This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I like Reimannns P20 SPF 20 because it lasts, is waterproof and not sticky - but I'd prefer something with greater protection. Any recommendations?
In reply to iksander:
Been using Piz Buin 1 Day Long SPF 30 for a couple of years now, usually buy it as a BOGOF deal at Boots or Superdrugs as it is so expensive.
Picked up Superdrug's own brand version at less than a fiver towards the end of last summer and have been pleased with this, too.
For me, with three kids to lotion up every summer morning, ease of rubbing in is the most important thing. Boots do up to SPF 50 in a once only application, but this seems to take forever to be absorbed. But if it is just for you, maybe this will not be a problem. And you can get it in green! "Don't make me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry."
Been using Piz Buin 1 Day Long SPF 30 for a couple of years now, usually buy it as a BOGOF deal at Boots or Superdrugs as it is so expensive.
Picked up Superdrug's own brand version at less than a fiver towards the end of last summer and have been pleased with this, too.
For me, with three kids to lotion up every summer morning, ease of rubbing in is the most important thing. Boots do up to SPF 50 in a once only application, but this seems to take forever to be absorbed. But if it is just for you, maybe this will not be a problem. And you can get it in green! "Don't make me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry."
In reply to iksander:
Tesco SPF50, lasts all day, quite economical. If I'm feeling flush, then I go for Piz Buin SPF50.
Tesco SPF50, lasts all day, quite economical. If I'm feeling flush, then I go for Piz Buin SPF50.
In reply to iksander:
I find Riemans is the best for all day protection, shame they don't do a SPF30.
I find Riemans is the best for all day protection, shame they don't do a SPF30.
In reply to iksander:
Not the cheapest, but definately the best:
http://www.kiehls.com/Cross-Terrain-UV-Face-Protector-SPF-50/911,default,pd...
Not the cheapest, but definately the best:
http://www.kiehls.com/Cross-Terrain-UV-Face-Protector-SPF-50/911,default,pd...
In reply to iksander:
The Boots Soltan all-day SPF40 works for me, especially now it's in a spray rather than the putty-like formulation it used to have.
The Boots Soltan all-day SPF40 works for me, especially now it's in a spray rather than the putty-like formulation it used to have.
In reply to iksander: Piz Buin All-Day 30 SPF. Found it half price in Boots before I went on my trip to the Berner Oberland. It worked very well while up in the mountains and I used cheapo Sainsbury's SPF 12 while hanging around in Interlaken.
In reply to iksander:
Piz Buin SPF 30 seems to do the job well in both hot and cold dry activites.
In the water, I use Banana Boat SPF 30 which sticks like glue.
Piz Buin SPF 30 seems to do the job well in both hot and cold dry activites.
In the water, I use Banana Boat SPF 30 which sticks like glue.
In reply to iksander: Interesting article here from the natural news website about sunscreen http://www.naturalnews.com/032815_sunscreen_chemicals.html
In reply to NWO resistance:
What a worryingly disingenuous article. I would hope that "natural product" evangelicals could produce better arguments than that - not least "don't use sunscreen just eat better"!
What a worryingly disingenuous article. I would hope that "natural product" evangelicals could produce better arguments than that - not least "don't use sunscreen just eat better"!
In reply to off-duty:
I agree. Looked to me like that site was written by Creationists in their spare time!
I agree. Looked to me like that site was written by Creationists in their spare time!
In reply to iksander: Boots do a stick much better as u don't get greasy hands
In reply to off-duty:
You obviously didn't read the full article
> (In reply to NWO resistance)
>
> What a worryingly disingenuous article. I would hope that "natural product" evangelicals could produce better arguments than that - not least "don't use sunscreen just eat better"!
>
> What a worryingly disingenuous article. I would hope that "natural product" evangelicals could produce better arguments than that - not least "don't use sunscreen just eat better"!
You obviously didn't read the full article
In reply to NWO resistance:
Yes I did. Do you turn all your critical faculties off when reading some of this nonsense.
How about the astonishing suggestion that sunscreen causes more cancer than it prevents followed by a link that proves nothing of the sort.
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> You obviously didn't read the full article
> [...]
>
> You obviously didn't read the full article
Yes I did. Do you turn all your critical faculties off when reading some of this nonsense.
How about the astonishing suggestion that sunscreen causes more cancer than it prevents followed by a link that proves nothing of the sort.
In reply to NWO resistance:
You seriously expect a website that pushes something like this http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html
to be taken seriously?
You seriously expect a website that pushes something like this http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html
to be taken seriously?
In reply to NWO resistance:
That article on sunscreen is full of some utter rubbish that would be funny if it wasn't potentially dangerous.
That article on sunscreen is full of some utter rubbish that would be funny if it wasn't potentially dangerous.
In reply to NWO resistance:
Interesting. Yes. But only by virtue of it's foaming at the mouth propaganda.
A quick rundown of todays top stories on Natural News.com I have highlighted my personal favourites.
30 years of secret, official transcripts prove vaccine schedules in US and UK are based on government lies
Synthetic vitamins fuel sickness while enriching the corrupt medical industry
Grid down catastrophe strikes India; half the population stranded with no electricity
More than 80 reasons to use honey as a DIY home remedy for better health and good eats
Colorado Batman shooting shows obvious signs of being staged
Oregon criminalizes permaculture; claims state ownership over all rainwater - ponds and swales restricted - jail time for violators
Dr. Fenton, what psychiatric drugs did you give Colorado shooter James Holmes?
Fruit 101 - Learn the right way to eat fruits for natural cleansing
Call to Action - Join the 'Occupy Monsanto' movement this September
As truth about Fukushima radiation emerges, Japanese authorities struggle to maintain cover-up
Personal care products found to increase diabetes risk by 60 percent in women
Is your power strip spying on you? Complex hacking device looks like extension cord
> (In reply to iksander) Interesting article here from the natural news website about sunscreen http://www.naturalnews.com/032815_sunscreen_chemicals.html
Interesting. Yes. But only by virtue of it's foaming at the mouth propaganda.
A quick rundown of todays top stories on Natural News.com I have highlighted my personal favourites.
30 years of secret, official transcripts prove vaccine schedules in US and UK are based on government lies
Synthetic vitamins fuel sickness while enriching the corrupt medical industry
Grid down catastrophe strikes India; half the population stranded with no electricity
More than 80 reasons to use honey as a DIY home remedy for better health and good eats
Colorado Batman shooting shows obvious signs of being staged
Oregon criminalizes permaculture; claims state ownership over all rainwater - ponds and swales restricted - jail time for violators
Dr. Fenton, what psychiatric drugs did you give Colorado shooter James Holmes?
Fruit 101 - Learn the right way to eat fruits for natural cleansing
Call to Action - Join the 'Occupy Monsanto' movement this September
As truth about Fukushima radiation emerges, Japanese authorities struggle to maintain cover-up
Personal care products found to increase diabetes risk by 60 percent in women
Is your power strip spying on you? Complex hacking device looks like extension cord
In reply to metal arms:
Realised NWO will stand for New World Order!
They'll be back on here to say we're in denial/can't face the truth/are part of the cover-up in a minute. Pretty sad people fall for this, guess it's like a mad religion for the mentally unstable.
Realised NWO will stand for New World Order!
They'll be back on here to say we're in denial/can't face the truth/are part of the cover-up in a minute. Pretty sad people fall for this, guess it's like a mad religion for the mentally unstable.
In reply to metal arms:
Is your power strip spying on you? Complex hacking device looks like extension cord
Well in all fairness this one is actually true, in a way. A group of security consultants who specialise in network penetration testing do sell a power strip designed to steal information from networks. I think it costs about $1k though!
Is your power strip spying on you? Complex hacking device looks like extension cord
Well in all fairness this one is actually true, in a way. A group of security consultants who specialise in network penetration testing do sell a power strip designed to steal information from networks. I think it costs about $1k though!
In reply to Reach>Talent:
There's one important message hidden in there though, vitamin D defficiency.
The NHS recommends 15 minutes a day in the sunshine without sunscreen on:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/9434762/Sun-tan-cream-how-much-is-...
Personally, where possible I like to limit the time my skin is exposed to the sun with clothing, and build up a natural tan for resistance to the sun rather than using sunscreen.
> (In reply to NWO resistance)
> That article on sunscreen is full of some utter rubbish that would be funny if it wasn't potentially dangerous.
> That article on sunscreen is full of some utter rubbish that would be funny if it wasn't potentially dangerous.
There's one important message hidden in there though, vitamin D defficiency.
The NHS recommends 15 minutes a day in the sunshine without sunscreen on:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/9434762/Sun-tan-cream-how-much-is-...
Personally, where possible I like to limit the time my skin is exposed to the sun with clothing, and build up a natural tan for resistance to the sun rather than using sunscreen.
In reply to JayPee630:
Governments have been staging false flag attacks for years or are you in denial about that?
> (In reply to NWO resistance)
>
> You seriously expect a website that pushes something like this http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html
>
> to be taken seriously?
>
> You seriously expect a website that pushes something like this http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html
>
> to be taken seriously?
Governments have been staging false flag attacks for years or are you in denial about that?
In reply to NWO resistance:
Is that your level of evidence for believing something? That it's happened before so it must be again?!
Do some reading around conspiracy theories and mental health issues I suggest.
Is that your level of evidence for believing something? That it's happened before so it must be again?!
Do some reading around conspiracy theories and mental health issues I suggest.
