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

Photo
- - - - -

UVA: How it ages you daily and what to do about it


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#31 Fredrik

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 13 February 2008 - 04:52 PM

well, I avoid the filters in that study (except octocrylene). I still maintain that sunscreen use is better than bare skin because regular use of sunscreens decrease the formation of damaged skin resulting in actinic keratoses for example. This is just an experimental study, the real life decrease in freckling and AKs proven in in vivo studies says sunscreens are better than going bare (even if they produce ROS).

There are so many filters available here in europe that you can get a good sunscreen formulated not to increase the ROS load. Loreal, Neutrogena and Aveeno for example have these stabilized sunscreens.



Fredrik:

The suncreen I'm using at the moment is a product endorsed by the cancer council of Australia. It's called Ultra sunscreen Exta UVA protection but the main ingredient is:

Octyl Methoxycinnamate.

Should I be considering another sunscreen? I invested in a wide brimmed Akubra hat as well. The sunscreen you have to reapply but the hat lasts 10 years :~


I don´t know the rest of the filters in that sunscreen but the hat is an excellent move. I would look for a sunscreen with avobenzone stabilized by octocrylene and/or Tinosorb S/Tinosorb M and/or Mexoryl SX/XL. FDA will also approve the combination of avobenzone + zinc oxide soon (if not already finalized).

Non-US sunscreens I like: La Roche Posay fluid extreme spf 50+ and Bioderma photoderm fluide spf 50+

US-sunscreens that are ok (I´d still go with a european brand mentioned by me or Eva as they have more UVA-filters): Neutrogena sheer spf 50+ and Aveeno spf 45 or one of Loreals daily UV sunscreens (Skinceuticals, Lancome or Anthelios).

#32 Eva Victoria

  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 13 February 2008 - 04:53 PM

well, I avoid the filters in that study (except octocrylene). I still maintain that sunscreen use is better than bare skin because regular use of sunscreens decrease the formation of damaged skin resulting in actinic keratoses for example. This is just an experimental study, the real life decrease in freckling and AKs proven in in vivo studies says sunscreens are better than going bare (even if they produce ROS).

There are so many filters available here in europe that you can get a good sunscreen formulated not to increase the ROS load. Loreal, Neutrogena and Aveeno for example have these stabilized sunscreens.



Fredrik:

The suncreen I'm using at the moment is a product endorsed by the cancer council of Australia. It's called Ultra sunscreen Exta UVA protection but the main ingredient is:

Octyl Methoxycinnamate.

Should I be considering another sunscreen? I invested in a wide brimmed Akubra hat as well. The sunscreen you have to reapply but the hat lasts 10 years :~


If you can send me the proper full ingredients list on your sunscreen I`ll be able to tell wether it is safe to use it.

sponsored ad

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

#33 Fredrik

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 13 February 2008 - 04:56 PM

well, I avoid the filters in that study (except octocrylene). I still maintain that sunscreen use is better than bare skin because regular use of sunscreens decrease the formation of damaged skin resulting in actinic keratoses for example. This is just an experimental study, the real life decrease in freckling and AKs proven in in vivo studies says sunscreens are better than going bare (even if they produce ROS).

There are so many filters available here in europe that you can get a good sunscreen formulated not to increase the ROS load. Loreal, Neutrogena and Aveeno for example have these stabilized sunscreens.



Fredrik:

The suncreen I'm using at the moment is a product endorsed by the cancer council of Australia. It's called Ultra sunscreen Exta UVA protection but the main ingredient is:

Octyl Methoxycinnamate.

Should I be considering another sunscreen? I invested in a wide brimmed Akubra hat as well. The sunscreen you have to reapply but the hat lasts 10 years :~


If you can send me the proper full ingredients list on your sunscreen I`ll be able to tell wether it is safe to use it.


haha, we posted 1 second apart =) like the sunscreenjunkies we are!

#34 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 13 February 2008 - 05:09 PM

I have a light typical swedish skin colour but I never burn.On Vacations to Spain and other countries I've never used sunscreen.I always get tanned and I never get even the slighest amount of redness or discomfort although being many hours in the spanish sun at the beach.
Should I although that really use sunscreen?Does it age my skin when I just don't seem to be able to sunburn?
As far as I am aware the danger is if you don't tan easily or have red hair and freckles.But as long as your skin doesn't get red or hurt why shouldn't you enjoy the sun?
Sun brings you hope comfort and happiness and at latitude 64 I just can't wait for the summer.Right now I'm much paler than count Dracula.

/Victor

#35 Fredrik

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 13 February 2008 - 05:19 PM

I have a light typical swedish skin colour but I never burn.On Vacations to Spain and other countries I've never used sunscreen.I always get tanned and I never get even the slighest amount of redness or discomfort although being many hours in the spanish sun at the beach.
Should I although that really use sunscreen?Does it age my skin when I just don't seem to be able to sunburn?
As far as I am aware the danger is if you don't tan easily or have red hair and freckles.But as long as your skin doesn't get red or hurt why shouldn't you enjoy the sun?
Sun brings you hope comfort and happiness and at latitude 64 I just can't wait for the summer.Right now I'm much paler than count Dracula.

/Victor



UVA-rays don´t burn, they give some increase in pigmentation and cause permanent damage in the deeper layers of your skin. The skin is getting damaged at sub-erythemal doses daily. 5-10 minutes of unprotected daylight is enough to raise collagenase and elastase levels in the skin for a week. The skin will repair itself but not perfectly. The "microscars" of that daily damage is called "aging" (wrinkles, sagging and sunspots).

So, YES! You need to use sunscreen daily to avoid that and why can´t you enjoy the warmth of spring/summer with a sunscreen on? Pale is beautiful if your scandinavian or caucasian, the cooked tanned look is not a good one on light skin. Tanning is a defense mechanism against DNA-damage, it´s proof that you´ve damaged your skin and failed to protect your natural skin color.

But it´s your own choice if you want to have wrinkly and sagging skin with pre-cancerous lesions or not. It´s mostly preventable.

Edited by fredrik, 13 February 2008 - 05:27 PM.


#36 Eva Victoria

  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 13 February 2008 - 07:19 PM

well, I avoid the filters in that study (except octocrylene). I still maintain that sunscreen use is better than bare skin because regular use of sunscreens decrease the formation of damaged skin resulting in actinic keratoses for example. This is just an experimental study, the real life decrease in freckling and AKs proven in in vivo studies says sunscreens are better than going bare (even if they produce ROS).

There are so many filters available here in europe that you can get a good sunscreen formulated not to increase the ROS load. Loreal, Neutrogena and Aveeno for example have these stabilized sunscreens.



Fredrik:

The suncreen I'm using at the moment is a product endorsed by the cancer council of Australia. It's called Ultra sunscreen Exta UVA protection but the main ingredient is:

Octyl Methoxycinnamate.

Should I be considering another sunscreen? I invested in a wide brimmed Akubra hat as well. The sunscreen you have to reapply but the hat lasts 10 years :)


If you can send me the proper full ingredients list on your sunscreen I`ll be able to tell wether it is safe to use it.


haha, we posted 1 second apart =) like the sunscreenjunkies we are!


COOL! :~ and true :) I mean the sunscreen-junkies :)

#37 Eva Victoria

  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 13 February 2008 - 07:26 PM

I have a light typical swedish skin colour but I never burn.On Vacations to Spain and other countries I've never used sunscreen.I always get tanned and I never get even the slighest amount of redness or discomfort although being many hours in the spanish sun at the beach.
Should I although that really use sunscreen?Does it age my skin when I just don't seem to be able to sunburn?
As far as I am aware the danger is if you don't tan easily or have red hair and freckles.But as long as your skin doesn't get red or hurt why shouldn't you enjoy the sun?
Sun brings you hope comfort and happiness and at latitude 64 I just can't wait for the summer.Right now I'm much paler than count Dracula.

/Victor


Think of your young skin as a plum/grapes and after some years of enjoying the sun it`ll look more like a prune/raisins :~
"If you would like to know more you should read my post about Why it is important to use sunscreens everyday?"

http://www.imminst.o...d33-t20109.html

http://www.imminst.o...ded-t20201.html

http://www.imminst.o...ous-t20235.html

Edited by Eva Victoria, 13 February 2008 - 07:28 PM.


