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

Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

valisure.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 309 posts

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#191

Post by dragonwriter »

dcolkitt wrote: post #179
jpmattia wrote: post #21

My family recently went through the search for a decent sunscreen and settled on this link for useful info about which sunscreens have nasty chemicals: https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/ Our search was not exhaustive (and I can't really vouch for the link that was used) so if you have a better link, please don't keep it a secret.

I'm gonna make a radical suggestion. Maybe just try ditching sunscreen altogether. Yes, it's probably true that exposure to the sun increases the risk of skin cancer. But in the US skin cancer accounts for fewer than 1% of all deaths. In contrast the quintile of people with the highest exposure to the sun have half the all-cause mortality as the quintile with the lowest sun exposure.[1] In particular sunbathers enjoy…

> In particular sunbathers enjoy significantly lower rates of heart disease, liver cancer, colon cancer, and neurodegenerative disease.

That’s mildly interesting, but without analysis that controls for confounding causes, I wouldn’t drive lifestyle choices.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#192

Post by anoraca »

dcolkitt wrote: post #179
jpmattia wrote: post #21

My family recently went through the search for a decent sunscreen and settled on this link for useful info about which sunscreens have nasty chemicals: https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/ Our search was not exhaustive (and I can't really vouch for the link that was used) so if you have a better link, please don't keep it a secret.

I'm gonna make a radical suggestion. Maybe just try ditching sunscreen altogether. Yes, it's probably true that exposure to the sun increases the risk of skin cancer. But in the US skin cancer accounts for fewer than 1% of all deaths. In contrast the quintile of people with the highest exposure to the sun have half the all-cause mortality as the quintile with the lowest sun exposure.[1] In particular sunbathers enjoy…

Why do you feel qualified to offer medical advice like this? Are you a medical doctor?

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#193

Post by datameta »

dcolkitt wrote: post #179
jpmattia wrote: post #21

My family recently went through the search for a decent sunscreen and settled on this link for useful info about which sunscreens have nasty chemicals: https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/ Our search was not exhaustive (and I can't really vouch for the link that was used) so if you have a better link, please don't keep it a secret.

I'm gonna make a radical suggestion. Maybe just try ditching sunscreen altogether. Yes, it's probably true that exposure to the sun increases the risk of skin cancer. But in the US skin cancer accounts for fewer than 1% of all deaths. In contrast the quintile of people with the highest exposure to the sun have half the all-cause mortality as the quintile with the lowest sun exposure.[1] In particular sunbathers enjoy…

This is a somewhat counterintuitive idea that actually makes sense for a lot of people. However I must note that there are those taking medications that increase their skin cancer risk as a side effect. For them the risk calculation may be different.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#194

Post by TheManInThePub »

njovin wrote: post #185
TheManInThePub wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer. So no evidence, just suspicion? I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why the US courts have ruled the way they have. EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain yourselves. Are people defending something without evidence?

From the parent comment's link: > A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to di…

> sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos

And the question I have asked is where is the evidence that such small quantities are a risk? The UK links I have posted suggest otherwise. This is why I am asking.

I'm puzzled... are the US courts are saying "OMG Asbestos" rather than looking at safe levels? What if the same courts said "OMG 5G" ! This is why I am asking a genuine question.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#195

Post by GloriousKoji »

strict9 wrote: post #13
azinman2 wrote: post #2

So this is bad, obviously, but I want to plug Valisure and consumerlab both. For whatever reason there’s so little testing out there for both generic drugs and vitamins and supplements, and both of these guys really do have our backs. I’m very happy to support both to be doing what I feel like the FDA with more funding should be doing themselves.

I didn't know about Valisure and consumerlab, but have used Labdoor before buying something new. Strongly agree this field of testing/validation is desperately needed.

I haven't looked into Labdoor in a while but many years ago they weren't very reputable, they had questionable testing methodology and their scoring was heavily weighted just based on what ingredients were in a product and ignored the claims of a labels accuracy.

Did they improve their process over the years or just marketing and brand recognition?

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#196

Post by foerbert »

WalterBright wrote: post #156
infogulch wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anybody ever wondered, this is a concrete example of what it looks like when a company treats its negative externalities as a "cost of doing business".

In America, you could have a product that saves 1000 lives but kills 1, and you'll get your pants sued off for the one.

This is one of those things that sounds bad on first glance, but doesn't withstand deeper scrutiny. It's largely either a good thing or else not true.

If the 1000 lives were not in imminent danger or else could have been saved by other means, it's not trivially true that only killing 1 in 1000 should be neglected. How does that compare to the alternative methods? Could it have been avoided with small or reasonable changes to the product? Were people properly informed of the risks? There's a bunch of stuff to unpack here. It's not trivially and obviously true that it's A Bad Thing to get sued if you save 1000 lives and kill 1.

On the other hand, if you are in the situation where those 1000 people are absolutely going to die imminently, your product has the only possible chance of saving them, and in the end 1 person dies sooner than they would have without treatment... you're not going to see a major and massive lawsuit out of this. You can be sued, but your annoying neighbor can also sue you for being annoying if they want. Doesn't mean it'll go anywhere, or that you'll lose your pants from it.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#197

Post by jacobwilliamroy »

TheManInThePub wrote: post #190
jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer, and multiple executives at Johnson and Johnson knew, and people who used it got cancer. I'm not sure how you could believe the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.

Thank you for being the first person to post an informative reply rather than down voting a question. HN is turning into reddit. > I'm not sure how you could believe Though this is unnecessarily insulting. > the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing. If the concentration was so low as to be negligible (as the links I have posted state) then why the successful…

Researchers at Johnson & Johnson detected unsafe levels of asbestos in the talc as part of their own internal testing. There are internal emails that show high level executives asking researchers to switch to a less sensitive test which would allow them to make the concentration of asbestos appear lower than it really was. I remember that when the story first dropped, the people writing J&J's press releases were very careful to use only the present tense when discussing the asbestos levels in their talcum products which implies to me that they did eventually rectify it. That's all I know. I didn't follow the story for very long.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#199

Post by LgWoodenBadger »

leesalminen wrote: post #55
throwkeep wrote: post #51

I don't understand why people are so eager to slather chemicals on their skin, when we evolved with the sun and it's not hard for most people to avoid sun burn. You just have get sun exposure on a somewhat regular basis (healthy to do anyway) and acclimate between seasons (ie, don't go abruptly from no sun to all the sun).

I live at altitude (~8000 ft) and have very fair skin. I burn within 20 minutes of being in direct sunlight. So, I’m not sure what it is I’m supposed to do.

I have taken to buying long-sleeved (and hooded) fishing gear to wear outdoors in the spring and summer. With modern synthetics it's not bad at all, certainly better than cotton. Same with pants.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#200

Post by [deleted] »

throwkeep wrote: post #51

I don't understand why people are so eager to slather chemicals on their skin, when we evolved with the sun and it's not hard for most people to avoid sun burn. You just have get sun exposure on a somewhat regular basis (healthy to do anyway) and acclimate between seasons (ie, don't go abruptly from no sun to all the sun).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN