Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 201 posts

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#61

Post by cortesoft »

scifibestfi wrote: post #16

> At 36, I am just old enough to remember when sunscreen wasn’t a big deal. My mom, despite being among the palest people alive, does not remember bringing it on our earliest vacations, or hearing any mention of sun protection by our pediatrician. > Now SPF is ubiquitous. You can find it in lotions, sprays, gels, oils, powders, and implements that look like grade-school glue sticks, as well as infused into skin-care…

Cancer rates are a lagging indicator. You get sunburned today, you get cancer in 30 years. The people getting skin cancer now were not wearing sunscreen in 1990.

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#62

Post by klodolph »

happyopossum wrote: post #47
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #9

Thalidomide still casts a huge shadow across the FDA: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/woman-who-stoo... It is the founding myth. As such it is institutionally very conservative about approving stuff. Now the question does become: what is the opportunity cost of that stance. How many people have died or had bad outcomes because medicine deemed safe in Europe was not approved by the FDA.

> It is the founding myth It’s not a myth and not involved in the FDA’s founding, so that statement makes no sense.

> myth, n. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people

The word “myth” does not necessarily mean “untrue”.

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#63

Post by blooalien »

jorblumesea wrote: post #22
scifibestfi wrote: post #16

> At 36, I am just old enough to remember when sunscreen wasn’t a big deal. My mom, despite being among the palest people alive, does not remember bringing it on our earliest vacations, or hearing any mention of sun protection by our pediatrician. > Now SPF is ubiquitous. You can find it in lotions, sprays, gels, oils, powders, and implements that look like grade-school glue sticks, as well as infused into skin-care…

The cause is probably a mix of things. Tanning and clothing style/choice are both significant cultural changes. Active lifestyles are more in trend. People are also living longer, and increasing the window that you might have cancer. There's some interesting psychological changes too. If you have sunscreen on, you might stay in the sun longer because you are "protected" but most sunscreens you need to reapply. Water…

> "The cause is probably a mix of things."

Thank you! So few people seem to understand that about things these days. Always looking for "the simple explanation" or "the one true answer" to any issue. It's rarely that simple in reality however. It's quite often "a mix of things" all contributing to the final effect being observed.

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#64

Post by jamal-kumar »

kornhole wrote: post #24

Hack your own sunscreen: zinc powder, coconut oil, olive oil. I bought a lifetime supply of zinc for $10. It is edible and free of toxic endocrine disrupters. Goal is not to block everything since you need vitamin D.

This is pretty popular with surfers in Central America. Zinc Oxide cream, like what you use for a baby's diaper rash, is WAY cheaper than sunscreen (Priced high for the tourists), and it's pretty much available at any pañalera (diaper store, if you can believe it, more like what you'd call a 'dollar store' up north with the other things they sell anyways - many small towns have one). It just makes you look like a ghost for the first hour or two and gets on any fabric clothing in a way that's hard to wash out.

The other thing that we do is just make sure we get to the beach at ridiculously early hours like 4-5am even before the sun comes up to go surfing so we don't burn ourselves to shit as well as to avoid tourists.

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#65

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

jakub_g wrote: post #12

*in US. Honestly, I was expecting an article about some ingredients being harmful to coral reef hence disallowed, or similar. Instead, the issue is slow process of FDA. > The FDA hasn’t added a new active ingredient to its sunscreen monograph [...] in decades. Also, what makes this article interesting (a "man bites a dog" kind of story) is that the US is more strict than EU in this area; in 95% of cases for all kinds…

The other wild portion of this is that if you go to northern EU (Norway/Sweden/Finland) sunscreen is like, insanely expensive. Like at least triple the price of what you would pay in the states for the same product.

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#66

Post by _justinfunk »

cortesoft wrote: post #61
scifibestfi wrote: post #16

> At 36, I am just old enough to remember when sunscreen wasn’t a big deal. My mom, despite being among the palest people alive, does not remember bringing it on our earliest vacations, or hearing any mention of sun protection by our pediatrician. > Now SPF is ubiquitous. You can find it in lotions, sprays, gels, oils, powders, and implements that look like grade-school glue sticks, as well as infused into skin-care…

Cancer rates are a lagging indicator. You get sunburned today, you get cancer in 30 years. The people getting skin cancer now were not wearing sunscreen in 1990.

And we all remember how the sun was invented in 1991.

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#67

Post by moneywoes »

scifibestfi wrote: post #16

> At 36, I am just old enough to remember when sunscreen wasn’t a big deal. My mom, despite being among the palest people alive, does not remember bringing it on our earliest vacations, or hearing any mention of sun protection by our pediatrician. > Now SPF is ubiquitous. You can find it in lotions, sprays, gels, oils, powders, and implements that look like grade-school glue sticks, as well as infused into skin-care…

Could there be a lurking variable here?

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#68

Post by _justinfunk »

tdeck wrote: post #18
scifibestfi wrote: post #16

> At 36, I am just old enough to remember when sunscreen wasn’t a big deal. My mom, despite being among the palest people alive, does not remember bringing it on our earliest vacations, or hearing any mention of sun protection by our pediatrician. > Now SPF is ubiquitous. You can find it in lotions, sprays, gels, oils, powders, and implements that look like grade-school glue sticks, as well as infused into skin-care…

Perhaps because so many sunscreens contain benzene, a known carcinogen: https://www.valisure.com/valisure-newsroom/valisure-detects-...

Why is this being downvoted so heavily? Is this a known conspiracy theory? Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Or a secondary source for the allegation?

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#69

Post by formerkrogemp »

scifibestfi wrote: post #16

> At 36, I am just old enough to remember when sunscreen wasn’t a big deal. My mom, despite being among the palest people alive, does not remember bringing it on our earliest vacations, or hearing any mention of sun protection by our pediatrician. > Now SPF is ubiquitous. You can find it in lotions, sprays, gels, oils, powders, and implements that look like grade-school glue sticks, as well as infused into skin-care…

I blame tanning beds in part. My cousin and I are the same age, but they used tanning beds quite heavily whereas I have not. They look significantly older than I do now and they're more at risk for skin cancer as we have genetic factors at play.
Post reply on HN