Talk:Sunscreen/Archive 2

Sunscreen cancer issue

Causality is not proven though a correlation. People who use suscreen are generally under the sun more then non users, therefor it is likely that they will have a higher risk of skin cancer. There have been no studys that show a cause and effect relationship of sunscreen causing cancer.

Change the article when you can show equal people that have equal sun exposure with unequal sunscreen use shows an increase of cancer risk in the lower use group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.11.17 (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

sunscreen cancer issue

From an Epidemiological point of view the connection between sunscreen and melanoma has been proven by Westerdahl

They considered the sunbathing behavior and the skin type and yet they found in equal groups a higher risk of melanoma for those individuals that use sunscreen.

Autier found aswell that sunscreen users have more melanoma than non-users.

The amount of melanoma increased drastically in Queensland after sunscreens were introduced there!! At first this increase was not seen in neighbouring Australian regions - this proves that it is not the Ozone issue!!!!

From a mechanistic point of view: It is well known, that many sunscreen ingredients are free radical generators. Once the active ingredient (UV-filter) has penetrated into the skin these free radicals cause mutations via the indirect DNA-damage. It was never disputed, that sunscreen ingredients that get into contact with living tissue act as photosensitizers and do harm. The only thing that is disputed by those who endorse sunscreen is that sunscreen penetrates into the skin. Even those people that are in favour of sunscreen-use, do admit that 1-10% of the active ingredient is absorbed into the skin. A simple back of an envelope calculation can show that this leads to a concentration that is many times higher than the established harmful concentration of c=10 μmol/liter. The problem is, that dermatologist had not understood how harmful even small concentrations of a photoactive substance can be. The free radical generation of absorbed UV-filters dominates over the protective effect of UV-filters on the surface after 20 minutes after the application of the sunscreen. Gerriet42 (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy Disputed

I've added the disputed tag to this article. It seems to have been taken over by someone who believe that sunscreen causes cancer. The research on this is weak or disputed. See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PDG/is_3_3/ai_n6056512.

The tag should only be removed if the content of this article is fully edited to show both sides of the debate. Wshallwshall (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• The scientific literature is full of proof that sunscreen does cause skin cancer: epidemiological: and more. Mechanism of free radical generation and their harmful effect on living tissue: Penetration of sunscreen into the skin:Penetration into the skin and increase of free radicals/reactive oxygen species (very powerfull proof for the harmful effects of sunscreen): The article has been taken over by SEVERAL people who KNOW (not believe) that many sunscreen chemicals are absorbed into the skin where they generate harmful free radicals. Your statement that "the research on this is weak" shows me, that you didn't even bother to read these articles. The proof is easy to find in the science literature. Most photochemists I know are extremely suspicious about sunscreen - even more so after I have told them about the medical statistics. If you believe, that there is scientific literature out there that indicates a positive effect of sunscreen, please find it, and reference it here. But do not make a general claim that the research about the harmful effects is weak - it is not.

Even the reference you are giving does not claim that a protective effect of sunscreen against melanoma has ever been shown!!!!!!!

They only say: " there is no proof that sunscreens cause cancer," So he does admit that there is a debate about the photocancerogenic properties of sunscreen.

Then he is using the invalid argument that " melanoma risk is directly related to the number and intensity of sunburns people experience in their lifetime, and sunscreen use reduces the risk of sunburn." As explained in the sunscreen article here this argument does not hold, because sunburn is caused by direct DNA damage whereas melanoma are caused by indirect DNA damage. !! Gerriet42 (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I put the disputed tags back. It has nothing to do with the citations or what they say, it has to do with the fact that there are new studies coming out that themselves dispute the conclusions of previous studies. Until the sections can be rewritten to show there is dispute, and include citations with BOTH points of view, then the dispute tag is exactly what is supposed to be there. It isn't personal, we are simply getting new information now that shows the first conclusions may have been wrong. This doesn't even address the fact that there are some indications that some of the ingredients in sunscreen could be more likely to give you cancer than the sun, which I will leave for others to source for today. (Hense why the govt finally cracked down on sunscreen makers) PHARMBOY (TALK) 14:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

When you people write that the "factual accuracy is under dispute " it sounds like there are lys in the article. This is not the case! Please remove that tag again. Especially from the introduction.Gerriet42 (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I know you mean well, but I think you are not being objective here. I understand the topic is important to you, which is why it should be discussed, but be careful not to make it an 'agenda'. There *is* a reason to claim a dispute. To tag the article with the dispute tag does NOT mean the facts are inaccurate, it means the editors are considering new material to show both sides and they are not done. Tagging an article as "disputed" doesn't mean "lies" (that would be a POV tag or Inaccurate tag). It means the issue has more than one perspective and/or there is new evidence that calls into question the accuracy of the older information. This is an accurate assessment. Disputed *means* that people are working to improve the article and "there is reason to believe that some of the information is not correct" for whatever reasons. If people thought that there were LIES, they would simply delete those sections. Don't read too much into the tag, it is placed (in part) to encourage others with more information to contribute, find new material, etc. I'm working 60+ right now and simply can't chase down everything (I wasn't the one who placed the tag to begin with) but there *is* new stuff coming out weekly now about how sunscreen usage may actually INCREASE melanoma (but decrease basil cell). One Australian report just came out (don't have link at this computer) and others are coming as well. They don't "prove" anything by themselves, but they are reason enough to "dispute" the conventional wisdom. Our goal should be to be VERY CAREFUL to present both sides, IF both sides are credible. The disputed tag is 100% the proper way to handle this situation. Removing it should only be done if it is shown a concensus would agree with you OR if you can show recent, clear evidence (citations) that demonstrate the new information is patently false. Again, the fact that the US recently changed laws regarding sunscreen ingredients, requiring FDA approval for ingredients, demonstrates that there is at least reason to further investigate this dispute. PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article has been hijacked by individuals whose literacy is as poor as their scientific knowledge. Previous versions of this article were much better written, objective and accurate. I think it's time to revert to a previous version of the article. Wikipedia's "higher authorities" may have to be brought in because this article has clearly been hijacked and ruined by people pushing their own agenda. Suitsyou (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a hugh discrepancy between the information in the scientific literature and the information which is found in the popular press. Those who deny this are iliterate themselves - or just too lazy to read the respective articles. In the scientific literature there is a discussion whether sunscreen is photocarcinogenic or not, and in the popular press sunscreen is sold as a remedy against melanoma - do you see the why the subject is so upsetting? Gerriet42 (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I also sense that sections of this article have taken on a tone of not just having an agenda, but pushing it hard. The intro sentence referring to the popular press ignoring the work of the scientific researchers stems from that author's personal perspective and is not supported by an analysis comparing popular press coverage of sunscreen with the work of the scientific researchers.

