Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: "Sunscreen" Imponderable

  1. #1 "Sunscreen" Imponderable 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Sunscreen lotions, creams, sprays, and whatever other forms they take, contain a large range of chemical ingredients, to be sure. They are very widely used by folks of all ages, in all degrees of state of health.

    Therefore, it is almost a certainty that some people during use of these products, are applying them to already existing malignant skin conditions.

    My imponderable is: What effect, good or deleterious, might these products' chemical ingredients have, upon already existing malignancies, no matter how small they may be?

    jocular


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Any malign effect must be small, since there are numerous studies into the health effects of such, and AFAIK, no real alarm bells sounded.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    A minor nitpick, but I really don't know diddly about sunblock and sunscreen, really. Other than that one prevents sunburn and one should be followed up with butter and jam.

    But I find the statement, "filled with chemicals" interesting since everything is filled with chemicals. Multivitamins are chock full of chemicals. And so are our bodies, stalks of celery and cans of Dr. Pepper.

    I think that if a person refers to "chemicals" as if referring to something harsh, they might mean heavy industrial chemical compounds... or solvents. Evil horrible nasty things that no person should ever have anything to do with like... hydrochloric acid.

    Meh, I think people face more problems with over exposure. Sunblock can prevent that- as can crisco... which can make excellent sunblock in a pinch... Now, suntan lotion might encourage people to overexpose themselves at the beach, since they think that suntan lotion means smaller bikinis are needed otherwise- you wasted your money on the tanning lotion... Way too much exposure, there.

    And while we're at it- Sodium Laureth Sulfate.
    It's in every bottle of shampoo. What is that stuff?!

    And I've been hearing terrible things about this particularly nasty solvent used in almost every industry that results in thousands of deaths and even is used deliberately in the entertainment of children. I speak of Di-hydrogen Oxide. Even in its most purified form, it is still quite lethal - write your congressman and request laws to ban the use of it immediately!
    (Checks his Dr. Pepper stocks...)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    And while we're at it- Sodium Laureth Sulfate.
    It's in every bottle of shampoo. What is that stuff?!
    There are some wacky "scare sites" about that. Claiming it is an "industrial cleaner" and used in the automotive industry, etc.

    Hmmm ... but so is water.

    It is a detergent. Added as a foaming agent, I believe.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    That convinces me. I won't use that stuff on muh har!

    I'll try a regular household cleaning agent, instead...


    Ahhh... Windex! That cleans almost anything. That will work...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Sodium laurel sulfate is a derivative from coconut or palm oils, marginally modified chemically to turn it into a detergent, and is totally harmless. It causes no more harm than rubbing coconut oil on your skin, without the stink.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Sodium laurel sulfate... is totally harmless.
    Sodium Hardy Sulfate, however, will get you into another fine mess.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    But I find the statement, "filled with chemicals" interesting since everything is filled with chemicals. Multivitamins are chock full of chemicals. And so are our bodies, stalks of celery and cans of Dr. Pepper.

    I think that if a person refers to "chemicals" as if referring to something harsh, they might mean heavy industrial chemical compounds... or solvents. Evil horrible nasty things that no person should ever have anything to do with like... hydrochloric acid.
    Yes, of course. My use of the word "chemicals" is misguided, in that I refer to potentially harmful ingredients as "chemicals". As an example, looking at the several brands of cottage cheese on the store shelves, I find one contains artificial coloring, as well as a variety of other rather questionably-needed things such as guar gum, carrageenan, xanthan gum, and carob bean gum; now, what the hell do we need all those in cottage cheese for, especially artificial coloring, many of which have been given serious medical effect indictments. Surely those "gums" don't keep it fresh longer, do they? Or improve taste?

    My wife follows an interesting concept in food buying: the less ingredients listed, the better the likelihood of wholesomeness. A notorious culprit is domestic beer. Something like 51 different additives (better word than chemicals) are allowed by FDA in America to be added to commercially produced beer. This fact amazes me, when I consider that the German Purity Law of 1516 (!) allows the use of only the four basic ingredients of water, yeast, hops, and malt, in the manufacture of beer in that country! And yet, most everyone I know prefers Buttwiper, er, sorry, Budweiser!

    Getting off-track here. Do sunblocker ingredients possibly aggravate already existing skin malignancy? jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    And yet, most everyone I know prefers Buttwiper, er, sorry, Budweiser!
    Warsteiner.

    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Getting off-track here. Do sunblocker ingredients possibly aggravate already existing skin malignancy? jocular
    They might prevent aggravation of it.

    Now, tanning lotion, on the other hand... I can see how that can encourage a person to put an already existing skin malignancy at higher risk...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Hmm, Rheinheitsgebot...
    Oops!
    The Reinheitsgebot - what a load of old b*llocks
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    rather questionably-needed things such as guar gum, carrageenan, xanthan gum, and carob bean gum; now, what the hell do we need all those in cottage cheese for,
    These gums are used as thickeners, to provide the texture that consumers of cottage cheese prefer. Otherwise you end up with a very nasty, watery goo. The gums are also all vegetable based, and quite harmless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    These gums are used as thickeners, to provide the texture that consumers of cottage cheese prefer. Otherwise you end up with a very nasty, watery goo. The gums are also all vegetable based, and quite harmless.
    So also were "harmless": DDT, 2,4-D, Benzene, PCBs, Dioxin, chlorinated pesticides, ~ 100,000 synthetic chemicals made and used today.

