Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-03-2006, 05:17 AM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Moderator Emeritus
Location: Chicago
Sunscreen Labels Misleading

Suit: Sunscreen labels are misleading

Quote:
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A law firm known for going after big corporations has filed a suit accusing sunscreen makers of exaggerating how well their products protect against harmful ultraviolet rays.

The lawsuit claims that the sunscreens don't block all UVA rays, which can cause skin cancer. It seeks consumer refunds and wants to force the manufacturers to give up earnings from sales of such products.

"Sunscreen is the snake oil of the 21st century," said Samuel Rudman, a partner in the law firm that filed the suit in Los Angeles Superior Court.

"False claims such as 'sunblock,' 'waterproof' and 'all-day protection' should be removed from these products immediately," he said.

Coppertone manufacturer Schering-Plough Corp. "vigorously disputed" the allegations, spokeswoman Denise Foy said. It and another maker, Johnson & Johnson's Neutrogena Corp., said their sunscreens comply with Food and Drug Administration rules.

Dermatologists agree that sunscreens don't provide full protection but still consider them beneficial.

"It's akin to someone suing a seat belt manufacturer because seat belts don't prevent 100 percent of the deaths," said Dr. Richard G. Glogau, a clinical professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

More than $455 million worth of sunscreen and tanning lotions are sold each year.

The suit seeks class-action status for the lawsuit, which combines nine earlier complaints. Also named as defendants were Hawaiian Tropic, Banana Boat, BullfrogPlaytex Products, Tanning Research Laboratories and Chattem Brands
/me calls lawyer now to get in on this lawsuit and make some money off of the many many sunburns I've gotten over the years...

do you use sunscreen? Do you believe the label that accompanies the sunscreen? In high school, I used baby oil and turned into a lobster... now that i'm older and have to watch my skin, I always use sunscreen and dress appropriately when I'm out in the sun... I burn very easily so I tend to not beleive the labels much...
__________________
Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.
maleficent is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 05:35 AM   #2 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
I've got histories of skin cancer on both sides of my family, so I definitely watch my time in the sun and use sunscreen whenever possible. This sounds like another "hot coffee" lawsuit. If the suncreen were supposed to prevent all occurrences of cancer, that would be one thing, but the dermatologists have always said that use will reduce the occurrence in the general population not completely prevent it. It sounds like the Silicosis lawyers finally figured out that that suit isn't going anywhere so they need something else.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 06:01 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Maybe they should instead add a warning label that acknowledges the feminizing effect the chemicals in sunscreen have due to the estrogen mimicking chemicals in them.
samcol is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 06:18 AM   #4 (permalink)
Kick Ass Kunoichi
 
snowy's Avatar
 
Location: Oregon
I always use sunscreen (on my face everyday, on my body as appropriate), but I thought it was pretty clear that sunscreen doesn't block 100% of UVA rays. At least I've always known that was the case. Why else would you have varying degrees of protection, up to 45 SPF? One might notice there is no 100 on the scale--or at least I did.

Anyways, having seen what overexposure to sun can do to people (my aunt's wife looks like shoe leather) I think I'll stick with sunscreen regardless of any class-action suit.
__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau
snowy is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 06:37 AM   #5 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Maybe they should instead add a warning label that acknowledges the feminizing effect the chemicals in sunscreen have due to the estrogen mimicking chemicals in them.
Source?

I've never had a problem with sunscreen.. I can't think of a time when I burned while wearing it, but can think of countless times when I burned while not wearing it. Can't these companies simply defend the lawsuit by saying that the user didn't apply it correctly?
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 06:59 AM   #6 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
I read once that SPF over 25 doesn't do anything extra.

Total bullshit.

My lilly white 1/2 Irish skin was frying to a crisp fishing last summer in 90+ degree heat all day. My 25 or whatever it was, wasn't holding up. I got some 45 from another guy and is saved my trip.

On my trips to Hawaii the only places I ever had any color was where I missed a spot.

They can have my sunblock when they tear it from my cold dead white unwrinkled hands.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 07:14 AM   #7 (permalink)
<3 TFP
 
xepherys's Avatar
 
Location: 17TLH2445607250
Alright, I'll have to look later for data to back up this argument (it's pretty easy to find), however I'll lay it out anyway:

Yes, sunscreen can prevent you from outright burning, however it does this by having you slather chemicals over nearly your entire body. Many doctors, university researchers and study groups are finding that the increase in skin cancer over the past 50-60 years is most likely linked to the USE of sunscreen. Human beings have spent most of their time out in the sun for several millenia, and our bodies are well adept at handling it. For most people, even many fair-skinned ones, burning once or twice at the beginning of the summer will keep you from really burning again as you stay out in the sun. While the ultraviolet rays CAN be damaging to skin cells, that damage is countered to a degree by thousands of years of genetic development. However, we have not developed an internal way to counter chemicals all over our body. This being said, my personal recommendation based on a fairly decent amount of reading on the subject is:

Babies - MAYBE use a light amount of sunscreen, preferably only on areas not covered and primarily protect them by keeping them in the shade

Kids - Pull them out of the sun every 30 minutes or so to make sure they aren't getting red. Don't have them fry all day, and I really don't recommend sunscreen for kids.

Adults - Use common sense. You KNOW what it takes to burn you. Almost every human on the planet CAN adjust to sun exposure. Fair-skinned redheads CAN do it... but you need to take it slow. Know you're going to the ocean for vacation in June? Start spending more time outside in May with less clothing on (sunbath in your backyard or pool if you can). At any rate, I know I need to find supporting articles and they'll be forthcoming shortly.

Note to Ustwo, yes... but think about it. What is it DOING to prevent all those UV rays? That nice slick of aluminium-based (or other) chemicals coating your body. Sounds great, right?
xepherys is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 07:31 AM   #8 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
All I know is that without sunscreen my summers would SUCK. I don't care what chems it takes. I'll take them over a sunburn any day.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 07:42 AM   #9 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Many doctors, university researchers and study groups are finding that the increase in skin cancer over the past 50-60 years is most likely linked to the USE of sunscreen.
I'd really like to see a source on that one too, because it sounds like (no offense meant) absolutely garbage. They used to say that the people who covered themselves in gold would get gold poisoning or something ridiculous because our skin wasn't used to being covered. That turned out to be superstition, just like the above.

If you can argue that we've got thousands of years of evolution allowing our skin to resist the sun, then you've got to say we'd have just as much evolution (selective pressure in this case) allowing us to resist chemicals on our skin.

Dark skin was selected for because it protected us against direct sun in equitorial regions, but unless you're black you can see why you aren't optimal for being protected against the sun.

White skin is NOT good at blocking excess sunrays, no matter how much blind faith you put in evolution.

Evolution doesn't "pick" what's necessarily best, only that which survives (and reproduces).

Truly, black skin is most desirable everywhere -- however, in areas with low Vitamin D in the diet (UV causes Vitamin D production in our subdermal skin layers), white skin began to be selected for.

That doesn't mean it's better to be white-skinned, only that those with black skin were dying of rickets-related pregnancy complications. Ever wondered why people further from the equator are typically lighter skinned? We need Vitamin D. The only pre-technological "dark skinned" populations above the equator are those such as Eskimos -- they get a large suplement of Vitamin C because of their diet -- seal blubber contains a ton.

So no, thousands of years of evolution did not give us white folks the "optimal" skin protection, and we DO need sunscreen. And unless you can show me real research I'm going to assume the "sunscreen is a bad chemical" theory is quack science.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Last edited by Jinn; 04-03-2006 at 07:46 AM..
Jinn is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 08:19 AM   #10 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xepherys

Note to Ustwo, yes... but think about it. What is it DOING to prevent all those UV rays? That nice slick of aluminium-based (or other) chemicals coating your body. Sounds great, right?
I'm 35, I can pass easily for my 20's. Behold the power of sunscreen.

I'm far less worried about a chemical coating than a EMR burn

I don't spend a lot of time in the sun as it is, so I don't think I'm doing any major harm with sunscreen.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 09:47 AM   #11 (permalink)
<3 TFP
 
xepherys's Avatar
 
Location: 17TLH2445607250
That's funny... I'm 29 and eaily pass for 20 and I never use sunscreen. *shrug*

As for some sources:

http://www.newstarget.com/001264.html

http://science.slashdot.org/article....21206&from=rss

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4001172/

http://www.ebabybanz.com/Sunshine%20...t%20Cancer.htm

http://www.newstarget.com/z001264.html
xepherys is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 11:08 AM   #12 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xepherys
That's funny... I'm 29 and eaily pass for 20 and I never use sunscreen. *shrug*

As for some sources:

http://www.newstarget.com/001264.html
Wackjob site, and the Vit D stuff is from the same studies as below. I wouldn't trust them on the rest they are just trying to sell you suppliments.


Good article, but it just said some sunlight about 15 mins a week is good for you.

Same story, same study as above.

Same study again.

This is typical of the news and science. One study gets done and it becomes a new 'hit' on the internet and the talk shows. It may well be valid (or it might not, as there are many factors to look at) but it really just says get 'SOME' sun, not that you should not use sunscreen. Hell all it really says is Vit D is good for you
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 11:13 AM   #13 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by xepherys
Yes, sunscreen can prevent you from outright burning, however it does this by having you slather chemicals over nearly your entire body. Many doctors, university researchers and study groups are finding that the increase in skin cancer over the past 50-60 years is most likely linked to the USE of sunscreen. Human beings have spent most of their time out in the sun for several millenia, and our bodies are well adept at handling it. For most people, even many fair-skinned ones, burning once or twice at the beginning of the summer will keep you from really burning again as you stay out in the sun. While the ultraviolet rays CAN be damaging to skin cells, that damage is countered to a degree by thousands of years of genetic development. However, we have not developed an internal way to counter chemicals all over our body.
I wonder if the increase in skin cancer (if the studies are true) might be because people who use sunscreen are spending a lot more time in the sun than they would otherwise.
flstf is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 11:17 AM   #14 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf
I wonder if the increase in skin cancer (if the studies are true) might be because people who use sunscreen are spending a lot more time in the sun than they would otherwise.
Thats exactly the thought currently. Also in the US at least the increase in skin cancer is related to the migration west lately of the retirement agers to places like Az, NM, and Colorado.

Whats ironic is that IF the sunscreen does not give you UV protection then the Vit D thing and health shouldn't be a factor with sunscreen. If it does then the original lawsuit is way off base, but we need to get more Vit D.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 11:43 AM   #15 (permalink)
<3 TFP
 
xepherys's Avatar
 
Location: 17TLH2445607250
Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf
I wonder if the increase in skin cancer (if the studies are true) might be because people who use sunscreen are spending a lot more time in the sun than they would otherwise.
I just find it a bit odd is all. I mean, skin cancer, while perhaps not as easily "diagnosed" a long time ago, would have been easily NOTICED at least. And it seems to have just not been a big deal in the past until a few decades ago. And people generally spent MUCH more time outside. People walked everywhere or rode horses, no air conditioned cars. More people worked outside in agriculture-related fields.

At any rate, it's more or less a logical step to assume sunscreen is probably not good for you. I mean, over 30-40 years, almost all chemical-based, man-made things that you ingest or cover yourself with turn out to be bad. I don't see why sunscreen is so magical. Let's take a short look back:

Tobacco - It was great until we discovered lung cancer.

Asbestos - Made the most awesome artificial snow in Hollywood sets and was a great insulator and was put in almost all buildings for a while... until we disovered Mesothelioma

Hydrogenated Vegatable Oils - Made pre-cooked items last longer, made manufacturing cheaper, made items cook better in the microwave... it was GREAT... until we discovered Trans-Fatty acids (and if the anti-TransFat issue is too new for you to believe in, well... sorry)

Lead - Made for great heavy glass, helped bind (I believe) paints, was used in all sorts of applications. Cancer much?

Mercury - See above? Mmmm, tasty deadly broken thermometers. Yum!

Thalidomide - I sure hope their kids flippers were worth the little relief from morning sickness. Oh that's right, they didn't know. In fact, at the time it met US FDA approval, just like most of the things mentioned above.


I mean, do I really need to go on? In the last century, the one lesson we SHOULD have learned that we seem not to have as a race is that chemicals are NOT our friends. Sure, there are certain good uses for some of them sometimes, but generally speaking, if you can avoid them you should, whether they be medication (I've seen plenty of ppl on this board agree that they try to take as little medication as possible) or cleaning chemicals or chemical-laden foods (pesticides). Hell, many DOCTORS now are recommending organic products. And unlike pharmecuetical companies, most doctors are not in bed with organic farms and growers. But the data proves that there is a reasonable benefit, and an extra 3-5% cost is worth the healthful benefits. At any rate, why is sunscreen so much different?
xepherys is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 11:54 AM   #16 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
People did spend a lot of time working outside but they usually covered themselves with a hat and some clothing. Even rednecks usually only got burnt on the back of their necks, LOL. This is a lot different than laying out on the beach all day with only a bikini or speedos on.
flstf is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 11:58 AM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xepherys
Thalidomide - I sure hope their kids flippers were worth the little relief from morning sickness. Oh that's right, they didn't know. In fact, at the time it met US FDA approval, just like most of the things mentioned above.
Which is now being used to treat cancer and makes the chemo much easier to stand since the dosage can be reduced as well as the added benefit of greatly reducing nausea.

And you do realize that lead, mercury, asbestos, and tobacco are all naturally occuring, right?
__________________
"Fuck these chains
No goddamn slave
I will be different"
~ Machine Head

Last edited by spectre; 04-03-2006 at 12:01 PM..
spectre is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 11:59 AM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Moderator Emeritus
Location: Chicago
[QUOTE=xepherys]I just find it a bit odd is all. I mean, skin cancer, while perhaps not as easily "diagnosed" a long time ago, would have been easily NOTICED at least. And it seems to have just not been a big deal in the past until a few decades ago. QUOTE]

After a very mispent youth (I mean really stupid teenager), thinking I could tan, laying out with babyoil to help fry me... And after more than one episode of sun poisoning... Since my late teens, early 20s (I'm 41 now) any mole I get (and I get them) any new freckle I get (and i get them) has me trotting off to the dermotolitist for biopsies... Over the past two decades, I've had more than one 'scare'. Skin cancer has been known about for a long time... (it's kinda like teenagers who start smoking today, knows the odds of causing cancer, but they are too stupid to care) I knew about skin cancer as a kid - but I also beleived that it woudl never happen to me -- Now i can only hope...

As an adult, i won't leave the house without a moisturizer with some matter of SPF in it... or sunglasses on a sunny day... why take the risk.
__________________
Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.
maleficent is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 12:03 PM   #19 (permalink)
Too Awesome for Aardvarks
 
stevie667's Avatar
 
Location: Angloland
Quote:
Originally Posted by onesnowyowl
One might notice there is no 100 on the scale--or at least I did.
I've seen a bottle of 100 before. A guy i went diving with used the stuff for two weeks in the middle of the egyptian sun, you had to wear two pairs of sunglasses around him because of the glare coming off his pure white skin. If someone could make an aerosol version, we wouldn't need the ozone layer anymore


I think they should just sue the sun, cut out the middle man and all.
__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.
stevie667 is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 12:15 PM   #20 (permalink)
<3 TFP
 
xepherys's Avatar
 
Location: 17TLH2445607250
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectre
Which is now being used to treat cancer and makes the chemo much easier to stand since the dosage can be reduced as well as the added benefit of greatly reducing nausea.

And you do realize that lead, mercury, asbestos, and tobacco are all naturally occuring, right?
Sure, it's also being used to potentially help AIDS victims. I'm not saying everything is bad or that it's bad all the time. Also, yes, I understand that those are naturally occuring items, so is trans-fatty acid (usually, however, in EXTREMELY small quantities). Not everything that's natural is good for you either, and I'm quite aware of that. But just because tobacco is a plant doesn't mean you should smoke it. There are plenty of mushrooms you can eat, and plenty that can kill you, *shrug* I think it's just a matter of being as well educated as you can in the matter, and then applying common sense and logic to individual situations. Like I said above, I recommend shade over sunscreen. It has roughly the same effect (you won't get burned) but you still absorb SOME UV and you also don't get covered in chemicals. I guess a little shade must just be horrible to everyone else. On the same note, I think it's silly to sit in the sun ALL day long, beach or no beach. If you're going to surely do that, perhaps the sunscreen is the lesser of two evils... that, I suppose, depends on the individual and your burnability :-p
xepherys is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 12:22 PM   #21 (permalink)
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
 
Bill O'Rights's Avatar
 
Location: In the dust of the archives
Quote:
Originally Posted by maleficent
I burn very easily so I tend to not beleive the labels much...
Ummmm...mal? You're a redhead? Every redhead I've ever known could get a sunburn from a full moon.
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Last edited by Bill O'Rights; 04-03-2006 at 12:26 PM..
Bill O'Rights is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 12:57 PM   #22 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maleficent
Quote:
Originally Posted by xepherys
I just find it a bit odd is all. I mean, skin cancer, while perhaps not as easily "diagnosed" a long time ago, would have been easily NOTICED at least. And it seems to have just not been a big deal in the past until a few decades ago.
After a very mispent youth (I mean really stupid teenager), thinking I could tan, laying out with babyoil to help fry me... And after more than one episode of sun poisoning... Since my late teens, early 20s (I'm 41 now)...

I think xepherys was referring to a time before a few decades ago when you were a teenager.

I'm curious as to how people dealt with sun exposure back in the days before sunscreen came around. Was skin cancer an issue for thousands of years, or just recently? Did ancient egyptians have to worry about it? Or did most of them not live long enough to have to?

I also get really pissed off about the trendy qualities of getting a tan. Natural skin tone is the best.

Going back to the orginal topic on hand- i think this lawsuit is frivolous at best, unless the lawyers have some super secret proof that sun-block doesn't help blocking harmful UV rays. I've never seen a sun block manufacture promis e that use of their product will 100% gaurantee safety from skin cancer.
KungFuGuy is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 01:50 PM   #23 (permalink)
Adequate
 
cyrnel's Avatar
 
Location: In my angry-dome.
Tans have gone in and out of style. Historically they were often associated with the working class, and therefore uncool. Today they're in style to a large extent (though acquiring them much less so), our (western) average life expectancy has doubled over the last 150yrs, we have a degraded ozone layer, fewer hangups about exposed bodies, and lots of leisure time relative to our ancestors. Good recipe for increased problems if you ask me.

Sunblock specifically might be in trouble if the FTC suddenly became strict, but it all strikes me as the usual product hyperbole. Someone's chasing ambulances.
__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195
cyrnel is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 07:47 PM   #24 (permalink)
Banned
 
I'm of the opinion that many here seem to share: part of the problem is that people are taking sunblock and staying out in the sun way more than they ever would without it. They will specifically tan longer, and more often, because they believe the sun block will keep skin cancer from knocking on their door somewhere down the line.

Also, thalidomide still has many uses in medicine- just not for women of child-bearing age. There are plenty of products that do wonderful things but cannot be used in some circumstances. A current example is Accutane- you have to get checked out and given a pregnancy test by your doctor before it's prescribed to you, and then you go into a national database (all number-driven, no names or SSN's are used at all) that shows you comply to not being pregnant and not planning to become pregnant, before they finally give it to you at the pharmacy. This is to prevent flipper babies. The drug, however, does great things as long as you don't become pregnant while it's in your system.

Bad drugs are ones that cause bad side effects. I can't remember the name, but a few years ago, a drug was taken off the market that treated high blood pressure. It did that job well, but it turns out it destroyed people's livers. That's not an acceptable side effect- and it happens to everyone, not a select group.

The side effect of thalidomide is only applicable to those who are pregnant. This just means they can't give it to pregnant people, much like a person on lithium can't take viagra. There are factors that, in the right combination, mean you can't take a particular drug.
analog is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 08:13 PM   #25 (permalink)
Heliotrope
 
cellophanedeity's Avatar
 
Location: A warm room
Quote:
Originally Posted by analog
Also, thalidomide still has many uses in medicine- just not for women of child-bearing age. There are plenty of products that do wonderful things but cannot be used in some circumstances. A current example is Accutane- you have to get checked out and given a pregnancy test by your doctor before it's prescribed to you, and then you go into a national database (all number-driven, no names or SSN's are used at all) that shows you comply to not being pregnant and not planning to become pregnant, before they finally give it to you at the pharmacy. This is to prevent flipper babies. The drug, however, does great things as long as you don't become pregnant while it's in your system.

Bad drugs are ones that cause bad side effects.
Just as a side note, I've never met anyone on accutane that didn't become highly depressed. And, if you go in the sun for even half an hour when you're on it, your skin practically dies.

While I do question the safety of slathering my body in chemicals, I've found that doing so tends to be more beneficial than not doing so. I burn very easily, even in short periods of time, and even after at least one "tan session."