In reply to JayPee630:
Staging false flags has worked so well in the past so why would anything change?
> (In reply to NWO resistance)
>
> Is that your level of evidence for believing something? That it's happened before so it must be again?!
>
> Do some reading around conspiracy theories and mental health issues I suggest.
>
> Is that your level of evidence for believing something? That it's happened before so it must be again?!
>
> Do some reading around conspiracy theories and mental health issues I suggest.
Staging false flags has worked so well in the past so why would anything change?
In reply to NWO resistance:
"belief in what are referred to commonly as 'conspiracy theories' has been linked to low intelligence, a lack of the ability to critically engage with information, and a level of uncertainty about one's place in the world; and is most often found in older, socially awkward men."
Sorry, but you need to get over it.
"belief in what are referred to commonly as 'conspiracy theories' has been linked to low intelligence, a lack of the ability to critically engage with information, and a level of uncertainty about one's place in the world; and is most often found in older, socially awkward men."
Sorry, but you need to get over it.
In reply to iksander:
I recommend Nivea SPF 30 anti aging.
Comes in ideal, small tubes, sticks very well, and protects better than then ambre solaire 50 I used before.
I don´t believe in the anti aging bit (or, at least, not that this lotion can reverse skin aging), but it is an excellent product nevertheless.
CB
I recommend Nivea SPF 30 anti aging.
Comes in ideal, small tubes, sticks very well, and protects better than then ambre solaire 50 I used before.
I don´t believe in the anti aging bit (or, at least, not that this lotion can reverse skin aging), but it is an excellent product nevertheless.
CB
In reply to Ciro:
>build up a natural tan for resistance to the sun rather than using sunscreen.
WRONG
I used to think this too, before I went to Oz where they know a thing or two about sun and skin damage.
"A tan is not a sign of good health or wellbeing, despite many Australians referring to a “healthy tan”. Fifty per cent of Australian adults still hold the misguided belief that a tan looks healthy.
Tanning is a sign that you have been exposed to enough UV radiation (from the sun or solarium) to damage your skin. This will eventually cause loss of elasticity (wrinkles), sagging, yellowish discolouration and even brown patches to appear on your skin. Worst of all, it increases your risk of skin cancer.
A tan will offer limited protection from sunburn, but usually no more than SPF4, depending on your skin type. It does not protect from DNA damage, which can lead to skin cancer." - Cancer Council Australia
http://www.cancer.org.au/cancersmartlifestyle/SunSmart/Whatputsyouatrisk.ht...
> (In reply to mkean)
>build up a natural tan for resistance to the sun rather than using sunscreen.
WRONG
I used to think this too, before I went to Oz where they know a thing or two about sun and skin damage.
"A tan is not a sign of good health or wellbeing, despite many Australians referring to a “healthy tan”. Fifty per cent of Australian adults still hold the misguided belief that a tan looks healthy.
Tanning is a sign that you have been exposed to enough UV radiation (from the sun or solarium) to damage your skin. This will eventually cause loss of elasticity (wrinkles), sagging, yellowish discolouration and even brown patches to appear on your skin. Worst of all, it increases your risk of skin cancer.
A tan will offer limited protection from sunburn, but usually no more than SPF4, depending on your skin type. It does not protect from DNA damage, which can lead to skin cancer." - Cancer Council Australia
http://www.cancer.org.au/cancersmartlifestyle/SunSmart/Whatputsyouatrisk.ht...
In reply to iksander:
It's a myth put about by capitalist bankers and warmongers to finance black flag operations in developing countries. Sun Protection manufacturers are the most corrupt industry outside of fashion (I've seen Zoolander so I think I know a thing or two about that).
>
> I used to think this too, before I went to Oz where they know a thing or two about sun and skin damage.
>
> "A tan is not a sign of good health or wellbeing, despite many Australians referring to a “healthy tan”. Fifty per cent of Australian adults still hold the misguided belief that a tan looks healthy.
>
> Tanning is a sign that you have been exposed to enough UV radiation (from the sun or solarium) to damage your skin. This will eventually cause loss of elasticity (wrinkles), sagging, yellowish discolouration and even brown patches to appear on your skin. Worst of all, it increases your risk of skin cancer.
>
> A tan will offer limited protection from sunburn, but usually no more than SPF4, depending on your skin type. It does not protect from DNA damage, which can lead to skin cancer." - Cancer Council Australia
>
> http://www.cancer.org.au/cancersmartlifestyle/SunSmart/Whatputsyouatrisk.ht...
> I used to think this too, before I went to Oz where they know a thing or two about sun and skin damage.
>
> "A tan is not a sign of good health or wellbeing, despite many Australians referring to a “healthy tan”. Fifty per cent of Australian adults still hold the misguided belief that a tan looks healthy.
