|
|
| Author |
Message |
Roman Bystrianyk
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 454
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject:
Sunscreens faulted on cancer protection
|
|
|
LINDA A. JOHNSON, "Sunscreens faulted on cancer protection", Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, June 15, 2006,
Link:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/1500AP_Sunscreen_Protection.html
Think slathering on the highest-number sunscreen at the beach or pool
will spare you skin cancer and premature wrinkles? Probably not, if
you're in the sun a lot. That's because you don't need a sunburn to
suffer the effects that can cause various types of skin cancer.
Sunscreens generally do a good job filtering out the ultraviolet rays
that cause sunburn - UVB rays. But with sunburn protection, many people
get a false sense of security that keeps them under the harsh sun much
longer. That adds to the risk of eventual skin cancer - both deadly
melanoma and the more common and less-threatening basal and squamous
cell cancers.
And most sunscreens don't defend nearly as well against the UVA rays
that penetrate deep into the skin and are more likely to cause skin
cancer and wrinkles. That's true even for some products labeled
"broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection."
Experts say the best protection against UVA is a sunscreen that
includes zinc oxide, titanium dioxide or avobenzone. Consumers should
also look for those that are water-resistant and have an SPF of 30 or
better, indicating strong protection against UVB rays, and apply
liberally and often.
More important, limit time in the sun, particularly from 10 a.m. to 4
p.m., and cover up, including wearing a hat and sunglasses.
Often, product labels are confusing or bear misleading claims. For
example, the SPF, or sun protection factor, refers only to defense
against the less harmful UVB rays.
"I don't think people understand they're only getting protection from
part of the spectrum," said Dr. Sandra Read, a spokeswoman for the
American Academy of Dermatology. "You're accumulating this damage and
you don't know it."
Many sunscreens say little about when to reapply - doctors say at least
every two hours and after swimming or sweating. Nor do they say much
about how much to use, roughly two tablespoons for an adult.
"Most people who use an SPF 15 get the protection equivalent to an SPF
5 because they put it on" too thinly, said Dr. Martin A. Weinstock,
chairman of the American Cancer Society's skin cancer advisory group
and a Brown University professor.
While a higher SPF number means more protection, the difference is
small: SPF 15 blocks about 93 percent of UVB rays and SPF 50, often
more expensive, blocks about 98 percent.
Most sunscreens work by reacting chemically with the skin, so they
don't start absorbing damaging rays right away and must be applied a
half-hour before going outside, something many labels fail to note.
And claims such as "waterproof" and "sunblock" are unsupported,
according to the Food and Drug Administration, which years ago proposed
replacing them with the more-accurate terms "water resistant" and
"sunscreen." Manufacturers, including Neutrogena Suncare maker Johnson
& Johnson and Coppertone maker Schering-Plough Corp., say they haven't
complied because the FDA still hasn't imposed those rules - a delay
that's spawned consumer lawsuits and pressure on the FDA from Congress
and the American Cancer Society.
Still, doctors say people shouldn't abandon sunscreen: They probably
should use more.
"Sunscreens do protect against skin cancer," said Dr. Babar Rao, a
dermatologist at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey. "We
definitely still need sunscreen, even on a cloudy day."
Research has shown heavy sunscreen use lowers risk of squamous skin
cell cancer, which has a high cure rate if caught early. Another study
found heavy sunscreen use in children reduces the number of moles,
which can turn cancerous later, Weinstock noted.
In 1999, the FDA announced tougher rules for sunscreen testing and
label and ad claims, to take effect in 2001. But the agency put them on
hold indefinitely to do more tests, said Dr. Matthew Holman, senior
scientist at the FDA's drug evaluation center.
Last fall, Congress ordered the FDA to produce the new regulations
within six months through a provision added by Sen. Chris Dodd,
D-Conn., in the FDA appropriations bill.
