I just stay inside. Goth + Irish pale skin = burn no matter how much sunscreen I use. D:

I would think that putting chemicals on your skin would cause just as much cancer as it prevented. I will stick to getting some vitamin D by limiting my sun exposure and not using chemicals on my skin.

I have had good results with Banana Boat SPF 50 sunscreen. The stuff applies like Crisco and makes me feel greasy all day but I leave as white as I showed up. I think as opposed to SPF 50 it should be considered 10W50.

Yay for brown skin.

@laserjobs: I agree. Salads make people fat as well. Think about it- ALL fat people you know eat salads, don't they?

@laserjobs: I would tend to agree with this if only because I was burned so much as a kid and my family has a history of skin cancer.

However, if I ever go to disneyland again or some place where I need to spend time in the sun, this kind of thing is useful. Certainly don't use the stuff every weekend though.

@laserjobs: the active ingredients in better sunscreens are minerals like titanium dioxide and zinc. they're not harmful, cancer-causing chemicals-- they're minerals that don't even get absorbed into the skin.

Really? There's a separate subscription for consumerreportshealth.org? I already have a consumerreports.org subscription.

Lame.

I'm surprised Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Mist didn't make the list.

I'm VERY fair skinned, burn/freckle in minutes, and my skin is sensitive to most everything. I need a sunblock I can wear everyday AND wear running (that will hold up to sweat without making my pores feel clogged up).

The Ultra Sheer works for both everyday and running and I can't even tell I'm wearing it. I keep a bottle at home and in my bag.

I bought the Walgreens continuous spray SPF 30 a couple of weeks ago for a trip to a theme park. It was easy to apply and re-apply after the water rides. It did run into my eyes at one point and it burnt like hell, but my skin didn't, and that was the idea.

@laserjobs: I bet you refuse to put the chemical monohydrogen dioxide on your skin too.

I used Aveeno SPF 70 facial sunscreen (so I don't break out) recently and I still burned :( And yes, I was also wearing a hat to help keep the rays off of me.

Interestingly enough I used Aveeno regular sunscreen SPF 35 on the rest of my body at the same time and no burn.

@JE: Agreed. Feh.

@geekgrrl77: I suspect it's because a number of products that effectively prevent sunburn don't effectively block the UVA rays, just the UVB rays. Unfortunately, leaving you unburned/untanned isn't the whole story. I think that's the biggest change in understanding and the hardest to work with, because it means we can't tell if a sunscreen is doing UVA-blocking.

So don't assume your sunscreen is good just because you're not getting sunburned. Check to make sure it's broad-spectrum, or hopefully even explicit about blocking UVA as well as UVB.

@eelmonger: dude, its dihydrogen monoxide...

Just FYI for all the sensitive skinned people out there, coppertone water babies contains an chemical that about 10% of people are allergic to. For me and my family it was a horrible burning sensation about 10-15 mins after product was applied and continued until it was washed off with soap and water- leaving horrible red welts. I don't know what it is but a skin dr I saw years later told me he's heard many stories of this and that "it should be criminal that these products don't have to put warnings on their labels!"
Don't know what other brands may have it...just wanted to warn people.

It's not the burning that really matters for me, I'm just wondering, does all sunscreen prevent you from getting darker? I already have really tanned skin, and every year it gets worse and worse - what type of sunscreen should I use!?

@eelmonger: Ha! You couldn't even pull off your right wing trick correctly. Look at your nomenclature. One Hydrogen and two Oxygen? You just described hydroxic acid. So yes, I wouldn't want it on my skin either. If you're going to use that trick, do it right. Also, if we threatened to put in a dihydrogen monoxide (the right chemical name) processing plant in a conservative suburb, they'd be the first to organize a NIMBY protest.

BOT- I think you should weigh the the potential, and yet unproven harm of the chemical sunscreens versus the very real harm of the sun. Until some verifiable studies prove otherwise, my money will stay with sunscreens.

Also, they do make "natural" sunscreens that are mineral based. You're required to use them when diving in certain areas (Cozumel, Great Barrier Reef, etc.). They don't last as long and they leave you a bit white, but if you're concerned about the chemicals, its the way to go. Try drugstore dot com.

@ipodrulz: I used Neutrogena 70 (with Helioplex) for the few days I exposed myself in a bathing suit last year, and on my exposed areas for other days. It was excellent for preventing any color.

I'm surprised to see Consumer Reports recommending that we slather ourselves with toxic chemicals. Oxybenzone is recognized by the CDC as having some pretty nasty health impacts, and it is an active ingredient in all three of the top rated sunscreens. Sure, it makes the sunscreen more effective and long lasting in blocking UV rays, you know, while disrupting your hormonal balance... As well as the hormonal balance of critters exposed to any runoff -- apparently at some beaches there has been an outbreak of hermaphroditic critters linked to people applying sunscreens containing oxybenzone, then jumping in for a swim.

[www.ewg.org] - mentions CDC recognition of risk
I learned about the hermaphroditic critters from Bill Nye's Stuff Happens - [planetgreen.discovery.com]

@richcreamerybutter: But which ray is it that tans the skin?

Buying the right sunscreen could mean the difference between a pleasant day at the beach and a nightmare of splotchy pain.

Not to mention, looking like a well-worn hag with a leather glove for a face before the age of 30. Seriously. I notice that tanning has come back "in" for girls in their early 20s, and it shows; their decolletages have the qualities of a Sunday ham. If you compare UV Polaroids in people a generation apart, you'll often notice a comparable amount of damage, due to the rapid depletion of the ozone layer.

@randomangela47: Oh my. Hermaphroditic?

@ipodrulz: UVB is the "tanning ray" UVA is the aging one, according to yahoo answers ([www.911skin.com])

I use neutrogena because it's a non greasy formula that's not as gross to wear and sand doesn't stick to it. It's also is good for climbers and people who don't want greasy hands; however, it's not sweat proof or run proof and if you're biking or something it can run into your eyes and sting.

I started using the spf 30 because of a consumer report that says anything over 30 is a scam (used to by spf 50) and as long as I reapply every 3 hours I'm fine. It's a UVA/UVB formula as well.

Warning: it's not cheap! A bottle of neutrogena is $8.99 at target and for Bonnaroo I usually bring 4 bottles (and a large hat).

@floraposte: Just checked my bottle of Neutrogena Sheer Mist and it does cover both UVA and UVB rays.

@richcreamerybutter: Hm guess I've been lucky. I'm 30, love the sun and get mistaken for 24 all the time.

[en.wikipedia.org]

From Wikipedia

"Although decreases in stratospheric ozone are well-tied to CFCs and there are good theoretical reasons to believe that decreases in ozone will lead to increases in surface UVB, there is no direct observational evidence linking ozone depletion to higher incidence of skin cancer in human beings."

I managed to get a bottle of the Fallene Cotz SPF 58 for free, and it's pretty amazing. Though fairly expensive, it might be ideal for special occasions that take place during the day.

@Erin Cummins: Its actually on sale right now for $7 at target.

@laserjobs: When people use the term "chemical" to mean that something is inherently bad, they only show their ignorance. Water is a chemical. The vitamins and minerals essential to life are chemicals. Proteins, fats, etc? Chemicals involved there, too! Your brain's function? Electricity and, say it with me, CHEMICALS.

@chemmy: Anything above 40 or 50 is excessive, it's no difference past that.

@randomangela47: But what concentrations and dosages are needed to cause appreciable harm? Does it bioaccumulate? I'll admit, I haven't heard of this one before, but keep in mind that many of these studies which find everyday things to be harmful do so in completely unrealistic dosages. Everything is a poison. It's a matter of dose, not substance.

@richcreamerybutter: Wow, and I really believed you there for ALMOST that entire comment! Then, BAM. You brought in the environment as the cause of tanning. I don't have time to locate sources at the moment, but I was under the impression that the problems with ozone depletion were declining as a result of our awareness of the issue. Also, the polar hole in it is seasonal. Most people don't understand that. Sure, what we've done has made it larger, but a good part of the reason for it is seasonal changes.

@OMG! Con Seannery!:

Yes I know but the facial sunscreen I wanted didn't come in anything lower than 70... I just didn't want to break out while trying to avoid sunburn.

@paulrules: because some people already have that color naturally!

@Eldritch: That's a great part of being in the Goth scene, isn't it? Having started with the "pale look" in 1989, it's nice that now my skin isn't as leathery as other women my age. :)

@Erin Cummins: I use the neutrogena, too. The "dry touch" stuff for the body, and the tinted SPF 30 moisturizer on the face. I've never had an adverse reaction to Neutrogena, which I can't say for other brands. Stuff stings like hell if it gets in your eyes, though.
I'll also toss in a vote for the Blue Lizard lotion, which CR recommended. My SO used it 2-3 times daily while we were in Galapagos last summer and didn't burn and barely tanned. It's a bit greasy and heavy, but if you're serious about sunblock it's good stuff. (I used SPF 70 Neutrogena and colored quite a bit, but no burning).

@misokitty: That's good! It's increasingly common in sunscreens to cover both, but not all do. And, as I said, we've been taught previously to judge by tan level, and unfortunately that's just not good enough any more. Bah, what a mess.

@OMG! Con Seannery!: There's a great bit on one of my favorite movies, Proof, where one (annoying) sister is trying to get the other to use some sort of hair product she bought. Annoying sister mentions it has Jojoba in it. The other sister says, "What is that? A chemical?" Annoying sister says, "Oh no! It's completely organic." To which the other sister replies with some asperity, "Chemicals can be organic. Have you ever heard of organic chemistry?" There's also an exchange where the annoying one says it makes your hair "healthy", and the other sister tells her that hair is dead. God I love that movie. I really should own it on DVD.

@OMG! Con Seannery!: My doctor did encourage me to use barrier methods (hats, long-sleeve shirts, shade) if I was going to be a sun-bunny because the chemicals in chemical sunscreen can be dangerous in large doses and someone who spends all summer outside could potentially get a dose that high. The physical barrier sunscreens ("mineral" sunscreens) are apparently less-bad, but a lot of people don't like the film they leave.

As I am not a sun-bunny, doc said to feel okay slathering up on those rare occasions I'm in the sun and NOT wearing barrier clothing, but to keep it in mind. Doc said there isn't good data so not to get panicked about it, but it's worth keeping in the back of my mind.

(And every cell phone I own ends up with mineral sunscreen all over it because I wear it on my face every day and even 12 hours later that stuff is still smudging off on my phone.)

Floopy hats FTW! My biggest, floopiest one is 2 1/2 feet across. It's a little hard to store.

@Snakeophelia: True story. There's something to be said about the goth lifestyle and looking young. No sun means better skin, less signs of aging and wrinkles.

what would one use that wants to get a tan but not get sunburnt?

@OMG! Con Seannery!: @veronykah: If you've seen UV Polaroids of parents and their adult children of certain age ranges, you will notice a comparable amount of damage. Conclusive data tracing this damage to cancer may not exist (yet).

Even though I shunned tanning beds as a teenager when they became the rage in the 80s, I still never wore sunscreen at the beach. Around the age of 20, I started using spf moisturizer (in its early days), and wore the highest spf possible. After about 10 years of this routine, I had the UV Polaroids done with my parents for fun, and as it turned out I still had almost as much damage as they had after many more years of sun exposure.

Studies suggest that mass ozone depletion first became a problem in the late 70s (as the Wiki article confirms)...it's not far fetched to wonder if the 10 or so years between then and my spf routine caused more damage than to people of previous generations.

Veronykah, you may be lucky for the time being, but sun worship WILL catch up with you. I see girls in their early 20s with crepey lines around their eyes and between their breasts, and wonder how they will fare. My friends and I often joke that high school goths have the best skin as they age, but it's pretty much the truth.

@OMG! Con Seannery!: Also, whether or not education is contributing to a decline in ozone issues is still irrelevant to the fact that frying in the sun is simply never a good idea. You don't have to be an environmentalist to realize that the basal cell carcinoma on your ear or melanoma on your back might result in a fatality. The possibility that someone could die because of their desire for darker skin is rather ridiculous, don't you think?

In any case, now is a great time to encourage your medical school-bound kids to consider dermatology as a specialty.

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Yes, I am the dork at the track with the giant hat! :)

@Erin Cummins: Rite-Aid sells a generic of the Neutrogena. If it's any different from the name brand, I haven't been able to tell the difference. Last year, the Rite-Aid brand was $4 less for the same size of the Neutrogena.

@blueneon: I would recommend a good dose of this. ;)

@Snakeophelia: But don't you grow weary of really young, good-looking men (or women?) 10-15 years your junior trying to get your phone number? ;)