That being said, I do agree that the failures of sunscreen to prevent melanoma in epi studies is important. This work is further supported by limited mechanistic studies showing that sunscreens prevent inflammation only and not necessarily the causes of melanoma. The FDA specifically cites these in its latest proposed rule when disallowing manufacturer claims on bottles that using sunscreens prevents photoaging and cancer and changing SPF to refer to Sunburn Protection Factor instead of Sun Protection Factor. At the same time, Wikipedia is not the place to push this agenda, but to simply and objectively reflect the findings that others have found.

Moving forward, I'm happy to help rework, delete, or highlight sentences that are objectionable. In cases where a particular statement is objectionable, but I can't rework it just quite yet, I'll add a 'fact' tag. Kmarkey (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with the approach and some of the changes taken by [[Special:Contributions/74.69.82.49|74.69.82.49] for this edit, I also disagree with the wholesale revert the changes and especially to characterize them as "vandal edits" This was an example of drive-by-POVing (which is also discouraged), which upon reading the talk pages and looking at the edits counts for as a good faith effort and not Vandalism:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

I'd like to see more of the changes discussed on the talk pages and provided a context, rather than just changed in the article. The edits were too massive to revert, but I'd encourage other editors to examine the various tags placed by [[Special:Contributions/74.69.82.49|74.69.82.49] [1] as a useful discussion point. Kmarkey (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• o.k. I apologize for calling it "vandalism". I take that back. But I am still glad, that I reverted the edit, because the dispute about the reasons of increased melanoma risk are properly presented in the article. Some people seem to deny that there is a dispute. So I added more references, and there are more to come. I dislike it when every second sencence is tagged as a POV-statement. When there is a proper reference behind it, it is not a POV. For example it has been proven many times, that sunscreen which is in contact with living tissue is harmful to it under illumination. The references are in the introduction. FOUR references and nobody denies it - this is not a POV.

Gerriet42 (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to concur. This article used to be reasonably balanced, and now appears to be a rant that all sunscreen causes cancer, in all cases, and it is proven and clear and there is no dispute. I am highly doubtful if the evidence is this clear. For example, we have two main types of sunscreen, that work by completely different mechanisms; the chemical sunscreens and the physical blocks. How can they both have the same problems? All the speculation about free radicals is a bit much; we have invested a huge amount in studying dietary antioxidants and free radicals in the body, for a long time, and really the evidence there is very confused and contradictory. It even looks like some antioxidants can cause cancer or other fatal conditions in their efforts to reduce free radicals. So I find it highly suspicious that an area that has not been studied as intensively for nearly as long has much clearer results.--Filll (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Only those sunscreens which penetrate into the skin and get into contact with living tissue cause cancer. This is due to the by far inferiour photoprotection capacity of sunscreen compared to melanin. I think the article does say that the topical sunscreen reduces the UV-radiation (protective effect) and the absorbed sunscreen causes harm (photosensitizing effect). If the article is to agressive in places please point these places out so that we can change the respective paragraph. Gerriet42 (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid the overall tone of the article has gone bad. It should follow NPOV. It does not appear to any longer.--Filll (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the article no longer appears to be in English.--Filll (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is proof for EVERY sunscreen ingredient to cause cancer, but there is for many. Is it necessary to proof photocarcinogenic effects for every ingredient before the medical doctors stop recommending it as a preventative measure against cancer? In the scientific papers there is a discussion whether sunscreen causes cancer, and all you hear in the media is that you should use sunscreen because it would prevent cancer - are there not more people who are outraged about this? Mattiasschwarz (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not up to Wikipedia. The tone of this post is very disappointing.--Filll (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding NPOV

Gerriet42... you offer admirable passion regarding something you believe is dangerous. I'm afraid, however, that you're not doing justice to your side. I would like to offer a suggestion for your consideration.

You're correct that this is an important issue to discuss and belongs in the article. I did not know about this controversy until I came across your statements.

My reaction, however, shows why you should consider making more-balanced edits. Your statements were so extreme that I felt they could not be widely-accepted science. As a result, I did my own search and immediately found this study. I also found that doctors, organizations, and governments are all still strongly recommending sunscreen. (Example)

You're not doing justice to your side when you make such extreme statements. You raise some very interesting points, but it's like listening to a politician who is ignoring facts and trying to scare his audience. Some people will listen to you, but many will just disregard you because they quickly distrust what you say.

Your fundamental points are very valid. 1) Studies have raised concerns that some sunscreen ingredients may not be safe 2) Preventing sunburn while not protecting from UVA radiation probably led people to spend a lot more time in the sun, getting blasted by UVA.

But you lose credibility when you try to say that the science is conclusive or when you suggest that all sunscreens are dangerous.

I would suggest editing your text to offer a balanced review, fully acknowledging that studies are offering contradictory results and that changed formulations may be more effective and safer. I tagged the statements that needed review, hoping you might go back and edit them to be less extreme.

If you can back off of the overdone claims, then your edits to the article will stick. Otherwise, consensus will build for the suggestion to revert everything you've done over the last few months. (See below) Wshallwshall (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input. I know I was extreme in my way to explain it. For me it is clear that sunscreen is harmful, due to the mechanistic considerations (I'm a photochemist). The resistance here in Wikipedia has shown me how to explain it in a way that everybody understands it. We are on the right track here.Gerriet42 (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Could somebody help me to bring the mathematical formulas in the chapter "absorption of photoactive sunscreen ingredients into the skin" into shape. Gerriet42 (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Overall structure

I propose moving the [[ Sunscreen#absorption_of_photoactive_sunscreen_ingredients_into_the_skin|absorption of photoactive sunscreen ingredients into the skin] section under controversies. This whole controversies section should be moved lower in the article, possibly before or after [[Sunscreen#Possible_adverse_effects|Possible adverse effects] section. Kmarkey (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• The part about "absorption of photoactive sunscreen ingredients into the skin" is very relevant could somebody try to improve it. I think it should be in the beginning between "1) Legal changes" and "2) Dosing". Any opinions? Gerriet42 (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to revert article

This was previously a well-written, informative and objective article but has in recent months been ruined. It now has the following faults:

• It is written is extremely poor English
• It is not objective or neutral, but is a polemic against sunscreens
• It does not reflect current mainstream scientific opinion

The decline of the article seems to have started with anonymous edits and later with the edits of Gerriet41. The last version I can find written in coherent English and NPOV is 31 October 2007. I propose reverting to that version and we can move forward from there. Suitsyou (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. Revert, and then see if you can find anything done in the last few months that is worthwhile to fold in.--Filll (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree I have already started a working revision based on a version from about that time. Is there a way for me to post that revision for comment without clogging up this page? Wshallwshall (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the majority of authors is beginning to realize that the story about the harmful effects of sunscreen is true. Reverting will not be needed.Gerriet42 (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

politely disagree! - it's gonna be real important, Gerriet, to be real calm about this stuff, and take a good look at all the relevant policies - you're clearly a passionate person, and sometimes that can actually cause problems when editing an article that one feels particularly passionate about! I've popped the article back to what I think is a better version, and think we might need to encourage a few more eyes and ears over here to see what folk think.... I'm going to stick to a '1RR' - which means I promise to only make one 'revert' per day - and would encourage others to do the same, because I've noticed that it can really help in avoiding any nasty 'edit wars' - cheers! - Privatemusings (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with the edits you made after the revert. However I - and hopefully others - find it unacceptable that you take out everything about the melanoma-sunscreen discussion. There is a dispute going on in the scientific literature. The references to proof this are in the article now, and you should read them. The public has to know that there is a dispute about the epidemiological data, and that there is proof from the mechanistic side for a melanoma generating property of sunscreens. Gerriet42 (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at "Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly!" . I don't have the time to listen to 4*16 minutes of unrelated stuff. If there is a justification in there for what you did, then you have to specify where it is ("first of three", second , third or fourth sound file. Then specify after how many minutes so that we don't have to listen to the whole thing.) Mattiasschwarz (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry to have thrown that in, if it was distracting! - that conversation is simply where I first heard about this article - and it was discussed pretty briefly along the way - but certainly shouldn't be considered as carrying any weight - just thought someone might be interested! - I'm afraid I still don't really like the article as it stands, and will pop back when I've got a bit more time to try explain my perspective a bit more... cheers... Privatemusings (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In which one of the four sound files is it mentioned?????Gerriet42 (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "pop back"? If it means that you will take out everything about the melanoma-sunscreen discussion, then you should go to one of the wikipedia judges right away. The dispute about the melanoma-generating properties is present in the scientific literature (epidemiological and mechanisticaly) and I want the public to know this. Very likely many other users want the public to know this, too. I am getting support now from Wshallwshall (in the beginning he was just totally against it, but he has read the references, and now he is making excellent contributions), and I am getting support from Pharmboy and MattiasSchwarz. Those users want the truth out there. That is our agenda: the truth. Gerriet42 (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, did you know not that Wikipedia is not about The Truth^TM but verifiability? And did you not know that there are contradictory studies ? Not all of the modern chemical blocks have shown to be dangerous, or have reports of potential dangers. And the physical blocks have not shown to be dangerous. This is highly controversial and it is inappropriate and in fact against WP principles for us to present one side or the other of this controversy as proven fact.--Filll (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The contradictory studies are the epidemiological ones, and mostly the ones that speak for sunscreen say the the proof of a photocaricingenic effect is not yet strong enough due to convoluting factors like skin colour and how long people stay in the sun. The weird thing is, that people stay in the sun so long, because they use sunscreen, and they were told that you are safe as long as you don't get a sunburn. This was a pretty bad missinformation and it has resulted in several lawsuits. However my main point is that the mechanistic studies show only negative effects from sunscreen. The mechanistic studies are the ones which I understand best because photochemistry is my job and those studies show that sunscreen use should not be advocated
I do agree that we have to tone it down a little, and I will, but just taking everything that describes the dispute out - like Privatemusings did - that is just wrong.
Many people seem to think that it is o.k. to promote the use of sunscreen unless each ingredient has been proven to be photocarcinogenic. I have the opposite opinion: sunscreen should only be promoted when all the sunscreen ingredients on the market are safe. And at the moment we are fare from it due to the insufficient safety regulation.
The nano-particle physical blocks are causing a lot of trouble right now, and I think they will take those from the market soon. When I find the link I will post it here.
Nano-sized TiO2 is used in self-cleaning windows in order to destroy all the organic material that otherwise would make it green. Gerriet42 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't about you and your campaign to enlighten the public. I reverted to the balanced version written in coherent English. The wishes of other editors to revert to this version should be respected. Any editor who has difficulty writing in coherent English should perhaps consider using this Talk page to make suggestions and leave it to other editors to edit the article. Suitsyou (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean when you say that my english is not good enough for wikipedia? More importantly: you can not erase all the information about the disputed safety of sunscreen just because of a few typos.Gerriet42 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not understand. We will fold back some of that information, in readable English form. However, the previous article was a bit too much like a POV rant, claiming that it was proven that all sunscreen with all types of ingredients all caused cancer under all circumstances. I just think that the situation is far more nuanced and complicated than that, and that is an unencyclopedic position for WP to take, violating WP:NPOV and other principles.--Filll (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For example, consider the skin foundation's discussion of an FDA monograph here. Where is the frantic alarm that you have projected about all sunscreens in all conditions all the time? Do you not think that if what you claimed was true, this page would read a lot differently?--Filll (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is more information from the FDA itself here. Why is it not as alarmist as what you stated? Interesting...--Filll (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted this article as well to some stable version since Gerriet does not seem interested in forming consensus. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

o.k. So you guys are going to put back the relevant information about the dispute on the safety again, right? Then I do agree. I apologize that I had not understood that after the first revert.
The previous version was too agressive. It somehow developed that way.
Please, make sure the following points are in it 1) Sunscreen is supposed to stay in the uppermost 0.1 mm of the skin (which is dead tissue). And it is not supposed to get into contact with living tissue. 2) Melanoma are caused by indirect DNA damage and sunburn is caused by direct DNA damage. 3) More epidemiological studies have shown a melanoma generating effect than studies have shown a protective effect. This is often blamed on the missing UVA filter, but the penetration into the skin can be a contributing factor aswell.
Great. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks for your efforts. Gerriet42 (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Gerriet42, Please keep statements about sunscreen causing melanoma in the "possible adverse effects" section. You can create a Wikipedia page entitled "Adverse effects of sunscreen" whose entire purpose is to discuss these issues, and link to it from the "Sunscreen" page. T g7 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For breach of 3RR and edit warring against a consensus of other editors, I've blocked Gerriet42 for 31hours. Of course, welcome to then discuss issues and possible sources for improving this article, but reverting against discussion is disruptive - If this should reoccur, then please let me know whether there is a consensus for a topic ban. David Ruben ^Talk 17:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing restart ? But is "official" FDA cautionary views

So Gerriet42 comes out of block and we have this first edit which removed the purely factual description of what sun creams are (the second paragraph of the lead in) and switches the position of stating the majority view point as having priority in an article (as per WP:NPOV) with then later in the article a "Possible adverse effects" which links over to the Sunscreen controversy sub-article (thus giving the counterbalance required of NPOV). Instead the edit seemed to give WP:UNDUE position of doubting benefit ("is supposed to protect") yet then proceeded to backtrack to the mainstream ("The use of sunscreen does reduce sunburn and other skin damages which are caused by direct DNA damage") before again questioning ("However the effect of sunscreen-use on the incidences of malignant melanoma - which is caused by the indirect DNA damage - is still under dispute."). Second edit adding in "Lawsuits against sunscreen manufacturers" which merely duplicated what already appears at Sunscreen controversy.

