That chemical cocktail in sunscreens may speed the development of skin tumors and lesions when applied directly to the skin in the presence of sunlight. Much better and safer is MooGoo Nappy Balm with Zinc Oxide and edible oils. Zinc is a better sun protection than those nasty chemicals an ordinary sun block has. Reefs will do better too. Also
Just one example: my son has a very, very white skin. He came here for a holiday. We applied my MooGoo, and off we went to the beach at noon time; spent there two hours swimming and lying in the sun. For sure, you would expect his skin would turn a red, inflamed mess -not so! His skin stayed normal, and to the end of his holiday became pleasantly tanned.
The creme is rather thick, to make it spread easier, apply first any thinner consistency creme first, or simply wet the skin. Or both.
The better coverage of zinc is probably true. As for relative nastiness the number of syllables in the name is always a problem.
I agree with you about the nasty chemicals in sunscreens, but I find the physical sunblocks too drying for me.
Zinc is an astringent, itâs the main ingredient in Anusol ointment.
Applying first a thinner creme of your choice helps!
Just wondering if you have any scientific evidence to these claims as they are quite astonishing and go against the information published by leading government and evidence based cancer agencies, such as this oneâŠ
https://www.cancerwa.asn.au/resources/cancermyths/sunscreen-cancer-myth/
There are many conspiracies on the internet about sunscreen and some of the chemicals used in its manufactureâŠresulting in cancer. These conspiracies appear to go against current scientific evidence.
There is also known impacts of compounds used in some suncreens on the environment, particularly aquatic and tropical ocean biota (such as corals).
Aldi Supermarkets joins the club?
This weeks special buys include:
Aldi Lacura Caviar Day Cream.
A relative bargain as Aldiâs 50ml will set customers back only $20, sorry $19.99! Compare this to Ultra Violet Queen at $47!
However the Aldi product is only SP15+, compared to SP50+ for UVQ. It also equates to $200 per litre or about the same cost as two tank fulls for the Toyota.
https://incidecoder.com/products/lacura-lacura-caviar-illumination-day-cream
Special ingredients include - globularia-cordifolia-callus-culture-extract
Anti ageing ingredient? One web source suggests it is even great for internal ailments. Derived from a flowering plant , daisy native to the mountains of Southern and Central Europe, like many other wonder products?
Just how much daisy is in 50ml of the more than 30 ingredients, plus water and glycerine is open to debate. Perhaps a petal or two? Iâd be rolling my whole body naked in fields of the daisy if I thought I could look 18 again. And after dark to be sure no one could observe the transformation? 
There are very informative articles in Choice.com.au > sunscreens:
âHow to buy and use sunscreens â
(Reveals all about the ingredients in sunscreens )
and â SPF 50+ sunscreens put to the testâ
Both by Karina Bray.
The active ingredient in anusol is zinc sulphate, an astringent. It is quite soluble in water. The active ingredient in zinc cream is zinc oxide which is insoluble in water. It is not an astringent. They are quite different substances with different properties. There is no zinc (in the form of the element) in either.
âKnown as a topical protectant, zinc oxide works like a gentle astringent that also comes with antiseptic action. This is the reason why aside from being a popular ingredient in a wide range of cosmetics, it is also used in medical products like bandages, ointments, skin protectants, and more.â From Alyaka: the art of beauty.
Just one of the many websites which identify Zinc as an astringent. It also has many other qualities and it can make a very good sunscreen for most people.
For me: itâs too drying.
BTW: Anusol Ointment is used by some to help with wrinkles around the eyes.
The causes of skin damage and cancer are complex. The fact that problems may show up many years later only adds to the confusion.
At least some of these conspiracies are derived from studies that link vitamin A (added to some sunscreens in the belief that it will increase protection) to increased damage.
I would not let such studies lead me astray from the general message of protecting your skin from sun damage and using sunscreens as part of that system.
You are right. I should have said it was very weak compared to zinc sulphate.
No worries, Iâm not an expert. I just go from personal experience. 
The study was the effects of a topical application of retinyl palmitate on mice and not sunscreen containing retinyl palmitate. While retinyl palmate was shown to have a potential effect, this does not necessarily correlate to the same effect when in a sunscreen mixture. This would require additional studies and assessment to determine interactions, effects of UV blockers etcâŠ
Until such is done,. it would be a long bow to draw that there is a causal effect.
It is also worth noting that if one uses sunscreens, this does not reduce the risk of one having long term skin damage nor potential for skin cancer. Sunscreen is only one measure to reduce the risks and does not provide a cure. Sunscreen only reduces exposure, it doesnât eliminate it. There is also likely that one may have been exposed in the past without any protections.
Many of the conspiracies I have read this morning seem to also dwell on this issueâŠthat one can still get skin cancer even if one uses sunscreen. This seems to set an argument up that sunscreen is pointless or may in fact contribute to skin cancer.
While any compound has risks when used topically, the benefits of using sunscreen are well known and supported by leading medical and scientific evidence. These benefits have also been shown to far exceed any potential risks of using sunscreen.
There is overwhelming evidence of the damage sunlight (UV spectrum) causes to the skin over time.
Unfortunately, unless one lives exclusively indoors under non-UV generating light sources, there is no way to avoid exposure to the sun. With the naturally thinner ozone layer (which has been historically impacted by man made gases) in the southern hemisphere and our lifestyle very much oriented towards the outdoors, the risk to Australianâs is high.
This is why the use of sunscreen as one of the protection measures against the sun is supported by government, the medical fraternity and science.
If you are happy to apply to your skin this long list of who-knows-what:
Cyclopentasiloxane, Cyclohexasiloxane, Isostearyl Neopentanoate, Glycerin, Lauryl PEG/PPG-18/18 Methicone, Silica, Cetyl PEG/PPG-10/1 Dimethicone, Cetyl Dimethicone, Hydroxyacetophenone, Polymethyl Methacrylate, Saccharide Isomerate, Benzyl Alcohol, Phenoxyethanol, Parfum, Mica, Decyl Glucoside, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Aminomethyl Propanol, Pentylene Glycol, Titanium Dioxide, Terminalia Ferdinandiana Fruit Extract, Propylene GlycolâŠ, go ahead!
Another thing, I do not trust Cancer Councilâs opinions, as they have said a lot of rubbish.
[quote=âTanya, post:34, topic:17541â]
you are happy to apply to your skin this long list of who-knows-what:
[/quote
Actually those are the âInactiveâ ingredients of Ultra Violette: the âskin careâ ones.
The SPF ones are:
Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate 10%
Ethylhexyl Salicylate 5%
Ethyhexloxyphenal Methoxyphenyl Tricizine 4%
Methylene Bisbenzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol 2%
What is it that upsets you about a list of scientific names of chemical substances?
Perhaps instead of Terminalia Ferdinandiana, Kakadu plum would be less of a problem.
My grandma used to have a bottle of glycerine and rosewater on her bedroom table and rubbed it into her face and hands every night. Glycerine is a byproduct of soap manufacture, it makes your skin feel soft and moist, itâs been around for hundreds of years. The rosewater just smells nice.
Titanium dioxide is used as a white pigment, in a similar way to zinc oxide and for similar reasons, it is opaque, cheap, fairly inert and can be ground finely.
Before I sound too much like a cosmetic salesman (I am not) there are some oddities. Polymethyl methacrylate is perspex (acrylic, plexiglas) ie clear plastic. I donât know for sure why it is included, I suspect it is ground finely and used as a filler. It has been around for a century or so and can be used in prosthetics, implants and surgery as well as the usual shock resistant replacement for glass windows.
I could go on but it would be boring. The point is that long names do not make things harmful. If the ingredients in cowâs milk or orange juice were listed the same way they would sound just as fearsome.
From: www.truthinaging.com
âAs a humectant, glycerin works to moisturize the skin by drawing water from the air into the skinâs outer layer. It also forms a protective layer that helps prevent moisture loss. However, the moisturizing effects of glycerin are dependent upon the climate â if the air has less than 65% humidity, glycerin will draw moisture from the lower layers of the skin and hold it on the surface, drying the skin from the inside out. â
Very alarming to know that the lower layer of our skin can be dried out, depending on the climate, by an ingredient which we believed was hydrating our skin!
here is the list of MOoGoo for comparison: Aqua, Zinc Oxide, Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, Cetearyl Alcohol (Plant Based Emulsifying Wax), Olea Europaea (Olive) Fruit Oil, Simmondsia Chinensis (Jojoba) Seed Oil, Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea Butter), Oenothera Biennis (Evening Primrose) Oil, Tocopherol (Natural Vitamin E), Polysorbate 60 (Food Grade Emulsifier), Calendula Officinalis Flower Extract, Chamomilla Recutita (Matricaria) Flower Extract, Allantoin, Piroctone Olamine, Humulus Lupulus (Hops) Extract.
Do you think it is OK to put ground plastic in cremes and then, subsequently release it into the environment? This thread is not long enough to start this sort of discussion.
Sorry grandma, glycerin has never been my choice of ingredients, for the same very reason Gaby stated.
So it isnât a long list of polysyllabic substances that puts you off. What is the difference then?
On the ingredients in UVQ I am not beating the drum for either glycerine or acrylic, I just pointed out that they are in common use and have been for a long time.
Why is ground plastic a problem? Are you thinking of nanoparticles? Do you think UVQ has them?
A key point that we all refer to here is making our choices between competing products. Everybody has their own criteria, Choice tries hard to give as much information as possible but ranking is still subjective to some extent because of the difference in what we see as important.
In the interest of disclosure I wouldnât use a product like UVQ that has so many cosmetics, I want a sunscreen not makeup, and the price is just absurd.
How did you decide that Moogoo was OK and UVQ was not?
I am wondering which sunscreen you have listed the ingredients of, as they seem to sell two:
- https://moogoo.com.au/all-products/natural-sunscreen-tinted-spf40-broad-spectrum-120g.html
- https://moogoo.com.au/all-products/natural-sunscreen-spf40.html
These sunscreen also contain ingredients such as:
- Polyglyceryl-2 Dipolyhydroxystearate
- Polyhydroxystearic Acid
- Galactoarabinan
- Polyglyceryl-3 Polyricinoleate
- 1,2-Hexanediol
- Tropolone
In relation to the above additional ingredients, in their raw forms it seems that toxicity of most of the materials is not available which usually means that there is no evidence gathered or fully researched in relation to these materials (viz. information about these parameters is unknown).
It is also worth noting that while it may not apply to the other more ânaturalâ ingredients of the MooGoo sunscreens, some of the most known toxic compounds are naturally occurring. There is often confusion that natural means safe(r), but this is not necessarily the case.
