Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by ClosedPistachio » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 2:09 AM UTC

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

"NOTE: BioMin® F is not currently available for sale in the US. Although the Fluoride levels in BioMin® F are well below OTC levels in normal toothpaste, Flouride is classified as a drug in the US and has not yet been approved by the FDA."

Crazy...

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

#192

Post by Semaphor » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 2:52 AM UTC

yakak wrote: post #184

Semaphor wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Yeah, but that stops with 2012 data, and for "last-year-exposure" the data is actually pretty thin for university students and adolescents: https://i.imgur.com/1Xly88x.png (Supplement, eFigure)

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

#193

Post by tdeck » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 6:07 AM UTC

_justinfunk wrote: post #68

tdeck wrote: 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?

I'm also confused. This was a big news story a while back; it led to dozens of product recalls.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/15/johnson-joh...

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/01/1042507194/coppertone-recalls...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/17/health/sunscreen-recall-cance...

Perhaps because my comment was so brief and had only one reference it lacked credibility.

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

#194

Post by kazinator » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #175

herbst wrote: 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…

To follow this. Many natural hot springs that are open to the public have a straight up no sunscreen allowed rule. 3 hours into the high desert with no sunscreen and that is how it should be.

2 hour jet flight to destination, one hour drive into the desert in an off-road vehicle, followed by undoing the ecological damage by not wearing sunscreen!

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

#195

Post by culi » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 6:58 PM UTC

bryans wrote: post #152

culi wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specific advances have been made in better detection and/or screening? Do we use better technology for this? If there was some sudden advancement then I'd assume we'd see a sudden jump in the graph. Rather, we see an incredibly smooth and steady increase. Furthermore, the graph is split between male and female and there's very few, if any, little increases that are synchronized across these categories. If techno…

> What specific advances have been made in better detection and/or screening? Do we use better technology for this? The technology[1] and methodology used in detection has advanced significantly and repeatedly. > If there was some sudden advancement then I'd assume we'd see a sudden jump in the graph. Rather, we see an incredibly smooth and steady increase. You're ignoring the time it takes for technology to be adopt…

> The technology[1] and methodology used in detection has advanced significantly and repeatedly.

Thanks for the link! Your source mentions that "total body photography and dermoscopy have been the first to attain significant diffusion into clinical practice" but makes no other reference to actual adoption except to point out that "the accessibility of the skin to simple visual inspection and the relative ease of skin biopsy have retarded the adoption of high-tech diagnostic aids" which seems to point out that technological adoption has not actually made a huge difference?

I'm seeing a huge increase in research but no evidence of actual adoption. Anyone who's worked in this industry knows how large the gap between research and adoption can be

It's a good source, but not completely relevant since it brings no reference to any data on actual adoption of the technologies its discussing. It's also from 2008...

> You're ignoring the time it takes for technology to be adopted and implemented.

Yes, good point, thanks.

> You're ignoring many factors here...

I think you misunderstood my point. I was specifically not talking about the OVERALL trend, but rather the direction of the little bumps along the way. If we had a sudden technological advancement one year (whether large or small) we'd expect to see a positive bump for both male and female categories. Instead most of the bumps actually point the opposite way of each other

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

#196

Post by m463 » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 9:54 PM UTC

robocat wrote: post #137

m463 wrote: 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.

I don't know if she was a smoker. I know smoking affects your skin's ability to heal.

also, thinking again, she could have been 25-27?

She had very dark brown skin and fair or blonde hair. It was just prematurely old-looking skin.

The fact that she talked about it - volunteered the information - meant she was self conscious about it or people asked or she knew the look people gave her.

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

#197

Post by gen3 » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

monetus wrote: post #44

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.

In case someone goes down this rabbit hole, Nanohydroxyapatite and fluoride seem to prevent caries best together, better than either alone. Japanese apagard is what I use. Novamin has an analog of hydroxyapatite in it.

Where do you buy it from?

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

#198

Post by switchbak » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

monetus wrote: post #44

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.

In case someone goes down this rabbit hole, Nanohydroxyapatite and fluoride seem to prevent caries best together, better than either alone. Japanese apagard is what I use. Novamin has an analog of hydroxyapatite in it.

I just picked up some CariFree CTx4 Gel 1100. It has Nanohydroxyapatite, Fluoride, and Xylitol.

I'm actually quite annoyed that none of the half dozen dentists I've seen in the last 15 years have mentioned Nanohydroxyapatite as a compliment to fluoride.

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

#199

Post by monetus » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 9:35 AM UTC

gen3 wrote: post #197

monetus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case someone goes down this rabbit hole, Nanohydroxyapatite and fluoride seem to prevent caries best together, better than either alone. Japanese apagard is what I use. Novamin has an analog of hydroxyapatite in it.

Where do you buy it from?

I check a few places but this amazon seller tends to always have it cheapest.

https://www.amazon.com/Apagard-Premio-toothpaste-nanohydroxy...

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

#200

Post by monetus » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 9:37 AM UTC

switchbak wrote: post #198

monetus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case someone goes down this rabbit hole, Nanohydroxyapatite and fluoride seem to prevent caries best together, better than either alone. Japanese apagard is what I use. Novamin has an analog of hydroxyapatite in it.

I just picked up some CariFree CTx4 Gel 1100. It has Nanohydroxyapatite, Fluoride, and Xylitol. I'm actually quite annoyed that none of the half dozen dentists I've seen in the last 15 years have mentioned Nanohydroxyapatite as a compliment to fluoride.

Thanks for the recommendation, I had never heard of it. And I had the same experience in regards to the hydroxyapatite. No dentists told me, I just discovered it on pubmed and then went googling like crazy.