#38

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 13 February 2008 - 07:44 PM

Astaxanthin appears to have a protective effect against photoaging.

http://sciencelinks....205A0423361.php

http://www.astareal.com/m6_2.html

#39 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 14 February 2008 - 02:10 PM

If you can send me the proper full ingredients list on your sunscreen I`ll be able to tell wether it is safe to use it.



http://skinhealth.com.au/info/node/54

Ingredients Listing - Ultra Sunscreen SPF 30+
Ultra Sunscreen SPF 30+
Preservatives:
Phenoxyethanol
Hydroxybenzoates
Methyldibromo Glutaronitrile

Active Ingredients:
Octyl Methoxycinnamate 7.50% w/w
4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor 1.00% w/w
Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane 1.75% w/w
Zinc Oxide 6.00% w/w

#40 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 14 February 2008 - 02:16 PM

[I don´t know the rest of the filters in that sunscreen but the hat is an excellent move. I would look for a sunscreen with avobenzone stabilized by octocrylene and/or Tinosorb S/Tinosorb M and/or Mexoryl SX/XL. FDA will also approve the combination of avobenzone + zinc oxide soon (if not already finalized).

Non-US sunscreens I like: La Roche Posay fluid extreme spf 50+ and Bioderma photoderm fluide spf 50+

US-sunscreens that are ok (I´d still go with a european brand mentioned by me or Eva as they have more UVA-filters): Neutrogena sheer spf 50+ and Aveeno spf 45 or one of Loreals daily UV sunscreens (Skinceuticals, Lancome or Anthelios).



Thanks Fredrik,

It's exciting to see some new filters will soon be FDA approved. I'll decide on a new sunscreen soon but I'm mindful to get something that comes in bulk rather than a premium 200ml product.

#41 sdxl

  • Guest
  • 391 posts
  • 47
  • Location:Earth

Posted 14 February 2008 - 04:15 PM

It's exciting to see some new filters will soon be FDA approved. I'll decide on a new sunscreen soon but I'm mindful to get something that comes in bulk rather than a premium 200ml product.

What do you have got to do as an Australian with the FDA? :~ Almost all of the new filters are already approved in your country, yet I see very few sunscreens using them. I guess those new filters are more expensive and the 30+ limit and current Australian Standard are not helping much when it comes to improving the protective abilities of sunscreens.

#42 Eva Victoria

  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 14 February 2008 - 06:38 PM

If you can send me the proper full ingredients list on your sunscreen I`ll be able to tell wether it is safe to use it.



http://skinhealth.com.au/info/node/54

Ingredients Listing - Ultra Sunscreen SPF 30+
Ultra Sunscreen SPF 30+
Preservatives:
Phenoxyethanol
Hydroxybenzoates
Methyldibromo Glutaronitrile

Active Ingredients:
Octyl Methoxycinnamate 7.50% w/w
4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor 1.00% w/w
Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane 1.75% w/w
Zinc Oxide 6.00% w/w


Hi there!

This is what I found about this combo:

French Patent No. 2,440,933 describes, as a UV-A screen, 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane whose absorption maximum is situated at 355 nm. This UV-A screen is sold under the name "Parsol 1789" by Givaudan. In this patent it is proposed to combine this UV-A screen with various UV-B screens with the aim of absorbing all the UV radiation of wavelengths between 280 and 380 nm. The preferred UV-B screen for employment in combination with 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane is 2-ethylhexyl p-methoxycinnamate sold under the name "Parsol MCX" by Givaudan.

Unfortunately, in this combination, 4-(1,1-di-methylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane does not have a sufficient photochemical stability to guarantee a continuous protection during a prolonged exposure to the sun, and this means that frequent and repeated applications at regular intervals are necessary when it is desired to obtain an effective protection of the skin against the UV rays.

The Applicant has found that by combining 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane with p-methylbenzylidenecamphor sold under the name "Eusolex 6300" by Merck, in proportions and in a weight ratio which are well defined, a remarkable photochemical stability of 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane was obtained, in a surprising manner.

Photostable cosmetic composition containing a UV-A screen and a UV-B screen and a process for stabilizing the UV-A screen with the UV-B screen - US Patent 5605680
http://www.patentsto...escription.html

Meaning it is a photostable sunscreen :~

http://203.221.251.4...s/cosmetics.htm



#43 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 15 February 2008 - 02:11 AM

If you can send me the proper full ingredients list on your sunscreen I`ll be able to tell wether it is safe to use it.



http://skinhealth.com.au/info/node/54

Ingredients Listing - Ultra Sunscreen SPF 30+
Ultra Sunscreen SPF 30+
Preservatives:
Phenoxyethanol
Hydroxybenzoates
Methyldibromo Glutaronitrile

Active Ingredients:
Octyl Methoxycinnamate 7.50% w/w
4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor 1.00% w/w
Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane 1.75% w/w
Zinc Oxide 6.00% w/w


Hi there!

This is what I found about this combo:

French Patent No. 2,440,933 describes, as a UV-A screen, 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane whose absorption maximum is situated at 355 nm. This UV-A screen is sold under the name "Parsol 1789" by Givaudan. In this patent it is proposed to combine this UV-A screen with various UV-B screens with the aim of absorbing all the UV radiation of wavelengths between 280 and 380 nm. The preferred UV-B screen for employment in combination with 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane is 2-ethylhexyl p-methoxycinnamate sold under the name "Parsol MCX" by Givaudan.

Unfortunately, in this combination, 4-(1,1-di-methylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane does not have a sufficient photochemical stability to guarantee a continuous protection during a prolonged exposure to the sun, and this means that frequent and repeated applications at regular intervals are necessary when it is desired to obtain an effective protection of the skin against the UV rays.

The Applicant has found that by combining 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane with p-methylbenzylidenecamphor sold under the name "Eusolex 6300" by Merck, in proportions and in a weight ratio which are well defined, a remarkable photochemical stability of 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane was obtained, in a surprising manner.

Photostable cosmetic composition containing a UV-A screen and a UV-B screen and a process for stabilizing the UV-A screen with the UV-B screen - US Patent 5605680
http://www.patentsto...escription.html

Meaning it is a photostable sunscreen :~

http://203.221.251.4...s/cosmetics.htm




Thanks Eva!
It does say to reapply it every couple of hours on the container of course but I agree i'd much rather get something more photostable because I will forget :)

#44 Eva Victoria

  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 17 February 2008 - 10:22 AM

If you can send me the proper full ingredients list on your sunscreen I`ll be able to tell wether it is safe to use it.



http://skinhealth.com.au/info/node/54

Ingredients Listing - Ultra Sunscreen SPF 30+
Ultra Sunscreen SPF 30+
Preservatives:
Phenoxyethanol
Hydroxybenzoates
Methyldibromo Glutaronitrile

Active Ingredients:
Octyl Methoxycinnamate 7.50% w/w
4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor 1.00% w/w
Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane 1.75% w/w
Zinc Oxide 6.00% w/w


Hi there!

This is what I found about this combo:

French Patent No. 2,440,933 describes, as a UV-A screen, 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane whose absorption maximum is situated at 355 nm. This UV-A screen is sold under the name "Parsol 1789" by Givaudan. In this patent it is proposed to combine this UV-A screen with various UV-B screens with the aim of absorbing all the UV radiation of wavelengths between 280 and 380 nm. The preferred UV-B screen for employment in combination with 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane is 2-ethylhexyl p-methoxycinnamate sold under the name "Parsol MCX" by Givaudan.

Unfortunately, in this combination, 4-(1,1-di-methylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane does not have a sufficient photochemical stability to guarantee a continuous protection during a prolonged exposure to the sun, and this means that frequent and repeated applications at regular intervals are necessary when it is desired to obtain an effective protection of the skin against the UV rays.

The Applicant has found that by combining 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane with p-methylbenzylidenecamphor sold under the name "Eusolex 6300" by Merck, in proportions and in a weight ratio which are well defined, a remarkable photochemical stability of 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane was obtained, in a surprising manner.

Photostable cosmetic composition containing a UV-A screen and a UV-B screen and a process for stabilizing the UV-A screen with the UV-B screen - US Patent 5605680
http://www.patentsto...escription.html

Meaning it is a photostable sunscreen ;)

http://203.221.251.4...s/cosmetics.htm




Thanks Eva!
It does say to reapply it every couple of hours on the container of course but I agree i'd much rather get something more photostable because I will forget ;)


No matter how photostable a sunscreen is, it should be reapplied every 2 h. Pls read the attachements to my art. about "Why to reapply sunscreens every 2h?" (it is in Skin Health section).