I'm going to stick to the sunscreen until I get a very convincing argument against it.
__________________
who am I to refuse the universe?
-Leonard Cohen, Beautiful Losers
cellophanedeity is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 08:43 PM   #26 (permalink)
Mine is an evil laugh
 
spindles's Avatar
 
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by cellophanedeity
While I do question the safety of slathering my body in chemicals, I've found that doing so tends to be more beneficial than not doing so. I burn very easily, even in short periods of time, and even after at least one "tan session."

I'm going to stick to the sunscreen until I get a very convincing argument against it.

I'm 95% with this. Remove the idea of a "tan session" and you have me.
__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?
spindles is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 09:16 PM   #27 (permalink)
Kick Ass Kunoichi
 
snowy's Avatar
 
Location: Oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by cellophanedeity
Just as a side note, I've never met anyone on accutane that didn't become highly depressed. And, if you go in the sun for even half an hour when you're on it, your skin practically dies.
I've never known anyone who had depression problems while on Accutane. And honestly, for some with disfiguring acne, all of the risks associated with Accutane are outweighed by the benefits. But yes, sunscreen is a must for those on it, as is an investment in a large tub of moisturizer.

There are a lot of people on drugs that require they also wear sunscreen. I can also imagine that there the benefits outweigh the risks.
__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau
snowy is offline  
Old 04-03-2006, 09:34 PM   #28 (permalink)
Banned
 
Zeraph's Avatar
 
Location: The Cosmos
I just know that the article rings some truth, I went to the lake a couple months ago, put on A LOT of sunscreen around 45, multiple times, and still got burned badly all over. The best protection is hat/shirt/clothes and shade.
Zeraph is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 06:49 AM   #29 (permalink)
It's a girly girl!
 
basmoq's Avatar
 
Location: OH, USA
Ok, speaking as a scientist myself, I must say that xepherys is completely wrong in his statement that we have evolved protection against UV (please take a course in basic genetics) UV rays cause Thymine Dimers to form in our DNA, which prevents DNA Polymerase from being able to read the strand of DNA beyond the dimer. Our cells have developed the ability to correct Thymine dimers, but it takes time, the more dimers you create (ie. the more time you spend in the sun), the more likely you are to not be able to keep up with the damage, leading to errors in the reading of your DNA. Now some errors make no difference to protien function, however, some cause cell death. Accumulate enough errors in a single cell and it can lead to skin cancer. Please do not use a rudimentary knowledge of scientific theory to prove your own theories, and don't believe anything you read on the internet, go to scientific journals if you want real science, it is very common for journalists to completely misstate the significance of a journal article. If you would like a more detailed description of the problem, PM me and I will dig up some info out of one of my medical texts. BTW, the statements about darker skin listed above are quite true
__________________
"There's someone out there for everyone - even if you need
a pickaxe, a compass, and night goggles to find them."
basmoq is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 07:15 AM   #30 (permalink)
Devoted
 
Redlemon's Avatar
 
Donor
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by xepherys
For most people, even many fair-skinned ones, burning once or twice at the beginning of the summer will keep you from really burning again as you stay out in the sun.
I thought that the 'base tan' was a myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onesnowyowl
Why else would you have varying degrees of protection, up to 45 SPF? One might notice there is no 100 on the scale--or at least I did.
An SPF of 4 means that, if you would ordinarily burn in 15 minutes, you will now burn in 1 hour (4x the time). 100 SPF is conceivable, as well as 150 SPF. Or you could dip yourself in liquid latex.
__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.
Redlemon is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 10:58 AM   #31 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by basmoq
Ok, speaking as a scientist myself, I must say that xepherys is completely wrong in his statement that we have evolved protection against UV (please take a course in basic genetics) UV rays cause Thymine Dimers to form in our DNA, which prevents DNA Polymerase from being able to read the strand of DNA beyond the dimer. Our cells have developed the ability to correct Thymine dimers, but it takes time, the more dimers you create (ie. the more time you spend in the sun), the more likely you are to not be able to keep up with the damage, leading to errors in the reading of your DNA. Now some errors make no difference to protien function, however, some cause cell death. Accumulate enough errors in a single cell and it can lead to skin cancer. Please do not use a rudimentary knowledge of scientific theory to prove your own theories, and don't believe anything you read on the internet, go to scientific journals if you want real science, it is very common for journalists to completely misstate the significance of a journal article. If you would like a more detailed description of the problem, PM me and I will dig up some info out of one of my medical texts. BTW, the statements about darker skin listed above are quite true
Ahhhhhh memories......

T=T.....

S.O.S. repair mechanisms.........

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh die foul demons of biochemistry.

Hehe god its been a long time. Whats sad is I remember I KNEW all the repair mechanisms for a thymine dimer, I'm sure I was tested on them, but I can't recall them off the top of my head. The only thing that popped in was the sos repair mechanism which is the auto-error prone repair. I'll have to look them up again or it will drive me batty.

I might forget 95% of what I learn, but at least I can relearn it in 5% of the original time it took to learn it
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 01:57 PM   #32 (permalink)
<3 TFP
 
xepherys's Avatar
 
Location: 17TLH2445607250
Quote:
Originally Posted by basmoq
Ok, speaking as a scientist myself, I must say that xepherys is completely wrong in his statement that we have evolved protection against UV (please take a course in basic genetics) UV rays cause Thymine Dimers to form in our DNA, which prevents DNA Polymerase from being able to read the strand of DNA beyond the dimer. Our cells have developed the ability to correct Thymine dimers, but it takes time, the more dimers you create (ie. the more time you spend in the sun), the more likely you are to not be able to keep up with the damage, leading to errors in the reading of your DNA. Now some errors make no difference to protien function, however, some cause cell death. Accumulate enough errors in a single cell and it can lead to skin cancer. Please do not use a rudimentary knowledge of scientific theory to prove your own theories, and don't believe anything you read on the internet, go to scientific journals if you want real science, it is very common for journalists to completely misstate the significance of a journal article. If you would like a more detailed description of the problem, PM me and I will dig up some info out of one of my medical texts. BTW, the statements about darker skin listed above are quite true

Interesting. First of all, most of my observations are not based on internet readings, but classes and book knowledge I've collected over the years. While I'm the first to admit I am not a geneticist, I do have a fundamental knowledge, on a larger scale, of how the human body operates and how evolution takes it's grip over time.

Yes, darker skin is better regarding exposure to sunlight, and most current data shows that humans BEGAN their existance as darker skinned people in northern Africa and the Mesopotamian areas. Lighter skin developed primarily in people who migrated north and began having seasons that kept them out of the sun year-round. This, already, signifies that our sun exposure is taken into consideration in our genetic makeup.

Your primary points regarding the dimers are absolutely correct. That does not, however, mean that our genetic makeup has not greatly improved our sunshine survivability over the course of thousands of years. As a scientist, I'm sure you understand that there is a difference between corresponding and causal factors when making such a statement. The same could be said for many things that are part of our daily lives. Please do not use a large vocabulary and a shield of science to bring about a facade of perfected knowledge. Since there are legitimate scientists on both ends of the spectrum regarding sunscreen and sun exposure, one would logically conclude that nobody knows with 100% certainty what the compound effect is. There are pros and cons, good and bad to just about everything in life. It's the overall compound nature of those effects, all added up (hence compound), that determine our views and knowledge.
xepherys is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 03:25 PM   #33 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xepherys
Interesting. First of all, most of my observations are not based on internet readings, but classes and book knowledge I've collected over the years. While I'm the first to admit I am not a geneticist, I do have a fundamental knowledge, on a larger scale, of how the human body operates and how evolution takes it's grip over time.

Yes, darker skin is better regarding exposure to sunlight, and most current data shows that humans BEGAN their existance as darker skinned people in northern Africa and the Mesopotamian areas. Lighter skin developed primarily in people who migrated north and began having seasons that kept them out of the sun year-round. This, already, signifies that our sun exposure is taken into consideration in our genetic makeup.

Your primary points regarding the dimers are absolutely correct. That does not, however, mean that our genetic makeup has not greatly improved our sunshine survivability over the course of thousands of years. As a scientist, I'm sure you understand that there is a difference between corresponding and causal factors when making such a statement. The same could be said for many things that are part of our daily lives. Please do not use a large vocabulary and a shield of science to bring about a facade of perfected knowledge. Since there are legitimate scientists on both ends of the spectrum regarding sunscreen and sun exposure, one would logically conclude that nobody knows with 100% certainty what the compound effect is. There are pros and cons, good and bad to just about everything in life. It's the overall compound nature of those effects, all added up (hence compound), that determine our views and knowledge.
I can guarantee you none of those legitimate scientists work at http://www.newstarget.com/001264.html.

