So, it's the shade for me, and big hats, and long sleeves, and long pants. Living in Portland is a good thing, for 8 months of the year when it's rainy. And I wear masses of blocking sunscreen -- that is, something that physically blocks the UVA light from getting through to my skin. That means, generally, zinc oxide (which lifeguards in 1960s beach party movies, and skiers in 1960s groovy skiing movies, wear in a white smear on their noses) or titanium dioxide are the primary ingredients of any sunscreen I wear. There's a new chemical -- Avobenzone -- which is supposed to "deactivate" UVA wavelengths, but I haven't tried any yet.
Cosmetics manufacturers don't seem to carry many options in sunscreen blockers -- I believe it's because when you wear enough to really block the sun, the product leaves your skin pale and slightly pink, even after it absorbs in (because, of course, it has to block the sun from your skin, and if it absorbs in, it's too late, so to speak). Surprisingly, only Clinique appears to have thought of putting a tint in the sunscreen so the wearer looks less dead and more sun-kissed. (More jokes about vampires go here, and slightly scary jokes -- in terms to be explained below -- about Queen Elizabeth I and lead white make-up.) Worse yet, they change chemical combinations every year, so products that worked last year won't necessarily work this year. At the moment, I have five products that I can wear and that work to keep the sun out:
- Dove Pro-Age Day Moisturizer SPF 15
- Clarins UV Protector SPF 40
- Neutrogena Sensitive Skin SPF 30
- Burt's Bee's something Sun Block
- J/A/S/O/N Mineral Sun Block SPF 30+
This spring I learnt that the standard sunscreens (which prevent chemically against damage from the sun, as compared to blocking out the UVB/UVA rays -- my distinction, not the industry's) are now being linked to higher rates of some skin cancers. That is, you protect yourself from the sun so you don't get melanoma, but the chemicals in some of the sunscreens absorb into your skin cells where they cause other kinds of cancer (ironic joke here). I had mostly ignored this news, because it applies to those other lotions that other people in the world use, not me.
However, last week, the Oregonian ran a story about a website that lists the safety results of cosmetics, including sunscreen (the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep Cosmetic Database). They do a complete chemical breakdown of each product and rate the amount of risk you take when wearing them, on a scale from 1 to 10 (low to high hazard). For sunscreens and blockers, they weigh the effectiveness of the cosmetic in preventing or neutralizing UVB and UVA wavelengths ("sun hazard"), against the possible side effects of the chemicals in the cosmetic ("health hazard"). Possible side effects include allergic reactions, cancers, and reproductive toxicity (e.g., low birth weight of girl babies when their mothers have been exposed to the chemical during pregnancy).
Interestingly enough (or incitingly enough, if you find their warnings to be shrill), the safety rating takes into account how many of the ingredients there have been no studies upon (they call it the "data gap"), so we just don't know what the effects might be, of slathering it daily on our largest organ (our skin). Now you may remember Queen Elizabeth's ladies and the lead white, or the treatment of syphilis with mercury drafts, or the asbestos tiles surrounding us everywhere. How much do we not know about our immediate environments?
The website makes the point that even so, wearing sunscreen is a better idea than not wearing it. None of their recommended Top 10 sunscreens are available anywhere that I've looked (although one is listed as available at some Targets). This is how my own stash ranks, in terms of risk:
- Dove Pro-Age Day Moisturizer SPF 15 Sun: moderate. Health: moderate
- Clarins UV Protector SPF 40 (not covered, but many Clarins things are Health: high hazard)
- Neutrogena Sensitive Skin SPF 30 Sun: low hazard. Health: moderate
- Burt's Bee's something Sun Block Sun: low. Health: moderate
- J/A/S/O/N Mineral Sun Block SPF 30+ Sun: low. Health: low
So actually, I'm doing okay for hazards. The J/A/S/O/N stuff I don't like -- it goes on like cold greasy molasses, if you can imagine such a thing -- but I can save it for serious exposure, like sitting next to the dock at the lake. I will be combing through the database for a moisturizer that is a lower health risk, while retaining the sun protection, than the Dove Moisturizer. I am concerned by the Neutrogena Sunblock, because that's my favorite: Even though it rates a low risk for sun exposure, the details make clear that it is fairly weak on UVA blockage -- the very thing I'm most worried about (it's better for UVB blocking, leading to an average of "low").
If I lived a hundred years ago (1908) I wouldn't be worrying about this. I'd have nasty reactions to the sun and, I guess, stay out of it as much as I could, and wear my bonnet outdoors like a properly dressed woman. I suppose I'd carry a parasol. -- Yes, that's what I'll have to start doing: carrying (and using) a proper parasol. It'll be a trick to garden with a parasol, but I can try, can't I? eBay, here I come!
1 comment:
Freaky, isn't it?
I am *impressed* that you've never had a child's sunburn. Just last week I screwed up and got too little too late on Girl-Child (and none at all on Boy-Child), while I was burn free. Guilt abounds.
But just think of all the carcinogens I protected them from.
Look online for those 0 hazard lotions, I think that's all one can do. And who knows what you can get in Australia!? Good luck.
Post a Comment