Live data from Hacker News

Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

theatlantic.com

161–170 of 201 posts

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

#161
post #139

Vitamin D deficiency is far riskier for sedatory indoor people then skin cancer is. I wouldn’t be surprised if we look back at this time and laugh at how we were blocking too many UV rays.

One of those seems far more dangerous. And not treatable with I single pill.

treating the symptom of vitamin d deficiency by taking a hormone orally isn't dealing with the root of the problem.

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

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe part of that is that there's not much sun there so sunscreen is a niche product not a staple?

The opposite actually. Having a high latitude, summers are more intense.

But why? Angle of the sun is lower. Sunrays go through more atmosphere.

Is it because people are mostly vertical when they are in the sun?

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

#163

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.

No, it just means compound words sometimes mean something different than the sum of their parts. In particular a "founding myth" is neither a myth nor necessarily involved in the founding.

Substitute "an important event in the history of" if you are confused.

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

#164
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tanning beds are much more common. I think they were common, say 80's/90's, but I don't see them much anymore. I remember meeting a woman once - early 20's and very attractive - except her skin was extremely wrinkled. She told me her parents had owned a tanning salon and she used it all the time. and a bit later that's how things ended up.

> early 20's > extremely wrinkled Do you know if she also smoked cigarettes? In the past I have noticed early twenty’s with abnormally wrinkled skin from years of smoking.

Yeah. I'm also gonna call BS on the "tanning salon" thing. If all it took was copious amounts of UV to f you up that bad every white man outdoor laborer in the south would look like Keith Richards by age 30. I'm sure it didn't help but if your body looks like it has X years of wear and tear on it it's because you've put X years of wear and tear on it. A dedicated individual is more than capable of doing in one year what a normal person does in 2-3. Back when I was flipping shitbox cars, like $500 shit I'd bought off the kind of people who drive those cars, finding personal paperwork that included the prior owners DOB amongst the trash and thinking to myself "no fuggin way dis bitch dat young" happened like once per five cars. And then you'd take stock of the needles, smokes, etc, etc, and it would all make sense.

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

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I'd posit that certain lobes were already shut off if you're unable to read a thread by the then-Commissioner of the FDA because it happens to be on Twitter. It's the 2020s, agency heads make official statements on Twitter all the time.

And so do QAnon followers.

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

#166

> 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…

JFYI (to have a glimpse/anecdote on the past):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28865164

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

#167
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Another perspective from Consumer Reports:

https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/b...

They didn't find it in their testing, but noted recalls.

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

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At 42 I remember the pre-sunscreen days as well. At the beginning of summer we would all go to the pool and get a nasty burn. Within a week we were at the pool all day every day and would not have a burn again until the next year. On average we would be getting around 3 painful but not serious burns per year (one at the start of summer, one when we went to the amusement park, one when we went out on a boat or somethi…

I'm not sure where you guys grew up, but I'm 46 and remember putting on sunscreen as a kid, as did most of my friends. Even with sunscreens (which sometimes you forget to refresh...) you occasionally would get a nasty sunburn. On the other hand i remember being in Australia and all the British tourists would follow the strategy you layed out. So after the first day on a boat trip they all looked like xcooked lobsters…

The rest of us are probably from the northern hemisphere which doesn't have uv-c exposure due to the ozone hole. Totally different up here!

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

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's crazy, especially because sunscreen in the us is absurdly expensive. $30 for a 8oz tube is borderline criminal.

I'm not sure if you're looking at some crazy marked up amazon price, but my local grocery sells it for less than 1/3 of the price you mention: https://www.heb.com/product-detail/h-e-b-ultra-sunscreen-spf...

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

#170
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Didn't they ban all the chemicals that are easily washed off and hurt the natural environment?

Yes, at least that was the reason I was told it was very expensive. I'm not sure if it's a country wide ban or EU wide ban.
Post reply on HN