This needs discussion here, addressing:

1. NPOV language to be used
2. How to structure the article to reflect need NPOV - ie what sections and in which order (?put all negative parts into "Possible adverse effects" section or break up this line of debate into several sections through the article)
3. That the FDA is unconvinced suncream use on its own prevents cancer (given people alter their behaviour and sun worship for longer etc) is of course correct and verifiable by the reference given by Gerriet42 (http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/07-4131.pdf).
4. The issues to be debated therefore are not whether "suncream blocks UV, UV causes cancer, therefore suncreams prevent cancer" proved to be a less than full and accurate real-world logical deduction, but how to phrase and include the details for which Gerriet42 has provided numerous useful references in their edit.
5. Given late in the article there is a "Possible adverse effects" section, the leadin does need to make some acknowledgement of this.
6. Finally, with there being a Sunscreen controversy article, how much info to put into each article without over duplication (clearly some mention needs be made in Sunscreen, but it can't duplicate everything in the other article); else otherwise do the 2 articles need merging ?

Hmmm, I think I've supported Gerriet42 on points 2, 3 & 4 above (that studies and views about not oversimplistically assuming suncreams alone can eliminate cancers AND that the leadin needs acknowledge this) but (and take note Gerriet42) the process of how to so restructure the article needs be done after discussion with other involved editors and needs heed the consensus then established (ie don't just endless revert which is edit warring, will get you reblocked and fails to advance the need for the article to sound a little more cautious)... David Ruben ^Talk 12:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In the introduction which you favour there is no distinction between the different forms of skin cancer. In my version there is a clear distinction between the forms of skin cancer which are caused by the direct DNA damage and those which are caused by indirect DNA damage. This distinction is important. There are three forms of skin cancer: squamous cell carcinom, basal cell carcinom, and malignant melanom. The first two forms are caused by direct DNA damage and the last one is caused by another mechanism (indirect DNA damage = free radicals). From a mechanistic viewpoint it is therefore easily possible to understand that the first two forms are prevented by sunscreen use, and the last one is amplified. This agrees with the epidemiological results. Importantly the malignant melanom is responsible for 75% of all skin cancer related death cases. It is rare, but the mortality rate is many times higher than the mortality rates for squamous cell carcinom and basal cell carcinom.
It is crucial to distinguish the different forms of skin cancer for this discussion.Gerriet42 (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If the neutrality of this article is diputed, then I would like to know, to which paragraph such a statement refers to. Otherwise the tag should be removed. Gerriet42 (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I want to see the edit/revert warring end. I agree with Gerriet in principal, and the evidence is mounting, that melanoma is increasing because of sunscreen usage. (and may be related to the recent discovery that a lack of Vitamin D from natural sunlight may also be to blame) We do have to be careful to keep a NPOV here, but the constant reverting back and force is freaking rediculous. As to differentiating for the different types of skin cancer, this should be obvious: Just as we differentiate for different types of cancer in general, you have to differentiate between the types of skin cancer, if for no other reasons than the causes are different, and the mortality rate is very different. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The evidence might be mounting in your mind more than the published literature. All authorities, from the World Health Organisation down, recommend the use of sunscreen. There is a debate that the incorrect use of sunscreen may increase the risk of cancer and this debate is included in the pre-Gerriet42 versions of the article. The mainstream debate is how much sunscreen should be used, how often it should be reapplied and what the best ingredients are. It's important to focus on recent studies because sunscreen ingredients have changed and now include a UVA rating. Wikipedia is not the place to use WP:SYNTH and 20-year-old sources to try to create an argument against sunscreens that is not part of mainstream debate. Suitsyou (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Pharmboy. Recently there was a user called Jtrainor, who repeatedly reverted to a version without any information about "how it works" and about the epidemiological results. His User-page reveals, that he/she never uses discussion in order to resolve conflicting opinions - instead he had many edit wars.
P.S.: Sunscreens generate free radicals, and sunscreens penetrate into the skin. The Vitamin D explanation is just pushed forward, in order to avoid the truth: most sunscreens are photocarcinogenic. - But I won't push this forward, because I know it is hard to prove. Gerriet42 (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm holding off editing this article until the pending RFCU against you is processed. Re allegations, file a WP:ANI report if you think you have anything. I certainly have nothing to hide. Jtrainor (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gerriet42 was blocked for sockpuppetry and reset for attempting to evade the block.David Ruben ^Talk 21:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge POV FORK?

Sunscreen controversy appears to be a POV fork that should be merged into this article. GundamsЯus (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

More accurately, it should be deleted as a POV fork. Jtrainor (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, see my comments at Talk:Sunscreen controversy -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree aswell. The splitting into two articles has happened, because some users didn't want me to include the info about free radicals and the wrongly designed animal experiments and the epidemiological results into the original article - even so it is all based on proper citations from the scientific literature. Gerriet42 (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It was originally created following a revert of this article to an October 2007 version, but to help salvage some bits that several editors thought were important (see the previous Talk sections). Once User:Geriet42 and others actually incorporate those pieces back into this main article and this article becomes relatively stable then I would support deleting Sunscreen controversy. Kmarkey (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kmarkey. Gerriet42 (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In the older versions of sunscreen controversy (before 16 April 07) there is a section about "animal tests". The purpose was to illustrate one of the mistakes that lead to the whole disaster: (Sunscreen advocates refer to these studies, even so they are designed in such a way that the sunscreen does not have time to absorb into the skin.) This section had been deleted. I would like to bring this section back into the main "sunscreen" article - maybe modified to make it easier understandable. Any opinions? Gerriet42 (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree I think there's some room to get a lot more scientific on this page than would be acceptable for Sunscreen, as well as create a legitimate article that people can use as a reference, or source of information. I would make a small section in Sunscreen, and use a

Main article: Sunscreen controversy

smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Broken Reference Link

In the EU sunscreens are limited to SPF 50+, indicating an SPF of 60 or higher. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_safe/prod_safe/gpsd/sunscreen/index_en.htm

I spent a while attempting to locate the intended link target, but couldn't find it. The link above fails and redirects to a generic page. Alsee (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

CDC: Americans Carry Body Burden of Toxic Sunscreen Chemical | Environmental Working Group, http://www.ewg.org/node/26212''

-Reporting a broken link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.202.146.41 (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to revert article again

I propose to revert Gerriet42's edits again. The article cannot be salvaged without major and time-consuming work. Revert to last known good version, April 5: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunscreen&oldid=203558199 . 66.67.47.120 (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been many sources added since April 5. Wholesale reversion seems unwise. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be reverted. The article has again become an unstructured and at times unreadable diatribe. Many of the sources added are over 20 years old and it is unnecessary to overload the article with so many old sources. Suitsyou (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I had not reviewed the quality of the sources, I just noted the number. If you have reviewed the actual sources and come to this opinion, I remove my objection. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you find a scientific study that is newer, and states a protective effect of sunscreen use against malignant melanoma. GOOD LUCK (there is no such study!!)Gerriet42 (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is the perfect example of the damage that an extremist with an ax to grind can do to Wikipedia. Gerriet42 has a handful of 10-year old studies that he takes out of context and presents as the conclusive state-of-the-discipline. Anyone with access to MedLine (i.e., most academics) can easily confirm that this is a gross misrepresentation. What's particularly enlightening is to read what the authors of those older studies (e.g., Weinstock, Autier, etc.) say in their more recent work. They're very reasoned, evenhanded, and balanced (unlike their unauthorized and unwanted Wikipedia PR rep). Maybe the sunscreen industry thugs got to them. (Sigh.) 71.213.46.195 (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you criticize that those studies are so old, then why don't you find more modern studies that say that sunscreen protects against malignant melanoma? Good luck - you need it. Or better: even luck won't help you, because there are no such studies. Every publication about a melanoma protective effect of sunscreen is based on optimistic speculations.

My axe to grind is to get rid of the large gap between the information in the scientific literature and the misconception of the public that sunscreen would help to prevent melanoma. Even the FDA backs down by now, and it will not be allowed to claim a protective effect any more. Gerriet42 (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE policies: Gerriet42's contribs aren't following. This is currently an unencyclopedic article. 66.67.47.120 (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Absorption into the skin

Right now it does not become clear, that the absorption of the sunscreen chemicals into the skin is undesirable and harmful. I changed it, but my edit has been reverted. [[2]]. It should be clear in the article that a contact with living tissue of the skin is harmful and can lead to photocarcinogenic effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerriet42 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an alternative medicine health clinic. GundamsЯus (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Epidemiological results

The results of the epidemiological studies are a fact that is so important that it has to be mentioned in the introduction. After all this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement forum for the cosmetic industry. Gerriet42 (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your claims are simply wrong. You are completely ignoring opposing data or secondary literature. Reviews fail to show a positive correlation of sunscreen use and melanoma incidence, compare PMID 12084704, PMID 14678916 (pdf). --77.0.109.78 (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles you quote merely say that there is not enough evidence to conclude that sunscreens cause melanoma. To say that the proof is not enough for one point does not mean that the opposite point is true. The epidemiology does not give proof either way. The authors are blaming other convoluting factors which make a simple interpretation impossible. For example the people who use sunscreen stay in the sun longer, and for this reason they get more melanoma. This issue has indeed lead to lawsuits. In my opinion it is important to report here that there is a discussion about the safety of sunscreen going on.Gerriet42 (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

POV concerns

The german version of the article Sunscreen (and a bunch of other articles concerning sun protection) was set back to a version free of the contributions of user Gerriet (Gerriet42, Gerriet43, Gerriet5 etc.) by the german Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. He was blocked indefinite for massive POV-contributions, this block was hold up after an controversial debate. It seems as if you had similar problems here (this article, sunscreen controversy).. --77.0.109.78 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And now that it is set back to a previous contribution it is written in the german article, that sunscreen is supposed to penetrate into the skin, and it prevents sunburn through photochemical reactions. This is total Bullshit. The absorbtion of sunscreen is undesirable and sunscreen is supposed to stay on the surface or in the stratum corneum. What happened to the german sunscreen article is an example for desinformation. They removed even the part which explains that melanoma and sunburn are caused by two different mechanisms. (Which is obviously true, because UVA does not cause sunburn, but it is dangerous aswell - even a layperson knows this.) I was blocked all of a sudden without warning with my german account. They say that I had warnings on my discussion page, which is a blatant lie ([[3]]). One user thanked me for my contributions, another one critizised mildly that my references were 10 years old and the last discussion was about a total different point : why you can get a sunburn in the shadow. The last discussion ended in the other user and me thanking one another for the cooperation as you can see (in german) [|Gefahr_eines_Sonnenbrands_im_Schatten]. It is especially sad, that I can not even defend myself, because I was blocked indefinitely. I am willing to discuss!!! I think the debate about the safety of sunscreen should be included in Wikipedia. And here in the englisch Wiki it is done on an extra page about the "sunscreen controversy". There is a controversy. Why should we keep this information hidden from the public? Sunscreen should stay on the surface. What happened on the german page is pure desinformation.Gerriet42 (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Gerriet, Wikipedia policy states that “Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.” (see WP:SYNTH) It also states that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” (see WP:NPOV). Your actions are violating both of these policies.24.172.34.50 (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The photobiological studies are mostly reporting negative properties of sunscreen UV-filters. This is not a POV. The point is that sunscreens are not supposed to get into contact with living tissue. This is not my opinion, it is widely accepted in the scientific literature. I do know that the public does not know this, and many think it is o.k. that sunscreen penetrates into the skin. This large discrepancy between the scientific literature and the public awareness is exactly what upsets me, but I do believe , that the discussion about the effects of sunscreens is properly represented here. If there are other reports that say that sunscreen has a protective effect, even when it penetrates into the skin, than we should definitely include it in the article, but the only article that I have found is concerning a substance that can dissipate the energy extremely quick into harmless heat. Melanin. [[4]] Gerriet42 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Some references to include.

• Sunscreens, Environmental Working Group, Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database, 2008.

• Group: Effectiveness of Sunscreens Hazy: Advocacy Group Says Many Popular Sunscreens Offer Inadequate Sun Protection, Calls on FDA to Implement Label Changes, Salynn Boyles, WebMD Health News, Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD, July 1, 2008.

--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Expiry dates on sunscreen products

Could someone please let us know how expiry dates are determined for sunscreen products? What exactly deteriorates? And if a product is a few weeks past its expiry date, is it safe to use, or just a little less effective? Given the cost, many folks probably are reluctant to throw out tubes/bottles that are slightly past their date. Are they taking chances if they use the product? Grandma Roses (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The expiry date on a sunscreen product is determined by the rate of decomposition of the active ingredients. Most organic compounds, such as the active ingredients in pharmaceutical and cosmetic products, decompose slowly upon exposure to heat, light, or moisture. Chemists use analytical techniques to determine the rate of decomposition under controlled conditions that mimic where the products will typically be stored and used. As the product ages, the amount of active ingredient slowly decreases and the expiration date is set to match the point when it reaches a certain percentage of the original (typically this amount is set by a government agency such as the US FDA, such as at 90%). The product will not suddenly become unsafe or significantly less effective after the expiration date, but the older it is, the less effective it will be. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The titanium oxide doesn't degrade, does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.60.210 (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Titanium Dioxide won't degrade chemically, however most sunscreens do not include this as the sole screen. They will often include other materials such as Avobenzone, which can degrade over time, especially if the product is exposed to excessive temperatures during storeage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.175.163 (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sun screen vs. suntan lotion

Suntan lotion is different from sun screen. Sun screen prevents exposure from the sun and suntan lotion helps you become more tan. There should be two separate articles.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see /Archive 1#Sun tan lotion. —David Levy 13:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay, great. Still need separate articles, i was looking for information on suntan lotion and i found the complete opposite affect on this page, there needs to be a page on the suntan lotion product. I wanted to find information on how long i should i sit in the sun with suntan lotion, not an article about SPFs and preventing a tan. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As noted in the discussion linked above, please see Tanning oil. —David Levy 22:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

SPF

The first paragraph about SPF is blatantly wrong. Please refer to the American dermatological association and the FDA.

.SPF is not directly related to time of solar exposure but to amount of solar exposure. Although solar energy amount is related to solar exposure time, there are other factors that impact the amount of solar energy. For example, the intensity of the solar energy impacts the amount. The following exposures may result in the same amount of solar energy: [5]

And

The higher the SPF, the greater the protection from sunburn caused mostly by UVB rays, but this does not increase the length of time for sun exposure. Broad-spectrum sunscreens protect against both UVA and UVB rays. They do a better job of protecting skin from other effects of the sun including photo damage, photodermatitis, and rashes from the sun. http://www.aad.org/public/publications/pamphlets/sun_sunscreens.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.188.254 (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging with Sunscreen controversy

You should merge the sunscreen controversy content into this article. It shouldn't be in a different article where people won't see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.60.210 (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the proposal to merge this with Sunscreen controversy, which has been there a while with no discussion except the above two sentences. It was apparently decided about a year ago that there was too much material on the controversy to be included in this article, so it was made into a separate article. I am however going to put a bit more information on the controversy into this article. For instance, the introduction makes it sound as though sunscreens definitely protect the user -- and not just from sunburn. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Risk groups

Risk groups for developing cancer from solar radiation and thus benefit from protective measures as sunblock are not mentioned. I added small link to albinism, yet people with other genetic defects could also be at risk (not mentioned). PS: In this regard, everyone would be better geneticly modified to have a darker pigmentation, coming to think of it. Add section

Regulatory and Toxicology

That's not a reliable source to support such claims. Please provide a better source.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Pondle (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sunscreen vs sunblock?

I think the section in the article is completely wrong. See: http://www.ewg.org/2010sunscreen/faqs-2010/#28 which does not distinguish between and two and further notes: "The FDA has indicated that it intends to ban the term “sunblock” from being used in marketing claims." I'll add the quote, but the section should probably be rewritten. 96.23.204.129 (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The caption beneath the photo currently "illustrating" this article seems to contradict the text - if the text is accepted as factually correct then surely the caption should refer to a tube of sunscreen, not sunblock? (Actually I doubt that the photo really adds much, but that's a separate issue...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.3.150 (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is the physical underlying cause for the SPF to be a multiplicative factor?

Hi Jose Here is how I understand it - SPF 10 sunscreen will block 90% of the sun rays, this means you will only get 10% of the rays you would usually get and thus you are able to stay in the sun 10 times longer than without sunscreen, for the same amount of damage to your skin. (More on how this math works - SPF 5 sunscreen would block 80% of the rays of the sun, and SPF 50 sunscreen 98% rays of the sun. It is not really possible to block more than 98% with sunscreen, that is why you don't get a SPF higher than 50. A thick shirt blocking 100% of the rays would be SPF infinity!)

So if you insist at looking at it in an additive way - skin can handle 15 min (light skin) to 120 min (dark skin) in strong sun without sunburn. With SPF 10 sunscreen it can do 150 min to 1200 min. This means the SPF 10 sunblock ads 135min or 1080min (assuming the sun stands still and you apply a perfectly uniform thick coat of sunscreen of course).

So from what you see here it is obviously of very little value to buy sunscreens with a higher SPF value.

I have an albino friend, he recons he can be in strong sun for 4 minutes without sunscreen and 40 minutes with sunscreen without any sunburn. Other substances in his skin is also able to absorb sun rays, obviously just very inefficiently.

Lastly, no sunscreen or other protection prevents cancer completely. It just reduces the chances. Felixandhisthoothbrush (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The page says: <<The SPF is the amount of UV radiation required to cause sunburn on skin with the sunscreen on, relative to the amount required without the sunscreen.[9] So, wearing a sunscreen with SPF 50, your skin will not burn until it has been exposed to 50 times the amount of solar energy that would normally cause it to burn>>

Despite of this being a little bit of a simplification, I'm really interested on knowing WHY is this approximately true, i.e., why sunscreens multiply our own natural protection against sunburn (I haven't found any explanations in the web). There should be a biomolecular explanation; as far as I know, sunburn natural protection is mainly caused by the production of melanine in the skin, so that, for a sunscreen to amplify that protection, it should stimulate the melanine production accordingly. However, all that I find out there is that compounds like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are capable of deflecting UVs or absorbing them, emitting later a radiation with less energy... and that kind of protection should not depend at all multiplicatively on the natural skin protection, but additively! (i.e., equating "amount of solar energy" with "time of exposition" for simplicity, if your skin has a maximum time T minutes of protection, and your sun cream gives you a time t minutes of sun absorption because of the density of compounds on it, you should have a total T+t minutes of protection; what the actual model says is that the sunscreen has a factor F and that your time of protection will be, approximately, FxT minutes! Is an albino person not protected from sunburn, no matter the sunscreen factor he uses?).

I really think that an explanation for this phenomenon should be included in the page, since it will be interesting and relevant.

Thank you, Jose Brox

88.29.45.140 (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.29.45.140 (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

PA+++

Why no mention of the new PA sunscreen rating system? Isn't it the new standard for commercial sunscreen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.134.182.118 (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Citations #5 and #64 identical?

I'll go ahead and "be bold" ASAP (gotta take a minute to figure out how citations work) but it looks like 5 and 64 are the exact same thing. We should glom them together, right? Or should the line that cites #64 just have it's citation removed entirely? 184.6.33.245 (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV concern

I just skimmed parts of this, but walked away from this article thinking I shouldn't be using sunscreen. My understanding is this doesn't reflect the scientific evidence on the matter. I've been researching this for about a week for my own reasons, and the current content clashes with what I've read previously. Just to throw out a concrete example the Vitamin D section seems to suggest that you should spend time in the sun WITHOUT sun protection to get your Vitamin D - although I can't find the source offhand I remember explicitly reading that it's actually recommended for skin cancer concerns that sunscreen be worn and just get extra Vitamin D through your diet to avoid the extra skin cancer risks. (Ironically it mentions Australia, where the hole in the ozone layer makes skin cancer an even greater risk.) I'm also concerned about the part that claims melanin is more effective than sunscreen and implies that everyone should get a tan, AGAIN contradicting everything else on the subject I've read (which is NEVER get a tan if possible, because this is awful for skin cancer risks). It could be that everything I've read is wrong, but I'd prefer some people with more knowledge on this subject to scrub it and make sure this reflects the research on the topic. Lots of people come to Wikipedia for overviews of subjects, and this is a particularly important one to get right I'd wager. I flagged this in the Potential health risks section because the concerning stuff seemed the most dense there, but really the entire article needs a good looking over I think.74.250.134.153 (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Seeing as how it's been a little while and there have been no changes that I can tell or comments here (and I think it's important), flagging for an expert (which may have been what I should've done in the first place, but was more familiar with the NPOV tag :p). Assuming Dermatology would be the best group to check, but didn't know how to flag them specifically.74.250.134.153 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed on the most effective ingredients

The page says "The best UVA protection is provided by products that contain zinc oxide, avobenzone, and ecamsule". Does this mean products that contain all three, or any of those three? There's no citation so no obvious way to check. Housecarl (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

SPF definition

"The SPF rating indicates how long a sunscreen remains effective on the skin."