I do know what sun damage does, I do not know all possible long term effects of sun screen. As such I will continue to be happy in my partial ignorance, knowing it prevents some direct and known harm.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 08:11 AM   #34 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
I've never known anyone who had depression problems while on Accutane. And honestly, for some with disfiguring acne, all of the risks associated with Accutane are outweighed by the benefits. But yes, sunscreen is a must for those on it, as is an investment in a large tub of moisturizer.

There are a lot of people on drugs that require they also wear sunscreen. I can also imagine that there the benefits outweigh the risks.
Well you do now. I mean acne sucked but I didn't hate myself becuase of it. Enter Accutane. Uncontrollable mood swings, first I wanted to punch my parents in the face and then I just wanted to cry. Took me a week of that absolutely horrible and harmful chemical before I said adios.

Quote:
This, already, signifies that our sun exposure is taken into consideration in our genetic makeup.

Your primary points regarding the dimers are absolutely correct. That does not, however, mean that our genetic makeup has not greatly improved our sunshine survivability over the course of thousands of years.
I was with you until you said that evolution has improved our sunshine survivability. It clearly has not. Whiter skin is WORSE for sun protection than black skin. It's blatant -- unless you have skin as black as the darkest African, you have evolved NEGATIVELY with regard to sun exposure. The whiter our skin, the more likely we are to get sunburn and skin cancer.

The only reason we evolved "whiteness" is that blackness was selected against in areas away from the equator because it resulted in rickets. A lack of Vitamin D (and consequentely calcium utilization) causes lots of problems during birth, so the whiter you were, the more likely you were to survive. We suplement our diets now with Vitamin D (not truly a vitamin, btw, since our body produces it) but that certainly does NOT mean that white skin is somehow an evolutionary improvement. It's not -- we're worse off than every ancestor back to the Paleocene.

I'm totally an au natural person at heart, and I'd normally agree that chemicals are "generally" bad for you. But this is one of those times that the penicillin argument comes into play. What's worse? Skin cancer or a little bit of percieved "chemical" influence on your skin (with no science to back it's actual effect on your skin, I might add) ?
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 08:19 AM   #35 (permalink)
Pip
Likes Hats
 
Pip's Avatar
 
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
All you wondering about skin cancer back in the ancient times: remember the average lifespan was somewhere between 30 and 40 years up until the Industrial Age, so they probably didn't have time to develop skin cancer before they kicked the bucket. And then the working class was mostly stuck in factories and offices all day year around. So the right to vacation and the prolonged average lifespan is to be blamed for the increase of skin cancer as well.

Me, I wear clothes and stay in the shade, generally, and when I have to be out in the sun and work I slather myself with SPF 45. My smooth, soft skin is the envy of all my peers.

Last edited by Pip; 04-05-2006 at 08:20 AM.. Reason: Wrong preposition.
Pip is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 01:31 PM   #36 (permalink)
I want a Plaid crayon
 
Plaid13's Avatar
 
I am just glad i never burn. =) never wear sunscreen havnt had a sun burn since i was like 5. But i dont believe labels on most stuff anyway. Anything that hard to proove is wrong is most likely wrong just because it can be. kinda like me buying a bottle of elephant repelant then being happy that it worked because i wasnt attacked by any elephants today.
Plaid13 is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 07:43 PM   #37 (permalink)
It's a girly girl!
 
basmoq's Avatar
 
Location: OH, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by xepherys
Please do not use a large vocabulary and a shield of science to bring about a facade of perfected knowledge.
"Shield of Science", who's using the big words now?

Perfected knowledge??? I never mentioned your statements about sunscreen...

By the way, I was attempting to provide a more educational and informed view on the current debate than was previously supplied. If you find it personally offensive that I supplied basic (some would say "large vocabulary") knowledge science, please pm me and I will attempt to address your concerns and modify my post.
__________________
"There's someone out there for everyone - even if you need
a pickaxe, a compass, and night goggles to find them."
basmoq is offline  
 

Tags
labels, misleading, sunscreen

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:48 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360