that there were only humans with such heavily pigmented skin, and for this time, there is no physical evidence of this (we can only speculate by studying modern populations). You need to quantify your statements a little better before making blanket ones. You are talking hundreds of millennia ago. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding.

Sun protection is a big issue for me certainly, as I am a very white Australian. (White skin, hair and green eyes).
The only problem I have with sunscreens is their inconvenience in application, as one has to constantly reapply. It is not much effort if you think of the dangers, but every day, three times a day (more if you swim a lot like me) can be a little inconvenient.

With that amount of application, it starts to concern me that it would interfere with skin care regimes. Worth it? Probably. Convenient? No.

#18 Eva Victoria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 05 February 2008 - 12:14 PM

[Maybe :)
But you forget one fundamental difference in our ancestors skin colour: they were black. Black people have a natural UVB protection of SPF 15 (meaning they can filter 93% of damaging UVB rays, and SPA 5,5 of UVA protevtion (83,5% protection.) as oppossed to UVB prot. of SPF 5 and UVA prot. of SPA 1.8 in white people :(


Fair enough, but I think it was missleading when you said "millennia". The evidence we have for at least the last twenty thousand years points to varied skin colours. It would have been a very, very long time ago that there were only humans with such heavily pigmented skin, and for this time, there is no physical evidence of this (we can only speculate by studying modern populations). You need to quantify your statements a little better before making blanket ones. You are talking hundreds of millennia ago. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding.

Sun protection is a big issue for me certainly, as I am a very white Australian. (White skin, hair and green eyes).
The only problem I have with sunscreens is their inconvenience in application, as one has to constantly reapply. It is not much effort if you think of the dangers, but every day, three times a day (more if you swim a lot like me) can be a little inconvenient.

With that amount of application, it starts to concern me that it would interfere with skin care regimes. Worth it? Probably. Convenient? No.


Hi Grail!

True, I was mostly thinking of our ancestors when they were migrating out of Africa.


20 000y ago "white" people lived mostly on the continent of Europe where climate was very rainy with a lot of clouds (filtering UVB-rays). And the truth is these people lived in forests for being not so vulnerable for other tribes. Forests are the most efficient way of filtering UV-rays (when it comes to nature).

What one should keep in mind that modern humans changed their habit of how to relate to the Sun, we also live longer and live under different climate (where our skin cannot function fully when it comes to protecting us from UV-rays.) This is also the biggest issue in Australia where the number of skin-cancer patients are still on the rise and world leading :( Why?
Because white skin is not genetically programmed to withstand tropical amount of UV-rays :( (Like the indigenous people`s skin is).
Imagine, in the UK the skin has 1\3 of the exposure to UV light compared to Australia. But the skin is genetically the same :( Basically the people living in Australia with the same type of skin are genetically the same as the English living in rainy Britain: of course there are more incidents of skin cancer then anywhere else in the world:(

But the good news is that in Australia you have very good sunscreens available!!!
I understand your concern about sunscreens and their usage. And I would be lying if I said that it is nothing :( The fact is that today’s sunscreen products are difficult and time consuming things to apply :( Therefore you should choose a consistency that is quickly absorbed by your skin without leaving any oily residue while protecting fully against the harmful rays. I think Nivea Light Sensation sunscreen SPF 30 is the best option today! And you can buy it in AU!!! You can put a small amount in a jar and carry it with you so you can reapply during the day.
The truth is that the consistency of this sunscreen is more like a good veil that leaves the skin looking flawless like a good make-up ;) So actually you not only looking better but protect your skin in the same time! (Which will make that you`ll need less cosmetics products later in life ;)

Sunscreens are one way to protect our skin from the sun. And undoubtedly not the best way either:( The best is definitely avoiding sun-exposure, protecting the skin with clothes; wide brimmed hat, sunglasses and applying sunscreen to areas that cannot be protected otherwise.

Have a look at this:

SunSmart - Slip | Slop | Slap | Seek shade | Slide on sunnies - SunSmart
http://www.cancersa....x/sunsmart.aspx

British Skin Foundation
http://www.britishsk...ard.aspx?id=398

#19 Grail

  • Guest, F@H
  • 252 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Australia

Posted 06 February 2008 - 12:32 AM

Thanks for the info Eva, I will try the Nivea. Thankfully my most recent job involves working inside all day, so it's not so bad. Weekends are the issue, but it isn't that hard to do for 2 days...
A problem in Australia is that there are so many beaches and outside jobs, and people just don't like wearing sunscreen or heaps of clothes. You get burnt just driving in your car for a few minutes some days.

#20 sdxl

  • Guest
  • 391 posts
  • 47
  • Location:Earth

Posted 06 February 2008 - 01:47 AM

Those Australian Nivea sunscreens aren't looking that good. I never liked their Euro sunscreens, since there are better options available. The best protective sunscreens are still made in France.

#21 Eva Victoria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 06 February 2008 - 11:45 AM

Those Australian Nivea sunscreens aren't looking that good. I never liked their Euro sunscreens, since there are better options available. The best protective sunscreens are still made in France.


I agree. Mexoryl SX+XL are the best filters av. today. But unfortunately they tend to be a bit greasy leaving an oily film on the surface of the skin and they take time to be absorbed. So if you have the same problems as Grail, then I think it is still a better option to use Nivea than nothing at all ;) Wouldn`t u agree? ;)
BTW, Nivea cont. TinosorbS+M (patented filters at the producer Ciba Chem. in Switzerland; I think u should check it out a bit more thoroughly before u make up your mind :)
And I think people are not aware of ine thing that sunscreens today are produced at the chemical companies/suppliers of row mat./ and then shipped to the distributers in larg containers where they only bottle the final products with their name on ;) So Nivea Light Sensation could be bottled at an other comp. and have an expensive label on like La Prairie (BTW they are also owned by the same mother comp: Beiersdorf AG.

