Best Sunblock for Surfers???

Have a chat about any general surfing related topics.

Best Sunblock for Surfers???

Postby oceangrrl » Wed May 18, 2005 4:38 am

Hi, right now i use "Coppertone Faces SPF 30"
It SAYS its waterproof but it washes off and i get sunburnt!

Can someone please recommend a good sunblock i can use while i surf that is waterproof and DOESN'T cause breakouts?

[ View suncream and sunblock in the store ]
oceangrrl
Surfer
 
Posts: 54
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:31 am
Location: California

Postby babyboarder89 » Wed May 18, 2005 5:50 am

i use, um island tribe? i think thats what its called, its spf 30 and comes in a little silver tube, its a gel, doesnt come off and ive had no trouble with it, you have to apply 30 mins before going in the water so it can stick to your face :shock:
babyboarder89
Local Hero
 
Posts: 498
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 8:47 pm
Location: too far inland (uk)

Postby VaB » Thu May 19, 2005 9:32 am

Headhunter or Bullfrog.
VaB
Surfer
 
Posts: 62
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:51 pm
Location: Virginia Beach, VA USA

Postby drowningbitbybit » Thu May 19, 2005 9:38 am

I use AcneEyeStingSlipperyHands, SPF WashStraightOff, but Im thinking about changing :?
User avatar
drowningbitbybit
Surfing Legend
 
Posts: 6459
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:16 am
Location: Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.

Postby babyboarder89 » Thu May 19, 2005 2:36 pm

i looked for headhunter but i couldnt find any.
babyboarder89
Local Hero
 
Posts: 498
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 8:47 pm
Location: too far inland (uk)

Postby rctkj » Thu May 19, 2005 4:59 pm

Bullfrog
rctkj
Surfer
 
Posts: 63
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: Oxnard California

Postby Roy Stewart » Fri May 20, 2005 7:19 am

I have not yet discovered a commercially available sunblock which does not contain carcinogens.

Some of the most common are:

Cinnamates

Titanium dioxide

Mineral oils

Preservatives

Artificial fragrances


These substances are now suspected to be responsible for much of the rise in skin cancers.


If you would like a recipe for a very nice beeswax and zinc sunblock then just ask and we will post it for you.
User avatar
Roy Stewart
SW Pro
 
Posts: 800
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby drowningbitbybit » Fri May 20, 2005 7:56 am

RoyStewart wrote:These substances are now suspected to be responsible for much of the rise in skin cancers.


Oh for f*cks sake...
Contrary to Mr Stewart, I know what Im talking about (Im a tumor biologist, and before you start Roy, I have no vested interest in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics or anything else, I work for a charity).

A quick search on the National Library of Medicine PubMed site (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi)

shows this...
The number of entries relating to skin cancers for...

Cinnamates - 31 (all about the protective effect of sunscreens)

Titanium dioxide - 7 (ditto)

Mineral oils - 58 (theres a grain of truth in not wanting to dip your head in fossil fuels, but the 58 entries are mostly talking about toxic exposure to pollutants etc)

Sun - FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN




Now dont get me wrong, Im not one to smother (or ingest) a sh*t load of chemicals, but sunblock - without question - stops you getting skin cancer, it doesnt give you cancer.

Uninformed views like this shouldnt encourage people to stop using sunscreens because 'they give you cancer'.
Malignant melanoma aint fun, so use sunscreen.
User avatar
drowningbitbybit
Surfing Legend
 
Posts: 6459
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:16 am
Location: Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.

Postby Roy Stewart » Fri May 20, 2005 8:40 am

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us regarding the process whereby a tumour is linked to a particular cause?

It does not follow that a lack of(or in this case a low) statistical correspondence between skin tumours and the chemicals in question entails the conclusion that those chemicals are therefore not cancer forming.

Any student of Scientific method or Logic could tell you this.

There is evidence that cinnamates cause cancer in rats.

I would suggest caution in applying commercial sunblocks to the skin.

One thing is certain, and that is that a natural beeswax, zinc, and coconut oil total sunblock will prevent sun damage to the skin and simultaneously nourish the skin via vitamin E, with no risk at all.

The same cannot be said for commercial sunblocks.

It is safer to avoid known toxins in sunblocks.


:idea:
User avatar
Roy Stewart
SW Pro
 
Posts: 800
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby Brent » Fri May 20, 2005 9:23 am

Here we go again; Roy, Post hoc, ergo propter hoc...it happened after, so it was caused by.
What you are suggesting is like saying before women got the vote there were no nuclear weapons.
And I bet you don't immunise your children either because you know better...
Brent
SW Pro
 
Posts: 632
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:07 am
Location: Mount Maunganui, New Zealand

Postby drowningbitbybit » Fri May 20, 2005 9:31 am

RoyStewart wrote:Perhaps you would care to enlighten us regarding the process whereby a tumour is linked to a particular cause?


Well, Roy, someone who knows about stuff thinks about it a bit, then he/she goes to a library and does some reading about it, then he makes a hypothesis and tests it. Then he/she analyses the results and sees whether the hypothesis holds true. Perhaps smoking and lung cancer is the best example.

RoyStewart wrote: It does not follow that a lack of(or in this case a low) statistical correspondence between skin tumours and the chemicals in question entails the conclusion that those chemicals are therefore not cancer forming.


I agree. It does not. But it does have to be tested before one can make statements regarding the carcinogenecity of a compound. The effect of the sun has very much been proven to 'cause' skin cancer.

RoyStewart wrote:Any student of Scientific method or Logic could tell you this.



Any idiot can make nice little phrases up that will impress the impressiobable. Dont tell me about scientific method or logic. I seriously outqualify you here. Stick to your nice wooden boards.


RoyStewart wrote:There is evidence that cinnamates cause cancer in rats.


And none whatsoever that it causes cancer in humans. Im not saying it doesnt, but the sun definitely does.

RoyStewart wrote:I would suggest caution in applying commercial sunblocks to the skin.


I would suggest caution before plastering yourself in anything - manmade or natural - but the sun is a much bigger risk factor.

RoyStewart wrote:One thing is certain, and that is that a natural beeswax, zinc, and coconut oil total sunblock will prevent sun damage to the skin


Im interested to know where you've found studies that show bees wax etc can completely block UVA and B rays. And why are you obsessed with zinc? It has many of the same properties as titanium. It protects from the sun (a good thing) but is still one of those scary chemicals...
And how will you know that these natural compounds are giving you protection until its too late?

RoyStewart wrote:and simultaneously nourish the skin via vitamin E, with no risk at all.


Yes, Vitamin E can help repair damaged skin, and to a certain extent, protect it too. Thats why lots of the commercial sunblocks have vitamin E in them...


RoyStewart wrote:It is safer to avoid known toxins in sunblocks.


But much much safer to avoid UVA and UVB.

I'm going back to the lab now to examine whether exposure of feet to a combination of sea water and wood leads to cranial shrinkage and hyperloquacity.
User avatar
drowningbitbybit
Surfing Legend
 
Posts: 6459
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:16 am
Location: Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.

Postby Brent » Fri May 20, 2005 9:49 am

Excellent; someone else to be drawn into Roy's black hole of pseudoscience.

"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are labouring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which in order to be consistant with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument"
(American Revolutionary - Ethian Allen)

Motto here - Roy's a munter.
Brent
SW Pro
 
Posts: 632
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:07 am
Location: Mount Maunganui, New Zealand

Postby drowningbitbybit » Fri May 20, 2005 9:57 am

Damn, you're right, I got drawn in... :?

I should know better :oops:


Note to self - Never enter into discussion with a munter. :D 8)
User avatar
drowningbitbybit
Surfing Legend
 
Posts: 6459
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:16 am
Location: Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.

Postby Roy Stewart » Fri May 20, 2005 11:10 am

drowningbitbybit wrote:
RoyStewart wrote:Perhaps you would care to enlighten us regarding the process whereby a tumour is linked to a particular cause?


Well, Roy, someone who knows about stuff thinks about it a bit, then he/she goes to a library and does some reading about it, then he makes a hypothesis and tests it. Then he/she analyses the results and sees whether the hypothesis holds true. Perhaps smoking and lung cancer is the best example.



Yes, quite so, that much is obvious. I was actually hoping that you might be able to delve a little deeper and actually give us the hypothesis and the test results which show that cinnimates and titanium dioxide (for example) are unrelated to cancer. I don't believe that there are any.

RoyStewart wrote: It does not follow that a lack of(or in this case a low) statistical correspondence between skin tumours and the chemicals in question entails the conclusion that those chemicals are therefore not cancer forming.


I agree. It does not. But it does have to be tested before one can make statements regarding the carcinogenecity of a compound. The effect of the sun has very much been proven to 'cause' skin cancer.


Titanium has been proven to be carcinogenic. So have the cinnamates. The sun can cause skin cancer. I did not attempt to say otherwise.




RoyStewart wrote:Any student of Scientific method or Logic could tell you this.



Any idiot can make nice little phrases up that will impress the impressiobable. Dont tell me about scientific method or logic. I seriously outqualify you here. Stick to your nice wooden boards.


It occurs to me that if you are well qualified in science, then you would theoretically be an ideal partner for a discussion of scientific method. Please do not assume that the building of wooden boards exludes one from academic pursuits, I can assure you that my training equips me well for a discussion of scientific method.


RoyStewart wrote:There is evidence that cinnamates cause cancer in rats.


And none whatsoever that it causes cancer in humans. Im not saying it doesnt, but the sun definitely does.


You should really qualify this statement by saying that there is no evidence that you are presently aware of regarding the relationship between cinnamates and cancer. Yes, and as you say, the sun can cause cancer.


RoyStewart wrote:One thing is certain, and that is that a natural beeswax, zinc, and coconut oil total sunblock will prevent sun damage to the skin


Im interested to know where you've found studies that show bees wax etc can completely block UVA and B rays. And why are you obsessed with zinc? It has many of the same properties as titanium. It protects from the sun (a good thing) but is still one of those scary chemicals...
And how will you know that these natural compounds are giving you protection until its too late?



You are jumping to conclusions . . . I did not say that beeswax blocks UVA. The beeswax is there to bind the zinc oxide together in a paste. Zinc is used by the body (that's why we eat zinc rich foods and zinc supplements) Titanium is toxic to the body. They are different elements which share some (but not all) of their physical properties.
Zinc based sunblocks keep the sun out by completely covering the skin with an opaque layer. The sun cannot penetrate this. Surely you have seen zinc based sunblocks?


RoyStewart wrote:It is safer to avoid known toxins in sunblocks.


But much much safer to avoid UVA and UVB.



It is safer to avoid known toxins in sunblocks and also to avoid UVA and UVB! Your statement assumes that if one avoids known toxins in a sunblock then one cannot therefore avoid UVA and UVB. This is clearly not necessarily the case. You have made an error here.


I'm going back to the lab now to examine whether exposure of feet to a combination of sea water and wood leads to cranial shrinkage and hyperloquacity.


Very funny! Except that if you are alluding to my surfing activities then you had better do tests on foot contact with beeswax surfboard wax, because that's what my feet touch when surfing (not wood). While you are there, perhaps you could run the same test again but substitute commercial petroleum based waxes . . .perhaps checkig also to see if there is any correlation between this and testicle shrinkage.


Good day/night to you Sir!

:idea:
User avatar
Roy Stewart
SW Pro
 
Posts: 800
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby drowningbitbybit » Fri May 20, 2005 11:35 am

Well, Roy.... Oh, I cant be bothered...

Im sure noone here will take the blindest bit of notice of you, so feel free to be a twat.
User avatar
drowningbitbybit
Surfing Legend
 
Posts: 6459
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:16 am
Location: Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.

Postby Roy Stewart » Fri May 20, 2005 11:43 am

I am sorry that you are choosing to avoid this interesting discussion.

I cannot help noticing that your posts seem rather overemotional for one who is attempting to debate a potentially intellectual subject.

Perhaps you might be persuaded to rejoin the fray when you are feeling calmer?

All the best!

8)
User avatar
Roy Stewart
SW Pro
 
Posts: 800
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby PapaW » Fri May 20, 2005 11:49 am

ffs everything is carcogenic or bad for you if you have too much of it.. get a grip...
User avatar
PapaW
Surf God
 
Posts: 3551
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 12:48 pm
Location: Causeway Coast, N. Ireland

Postby Brent » Fri May 20, 2005 11:51 am

Yawn....again.
Just ignore the guy...he'll go away.
Brent
SW Pro
 
Posts: 632
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:07 am
Location: Mount Maunganui, New Zealand

Postby Roy Stewart » Fri May 20, 2005 12:02 pm

PapaWoolacombe wrote:ffs everything is carcogenic or bad for you if you have too much of it.. get a grip...


Actually Mr Woolacombe, not everything is carcinogenic.

Some substances are very toxic, while others are beneficial to the body.

You and I both know this, so why tell me to 'get a grip' when I am discussing the matter calmly and politely?

Clearly there are different 'camps' of thought when it comes to health. Is this not a good thing?

Please allow me to point out that I have offered a very nice recipe for a waterproof zinc sunblock.

:D :D :D :D
User avatar
Roy Stewart
SW Pro
 
Posts: 800
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby gulfsurfer » Sat May 21, 2005 2:19 am

ROTFLMAO!!!!
As soon as i saw roys name on this topic, i knew he would be an "expert". Roy, for f u c k s sake, shut the hell up. I highly doubt you know everything about shaping, much less, SKIN CANCER!!!!!!!

I'm pretty sure it would be better to use sunblock even if it has chemicals in it, then not using it and getting the hell burnt out of you.

FRIKKIN IDIOT!!!!!
gulfsurfer
SW Pro
 
Posts: 1058
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 5:48 pm
Location: TEXAS!!!!!

Next

Similar topics

Return to Surf Chat