#45 Maecenas

  • Guest
  • 181 posts
  • 46
  • Location:Ukraine

Posted 05 September 2014 - 05:08 AM

Can anybody here tell me if it's true that even being in the shadow we still get more than 60% of UVA radiation exposure indirectly through atmospheric scattering? Say, if you are indoors but there is no direct sunshine and there are no protective films on the windows - you still get 60 % of harmfull irradiance? How harmful can such exposure turn out to be to your skin?



#46 Heyman

  • Guest
  • 207 posts
  • 13
  • Location:Germany

Posted 05 September 2014 - 11:09 AM

Can anybody here tell me if it's true that even being in the shadow we still get more than 60% of UVA radiation exposure indirectly through atmospheric scattering? Say, if you are indoors but there is no direct sunshine and there are no protective films on the windows - you still get 60 % of harmfull irradiance? How harmful can such exposure turn out to be to your skin?

 

I read the same, that it depends on how much of the sky is visible around you. E.g. sitting directly under a tree in the shadow but there are no other trees around you, you will get more UVA exposure than if the sun rays would directly hit you but you would be surrounded by a forest and almost all of the sky would be blocked. If you are indoords and theres a small window, you can only see a small portion of the sky I suppose. If you want to make sure, buy some UV blocking sheet for the window.



#47 mikela

  • Guest
  • 109 posts
  • 42
  • Location:SoCal

Posted 05 September 2014 - 01:21 PM

A good reference for sunscreen:

 

http://www.ewg.org/2014sunscreen

 

 



#48 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 05 September 2014 - 01:44 PM

Can anybody here tell me if it's true that even being in the shadow we still get more than 60% of UVA radiation exposure indirectly through atmospheric scattering? Say, if you are indoors but there is no direct sunshine and there are no protective films on the windows - you still get 60 % of harmfull irradiance? How harmful can such exposure turn out to be to your skin?

 

http://www.smartskin...uv-indoors.html


  • like x 1

#49 Brett Black

  • Guest
  • 353 posts
  • 174
  • Location:Australia

Posted 06 September 2014 - 04:22 AM

Can anybody here tell me if it's true that even being in the shadow we still get more than 60% of UVA radiation exposure indirectly through atmospheric scattering? Say, if you are indoors but there is no direct sunshine and there are no protective films on the windows - you still get 60 % of harmfull irradiance? How harmful can such exposure turn out to be to your skin?


Indirect UV also comes from UV-reflective objects/materials on the ground too. The actual percent of total indirect UVA can reach 60% but many variables are involved, like the angle of the sun, the amount of open sky in direct line of sight, the UV reflectivity(albedo) of the objects in the surrounding environment etc. Here are three relevant papers :

DIFFUSE COMPONENT OF THE SOLAR ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION IN TREE SHADE A.V. Parisi1,*, M.G. Kimlin1, J.C.F. Wong2, M. Wilson1
http://www.photobiol.../contrib/alfio/

SCATTERED UV BENEATH PUBLIC SHADE STRUCTURES DURING WINTER
D. J. Turnbull*1, A. V. Parisi1 and J. Sabburg1
http://eprints.usq.e...isi_Sabburg.pdf

Seasonal variation of facial UV exposures in the shade Subtitle: Seasonal changes in the personal distribution of UV beneath a common public
shade structure
David J Turnbull1* and Alfio V Parisi2
https://eprints.usq...._HPCT_v3_AV.pdf
  • like x 1

#50 Maecenas

  • Guest
  • 181 posts
  • 46
  • Location:Ukraine

Posted 17 September 2014 - 01:10 PM

I have those UV detecting beads which react by changing color to  UV radiation in the 300-360 range (UVA1,UVA2,UVB). My windows don't have any UV protection films, nevertheless when I tested UV in my room, the beads very slightly changed color when I put them up to 1 meter from the window. They didn't react at all at farther distance. When I open the window they become brightly violet quickly. Is there really UV radiation indoors or is it relevant only if you are sitting right next to the window? 


Edited by Maecenas, 17 September 2014 - 01:24 PM.


#51 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 17 September 2014 - 01:25 PM

I have those UV detecting beads which react by changing color to  UV radiation in the 300-360 range (UVA1,UVA2,UVB). My windows don't have any UV protection films, nevertheless when I tested UV in my room, the beads very slightly changed color when I put them up to 1 metre from the window. They didn't react at all at farther distance. When I open the window they become brightly violet quickly. Is there really UV radiation indoors or is it relevant only if you are sitting right next to the window? 

 

The further away, the less UV radiation as you observed. Question is, how much further away from the window is safe for anal bastards like myself??? :|o

Where did you buy your UV detecting beads?



#52 niner

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

Posted 17 September 2014 - 01:26 PM

I have those UV detecting beads which react by changing color to  UV radiation in the 300-360 range (UVA1,UVA2,UVB). My windows don't have any UV protection films, nevertheless when I tested UV in my room, the beads very slightly changed color when I put them up to 1 metre from the window. They didn't react at all at farther distance. When I open the window they become brightly violet quickly. Is there really UV radiation indoors or is it relevant only if you are sitting right next to the window? 

 

If you are getting direct sunlight, then whatever UV gets through the window will follow a direct path to wherever the sunlight hits.  If it's not direct sun, then you're getting diffuse outdoor light coming from all directions.  The intensity of the diffuse light will fall off more rapidly as a function of distance from the glass, compared to the direct light.  This happens because the diffuse light is coming from all different directions.  My understanding is that ordinary window glass absorbs a lot of UVB, but less UVA.   It's possible that the beads are more sensitive in the UVB range than UVA, but I'm not familiar with them.  If you aren't in direct light or very close to the window, and you don't have xeroderma pigmentosa, then I don't think there is anything to worry about when you're indoors, as far as UV is concerned.


  • like x 4

#53 fntms

  • Guest
  • 318 posts
  • 24

Posted 17 September 2014 - 01:52 PM

fyi la roche posay has a spf 100 moisturizer "anthelios KA" ... seems like a good product. It contains aluminum hydroxide however, not sure if that's a good thing...

#54 Maecenas

  • Guest
  • 181 posts
  • 46
  • Location:Ukraine

Posted 17 September 2014 - 01:56 PM

 

I have those UV detecting beads which react by changing color to  UV radiation in the 300-360 range (UVA1,UVA2,UVB). My windows don't have any UV protection films, nevertheless when I tested UV in my room, the beads very slightly changed color when I put them up to 1 metre from the window. They didn't react at all at farther distance. When I open the window they become brightly violet quickly. Is there really UV radiation indoors or is it relevant only if you are sitting right next to the window? 

 

The further away, the less UV radiation as you observed. Question is, how much further away from the window is safe for anal bastards like myself??? :|o

Where did you buy your UV detecting beads?

 

I am talking about this type of beads https://www.google.c...bih=714&dpr=0.9

You can buy them in many different places in Internet.



#55 Maecenas

  • Guest
  • 181 posts
  • 46
  • Location:Ukraine

Posted 17 September 2014 - 02:11 PM

As I know the range of UV is 280-400 nm (UVA1 400-340, UVA2 340-320 and UVB 315-280). If these beads are sensitive to wavelengths of 300-360 as their producers say, then they should give a good overall picture of UV radiation level.



#56 Maecenas

  • Guest
  • 181 posts
  • 46
  • Location:Ukraine

Posted 17 September 2014 - 03:41 PM

I sprayed those beads with sunscreen SPF 30 and they don't change color in sunlight



#57 Maecenas

  • Guest
  • 181 posts
  • 46
  • Location:Ukraine

Posted 17 September 2014 - 03:53 PM

They slowly changed color after 20 minutes. But that was a chemical sunscreen :) Now I'll try to use an expensive physical sunscreen.

 


Edited by Maecenas, 17 September 2014 - 03:57 PM.


#58 Maecenas

  • Guest
  • 181 posts
  • 46
  • Location:Ukraine

Posted 17 September 2014 - 04:08 PM

Sunscreens seem to slow down the process of coloration and the color is maybe 1/3 less bright, but the beads are still very bright, though it's already evening here and there is no direct sunlight. I realize that the sunscreens are designed for human skin, but still physical ones should protect beads much better? Am I wrong?


Edited by Maecenas, 17 September 2014 - 04:10 PM.


#59 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 18 September 2014 - 02:32 AM

I'm thinking these beads are not really helpful for UVA rays, if not why bother with them?



#60 Maecenas

  • Guest
  • 181 posts
  • 46
  • Location:Ukraine

Posted 18 September 2014 - 06:02 AM

I'm thinking these beads are not really helpful for UVA rays, if not why bother with them?

They are very sensitive to UVA. They detect UVA even after sunset.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users