#22 sdxl

  • Guest
  • 391 posts
  • 47
  • Location:Earth

Posted 06 February 2008 - 01:53 PM

I agree. Mexoryl SX+XL are the best filters av. today. But unfortunately they tend to be a bit greasy leaving an oily film on the surface of the skin and they take time to be absorbed. So if you have the same problems as Grail, then I think it is still a better option to use Nivea than nothing at all ;) Wouldn`t u agree? ;)

I think the Tinosorbs are better. But it's the combination in the final product that matters. I'm not going anywhere near Nivea.

BTW, Nivea cont. TinosorbS+M (patented filters at the producer Ciba Chem. in Switzerland; I think u should check it out a bit more thoroughly before u make up your mind :)

And I think you should have looked at the Australian Nivea site. Only their 30+ spray has Tinosorb S!

And I think people are not aware of ine thing that sunscreens today are produced at the chemical companies/suppliers of row mat./ and then shipped to the distributers in larg containers where they only bottle the final products with their name on ;) So Nivea Light Sensation could be bottled at an other comp. and have an expensive label on like La Prairie (BTW they are also owned by the same mother comp: Beiersdorf AG.

I couldn't care less, cause I always look at the ingredients and price. I know what to look for and Nivea isn't it.

#23 Eva Victoria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 06 February 2008 - 05:53 PM

I agree. Mexoryl SX+XL are the best filters av. today. But unfortunately they tend to be a bit greasy leaving an oily film on the surface of the skin and they take time to be absorbed. So if you have the same problems as Grail, then I think it is still a better option to use Nivea than nothing at all ;) Wouldn`t u agree? ;)

I think the Tinosorbs are better. But it's the combination in the final product that matters. I'm not going anywhere near Nivea.

BTW, Nivea cont. TinosorbS+M (patented filters at the producer Ciba Chem. in Switzerland; I think u should check it out a bit more thoroughly before u make up your mind :)

And I think you should have looked at the Australian Nivea site. Only their 30+ spray has Tinosorb S!

And I think people are not aware of ine thing that sunscreens today are produced at the chemical companies/suppliers of row mat./ and then shipped to the distributers in larg containers where they only bottle the final products with their name on ;) So Nivea Light Sensation could be bottled at an other comp. and have an expensive label on like La Prairie (BTW they are also owned by the same mother comp: Beiersdorf AG.

I couldn't care less, cause I always look at the ingredients and price. I know what to look for and Nivea isn't it.


Found this at Niveas Au site:
NIVEA - Sunscreen Lotion
http://www.nivea.com...s/extended/1072
Active ingredients
Octyl methoxycinnamate 8.0% w/w
Titanium dioxide 5.0% w/w
Octyl triazone 4.0% w/w
Butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane 3.0% w/w
Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid 2.0% w/w

Am attaching the ingredients list of Nivea in Eu (see attachment). True in EU we have a more complex composition of the sunscreen agents in Nivea (both TinosorbS+M).

Which particular sunscreen product(s) do you use? And where do you live?

Attached Files


Edited by Eva Victoria, 06 February 2008 - 05:55 PM.


#24 sdxl

  • Guest
  • 391 posts
  • 47
  • Location:Earth

Posted 07 February 2008 - 02:28 PM

Am attaching the ingredients list of Nivea in Eu (see attachment). True in EU we have a more complex composition of the sunscreen agents in Nivea (both TinosorbS+M).

BTW there is no Tinosorb M (Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol) in that sunscreen! But it has a s**t load of fragrance.

Which particular sunscreen product(s) do you use?

Mostly L'Oréal Group. La Roche-Posay, Vichy and L'Oréal Paris. Nothing less than a PPD of 20.

And where do you live?

EU

#25 Eva Victoria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 07 February 2008 - 04:49 PM

Am attaching the ingredients list of Nivea in Eu (see attachment). True in EU we have a more complex composition of the sunscreen agents in Nivea (both TinosorbS+M).

BTW there is no Tinosorb M (Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol) in that sunscreen! But it has a s**t load of fragrance.

Which particular sunscreen product(s) do you use?

Mostly L'Oréal Group. La Roche-Posay, Vichy and L'Oréal Paris. Nothing less than a PPD of 20.

And where do you live?

EU


U r right! there is no TinosorbM in this Nivea product:( But the good news is there is BMDM which is stabilized by TinosorbS.
But the truth is that L`Oreal makes better sunscreens as I always said ;)
I use LRP Antihelios Fluide extreme SPF50/PPD28 myself (plus ZnO blanded in it for good-measures ;) (But I still find Nivea Light Sensation has a better consistency; in a perfect world this consistency would be with Mexoryl SX+XL ;)

Edited by Eva Victoria, 07 February 2008 - 04:56 PM.


#26 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 13 February 2008 - 08:09 AM

Thanks for the information you have provided, Eva. Very informative for those browsing around with questions on what is the best kind of sunscreen to use!

Thank you for taking the time to answer people's questions.

#27 Eva Victoria

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 13 February 2008 - 04:54 PM

Thanks for the information you have provided, Eva. Very informative for those browsing around with questions on what is the best kind of sunscreen to use!

Thank you for taking the time to answer people's questions.


You are welcome! :~

#28 kurdishfella

  • Guest
  • 1,798 posts
  • -55
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 August 2021 - 07:39 PM

Are you more likely to have skin cancer if you have lighter skin or is it determined by a different gene (mutated or not) that just happen to be prevalent among light skinned people (white or pale)? If you take for example North africa or middle east a lot of them have a type of light skin but why don't they all have melanoma or something?


Edited by kurdishfella, 03 August 2021 - 07:41 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users