>
> Tanning is a sign that you have been exposed to enough UV radiation (from the sun or solarium) to damage your skin. This will eventually cause loss of elasticity (wrinkles), sagging, yellowish discolouration and even brown patches to appear on your skin. Worst of all, it increases your risk of skin cancer.
>
> A tan will offer limited protection from sunburn, but usually no more than SPF4, depending on your skin type. It does not protect from DNA damage, which can lead to skin cancer." - Cancer Council Australia
>
> http://www.cancer.org.au/cancersmartlifestyle/SunSmart/Whatputsyouatrisk.ht...
It's a myth put about by capitalist bankers and warmongers to finance black flag operations in developing countries. Sun Protection manufacturers are the most corrupt industry outside of fashion (I've seen Zoolander so I think I know a thing or two about that).
In reply to metal arms: Not sure about the black flag ops, but the Horizon programme about skin aging stated that UVA causes skin aging, whereas it's UVB that causes burning, which I presume includes tanning.
In reply to iksander:
Unprotected skin would burn in about 15 minutes in the summer in Perth WA, SP4 four would therefore give you about an hour. When I lived there, with a tan I would be out in the sun all day without burning, so "A tan will offer limited protection from sunburn, but usually no more than SPF4, depending on your skin type." is clearly nonsense, no matter what authority it comes from.
I don't mind developing wrinkles, sagging, yellowish discolouration or brown patches of skin.
I'm not particularly keen on gettin skin cancer, but I'm even less keen on cancer of the colon, which is a lot more deadly (and in my case there is a family history) and which has been linked to vitamin D defficiency.
We seem to need more than our dietary intake of vitamin D for good health, and we evolved to generate vitamin D from sun exposure, so blocking off all the sun doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Again, that's just my opinion - and as such it's valid, whether you want to shout wrong or not.
> (In reply to Ciro)
> [...]
>
> >build up a natural tan for resistance to the sun rather than using sunscreen.
>
> WRONG
>
> I used to think this too, before I went to Oz where they know a thing or two about sun and skin damage.
>
> "A tan is not a sign of good health or wellbeing, despite many Australians referring to a “healthy tan”. Fifty per cent of Australian adults still hold the misguided belief that a tan looks healthy.
>
> Tanning is a sign that you have been exposed to enough UV radiation (from the sun or solarium) to damage your skin. This will eventually cause loss of elasticity (wrinkles), sagging, yellowish discolouration and even brown patches to appear on your skin. Worst of all, it increases your risk of skin cancer.
>
> A tan will offer limited protection from sunburn, but usually no more than SPF4, depending on your skin type. It does not protect from DNA damage, which can lead to skin cancer." - Cancer Council Australia
>
> http://www.cancer.org.au/cancersmartlifestyle/SunSmart/Whatputsyouatrisk.ht...
> [...]
>
> >build up a natural tan for resistance to the sun rather than using sunscreen.
>
> WRONG
>
> I used to think this too, before I went to Oz where they know a thing or two about sun and skin damage.
>
> "A tan is not a sign of good health or wellbeing, despite many Australians referring to a “healthy tan”. Fifty per cent of Australian adults still hold the misguided belief that a tan looks healthy.
>
> Tanning is a sign that you have been exposed to enough UV radiation (from the sun or solarium) to damage your skin. This will eventually cause loss of elasticity (wrinkles), sagging, yellowish discolouration and even brown patches to appear on your skin. Worst of all, it increases your risk of skin cancer.
>
> A tan will offer limited protection from sunburn, but usually no more than SPF4, depending on your skin type. It does not protect from DNA damage, which can lead to skin cancer." - Cancer Council Australia
>
> http://www.cancer.org.au/cancersmartlifestyle/SunSmart/Whatputsyouatrisk.ht...
Unprotected skin would burn in about 15 minutes in the summer in Perth WA, SP4 four would therefore give you about an hour. When I lived there, with a tan I would be out in the sun all day without burning, so "A tan will offer limited protection from sunburn, but usually no more than SPF4, depending on your skin type." is clearly nonsense, no matter what authority it comes from.
I don't mind developing wrinkles, sagging, yellowish discolouration or brown patches of skin.
I'm not particularly keen on gettin skin cancer, but I'm even less keen on cancer of the colon, which is a lot more deadly (and in my case there is a family history) and which has been linked to vitamin D defficiency.
We seem to need more than our dietary intake of vitamin D for good health, and we evolved to generate vitamin D from sun exposure, so blocking off all the sun doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Again, that's just my opinion - and as such it's valid, whether you want to shout wrong or not.
In reply to Ciro: Sorry I was a little over emphatic there, but I think it's safe to say that i) the link between sun exposure and skin cancer is well supported by evidence, ii) a suntan offers very little, if any protection from the sun and iii) the evidence linking vitamin D levels (whether from sun or supplements) and colorectal cancer is still poorly understood
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...