85 replies to this topic

[Ben]

Has anyone tried the Bioderma Photoderm MAX Fluid SPF 100? How is it compared to the Bioderma Photoderm Mineral SPF50+(uva22)?

I can answer the first question for you spacey m'lad. Bioderma's Max fluide gave my skin a whiteish somewhat sweaty look. It should be said however that this was in no way as bad to the effect the average Australian made sunscreen has on my skin. Also, if I applied the product when I had a bit of facial hair its visibility greatly increased.

[Eva Victoria]

Has anyone tried the Bioderma Photoderm MAX Fluid SPF 100? How is it compared to the Bioderma Photoderm Mineral SPF50+(uva22)?

I have used both sunscreens.
Max Fluid SPF50+ /SPF100 (UVA 35)
Looks a bit oily on the skin even though the feeling is completely dry on the skin. It exaggerated my pores greatly and it is a bit whitening (but far less than the Minarale SPF50+). OCR burns my skin so I had to give up on this sunscreen :(
The Minerale SPF50+ UVA22 is a surprisingly pleasant sunscreen with a silicony-matt, dewy finish on the skin. It does not burn or itch the skin. Perfect for even the most sensitive individuals! I love this sunscreen but they could have put some masking colour for the extreme whitness that it gives to the skin after drying.

Remember, to have the correct SPF/UVA protection of a given sunscreen one has to apply 1g/cm2 of the product!

[Fredrik]

Remember, to have the correct SPF/UVA protection of a given sunscreen one has to apply 1g/cm2 of the product!

2 mg/cm²

A sunscreen's sun protection factor (SPF) is measured in a highly controlled situation based on FDA requirements, which include applying the sunscreen in a layer with a thickness of 2 mg/cm².

...A sunscreen with an SPF of 50 applied at 0.5 mg/cm² yields an SPF of only 2.7.

http://dermatology.j...full/1998/301/1

0.5 mg/cm² is the amount that most people prefer to apply. This is why sun avoidance combined with high SPF (50+), hats, clothing, internal and external antioxidants is recommended.

Edited by Fredrik, 05 August 2008 - 05:26 PM.

[Eva Victoria]

Remember, to have the correct SPF/UVA protection of a given sunscreen one has to apply 1g/cm2 of the product!

2 mg/cm²

A sunscreen's sun protection factor (SPF) is measured in a highly controlled situation based on FDA requirements, which include applying the sunscreen in a layer with a thickness of 2 mg/cm².

...A sunscreen with an SPF of 50 applied at 0.5 mg/cm² yields an SPF of only 2.7.

http://dermatology.j...full/1998/301/1

0.5 mg/cm² is the amount that most people prefer to apply. This is why sun avoidance combined with high SPF (50+), hats, clothing, internal and external antioxidants is recommended.

I meant 1 mg/cm2 according to a new study. (Very interesting!!!)
There are different type of method for measurement of protection offered by sunscreen and also the amount of the product used is dependent of the method.

But the general view is 2 mg/cm2 as you, Fredrik wrote!

http://www.medscape....mp;uac=120843ER (see the whole article)


How to Measure UVA Protection Afforded by Sunscreen Products
"Photoinstability of sunscreens due to UV exposure is a well-known and common phenomenon.^[20] An important point in the assessment of protection against UV radiation is the challenge of product photostability during the test to avoid overestimation of UVA protection level of products that are not photostable. To illustrate this point, avobenzone (butyl methoxy-dibenzoylmethane [BMDM], Parsol^®1789), a known photolabile UVA filter, was tested at concentrations of 1.0, 3.0 and 5.0%, respectively, alone and in combination with 10% octocrylene, a UVB filter proved to photostabilize avobenzone.^[15] The results of UVA-PF of avobenzone (BMDM) alone ranged from 2.2 with BMDM 1% up to 4.6 with BMDM 5%. When combined with 10% octocrylene, they ranged from 4.6 with BMDM 1% up to 10.6 with BMDM 5%. The UVA protection efficacy of avobenzone is significantly increased when it is combined with octocrylene compared with the products containing BMDM alone at the same concentration. This can be explained by the fact that the PPD method applies realistic UVA doses challenging the photostability of filtering systems while octocrylene is known to photostabilize BMDM. It has been verified under real sun exposure conditions that when photolabile avobenzone applied at 1 mg/cm² is exposed to a UVA dose of approximately 30 J/cm² (approximately 2.5 h of noon sun exposure at 40° latitude in summer) there is a dramatic decrease in its UVA absorption properties leading to a sharp decrease in UVA protection efficacy.^[21] Thus, the PPD method has been shown to be valid."

Edited by Eva Victoria, 06 August 2008 - 11:11 AM.

[Fredrik]

There are different type of method for measurement of protection offered by sunscreen and also the amount of the product used is dependent of the method.

But the general view is 2 mg/cm2 as you, Fredrik wrote!

No. There is only one method of measuring a products SPF and that procedure require 2 mg/cm2 and nothing else. If you would use more or less you wouldn´t get an accurate, comparable SPF. It´s a standardized amount. There are several different ways to measure UVA-protection, as your link and quote showed, and the FDA haven´t decided on which ones to use yet. But to measure a products SPF they always apply 2 mg/cm2.

Edited by Fredrik, 08 August 2008 - 01:30 AM.

[Eva Victoria]

There are different type of method for measurement of protection offered by sunscreen and also the amount of the product used is dependent of the method.

But the general view is 2 mg/cm2 as you, Fredrik wrote!

No. There is only one method of measuring a products SPF and that procedure require 2 mg/cm2 and nothing else. If you would use more or less you wouldn´t get an accurate, comparable SPF. It´s a standardized amount. There are several different ways to measure UVA-protection, as your link and quote showed, and the FDA haven´t decided on which ones to use yet. But to measure a products SPF they always apply 2 mg/cm2.

I did not say otherwise, did I?
God, Fredrik, that you don't have anything else to do than pick on people (mostly on me)! I really feel sorry for you dear.

[Fredrik]

God, Fredrik, that you don't have anything else to do than pick on people (mostly on me)! I really feel sorry for you dear.

Yes, I´m a horrible person for wanting correct information on a scientifically oriented forum. You´re a prolific poster but at the same time you often get things wrong. I´ve pointed out faulty things or misunderstandings in other members posts but they don´t react like you do.

Edited by Fredrik, 08 August 2008 - 11:11 AM.

[Eva Victoria]

God, Fredrik, that you don't have anything else to do than pick on people (mostly on me)! I really feel sorry for you dear.

Yes, I´m a horrible person for wanting correct information on a scientifically oriented forum. You´re a prolific poster but at the same time you often get things wrong. I´ve pointed out faulty things or misunderstandings in other members posts but they don´t react like you do.

I would not either if it did not happened every time I post something.
It seems as if you are doing it deliberately when it comes to me.
And frankly, I start to get bored with this and feel really sorry for you, Fredrik. It is not good for you to be so obsessed with somebody like this. (Negative thoughts are just as damaging as external or internal oxidation.)

[Fredrik]

God, Fredrik, that you don't have anything else to do than pick on people (mostly on me)! I really feel sorry for you dear.

Yes, I´m a horrible person for wanting correct information on a scientifically oriented forum. You´re a prolific poster but at the same time you often get things wrong. I´ve pointed out faulty things or misunderstandings in other members posts but they don´t react like you do.

I would not either if it did not happened every time I post something.

It can only happen when you´re posting stuff that´s incorrect, yes? Take your recent post that got us into this discussion. In that post you said that one has to use 1 gram/cm2 of skin. The average face + neck is about 685 cm2. So you just told a person to use 685 g of sunscreen on his face (24 ounces). The correct amount would be 1.37 gram of sunscreen.

Reference (and a good read!):
http://dermatology.c.../castanedo.html

That´s such an obvious mistake that I wouldn´t have pointed it out if only you had written the right number = 2 mg. But you got both the number and the unit wrong.

In your response you were still incorrect by claiming they now use 1 mg/ cm2 to measure a products SPF. The right unit but the wrong number. And you keep claiming that you´re right.

It seems as if you are doing it deliberately when it comes to me.

No. As I´ve said, you post a lot and you get it wrong a lot.

And frankly, I start to get bored with this and feel really sorry for you, Fredrik. It is not good for you to be so obsessed with somebody like this. (Negative thoughts are just as damaging as external or internal oxidation.)

I don´t know what you´re talking about here but I believe that incorrect medical information can be equally or more damaging than oxidation to the people reading this forum.

Edited by Fredrik, 08 August 2008 - 08:59 PM.

[Eva Victoria]

God, Fredrik, that you don't have anything else to do than pick on people (mostly on me)! I really feel sorry for you dear.

Yes, I´m a horrible person for wanting correct information on a scientifically oriented forum. You´re a prolific poster but at the same time you often get things wrong. I´ve pointed out faulty things or misunderstandings in other members posts but they don´t react like you do.

I would not either if it did not happened every time I post something.

It can only happen when you´re posting stuff that´s incorrect, yes? Take your recent post that got us into this discussion. In that post you said that one has to use 1 gram/cm2 of skin. The average face + neck is about 685 cm2. So you just told a person to use 685 g of sunscreen on his face (24 ounces). The correct amount would be 1.37 gram of sunscreen.

Reference (and a good read!):
http://dermatology.c.../castanedo.html

That´s such an obvious mistake that I wouldn´t have pointed it out if only you had written the right number = 2 mg. But you got both the number and the unit wrong.

In your response you were still incorrect by claiming they now use 1 mg/ cm2 to measure a products SPF. The right unit but the wrong number. And you keep claiming that you´re right.

It seems as if you are doing it deliberately when it comes to me.

No. As I´ve said, you post a lot and you get it wrong a lot.

And frankly, I start to get bored with this and feel really sorry for you, Fredrik. It is not good for you to be so obsessed with somebody like this. (Negative thoughts are just as damaging as external or internal oxidation.)

I don´t know what you´re talking about here but I believe that incorrect medical information can be equally or more damaging than oxidation to the people reading this forum.

I still believe that the amount of time and energy we two put in these arguments between each other could be used for something more constructive like answering and helping other people.
I do not wish to have any confrontation with you, Fredrik in the future. Hope you can respect that.

[Brafarality]

God, Fredrik, that you don't have anything else to do than pick on people (mostly on me)! I really feel sorry for you dear.

Yes, I´m a horrible person for wanting correct information on a scientifically oriented forum. You´re a prolific poster but at the same time you often get things wrong. I´ve pointed out faulty things or misunderstandings in other members posts but they don´t react like you do.

I would not either if it did not happened every time I post something.

It can only happen when you´re posting stuff that´s incorrect, yes? Take your recent post that got us into this discussion. In that post you said that one has to use 1 gram/cm2 of skin. The average face + neck is about 685 cm2. So you just told a person to use 685 g of sunscreen on his face (24 ounces). The correct amount would be 1.37 gram of sunscreen.

Reference (and a good read!):
http://dermatology.c.../castanedo.html

That´s such an obvious mistake that I wouldn´t have pointed it out if only you had written the right number = 2 mg. But you got both the number and the unit wrong.

In your response you were still incorrect by claiming they now use 1 mg/ cm2 to measure a products SPF. The right unit but the wrong number. And you keep claiming that you´re right.

It seems as if you are doing it deliberately when it comes to me.

No. As I´ve said, you post a lot and you get it wrong a lot.

And frankly, I start to get bored with this and feel really sorry for you, Fredrik. It is not good for you to be so obsessed with somebody like this. (Negative thoughts are just as damaging as external or internal oxidation.)

I don´t know what you´re talking about here but I believe that incorrect medical information can be equally or more damaging than oxidation to the people reading this forum.

My humble 2 cents:

These forums, imho, are supposed to be vibrant agoras for ideas and information, not overly FDA-restrained medical diagnostic texts in progress.

Eva saturates these forums with enough information that a few excellent books could be made out of the aggregate. I enjoy her every post and am more than intelligent enough to spot occasional typos and think nothing of them, and, also, am more than grateful enough to appreciate the unselfishness she exhibits in her voluminous knowledge sharing.

If she hesitated on every detail and obsessed over every possible typo, there would be so much less of her wisdom and knowlege available for us here!
I am certain that if she were to publish a research paper or encyclopedia entry, she would be less about splendid stream of consciousness and more about obsessive fact checking.

But, those are different venues with different purposes.
ImmInst forums rule! I cannot begin to express how much I have learned in my few months here, and Eva is a big part of it.

Edited by paulthekind, 09 August 2008 - 10:39 PM.

[sdxl]

Those 2 mg/cm² is basic sunscreen knowledge. As I recall I've seen it on some Bioderma sunscreens. Does the average sunscreen user calculates their skin surface they want to apply their sunscreen to and adjust the right amount to it? I highly doubt it. But it is still important!

As far as I can see Fredrik is doing nothing wrong with pointing out inaccuracies in Eva's posts and she shouldn't take it personal. Cause some people might take that information at face value. Which is not recommended for anything you read here on anywhere else. But it does happen. It might not matter for some things, but for some things it does. If you can't back it up, you probably shouldn't be putting it here.

[Ben]

Fredrik is doing nothing wrong with pointing out inaccuracies in Eva's posts and she shouldn't take it personally

Hear hear. Also, anyone trying to maintain the quality of the forum should be thanked.

[luminous]

If she hesitated on every detail and obsessed over every possible typo, there would be so much less of her wisdom and knowlege available for us here!
I am certain that if she were to publish a research paper or encyclopedia entry, she would be less about splendid stream of consciousness and more about obsessive fact checking.

Paul, you're too kind. I'm a 51-yo woman who is keenly interested in preserving the health and appearance of my skin. While I'll be the first to admit my ignorance on the best way to go about doing so, I do a lot of research in this area and rely on experts to deliver accurate information. Listen, we're not talking about mere typos, unless you count getting a critcal number in a scientific measurement totally wrong as a typo. I'll take fewer posts based on "obsessive fact checking" over numerous entries based on "splendid stream of consciousness" any day.

As for Eva's feeling that Fredrik is trying to single her out, he has on occasion corrected me as well. I was glad because my quest for the most accurate information eclipses my wish to be right. I for one am grateful that Fredrik corrects important errors as he sees them, and this should not be construed as confrontation. So if Eva is asking Fredrik to cease correcting her errors, I take issue with that. I've inferred that dermatology is Eva's profession. As such, I can see that others might take everything she says as the gospel truth. At a forum such as this, accuracy and accountability are paramount. Ideally, we should correct ALL critical errors we see so that nobody gets the wrong information. If doing so were considered inappropriate, then I would have left the forum long ago.

