I use a 24hr natural sun protection agent from ultrasun... it's a liposome gel formular.

Ingrediants:

Aqua, lecithin, alcohol, dent, propylene glycol, octyl methoxycinnamate, methylene blis-binzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol, butylmethoxydibenzoyl, methane, titanium dioxide, dimethicone, polyacrylamide/c13-14.isoparaffin/ laureth-7, phenoxy, ethanol, alumina, simethicone, methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, bht, sodium methylparaben, sodium dehy-droacetate, sorbic acid, tetra, sodium edta, disodlium edta, tocopheryl acetate.


I know the parabens aren't really ideal, but it did just stop me from tanning/burning when gorilla trekking...

It doesn't have zinc oxide either (which I see has been given a thumbs down?)..

Would you say it's a good sunscreen? one application is such a relief!!

RK

I would not use it unless they could prove, using academic scientists who published their studies in reviewed journals, that octyl methoxycinnamate, methylene blis-binzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol, butylmethoxydibenzoyl did not generate free radicals within the skin and were not estrogenic.

This is a very frustrating area. The science is pathetic. Sun protection is more a theology than a science.

50 years ago, every good chemist knew that compounds that absorb very large amounts of UV energy are unstable and generate free radicals. It also has been known for 25 years that very large amounts (up to 35%) of sunscreen chemical oils applied to the skin for UV absorbance penetrate into the skin.

The best article written in UV protection is: Cebrian, J, Messeguer, A, Facino, RM, Garcia Anton, JM, Inter. J. Cosm. Sci. 2005, vol 27, 271-278. New anti-RNS and anti-RCS products for cosmetic treatment. Unfortunately, this is copyrighted or I would post it on the website.

Reactive carbonyl species actually damage the skin cells after being activated by UV energy. When I get back home, I will post information on this.

Dr. Pickart,

I was investigating the toxicology and science of chemical sunscreens myself (got interrupted). The newer cosmetic transparent (micro) titanium dioxide (in most physical suncreens today) also generate free radicals.

Titanium dioxide exposed to UV light can generate free radicals but if it stays on the skin's surface proteins, the free radicals will not damage sensitive skin cells which are deep inside the skin.

But the transparent micronized versions can penetrate deeply into the skin and stay there generating more internal and damaging free radicals.

Will applying emu oil or a copper peptide product first before applying micronized titaium dioxide (MTD) help reduce the amount of MTD which penetrates deeply into the skin?

Yes, putting on a SRCP and then Emu Oil will create a barrier that will help keep the sunscreen on the surface.

This really irritates me... so they've created a titanium dioxide that's more dangerous than the old one.

Sometimes (when I'm feeling paranoid/cynical) I feel they do these things deliberately - working in synergy with cosmetic surgeons etc, to a) get people unhappy with how they look (newer products make things worse)
b) pay more (in the long run) to have to fix it..

Am also beginning to think that telephone companies/sony support are in league with pharmaceutical companies. They drive you crazy by putting you on hold, transferring you here, there, and everywhere and telling one load of rubbish & then another. Why? 'cos they get a kick back on the number of beta blockers & tranquilisers dr's have to dish out

Yes... I know... I've finished ranting now.

RK x

thinking about it:

if those chemicals were oestrogenic, wouldn't that be a good thing for skin? - oestrogen keeps it plump & they keep putting soya proteins in stuff for that reason etc...

RK

quote:

Originally posted by Glass_butterfl:
thinking about it:

if those chemicals were oestrogenic, wouldn't that be a good thing for skin? - oestrogen keeps it plump & they keep putting soya proteins in stuff for that reason etc...

RK

Some of the common estrogenic hormones, used at sunscreen dosages on the skin, doubled the uterine weight in female rats. This does not seem good.