Live data from Hacker News

Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

theatlantic.com

181–190 of 201 posts

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

#181
I suppose the FDA's opinion here doesn't matter anymore? Wild, layman postulation here, but I don't see any meaningful difference between the FDA and the EPA, if the EPA was executive overreach than I suppose the FDA is too and companies should feel relatively comfortable about using any chemical that they wish.

I'd be curious to hear the inside of both meeting rooms, inside the FDA and inside chemical producers. Very curious what those meetings are like after last week.

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

#182
post #154

I am surprised about so much cancer and so little environment talk. The reason I don't wear sunscreen and have spent hours looking at ingredients just to buy none is that I don't want to pollute our waters. After tourist season there is a oily film swimming on our Alp lakes. People are literally walking hours enjoying the nature just to pollute the source of all that. These lakes aren't that big. And their fresh wate…

Couldn't you just put it on and not swim? As a redhead I wear sunscreen just pulling weeds in my yard, or going on a walk with my dog.

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

#183
post #154

I am surprised about so much cancer and so little environment talk. The reason I don't wear sunscreen and have spent hours looking at ingredients just to buy none is that I don't want to pollute our waters. After tourist season there is a oily film swimming on our Alp lakes. People are literally walking hours enjoying the nature just to pollute the source of all that. These lakes aren't that big. And their fresh wate…

Couldn't you just put it on and not swim? As a redhead I wear sunscreen just pulling weeds in my yard, or going on a walk with my dog.

Did you mean "not swim, bathe or shower?" The stuff goes somewhere.

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

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think they were common, say 80's/90's, but I don't see them much anymore. I think you might just have aged out of the group that uses them. Young people tend to use them a lot. Something like 1 in 5 people in their 20s have used one in the past year in many western countries. The statistics are pretty horrific. Looks like you're increasing your lifetime risk of skin cancer by a good 20% by doing this.

Where are those statistics from? I was wondering because using a tanning bed has always been a low-class thing and something to be ridiculed when I was in my early 20ies (I’m 36). German Wikipedia [0] has it at its highest 80ies/90ies, the stats they mention are for 14-45 year olds: 2012: 14.6 %; 2015: 11 %; 2018: 8.8 % [0]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarium

In the english version, there's a study of the average over multiple anglo and European countries, perhaps Germany was significantly lower than the average:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4117411/

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

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The thread we're talking about is the former: the head of the FDA announcing policy via his Twitter account. How is it remotely relevant that other Twitter accounts are nutty?

If somebody shared a clip of the President making a policy announcement on TV, would you deem it false based on the fact that "Alex Jones uses the TV to get his message out too". Do you truly not understand how insane that is?

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

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> coconut oil, olive oil That's what I would use if I was going to fry myself in the sun, just from the sound of it. Is it safe to use?

The skin is a semi permeable membrane. So I don't put anything on it I am not prepared to eat. I have been using this mix for well over a decade, and ancient civilizations used it for millennia.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean whether it's safe toxicologically, but rather as "does oil increase the likelihood of burns"?

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

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And so do QAnon followers.

The thread we're talking about is the former: the head of the FDA announcing policy via his Twitter account. How is it remotely relevant that other Twitter accounts are nutty? If somebody shared a clip of the President making a policy announcement on TV, would you deem it false based on the fact that "Alex Jones uses the TV to get his message out too". Do you truly not understand how insane that is?

Twitter isn't like Television. If someone shared a video from infowars website then yes I'd deem the information most likely bullshit.

If they told me to watch Tucker Carlson on Fox News then it would be the same.

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

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The skin is a semi permeable membrane. So I don't put anything on it I am not prepared to eat. I have been using this mix for well over a decade, and ancient civilizations used it for millennia.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean whether it's safe toxicologically, but rather as "does oil increase the likelihood of burns"?

These oils actually have natural but low SPF. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians simply used olive oil. The zinc oxide adds much more SPF by reflecting.

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

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had two BCC’s at a very young age (26/27). They were almost certainly caused by frequent (1-2x a week) usage of tanning beds for several years in my early 20’s. I stopped using the beds around 24 and besides the two BCC’s at 26 and 27 have not had any issues for a decade. And I know the word “cancer” sounds bad, but it’s very relative. BCC/SCC are very very unlikely to kill you, think of them as an extremely slow g…

BCCs are correlated with longer life expectancy.

just a note im case no someome hasnt seen those abbreviations before:

bcc → basal cell carcinoma

scc → squamous cell carcinoma

Post reply on HN