This is a real quote from a good source -- but it is a very bad prime WP definition of SPF! (Bad because it poorly conveys the key concept and also because it strays into questions of the product degrading or wearing off, which is a rather separate confounding matter.)

The key concept behind SPF is that it is a number that measures the factor by which generously-applied product cuts down (some wavelengths of) sunlight from reaching the skin. SPF 2 means cuts the sunlight in half. SPF 10 means cuts the sunlight by factor of 10. This is very simple, and does not essentially involve time at all. Let's try to find a better and well-sourced lede for this section of the article. Since this article seems to be the main WP info about SPF, this is kind of important.

(Yes, time is involved in the testing-measurement-rating procedure, and the user is ultimately concerned with exposure times -- but the SPF number itself is conceptually just a simple blocking-factor number. If you cut down the sunlight reaching the skin by a factor of 3, you have an effective SPF of 3, regardless of how you achieve this.) -96.233.19.191 (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternative UV photo

Sunscreen on back under normal and UV light

I've made available an alternative public-domain photo of sunscreen under UV that I think illustrates the point better and more amusingly. Should I swap it for the one on the current page? HYanWong (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This alternative photo is definitely more amusing, though the current close-up photo of the face is probably more compelling & informative for this medical article. How about adding this new photo to Tan line#Intentional tan lines instead? It'd be a great illustration for the concluding sentence. ("It is also possible to use sunscreen to intentionally create tan lines that form patterns or words, to make a statement or simply create a design.") Further opinions welcome. –Patrug (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

After a month with no objections, I made the update myself. Clever photo! -Patrug (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added to the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Clothing SPF

What is the effective equivalent SPF of typical clothing, such as hats and shirts?

THIS source says:

Nylon Stockings - SPF 2

Hats - SPF 3-6

Summer-weight clothing - SPF 6.5

Sun-protective clothing - up to SPF 30

But I am surprised that hats would be rated so low. Better sources for the article? -96.233.19.191 (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Last month's Consumer Reports did testing of sun-protected cloting products. Shirts were tested and ranked from SPF ~5 (without protection) to SPF ~30 (with protection). Hats were not tested. You may be able to access the results online but only with an (online) paid subscription (printed version paid subscription isn't enough). Mercy11 (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I work at Consumer Reports. If someone is interested in using a Consumer Reports article for Wikipedia then I could email them a copy if they do not have a subscription. Also I could look up things and collect information, if it seems useful. Thanks for the mention, Mercy11. Sunscreen testing made for a lot of uproar around here.

Consumer Reports (May 2014). "Top Sunscreen Ratings - Sunscreen Buying Guide". consumerreports.org. Retrieved 23 July 2014.

Consumer Reports (May 2014). "What to Know About Sunscreen Before Buying It - Sunscreen Ratings". consumerreports.org. Retrieved 23 July 2014.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks. I've added the info to the Sunscreen and Sun protective clothing articles. —Patrug (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sunscreen#History

discussion mirrored from Talk:Sunscreen/Archive_1

The history section has been tagged for a while now, and does contradict itself, plus offers no cites. It also appears to offer little real information, and editing won't fix it, as it needs a complete rewrite. Because it seems to offer no verifiable info at this time, I would vote to delete the section until someone can write a proper history section. accept or reject please. Pharmboy 13:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section needs major cleanup. I've changed the section to reflect historical continuity and removed some items that I couldn't find reasonable citations for. I was concerned that the only references online to some of those items were nearly word-for-word the same as this page, which made me wonder if all those other sources got their information from wikipedia... nicely circular, and none of the correct...? Hence why I removed some of them. I haven't figured out how to add citations for the things I put in yet, so in case I haven't figured it out, here they are:

1. http://www.pizbuin.com/brand_story.jsp

2. Has the sun protection factor had its day? - Education and Debate by Brian Diffey, British Medical Journal, January 15, 2000.

I'm sure there are better citations out there, so please feel free to add them. Meanwhile, in case anyone wants it, I've included the old text below. Mystif17 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

== History ==

The ancient Greeks used olive oil as a type of sunscreen. However, this was not very effective. Throughout the early twentieth century, H.A. Milton Blake, a South Australian chemist, as well as several other inventors attempted to create an effective sunscreen but failed.

It was not until 1944 that the first effective sunscreen was invented. At that time, World War II was in full swing and many soldiers were getting serious sunburn. A pharmacist named Benjamin Greene decided to create something that would save the soldiers from the sun’s harmful rays. In his wife’s oven, he created a sticky, red substance which he called "red vet pet" (red veterinary petrolatum), which worked primarily by physically blocking the sun's rays with a thick petroleum-based product similar to Vaseline. Greene tested it on his own bald head. It did not work nearly as well as modern sunscreens.

Sunscreen has come a long way since its initial days. Modern products have much higher protection factors than Greene's sunscreen, and modern products can also be water- and sweat-resistant. But there are also negative effects. Some people rely too much on the product and do not understand the limitations of the sun protection factor (SPF); they assume that buying anything over SPF 30 will automatically prevent them getting burnt no matter how long they can stay in the sun. Too much sunbathing is one of the major causes of skin cancer across the world.

An effective sunscreen had already been developed in 1938 by the Swiss chemistry student Franz Greiter, after he had severely burnt himself during an ascent of the Piz Buin on the border between Switzerland and Austria. He named his product, which he had developed in a small laboratory in his parents' home, Gletscher Creme or in English: Glacier Cream. Still existing examples of the 'Glacier Cream' have shown to have a SPF of 2 and thus could be classed as an effective sunscreen.

The section you edited looks better and makes a bit more sense, thanks! Pharmboy 21:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

discussion already on this Talk page

In this section it says the first effective sunscreen was invented in 1946 by Franz Greiter. Later it says it was first widely used sunscreen was Produced by Benjamin Green in 1944. Because It was commonly used before invented, I ask then, was the first commonly used sunscreen not effective? Felixandhisthoothbrush (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

In the history section, you should cover what people did before sunscreen was invented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.60.210 (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

How about this? Sunscreen lotions in ancient Egypt already?

