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

81–90 of 201 posts

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

#81

Post by berkut »

BurningFrog wrote: post #60
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #6

So much for consumer choice and free markets. I wonder why there aren't more attempts at consolidating regulatory information across countries. If some sunscreen or baby food is available in Europe I'd feel pretty comfortable using it, but I'm denied the opportunity to do so. It would be great if these kinds of items were made available for purchase with some sort of disclaimer. My guess is that in both the cases of…

The fact that the regulatory agencies in different countries consistently come to different decisions is a good indicator that their decisions are not science based. Because science is the same in different jurisdictions. The common explanation is the great asymmetry in bad press if an agency kills 1000 people by approving something dangerous vs if it kills 1000 people by not approving something beneficial.

While that's true in general, there are different ethnic groups in different countries, and it might be possible this may have some differences in some cases.

Even with things like Covid, different ethnic groups (i.e. Pasifika / Māori in NZ compared to European ethnic groups) were more susceptable to issues, due to a variety of reasons.

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

#82

Post by surfpel »

ntoskrnl wrote: post #8

You're also not allowed to have the best toothpaste in the world. Toothpaste with Novamin can't be sold in the US. Thankfully the internet makes it easy to get the good stuff anyhow.

Did some googling and found a study that doesn’t corroborate that.

“…concluding that there are no significant difference of remineralization process obtained by using traditional toothpaste and Novamin.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068624/

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

#83

Post by undoware »

dghughes wrote: post #79
happyopossum wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those people tanning in the 90s aren’t going to get skin cancer right away - it takes a few decades to catch up.

The Canadian Cancer Society has a UV camera in a box. People stick their head in and it shows the hundred of freckles, blotches, sunspots under your skin you can't see now but will later. Then they ask you to put on sunscreen and where it is on your skin is opaque jet black.

impressive public-health comms technique, but again, will still 'show jet black' even if:

- you're wearing a sunscreen which is itself carcinogenic, and are being affected by this

- your sunscreen is destroying coral reefs

- your sunscreen washes off easily

- your suncreen is unpleasant to wear (making you unlikely to wear it)

- your body actually needed some sunlight anyway: https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...

This is why public-health comms, a thing I have previously done in this tapas of careers, is very difficult to do in a way that does not itself cause some harm.

In this case, the visceral visualization of the effects of UV light overlooks the possibility (EDIT: leads the participant to overlook the possibility) that we were simply wrong about the 1:1 correlation between UV exposure and cancer.

Science is always changing, and deep-seated emotional reactions tend not to. One oft-overlooked goal of public health comms is to try not to generate so many of the latter that people can no longer accept the former.

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

#84

Post by metadat »

jamal-kumar wrote: post #64
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 gho…

Surfing in the dark at 4am? Is this safe?

In Hawaii I know there are a lot of sea urchins and sharp lava, so visibility is a good thing for safety.

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

#85

Post by joecool1029 »

abduhl wrote: post #34
ntoskrnl wrote: post #8

You're also not allowed to have the best toothpaste in the world. Toothpaste with Novamin can't be sold in the US. Thankfully the internet makes it easy to get the good stuff anyhow.

BioMin is supposedly an equivalent substance that is approved in the US. https://drcollins.com/products/biomin-restore-toothpaste

I believe novamin was approved but they can't sell it combined with fluoride. Since this product is fluoride-free it's allowed.

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

#87

Post by MattGaiser »

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…

Lots of confounding factors, from skimpier swimwear to Caribbean vacations to potentially better detection.

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

#88

Post by ekianjo »

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…

Theres not just one kind of skin cancer. For this kind of things it matters to make a distinction between the benign ones and deadly ones.

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

#90

Post by melissalobos »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #77
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…

> So we went from little to no sunscreen to ubiquity over a few decades, but over that time rates of skin cancer have increased per 100k UV exposure patterns have changed significantly. Long-distance vacation travel to sunny locations is much more common now. Tanning beds are much more common. Both holidays and deliberate tanning often take people from indoor office life to the opposite extreme of sun exposure. Peopl…

> People also dress differently in the sun than they did in the past.

Temperatures in those sunny areas have increased as well on average over the last few decades.

Post reply on HN