As a very fair skinned person, this suggestion is laughable. Clothes and a hat are not an alternative to sunscreen, you just can't get the protection coverage that you can with lotion.
My very fair-skinned twins were slathered with sunscreen by nursery school staff and both developed an allergy to it. They use a shirt and hat. Works fine.
There are clothes marketed as 45 or 60 UPF and even blue denim jeans supposedly are equivalent to 166 SPF.
Wearing long sleeves, long pants, and a wide-brimmed hat and shoes it seems like sunscreen would only be needed for hands and neck. https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/1238
Not practical for swimming unless you’re wearing a wetsuit of course but depending on weather conditions I do find long sleeves, pants, and a good hat can be practical for outdoor activity like hiking instead of sunscreen everywhere.
Also won't work well to protect your face from the UV reflection while skiing. Spring skiing in particular is often too warm to comfortable wear a full face mask.
As the same type of person, I don't think it's laughable ;-) I rock my Ex Officio and Coolibar gear every summer. It's a heck of a lot easier than putting on sunscreen all the time!
That and mineral sunscreens with just zinc oxide which doesn't penetrate the skin (it does look like white paint so not the most photogenic, but that's kind of the point)
The four ingredients here (avobenzone, oxybenzone, ecamsule and octocrylene) seem to be specific to chemical* sunscreens, as opposed the sunscreens that are "physical" like Titanium dioxide/zinc oxide based ones.
They're like the ones in the Hawaii ban on some otc sunscreens (on oxybenzone and octinoxate) because those two chemicals appear to be particularly bad for coral reefs or something.
Then again, there is ofc the issue of nanoscale particles on your face passing through your own skin, but that sounds like it applies for a lot of modern makeup anyways. And for that, I take it cosmetics R&D people already have something on this...(?)
(*Chemical/physical sunscreens are categorized by their uv protection mechanisms: the former type generally uses organic compounds to absorb uv, the latter type uses inorganic compounds to generally just reflect/scatter, to loosely put it)
1) People in sunny climates evolved darker skin. When they migrated to places like Scandinavia, their ancestors evolved light skin. Now people live all over and migrate readily, and don't want to wait for their ancestors to evolve skin to match the climate.
2) Prehistoric people had low life expectancies, so if they died of melanoma at age 45, it wasn't a big deal, or they never got to die of melanoma because they were killed by a wild animal or an infection before then. Now people expect to live to an old age, don't have problems with wild animals or wars with neighboring tribes (at least in developed nations), they have antibiotics and neosporin and band-aids to avoid infection from minor wounds, and don't want to die of melanoma.
17 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 51.8 ms ] threadThere are clothes marketed as 45 or 60 UPF and even blue denim jeans supposedly are equivalent to 166 SPF.
Wearing long sleeves, long pants, and a wide-brimmed hat and shoes it seems like sunscreen would only be needed for hands and neck. https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/1238
Not practical for swimming unless you’re wearing a wetsuit of course but depending on weather conditions I do find long sleeves, pants, and a good hat can be practical for outdoor activity like hiking instead of sunscreen everywhere.
Every hat which is suitably breathable has laughable sun protection as well, so sunscreen is pretty much my only option.
For day-to-day around-town, yeah, a long-sleeve shirt works. But it's not a one-size-fits-all solve.
Just read the headlines, and it's really obvious. Their agenda is for sale.
They're like the ones in the Hawaii ban on some otc sunscreens (on oxybenzone and octinoxate) because those two chemicals appear to be particularly bad for coral reefs or something.
Then again, there is ofc the issue of nanoscale particles on your face passing through your own skin, but that sounds like it applies for a lot of modern makeup anyways. And for that, I take it cosmetics R&D people already have something on this...(?)
(*Chemical/physical sunscreens are categorized by their uv protection mechanisms: the former type generally uses organic compounds to absorb uv, the latter type uses inorganic compounds to generally just reflect/scatter, to loosely put it)
For millions of years, weve walked more or less naked. Now we need sun screen even on cloudy days in winter?
I never use sun screen and I never have problems.
Are there any reliable studies made?
I think the science is pretty settled on excessive UV exposure causing skin cancer.
2) Prehistoric people had low life expectancies, so if they died of melanoma at age 45, it wasn't a big deal, or they never got to die of melanoma because they were killed by a wild animal or an infection before then. Now people expect to live to an old age, don't have problems with wild animals or wars with neighboring tribes (at least in developed nations), they have antibiotics and neosporin and band-aids to avoid infection from minor wounds, and don't want to die of melanoma.