Edit: insert a preposition, omit a repetition, fix a grammatical error

Edited by luminous, 10 August 2008 - 06:39 PM.

[Brafarality]

Fredrik is doing nothing wrong with pointing out inaccuracies in Eva's posts and she shouldn't take it personally

Hear hear. Also, anyone trying to maintain the quality of the forum should be thanked.

I have sometimes wondered what type of person combs through informative and irreplaceable Wikipedia articles and flags them in 50 places for citations and unverified claims. I kinda sorta know that you need these types of people for quality control, but they are pretty undesirable nonetheless. Athough they undeniably perform an essential service, it seems as if they do nothing more than nastily peck at others' works.

Perhaps I have too much respect for the content creators, the writers, the artists, the composers, the scientists, documentarians, pure journalists, etc., and think too little of critics and fault-finders, those admittedly essential elements that affect restraint and keep the bleeding edge from dispersing and tumbling into chaos.

[Brafarality]

If she hesitated on every detail and obsessed over every possible typo, there would be so much less of her wisdom and knowlege available for us here!
I am certain that if she were to publish a research paper or encyclopedia entry, she would be less about splendid stream of consciousness and more about obsessive fact checking.

Paul, you're too kind. I'm a 51-yo woman who is keenly interested preserving the health and appearance of my skin. While I'll be the first to admit my ignorance on the best way to go about doing so, I do a lot of research in this area and rely on experts to deliver accurate information. Listen, we're not talking about mere typos, unless you count getting a critcal number in a scientific measurement totally wrong as a typo. I'll take fewer posts based on "obsessive fact checking" over numerous entries based on "splendid stream of consciousness" any day.

As for Eva's feeling that Fredrik is trying to single her out, he has on occasion corrected me as well. I was glad because my quest for the most accurate information eclipses my wish to be right. I for one am grateful that Fredrik corrects important errors as he sees them, and this should not be construed as confrontation. So if Eva is asking Fredrik to cease correcting her errors, I for one take issue with that. I've inferred that dermatology is Eva's profession. As such, I can see that others might take everything she says as the gospel truth. At a forum such as this, accuracy and accountability is paramount. Ideally, we should correct ALL critical errors we see so that nobody gets the wrong information. If doing so were considered inappropriate, then I would have left the forum long ago.

I just differ in how I view forums and may ultimately be in the minority. Not sure yet:

OK, as a thought experiment, let's make these forums officially restrained venues, where every person double and triple checks his/her facts before posting, and, as a result, reduces contribution drastically.
Where do spontaneous, rapid, pure ideas and viewpoints get exchanged then?

Forums were it.
If they are taken away, it's over.
There are too few places for truly pure idea exchange.

IMHO, anyone looking to restrain them in any way is performing a disservice to humanity's future. I believe Einstein would wholeheartedly agree, as he rarely paused to provide citations for his papers. He was moving forward too quickly for that. Imagine if he did. Imagine if he waited 10 years before publication because he never took the time to research and validate all his assumptions. We might still be dwelling in a universe driven by classical physics.

There is definitely a place for restraint and careful research, but I do not believe it is in one of our last strongholds of spontaneity, the internet forum. The ImmInst also appears to be grasping for the big idea. Who knows what brilliance might not be posted here if too many posting restrictions are put into place.

[luminous]

If she hesitated on every detail and obsessed over every possible typo, there would be so much less of her wisdom and knowlege available for us here!
I am certain that if she were to publish a research paper or encyclopedia entry, she would be less about splendid stream of consciousness and more about obsessive fact checking.

Paul, you're too kind. I'm a 51-yo woman who is keenly interested in preserving the health and appearance of my skin. While I'll be the first to admit my ignorance on the best way to go about doing so, I do a lot of research in this area and rely on experts to deliver accurate information. Listen, we're not talking about mere typos, unless you count getting a critcal number in a scientific measurement totally wrong as a typo. I'll take fewer posts based on "obsessive fact checking" over numerous entries based on "splendid stream of consciousness" any day.

As for Eva's feeling that Fredrik is trying to single her out, he has on occasion corrected me as well. I was glad because my quest for the most accurate information eclipses my wish to be right. I for one am grateful that Fredrik corrects important errors as he sees them, and this should not be construed as confrontation. So if Eva is asking Fredrik to cease correcting her errors, I take issue with that. I've inferred that dermatology is Eva's profession. As such, I can see that others might take everything she says as the gospel truth. At a forum such as this, accuracy and accountability are paramount. Ideally, we should correct ALL critical errors we see so that nobody gets the wrong information. If doing so were considered inappropriate, then I would have left the forum long ago.

I just differ in how I view forums and may ultimately be in the minority. Not sure yet:

OK, as a thought experiment, let's make these forums officially restrained venues, where every person double and triple checks his/her facts before posting, and, as a result, reduces contribution drastically.
Where do spontaneous, rapid, pure ideas and viewpoints get exchanged then?

Forums were it.
If they are taken away, it's over.
There are too few places for truly pure idea exchange.

IMHO, anyone looking to restrain them in any way is performing a disservice to humanity's future. I believe Einstein would wholeheartedly agree, as he rarely paused to provide citations for his papers. He was moving forward too quickly for that. Imagine if he did. Imagine if he waited 10 years before publication because he never took the time to research and validate all his assumptions. We might still be dwelling in a universe driven by classical physics.

There is definitely a place for restraint and careful research, but I do not believe it is in one of our last strongholds of spontaneity, the internet forum. The ImmInst also appears to be grasping for the big idea. Who knows what brilliance might not be posted here if too many posting restrictions are put into place.

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but I think what is happening in this case is quite different from brainstorming. Brainstorming might be prefaced with "I don't know if this is the reason such-and-such occurs, but maybe one of the causes could be such-and-such, and here's why I think that:" However, if you say instead, "The reason such-and-such happens is because of such-and-such," this is not brainstorming but stating something as fact. When it comes down to specific measurements, amounts, effects on the body, etc., one should clearly label any sort of speculation as such. If you declare something as fact, it IS important to do a little extra legwork if you're not 100% sure you've got the right information. Now I know it's only human to make a mistake, and we all do so. But I find it hard to respect repeatedly becoming defensive rather than appreciative when somebody subsequently sets the record straight. Do we or do we not want accurate information?

Edited by luminous, 10 August 2008 - 06:38 PM.

[Eva Victoria]

If she hesitated on every detail and obsessed over every possible typo, there would be so much less of her wisdom and knowlege available for us here!
I am certain that if she were to publish a research paper or encyclopedia entry, she would be less about splendid stream of consciousness and more about obsessive fact checking.

Paul, you're too kind. I'm a 51-yo woman who is keenly interested in preserving the health and appearance of my skin. While I'll be the first to admit my ignorance on the best way to go about doing so, I do a lot of research in this area and rely on experts to deliver accurate information. Listen, we're not talking about mere typos, unless you count getting a critcal number in a scientific measurement totally wrong as a typo. I'll take fewer posts based on "obsessive fact checking" over numerous entries based on "splendid stream of consciousness" any day.

As for Eva's feeling that Fredrik is trying to single her out, he has on occasion corrected me as well. I was glad because my quest for the most accurate information eclipses my wish to be right. I for one am grateful that Fredrik corrects important errors as he sees them, and this should not be construed as confrontation. So if Eva is asking Fredrik to cease correcting her errors, I take issue with that. I've inferred that dermatology is Eva's profession. As such, I can see that others might take everything she says as the gospel truth. At a forum such as this, accuracy and accountability are paramount. Ideally, we should correct ALL critical errors we see so that nobody gets the wrong information. If doing so were considered inappropriate, then I would have left the forum long ago.

I just differ in how I view forums and may ultimately be in the minority. Not sure yet:

OK, as a thought experiment, let's make these forums officially restrained venues, where every person double and triple checks his/her facts before posting, and, as a result, reduces contribution drastically.
Where do spontaneous, rapid, pure ideas and viewpoints get exchanged then?

Forums were it.
If they are taken away, it's over.
There are too few places for truly pure idea exchange.

IMHO, anyone looking to restrain them in any way is performing a disservice to humanity's future. I believe Einstein would wholeheartedly agree, as he rarely paused to provide citations for his papers. He was moving forward too quickly for that. Imagine if he did. Imagine if he waited 10 years before publication because he never took the time to research and validate all his assumptions. We might still be dwelling in a universe driven by classical physics.

There is definitely a place for restraint and careful research, but I do not believe it is in one of our last strongholds of spontaneity, the internet forum. The ImmInst also appears to be grasping for the big idea. Who knows what brilliance might not be posted here if too many posting restrictions are put into place.

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but I think what is happening in this case is quite different from brainstorming. Brainstorming might be prefaced with "I don't know if this is the reason such-and-such occurs, but maybe one of the causes could be such-and-such, and here's why I think that:" However, if you say instead, "The reason such-and-such happens is because of such-and-such," this is not brainstorming but stating something as fact. When it comes down to specific measurements, amounts, effects on the body, etc., one should clearly label any sort of speculation as such. If you declare something as fact, it IS important to do a little extra legwork if you're not 100% sure you've got the right information. Now I know it's only human to make a mistake, and we all do so. But I find it hard to respect repeatedly becoming defensive rather than appreciative when somebody subsequently sets the record straight. Do we or do we not want accurate information?

Yes we do!
My problem is not with Fredrik correcting me. It is that he is at any chance picking on me and making it personal. That is the only problem I have.
I did not ask him not to correct me next time, I just want him to leave the personal hatred or jealousy or what ever it is out.

His immense knowledge could be used for so much greater than having all these personal discussions.

[Eva Victoria]

If she hesitated on every detail and obsessed over every possible typo, there would be so much less of her wisdom and knowlege available for us here!
I am certain that if she were to publish a research paper or encyclopedia entry, she would be less about splendid stream of consciousness and more about obsessive fact checking.

Paul, you're too kind. I'm a 51-yo woman who is keenly interested in preserving the health and appearance of my skin. While I'll be the first to admit my ignorance on the best way to go about doing so, I do a lot of research in this area and rely on experts to deliver accurate information. Listen, we're not talking about mere typos, unless you count getting a critcal number in a scientific measurement totally wrong as a typo. I'll take fewer posts based on "obsessive fact checking" over numerous entries based on "splendid stream of consciousness" any day.

As for Eva's feeling that Fredrik is trying to single her out, he has on occasion corrected me as well. I was glad because my quest for the most accurate information eclipses my wish to be right. I for one am grateful that Fredrik corrects important errors as he sees them, and this should not be construed as confrontation. So if Eva is asking Fredrik to cease correcting her errors, I take issue with that. I've inferred that dermatology is Eva's profession. As such, I can see that others might take everything she says as the gospel truth. At a forum such as this, accuracy and accountability are paramount. Ideally, we should correct ALL critical errors we see so that nobody gets the wrong information. If doing so were considered inappropriate, then I would have left the forum long ago.

Edit: insert a preposition, omit a repetition, fix a grammatical error

" I've inferred that dermatology is Eva's profession."
I am a formulator specialized in sunscreens esp. UVA-protection. I have a great interest and knowledge about dermatology esp. when it comes to photo aging, its prevention and correction.
I do post things quickly and yes sometimes there are mistakes (even though this time I was referring to (one type of) measurement of UVA protection of sunscreens where there was used 1 mg/cm² (ok I wrote 1 g).
I was not talking about SPF (UVB) measurements that is the double amount used according to Colipa 2 mg. Which Fredrik correctly is referring to.

I am thankful for Paul for daring to stand up for me. I appreciate your daring.

[mitkat]

Fredrik is doing nothing wrong with pointing out inaccuracies in Eva's posts and she shouldn't take it personally

Hear hear. Also, anyone trying to maintain the quality of the forum should be thanked.

I have sometimes wondered what type of person combs through informative and irreplaceable Wikipedia articles and flags them in 50 places for citations and unverified claims. I kinda sorta know that you need these types of people for quality control, but they are pretty undesirable nonetheless. Athough they undeniably perform an essential service, it seems as if they do nothing more than nastily peck at others' works.

I agree with you that I've often wondered about that wikipedia correcting individual. Who so enjoys finding fault in other people's work put forth with no financial compensation? Well...we're going to have to keep wondering because Fredrik is not one of those individuals. He is pointing out errors in a largely scientific forum on a subject that he happens to have some great expertise in. He is trying to inform and share his wealth of knowledge and is attempting to increase his own knowledge at the same time. He has stated that if there are points inaccurate found in his posts he's willing to change. Should we not all have this attitude? Is there a matter of great pride that can't be swallowed if one finds your posts factually invalid with documented proof? I've been corrected before, and I am willing to learn from my mistakes and I imagine a great many of us are. One is rarely happy to be proven wrong, but they are proven wrong nonetheless and should just accept it gracefully.

Perhaps I have too much respect for the content creators, the writers, the artists, the composers, the scientists, documentarians, pure journalists, etc., and think too little of critics and fault-finders, those admittedly essential elements that affect restraint and keep the bleeding edge from dispersing and tumbling into chaos.

I agree with you again here largely. I've never been a nit-picker and can't stand them personally. I see much of a person's 'soul' in their works of art and commend them for that as honestly as I can to show respect for their time, effort and skill put forth. However placing scientists (and arguably "pure" journalists) in that group of people is not copasetic - it is a occupation that ideally is intrinsically concerned with facts that must be displayed and collected exactly in order to build a hypothesis, run an experiment, etc. Opinions, feelings, and other personal baggage are potential miscalculations that can lead toward deviancy in the experiment's result/hypothesis which other ideas are to be built upon. It should be in their nature to be a great critic and fault-finder.

[luminous]

My problem is not with Fredrik correcting me. It is that he is at any chance picking on me and making it personal. That is the only problem I have.
I did not ask him not to correct me next time, I just want him to leave the personal hatred or jealousy or what ever it is out.

His immense knowledge could be used for so much greater than having all these personal discussions.

It's good to hear you're a-okay with Fredrik setting the record straight. For the record, I've never noticed Fredrik exhibiting anything close to hatred or jealousy.

[wydell]

I just tried this sunscreen: UV Natural.

Here are their claims


"Detailed Description
UV Natural has just been ranked #1 by the Environmental Working Group (EWG). UV Natural ranked as the safest and most effective sunscreen sold in the US and the World! Beating nearly 800 other brands, UV natural is recognized as offering uncompromising safety and efficacy in sun protection. The entire range of UV Natural sunscreens protect against the full spectrum of UV light - UV A1, A2, B and C. "

You can get it at REI or online. Kind of oily. Not too whitening for a physical sunscreen. If you mixed a little grapeseed powder into it, that would take care of the slight whitening effect . . . I think


Though the funny thing is, I don't see them listed on the EWG list, though their claim is all over the web

http://www.cosmetics...s...1&overall=g

[Eva Victoria]

I just tried this sunscreen: UV Natural.

Here are their claims


"Detailed Description
UV Natural has just been ranked #1 by the Environmental Working Group (EWG). UV Natural ranked as the safest and most effective sunscreen sold in the US and the World! Beating nearly 800 other brands, UV natural is recognized as offering uncompromising safety and efficacy in sun protection. The entire range of UV Natural sunscreens protect against the full spectrum of UV light - UV A1, A2, B and C. "

You can get it at REI or online. Kind of oily. Not too whitening for a physical sunscreen. If you mixed a little grapeseed powder into it, that would take care of the slight whitening effect . . . I think


Though the funny thing is, I don't see them listed on the EWG list, though their claim is all over the web

http://www.cosmetics...s...1&overall=g

Thank you Wydell for posting this sunscreen! This is the perfect sunscreen! UV Natural:

Ingredients from packaging: Zinc oxide 24.8%, Vitis vinifera (grape) seed oil, Caprilic/capric triglycerides, Silica, Zinc stearate, Macadamia ternifolia seed oil, Camellia oleifera leaf extract (green tea), Vitis vinifera (grape) seed extract, Tocopherol, Iron oxides.

Here is the link on EWG list:

http://www.cosmetics...p?prod_id=93352

UV Natural 4 sunscreens:

http://www.cosmetics...ry=search terms

Edited by Eva Victoria, 11 August 2008 - 02:25 PM.

[Brafarality]

I agree with you again here largely. I've never been a nit-picker and can't stand them personally. I see much of a person's 'soul' in their works of art and commend them for that as honestly as I can to show respect for their time, effort and skill put forth. However placing scientists (and arguably "pure" journalists) in that group of people is not copasetic - it is a occupation that ideally is intrinsically concerned with facts that must be displayed and collected exactly in order to build a hypothesis, run an experiment, etc. Opinions, feelings, and other personal baggage are potential miscalculations that can lead toward deviancy in the experiment's result/hypothesis which other ideas are to be built upon. It should be in their nature to be a great critic and fault-finder.

Agreed 100%.
But, at what stage does the scientist collect and organize all his exactitude for presentation and peer review?
I could be way off, but I don't think it should be on forums such as these. These forums, to me, are more like the early stages of a research project at Google, where everyone is goofing and brainstorming on anything and everything they can think of, and not concerned one iota with facts and numbers. Well, not exactly like that.
More like somewhere just after the completely initial brainstorm phase, but well before publication in Nature magazine.
[bad mismatch of Google and Nature, I know. Couldn't think of a peer reviewed IT journal off the top of my head and didn't want to pause to look for one. should I have paused long enough to find one via Wikipedia or something, or is it an unimportant tonal discrepancy? ]

I steadfastly think people should just blurt it out (without intentionally hurting others, of course), whatever it is, only pausing long enough to impulsively decide the category in which to place the outburst. But, I also grudgingly admit that if someone derives pleasure from correcting others (after all, why else would one spend so much time doing it w/o compensation, as you rightly point out, if there was no element of satisfaction? I could never believe that it was being done purely to protect other's from incorrect info), that person is useful, no matter how much I find him/her disagreeable.

Super summary:

Early on, imaginatively, science=art.
On forums, science should still equal art.

Later on, after hours of painting or validating research, science no longer resembles art.
I guess forums could be situated in these latter stages as well.
It might make them less an arena for pure thought and more a venue for peer review.
Or they could be all or both!

Edited by paulthekind, 11 August 2008 - 06:13 PM.

[mustardseed41]

Just read this about UV Natural. http://www.uvnatural.../site/index.asp

http://www.soleoorga...asp?V_SITE_ID=8
Click on ingredients as it talks about how nano zinc has been getting a bad rap.

Edited by mustardseed41, 11 August 2008 - 11:42 PM.

[Eva Victoria]

Just read this about UV Natural. http://www.uvnatural.../site/index.asp

http://www.soleoorga...asp?V_SITE_ID=8
Click on ingredients as it talks about how nano zinc has been getting a bad rap.

It is a pity that UV Natural won't be available in the US any longer. :(

About nano-ZnO:
The article from the website you posted:

"The Truth about Nanofine Technology
Nanofine technology has been on the receiving end of criticism in the media recently, with questions surrounding its safety, in particular with regard to higher absorption rates. Unfortunately these criticisms are not based on any scientific research.

Zinc oxide is measure in nanometers and most sunscreen companies today are using zinc particles anywhere from 30-180 nanometers. Experts in nanofine technology say for zinc to be absorbed into the body the particle size would have to be less than 0.1 nanometers, which is 300 times smaller than any commercial grade zinc used in sunscreens.

In addition to this Zinc is a required part or our everyday diet, and, in fact, many people are actually zinc deficient. Therefore, for argument sake, if there were any small amount of absorption from topical application of zinc, it would probably be more helpful than harmful anyway.

In comparison chemical uv-absorbers and synthetic preservatives are molecular structures generally measured in Daltons. They are considerably smaller in size than nanofine mineral sunscreens, like zinc oxide. Scientific studies show that synthetic chemicals are absorbed into the bloodstream after topical application.

Scientists at the University of Brisbane conducted research into the absorption rates or the chemical uv-absorber Oxybenzone. A group of 9 people applied sunscreen that contained oxybenzone 6%. Urine samples were taken 48 hours following application. Levels of up to 400mg/m2 of oxybenzone were found in the urine after 48 hours. They concluded "it would be prudent not to apply oxybenzone to large surface areas of skin for extended and repeated periods of time." Scientists also said "there could be an additional concern for young children who have less well-developed processes of elimination, and have a larger surface area per body weight than adults."

For more information about medical research conducted on chemical uv-absorbers visit www.sunscreenresearch.com

What I know about ZnO is that it is available in 3 variants for the cosmetic industry.
Generally, all form of ZnO is less whitening on the skin than TiO2.

1. The original >200nm, which is mainly used as a colouring agent. The reason is because it is very whitening on the skin. Superb UVA (UVA2-UVA1) protection! Low UVB protection compared to TiO2. Highly photo stable. Difficult to formulate sunscreens with it due to its poor UVB protection and its whitening effect. It is not costeffective either.
1% will boost the SPF with 1. (Basically to achieve an SPF 30, one will need 30% ZnO in the formulatiion, while using organic sunscreen one would need 5-10% depending on the filter-type).

2.Micronized ZnO. Much less whitening on the skin. Poorer UVA protection, esp. in the long-UVA range (360-400nm). Good SPF booster (less is needed to achieve higher SPF) hence more cost effective.
This form of the ZnO that is used i sunscreen formulations. Preferably mixed with TiO2 or other organic filters (like OCM, OSA; but not with AVO in the US!)

3. Nano-ZnO. Which is almost completely invisible on the skin which will make it cosmetically more acceptable, easier to sell. Extrem good SPF booster hence one needs very little of it which will make the formulation profitable.
Generally poor UVA protection.
This type of ZnO is forbidden to use in sunscreen formulations in the EU, at least for now. The reason is that in experiments it did cross the Epidermis and was found in the blood.
This is what the Cosmetic database (US) says about Nano-ZnO:
"About NANO ZINC OXIDE: Nano zinc oxide offers greater sun protection than larger zinc particles. Comparatively little is known regarding potential health effects of nanoparticles. They do not penetrate healthy skin, and thus appear to pose a low health risk in lotions. Inhalation of powders and sprays is a concern."
http://cosmeticsdata...ingred06=704095
About ZINC OXIDE: Zinc has a long history of use in sunscreen and other skin care products; little absorption and no adverse health effects are reported. Some sunscreens with zinc contain nanoparticles which do not penetrate skin but may pose toxicity concerns if inhaled or in the environment.
http://cosmeticsdata...ingred06=707070


ZnO is not the same zinc that you take dietarily (I think it is called: Zinc sitrate). ZnO is highly cancerous if it gets in the lungs (for exampel: one works with the powder and breathes it in regularly. There is no danger however in creams since it cannot be airborne.)
ZnO is also approved as a food additive in the US (colouring agent) and as a soothing agent in different oinaments even for babies (it is allowed in the EU as well).

So as long as one uses the original ZnO in sunscreens there is no danger to one's health however I would never recommend ever to use nano-ZnO to anyone as long as there is not more research is done.
One can easily obtain ZnO (the original) through pharmacies. It is easy to mix into ready sunscreens (esp. with silicone oil in it). It gives superiour UVA protection which is highly photo-stable. (f.ex. one mixes 20% ZnO into a sunscreen it'll increase the UVA prot. with UVA20 but also the UVB protection will be increased to SPF original+20.)
But the sunscreen will be whitening on the skin! Hence it is smarter to measure out a little amount of the sunscreen and add 10% ZnO to it
to see how it looks on the skin.
You'll however need min 20% to be able to achieve full UVA coverage (320-400nm)!

Here are some links to ZnO at EWG for further info:

http://cosmeticsdata...ingred06=707070

http://cosmeticsdata...ingred06=703959

http://cosmeticsdata...ingred06=704095

Edited by Eva Victoria, 12 August 2008 - 04:04 PM.