"Twenty years is long enough for the FDA to ensure that all Americans
have equal access to clear, accurate and comprehensive sunscreen
labeling as their first line of defense against skin cancer," Dodd
said, referring to how long the agency has worked on new rules.
Holman said proposed rules could be announced this summer, but then
there will be lengthy hearings and revisions. "All we can say is really
years" until they take effect, he said.
This spring, a San Diego-based law firm got pending lawsuits against
makers of the top sunscreens - Coppertone, Neutrogena, Playtex
Products' Banana Boat, Tanning Research Laboratories' Hawaiian Tropic
and Chattem Inc.'s Bullfrog - consolidated into one case in Los
Angeles.
Lead lawyer Samuel Rudman, who has called the makers "Fortune 500 snake
oil salesmen," said manufacturers are fraudulent in their label claims.
"Our lawsuit doesn't say, 'Don't use sunscreen.' It says, 'Tell the
truth.' If people knew, they would still use it," Rudman said.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 10 California residents, also seeks
damages for unspecified injuries and other restitution.
The manufacturers either declined to discuss the lawsuit or said it is
without merit.
Despite public education campaigns about avoiding sun exposure and
tanning salons, skin cancer incidence is climbing. There will be about
62,000 melanoma cases and 7,900 deaths this year, the American Cancer
Society estimates. There are more than 1 million annual cases of
squamous and basal skin cancers, and about 2,800 deaths.
---
American Cancer Society:
http://www.cancer.org
Skin Cancer Foundation:
http://www.skincancer.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
madiba
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:26 pm Post subject:
Re: Sunscreens faulted on cancer protection
|
|
|
Roman Bystrianyk <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Most people who use an SPF 15 get the protection equivalent to an SPF
5 because they put it on" too thinly, said Dr. Martin A. Weinstock,
chairman of the American Cancer Society's skin cancer advisory group
and a Brown University professor.
While a higher SPF number means more protection, the difference is
small: SPF 15 blocks about 93 percent of UVB rays and SPF 50, often
more expensive, blocks about 98 percent.
|
I was recently given a bag full of sunscreen samples at a pharmacy -they
ranged from SPF 20 to 50! I think if you need such high factors its
better (and much cheaper!) to lie in the shade, your sensitive skin will
tan off the reflected light anyway. I know SPF 30 has been used in Oz
for ages to protect kids playing in the sun, but SPF 50 here in chilly
old Europe? I suppose the ozone hole shifted/got bigger when I wasnt
looking, despite my moving to deo sticks 20 years ago... :-/
--
madiba
sniff, sneeze. 3rd week of a cold/flu, my first this millenium. My
body's revenge for all those boring winters! So much for vitamin C
guess it couldnt compete with the immune-dampening effects of sunburn.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pmoran@bordernet.com.au
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Sunscreens faulted on cancer protection
|
|
|
"Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150478799.778100.314240@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | LINDA A. JOHNSON, "Sunscreens faulted on cancer protection", Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, June 15, 2006,
Link:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/1500AP_Sunscreen_Protection.html
Think slathering on the highest-number sunscreen at the beach or pool
will spare you skin cancer and premature wrinkles? Probably not, if
you're in the sun a lot. That's because you don't need a sunburn to
suffer the effects that can cause various types of skin cancer.
Sunscreens generally do a good job filtering out the ultraviolet rays
that cause sunburn - UVB rays. But with sunburn protection, many people
get a false sense of security that keeps them under the harsh sun much
longer. That adds to the risk of eventual skin cancer - both deadly
melanoma and the more common and less-threatening basal and squamous
cell cancers.
And most sunscreens don't defend nearly as well against the UVA rays
that penetrate deep into the skin and are more likely to cause skin
cancer and wrinkles. That's true even for some products labeled
"broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection."
Experts say the best protection against UVA is a sunscreen that
includes zinc oxide, titanium dioxide or avobenzone. Consumers should
also look for those that are water-resistant and have an SPF of 30 or
better, indicating strong protection against UVB rays, and apply
liberally and often.
More important, limit time in the sun, particularly from 10 a.m. to 4
p.m., and cover up, including wearing a hat and sunglasses.
Often, product labels are confusing or bear misleading claims. For
example, the SPF, or sun protection factor, refers only to defense
against the less harmful UVB rays.
"I don't think people understand they're only getting protection from
part of the spectrum," said Dr. Sandra Read, a spokeswoman for the
American Academy of Dermatology. "You're accumulating this damage and
you don't know it."
Many sunscreens say little about when to reapply - doctors say at least
every two hours and after swimming or sweating. Nor do they say much
about how much to use, roughly two tablespoons for an adult.
"Most people who use an SPF 15 get the protection equivalent to an SPF
5 because they put it on" too thinly, said Dr. Martin A. Weinstock,
chairman of the American Cancer Society's skin cancer advisory group
and a Brown University professor.
While a higher SPF number means more protection, the difference is
small: SPF 15 blocks about 93 percent of UVB rays and SPF 50, often
more expensive, blocks about 98 percent.
Most sunscreens work by reacting chemically with the skin, so they
don't start absorbing damaging rays right away and must be applied a
half-hour before going outside, something many labels fail to note.
And claims such as "waterproof" and "sunblock" are unsupported,
according to the Food and Drug Administration, which years ago proposed
replacing them with the more-accurate terms "water resistant" and
"sunscreen." Manufacturers, including Neutrogena Suncare maker Johnson
& Johnson and Coppertone maker Schering-Plough Corp., say they haven't
complied because the FDA still hasn't imposed those rules - a delay
that's spawned consumer lawsuits and pressure on the FDA from Congress
and the American Cancer Society.
Still, doctors say people shouldn't abandon sunscreen: They probably
should use more.
"Sunscreens do protect against skin cancer," said Dr. Babar Rao, a
dermatologist at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey. "We
definitely still need sunscreen, even on a cloudy day."
Research has shown heavy sunscreen use lowers risk of squamous skin
cell cancer, which has a high cure rate if caught early. Another study
found heavy sunscreen use in children reduces the number of moles,
which can turn cancerous later, Weinstock noted.
In 1999, the FDA announced tougher rules for sunscreen testing and
label and ad claims, to take effect in 2001. But the agency put them on
hold indefinitely to do more tests, said Dr. Matthew Holman, senior
scientist at the FDA's drug evaluation center.
Last fall, Congress ordered the FDA to produce the new regulations
within six months through a provision added by Sen. Chris Dodd,
D-Conn., in the FDA appropriations bill.
"Twenty years is long enough for the FDA to ensure that all Americans
have equal access to clear, accurate and comprehensive sunscreen
labeling as their first line of defense against skin cancer," Dodd
said, referring to how long the agency has worked on new rules.
Holman said proposed rules could be announced this summer, but then
there will be lengthy hearings and revisions. "All we can say is really
years" until they take effect, he said.
This spring, a San Diego-based law firm got pending lawsuits against
makers of the top sunscreens - Coppertone, Neutrogena, Playtex
Products' Banana Boat, Tanning Research Laboratories' Hawaiian Tropic
and Chattem Inc.'s Bullfrog - consolidated into one case in Los
Angeles.
Lead lawyer Samuel Rudman, who has called the makers "Fortune 500 snake
oil salesmen," said manufacturers are fraudulent in their label claims.
"Our lawsuit doesn't say, 'Don't use sunscreen.' It says, 'Tell the
truth.' If people knew, they would still use it," Rudman said.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 10 California residents, also seeks
damages for unspecified injuries and other restitution.
The manufacturers either declined to discuss the lawsuit or said it is
without merit.