Ancient Protection

Ancient humans desired to avoid sunburn and look attractive. For example, Egyptians considered light skin more beautiful than dark skin. Egypt’s sun-drenched environment made it difficult to maintain light, luminous skin. Recently translated papyri and tomb walls reveal the ingredients of potions used to ward off a tan and heal damaged skin (Shaath 2005).

Some of the ingredients used by the Egyptians have been rediscovered by modern scientists. For example, the Egyptians used rice bran extracts in some of their sunscreen formulas (ibid). Today, gamma oryzanol is extracted from rice bran because of its UV-absorbing properties. The Egyptians also used jasmine, recently shown to heal DNA at the cellular level in the skin, to mend skin damage. Lupine extract was also used to lighten the skin, an ingredient still used for that purpose (ibid).

Shaath, Nadim A., ed. 2005. Sunscreens: Regulations and Commercial Development. Third Edition. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.

Rittmeester (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

discussion mirrored from User:Bridgedragon and User talk:Bridgedragon

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

And do not copy and paste from sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bridgedragon,

I too had Professor Humpty Dumpty AKA Doc James edit and delete my post on Sunscreen.

Whilst I got in first(!), I do like your article better. I've been in contact with the ABC at 10:59am this morning and have contacted them again at 3:06pm to let them know that my post was removed.

I've also responded to DocJames - you can see that article on his page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh649#Sunscreen_History_Edit.

I'll contact the ABC again tomorrow and I'd be happy to share any prize that might come my/our way! I'll also contact Dr Karl and point him to your version and to mine and to the post I left on DocJames' wiki page.

Best Regards

Brett

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basenine (talk • contribs) 08:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bridgedragon! Dr. Karl notwithstanding, what Hamilton Laboratories were marketing in the 1930s was a sunburn cream, not a sunscreen, as exemplified by this advertisement Hamilton Laboratories Advertisement which promises painless tanning, i.e. does not block UV radiation. An article on Milton Ardley Blake and Hamilton Laboratories would be interesting and useful if you want a challenge. Doug butler (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

discussion mirrored from User talk:Basenine/User_talk:Bh169 and User talk:Jmh649

You appear to have copied and pasted from [6]

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello James,

In response to your over-ruling edit on sunscreen, can you please enlighten me with why the following statement is allowed on Wikipedia:

"The first effective sunscreen may have been developed by chemist Franz Greiter in 1946. The product, called Gletscher Crème (Glacier Cream), subsequently became the basis for the company Piz Buin (named in honor of the place Greiter allegedly obtained the sunburn that inspired his concoction), which is still today a marketer of sunscreen products.[17] It has been estimated that Gletscher Crème had a sun protection factor of 2."

which is resourced on a webarchive here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100512061324/http://www.pizbuin.com/v1/en/brand_story.html

which simply states at the last bullet point that:

"1946 - Prof. Franz Greiter invents the world's first sun protection product."

Where are the clinical references to that statement?

Whilst neither myself nor Bridgedragon have added any references to our statements, it appears that the the above statement from an old webpage (now archived) is also not referenced.

I will endeavour to back up our statements in regard to the South Australian, Milton Blake and will repost to Wiki when fixed.

Thank you

ps - not to nit-pick....but the referral to the TRIP website is not welcome. Searching for "Sunscreen Development History" will give you 237 articles to review...none of which actually have any relevance to the development history of sunscreen (at least the 236 articles I read through - maybe it's in the last place I looked!).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basenine (talk • contribs) 08:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes the existing content is not good either. Adding copy and pasted text however is worse. Try google books. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Why reinvent the wheel - cc is an easy eye catcher and the link to the reference backs up the research. Only part of my edit was cc's. Bridgedragon, whom I have not met, was much more concise in his/her edit - yet you deemed that cc'd as well?? I'm meeting with Milton Blake's grandson over the next week or so to clarify the references. In the meantime, try Smarties 😃.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basenine (talk • contribs) 00:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "cc"? Creative commons? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep - fair call...carbon copy. Should be c&p shouldn't it. For your future reference, c&p shall mean "Copy and Paste". Thanks for highlighting your CDO (Compulsive Disorder Obsessive)

Also, your reference here..

http://www.skincancer.org/publications/the-melanoma-letter/summer-2012-vol-30-no-2/effective-sunscreen

is confusing. Above the Sunscreen History section, there is a paragraph that suggests the first commercially available sunscreen was introduced in the US in 1928! Whilst you only referenced the section in Sunscreen history that claims it was probably developed in 1938 and not in common use until 1944.

So which reference should we believe? Why do you deem http://www.skincancer.org more reputable than http://www.humantouchofchemistry.com

when clearly they [skin cancer.org] are also able to confuse data?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basenine (talk • contribs) 01:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Replaced with a better ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In the long history of sunscreen, there are many notable events with good (if not perfect) references. It's fine to tag deficient citations for attention, and of course it's important to avoid copyright violations, but let's not throw out useful encyclopedic information unless it's truly discredited. It might be helpful to move this discussion to the Talk:Sunscreen page. —Patrug (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If the sources suck that it is sometimes fine to delete it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes, certainly. Often it's more constructive to add template flags like {{Refimprove}} and {{Copypaste}}, so other editors can see exactly what needs improving. ("Mend it, don't end it.") Thanks for all your help! —Patrug (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Good idea Patrug (moving to the sunscreen talk page)...thanks for the good edit in the history section. As mentioned, I'll be meeting with the Hamilton founders' grandson next week to clear up his development history with sunscreen. Hamilton sunscreen's about page - http://hamiltonsun.com.au/about/ - explains the history of their product quite well. Best regards - Brett

And how do we move it to the sunscreen talk page? Can I leave that up to you😃 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basenine (talk • contribs) 07:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

current status

The historical refs aren't ideal, but most of them appear to be consistent with Dr. Shaath's well-researched book, and none of them are likely to jeopardize anyone's health, so the referencing for this section needn't be quite as strict as for current medical info. Our latest-and-greatest version of the Sunscreen#History section seems to have the info basically correct and copyright-free at this stage, considering all the points raised in the discussions assembled above. If anyone finds further issues, please feel free to add template flags like {{Refimprove}} and {{Copypaste}} to the article, so other editors can see exactly what needs attention.

Basenine/Bh169/Brett, please remember to end your Talk posts with the "four tilde" signature, so people can keep track of who wrote what (and are less likely to dismiss comments as anonymous sarcasm). Also, please keep in mind that any info from Blake's business or Blake's family should be included only if it's confirmed by reliable third-party references, and only if it's truly notable in the context of the overall section, not just a point of local pride.

Thanks for everyone's editorial contributions, past & future. —Patrug (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

We need indepenent sources rather than the website of hamilton for information about hamilton [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Hamilton info was already supported by the Rigel book citation, and now I've also added the Shaath book citation. This should be more than enough. —Patrug (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)