reply to post by jumpingbeanz
I'll be happy to address the sunscreen issue, as it seems to be a hot topic, and there are a lot of articles going both ways on it. (What you don't
see in MSM print is how the studies are set up, which makes all the difference in the world.)
The thread that was posted discussing sunscreen and DNA damage I believe is referring to
done at the National Center of Toxicological Research in 2005, which
finds that when retinyl palmitate, a form of vitamin A found in many cosmetics sold in the US, is exposed to UV-A, it can cause DNA mutation. Here's
the deal, many of these preparations are in OTC skin moisturizers, lip balms, and anti-aging creams, which come with a 'warning' of sorts that the
person wearing it should avoid long-term exposure to the sun. However, in sunblocks and sunscreen, though this warning exists on the label, it's kind
of counterintuitive, because you would think that if you are wearing some type of protection, you can spend excess amounts of time in the sun.
Also, and I think this is important to note, when chemists originally made these formulations, we either didn't know or didn't have the ability to
test these compounds. For instance, there are many anti-cholesterol drugs on the market that are highly effective in reducing someone's overall
cholesterol levels, but we are unsure (we're not in the dark, there are many great theories with great data to back each) as to how they work.
However, they provide a needed, beneficial effect for a mass populous, so until the scientific community sees a detrimental effect, they will continue
to be in use.
Back to sunscreen... Other studies that show a plausible link between sunscreen and cancer, like
published in 2000, was widely misread. The data shows that people
who wear sunscreen are more likely to get sun damage. But that goes against the very essence of sunscreen, you say! Here's how to break it down: When
people wear a higher SPF, say 30-50, they are more likely to stay out longer in the sun without reapplication and proper covering (hats, sunglasses,
etc.) than those who wear a lower SPF of 10. Those wearing the higher SPF's were lulled into a false sense of security because they didn't burn, but
because sunscreens and blocks aren't 100% effective, they still more than doubled their exposure to UV-A and B rays. I hope I'm stating this in a
way that is understandable...
Back to retinyl palmitate... Here's what you can do to help avoid exposure: Look at the ingredients on your skin products! If you do buy a skin care
formulation with a form of vitamin A, avoid exposure to the sun. If you're buying sunscreen, opt for actual sunblock that doesn't have retinyl
palmitate or oxybenzone. ('Sunblock' is different from 'sunscreen' in that it is formulated to actual scatter the sunlight when it hits your skin,
so that it isn't absorbed nearly as much.)