Despite public education campaigns about avoiding sun exposure and
tanning salons, skin cancer incidence is climbing. There will be about
62,000 melanoma cases and 7,900 deaths this year, the American Cancer
Society estimates. There are more than 1 million annual cases of
squamous and basal skin cancers, and about 2,800 deaths.
|
I think there has been one study showing that sunscreens do work a bit to
prevent skin cancer if used religiously. I forget where I saw it, but what
is far more important are simple measures that no one thinks about.
For example, to hell with tradition, baseballing and golfing associations
and especially their juvenile divisions should NOT allow a player onto the
field without a broad brimmed hat in sunny climes. Occlusive clothing and
avoiding unnecessary exposure during the hours of maximum sunlight are also
far more important than sunscreen. Cricketers have the right idea - they
need to, they can be on the field for over six hours a day!.
I am delighted to see little Australian schoolkids off to kindergarten with
their massive hats, often with neck protectors as well. Then they get to
be teenagers. Its then that ridiculous baseball cap, probably worn
backwards so that the face is completely exposed! Lunacy.
Peter Moran
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roman Bystrianyk
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 454
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:27 am Post subject:
Re: Sunscreens faulted on cancer protection
|
|
|
This is one of the problems with sunscreens - people then feel they
can go out and roast all day long. It's a false sense of security.
They may not burn as much, but the UV-A rays are penetrating and
causing direct DNA damage and indirect oxidative stress. People should
as you suggest wear hats and other protective clothing during those
peek sun exposure times - I would top it off with sunglasses to
protect the eyes.
I would also eat and juice green leafy vegetables and avoid dairy as
indicated in a recent International Journal of Cancer study.
Peter Moran wrote:
| Quote: | "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150478799.778100.314240@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
LINDA A. JOHNSON, "Sunscreens faulted on cancer protection", Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, June 15, 2006,
Link:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/1500AP_Sunscreen_Protection.html
Think slathering on the highest-number sunscreen at the beach or pool
will spare you skin cancer and premature wrinkles? Probably not, if
you're in the sun a lot. That's because you don't need a sunburn to
suffer the effects that can cause various types of skin cancer.
Sunscreens generally do a good job filtering out the ultraviolet rays
that cause sunburn - UVB rays. But with sunburn protection, many people
get a false sense of security that keeps them under the harsh sun much
longer. That adds to the risk of eventual skin cancer - both deadly
melanoma and the more common and less-threatening basal and squamous
cell cancers.
And most sunscreens don't defend nearly as well against the UVA rays
that penetrate deep into the skin and are more likely to cause skin
cancer and wrinkles. That's true even for some products labeled
"broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection."
Experts say the best protection against UVA is a sunscreen that
includes zinc oxide, titanium dioxide or avobenzone. Consumers should
also look for those that are water-resistant and have an SPF of 30 or
better, indicating strong protection against UVB rays, and apply
liberally and often.
More important, limit time in the sun, particularly from 10 a.m. to 4
p.m., and cover up, including wearing a hat and sunglasses.
Often, product labels are confusing or bear misleading claims. For
example, the SPF, or sun protection factor, refers only to defense
against the less harmful UVB rays.
"I don't think people understand they're only getting protection from
part of the spectrum," said Dr. Sandra Read, a spokeswoman for the
American Academy of Dermatology. "You're accumulating this damage and
you don't know it."
Many sunscreens say little about when to reapply - doctors say at least
every two hours and after swimming or sweating. Nor do they say much
about how much to use, roughly two tablespoons for an adult.
"Most people who use an SPF 15 get the protection equivalent to an SPF
5 because they put it on" too thinly, said Dr. Martin A. Weinstock,
chairman of the American Cancer Society's skin cancer advisory group
and a Brown University professor.
While a higher SPF number means more protection, the difference is
small: SPF 15 blocks about 93 percent of UVB rays and SPF 50, often
more expensive, blocks about 98 percent.
Most sunscreens work by reacting chemically with the skin, so they
don't start absorbing damaging rays right away and must be applied a
half-hour before going outside, something many labels fail to note.
And claims such as "waterproof" and "sunblock" are unsupported,
according to the Food and Drug Administration, which years ago proposed
replacing them with the more-accurate terms "water resistant" and
"sunscreen." Manufacturers, including Neutrogena Suncare maker Johnson
& Johnson and Coppertone maker Schering-Plough Corp., say they haven't
complied because the FDA still hasn't imposed those rules - a delay
that's spawned consumer lawsuits and pressure on the FDA from Congress
and the American Cancer Society.
Still, doctors say people shouldn't abandon sunscreen: They probably
should use more.
"Sunscreens do protect against skin cancer," said Dr. Babar Rao, a
dermatologist at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey. "We
definitely still need sunscreen, even on a cloudy day."
Research has shown heavy sunscreen use lowers risk of squamous skin
cell cancer, which has a high cure rate if caught early. Another study
found heavy sunscreen use in children reduces the number of moles,
which can turn cancerous later, Weinstock noted.
In 1999, the FDA announced tougher rules for sunscreen testing and
label and ad claims, to take effect in 2001. But the agency put them on
hold indefinitely to do more tests, said Dr. Matthew Holman, senior
scientist at the FDA's drug evaluation center.
Last fall, Congress ordered the FDA to produce the new regulations
within six months through a provision added by Sen. Chris Dodd,
D-Conn., in the FDA appropriations bill.
"Twenty years is long enough for the FDA to ensure that all Americans
have equal access to clear, accurate and comprehensive sunscreen
labeling as their first line of defense against skin cancer," Dodd
said, referring to how long the agency has worked on new rules.
Holman said proposed rules could be announced this summer, but then
there will be lengthy hearings and revisions. "All we can say is really
years" until they take effect, he said.
This spring, a San Diego-based law firm got pending lawsuits against
makers of the top sunscreens - Coppertone, Neutrogena, Playtex
Products' Banana Boat, Tanning Research Laboratories' Hawaiian Tropic
and Chattem Inc.'s Bullfrog - consolidated into one case in Los
Angeles.
Lead lawyer Samuel Rudman, who has called the makers "Fortune 500 snake
oil salesmen," said manufacturers are fraudulent in their label claims.
"Our lawsuit doesn't say, 'Don't use sunscreen.' It says, 'Tell the
truth.' If people knew, they would still use it," Rudman said.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 10 California residents, also seeks
damages for unspecified injuries and other restitution.
The manufacturers either declined to discuss the lawsuit or said it is
without merit.
Despite public education campaigns about avoiding sun exposure and
tanning salons, skin cancer incidence is climbing. There will be about
62,000 melanoma cases and 7,900 deaths this year, the American Cancer
Society estimates. There are more than 1 million annual cases of
squamous and basal skin cancers, and about 2,800 deaths.
I think there has been one study showing that sunscreens do work a bit to
prevent skin cancer if used religiously. I forget where I saw it, but what
is far more important are simple measures that no one thinks about.
For example, to hell with tradition, baseballing and golfing associations
and especially their juvenile divisions should NOT allow a player onto the
field without a broad brimmed hat in sunny climes. Occlusive clothing and
avoiding unnecessary exposure during the hours of maximum sunlight are also
far more important than sunscreen. Cricketers have the right idea - they
need to, they can be on the field for over six hours a day!.
I am delighted to see little Australian schoolkids off to kindergarten with
their massive hats, often with neck protectors as well. Then they get to
be teenagers. Its then that ridiculous baseball cap, probably worn
backwards so that the face is completely exposed! Lunacy.
Peter Moran
---
American Cancer Society:
http://www.cancer.org
Skin Cancer Foundation:
http://www.skincancer.org
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:57 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Cheat Codes | Credit Check | MPAA | Peak Oil | Loan
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
electronics forum,
Science forum
Unix/Linux blog
Unix/Linux documentation
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
diseases
»
cancer