    I suspect that, in many cases, the added ingredients in everyday food products actually cost less to buy and incorporate within the sold product, in order to secure more profit, this after convincing the consumer of their "preferable characteristics. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    A far more enjoyable read, and likely more truthful than a link quietly sponsered by Anheuser-Busch. jocular

    Reinheitsgebot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post

    So also were "harmless": DDT, 2,4-D, Benzene, PCBs, Dioxin, chlorinated pesticides, ~ 100,000 synthetic chemicals made and used today.
    Wrong. Those items were never considered harmless. In fact, most are pesticides, which were used specifically because they were known to kill.

    Chemicals in food are mostly harmless in the concentrations used. Government departments have numerous highly paid scientists testing these materials all the time. They approve products for addition to food only when they are convinced of their safety. They can, of course, be proven wrong, but that is a true rarity.

    Nor is it just one government. Testing is repeated across many nations, which do talk to each other.

    There are, of course, nutter organisations who refuse to believe this, and come up with all sorts of spurious arguments against anything they consider "unnatural". A common one is to point out that a product is toxic at a certain concentration, and claim that makes it toxic in food, when the permitted dose in food is a thousand times less.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Nor is it just one government. Testing is repeated across many nations, which do talk to each other.
    Of course they do. It wouldn't be a conspiracy otherwise!!!1!!

    Edit: just in case:
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post

    So also were "harmless": DDT, 2,4-D, Benzene, PCBs, Dioxin, chlorinated pesticides, ~ 100,000 synthetic chemicals made and used today.
    Wrong. Those items were never considered harmless. In fact, most are pesticides, which were used specifically because they were known to kill. I meant harmless to human beings. 100,000 synthetic chemicals are ALL pesticides? Rather doubtful, no?

    Chemicals in food are mostly harmless in the concentrations used. Government departments have numerous highly paid scientists testing these materials all the time. They approve products for addition to food only when they are convinced of their safety. They can, of course, be proven wrong, but that is a true rarity. Mostly harmless? Such as Aspartame? It's history is so politically "colorful", a whole thread could be run on it. FDA Director fired for refusing to allow it's universal use in food, new Director appointed by Board Member of the drug company manufacturing Aspartame, same individual who had first guy fired, he was also high-level in the Administration, guy by the name of Donald Rumsfeld. Great number of members of Medical Profession decried Aspartame's allowance in food, I wonder why? "Trust" the government to provide protection from harmful foodstuffs? Ludicrous!

    Nor is it just one government. Testing is repeated across many nations, which do talk to each other.

    There are, of course, nutter organisations who refuse to believe this, and come up with all sorts of spurious arguments against anything they consider "unnatural". A common one is to point out that a product is toxic at a certain concentration, and claim that makes it toxic in food, when the permitted dose in food is a thousand times less. Are we to take this to mean a small amount of poison is all right to consume, so long as it's concentration is below a number we are told is unsafe? Similar to the argument condoning low-level exposure to ionizing radiation: Most expert opinion has for years maintained there is no "safe level" of human exposure to ionizing radion.
    jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Conspiracy theory much?

    "Mostly harmless? Such as Aspartame? It's history is so politically "colorful", a whole thread could be run on it. FDA Director fired for refusing to allow it's universal use in food, new Director appointed by Board Member of the drug company manufacturing Aspartame, same individual who had first guy fired, he was also high-level in the Administration, guy by the name of Donald Rumsfeld. Great number of members of Medical Profession decried Aspartame's allowance in food, I wonder why? "Trust" the government to provide protection from harmful foodstuffs? Ludicrous! "
    Yes mostly harmless for all but an extremely small number of people with rare genetic conditions. Dozens of studies run for decades and confirmed and approved in nearly one hundred nations. You picked a very poor example.

    Are we to take this to mean a small amount of poison is all right to consume, so long as it's concentration is below a number we are told is unsafe?
    In short yes.

    Similar to the argument condoning low-level exposure to ionizing radiation: Most expert opinion has for years maintained there is no "safe level" of human exposure to ionizing radion.
    Plenty of other threads that explore this issue in detail. Linears models were the default for several decades--today we know humans are well adapted to low levels of radiation and have effectively zero risk at low levels.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Jocular

    Your last post is making you look suspiciously like a crackpot. Aspartame is one of the most harmless food additives of all. However, I am aware that there is a nutter anti-aspartame movement, fueled by bullsh!t.

    The following reference is by Dr, Harriet Hall, a woman with an M.D, degree, who has studied the topic.
    Science-Based Medicine » Artificial Sweeteners: Is Aspartame Safe?

    Read it and get a more balanced view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    You picked a very poor example.
    Poor perhaps in some folks' reckoning, but not in mine. Ingested materials which become Methanol in the body are not "safe" in my simple-minded way.

    jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Jocular

    If you eat an apple, a part of it becomes methanol in your body. The human body is adapted to coping with small amounts. Aspartame produces only tiny amounts - less than an apple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 15th, 2012, 12:11 AM
  2. "MOND", Prelude to "Critique of the Universe, Introduction"
    By Gary Anthony Kent in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: January 28th, 2012, 12:31 AM
  3. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: October 16th, 2011, 05:37 AM
  4. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: October 11th, 2011, 10:35 AM
  5. is "jesus" a pseudo-science "user"?
    By streamSystems in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2007, 12:07 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •