Sunprotection 120

I looked at www.boots.com The highest they had was a SPF of 60 and those
were in the Extra High SPF range.

HTH
Andrew

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from
the wonderful person Andrew McGleish
<[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

I looked at www.boots.com The highest they had was a SPF of 60 and those
were in the Extra High SPF range.

I Googled the whole planet .. SPF120 is definitely into 'prescription
pharmaceuticals' territory, not 'over the counter' standard issue. Need
a much bigger hole in the ozone layer before they sell much SPF120 I
guess.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Andrew McGleish <[email hidden]>
said

Quoted message said:

I looked at www.boots.com The highest they had was a SPF of 60 and those
were in the Extra High SPF range.

I Googled the whole planet .. SPF120 is definitely into 'prescription
pharmaceuticals' territory, not 'over the counter' standard issue. Need a
much bigger hole in the ozone layer before they sell much SPF120 I guess.

Thanks Andrew and GSV. I'll send a message to the OP.

--
Theo
www.theosphotos.fotopic.net

nickl said:

theo said:

Hi all,

someone in a Dutch newsgroup asked if anyone was going to the UK and if
that
person could bring back a bottle of sunprotection creme with 'factor'
120.
In the Netherlands the highest available protection you can get is 60.
They
need it for a friend who has got a sun allergy. Does anyone in this ng
knows
an online shop where they can order the creme ?

Quoted message said:

Never heard of SPF120 - best I have ever found is the total sun block
for babies and toddlers sold in most high street chemists and this is
SPF60.

Quoted message said:

I use it on my head (not much hair there!) - it is pretty thick sticky
stuff and leaves you looking a bit pasty but after 12 hours on the
fells it will still be in place and doing its job.

I see a money-making opportunity here! Excuse me while I go off and
invent the parasol :-)
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Andrew McGleish said:

I looked at www.boots.com The highest they had was a SPF of 60 and those
were in the Extra High SPF range.

Some of my work here is in the photobiology unit, where they have a lot
of UV flying around so the staff get through a lot of sun cream in their
day to day work. They seem to use SPF 60 primarily, which I guess must
be close to effectively "block".

Some clothes are rated with SPF factors. Rohan were pioneers in this
field, and here's what their system description says:

"Sunguard: Total

Garments awarded this rating offer the highest level of protection and
are suitable for use in all conceivable climates. The sun protection
factor is always in excess of 40 (SPF 40+)".

I think 120 is basically some shorthand for "lots and lots" rather than
a useful number. IIRC my hat (very like a Tilley, in thick cotton duck)
was rated at SPF 150. I burn easily, and I would never expect to get
burnt where it covers me any place I've ever been, including hot deserts.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:59:50 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| Garments awarded this rating offer the highest level of protection and
| are suitable for use in all conceivable climates. The sun protection
| factor is always in excess of 40 (SPF 40+)".

I was out on Rombalds Moor yesterday wearing a cotton cricketers wide brim
hat all day, and my bald pate is definitely red and a bit tender :-( but
nothing like as bad as my arms. So nothing is perfect at keeping the sun
out if you have fair hair an skin.

--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> http://www.webshots.com
Thousands of wonderful professional photos for your Wallpaper and
Screensaver. also 200,000 amateur pics. Four new pics each day.

Dave Fawthrop said:

I was out on Rombalds Moor yesterday wearing a cotton cricketers wide brim
hat all day, and my bald pate is definitely red and a bit tender :-(

Try a Tilley hat (or similar). The Cotton Duck used is significantly
more serious stuff than a cricket hat, and I'd be very surprised if you
got burned through one.

Quoted message said:

nothing like as bad as my arms. So nothing is perfect at keeping the sun
out if you have fair hair an skin.

The above advice in light of me getting a bit burned on /Saturday/, when
the sun was never even directly visible round here, as an indication of
how easily I get cooked (I get through quite a bit of sun cream, usually
SPF30-35, though hadn't put any on on Saturday as rain looked the most
likely thing...).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Andrew McGleish said:

I looked at www.boots.com The highest they had was a SPF of 60 and those
were in the Extra High SPF range.

Some of my work here is in the photobiology unit, where they have a lot
of UV flying around so the staff get through a lot of sun cream in their
day to day work. They seem to use SPF 60 primarily, which I guess must
be close to effectively "block".

Is there a SPF standard? I thought each company have their own numbers
and a 20 from one firm might be more protective than a 40 from another?
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

Rudi Winter said:

Peter Clinch said:

Andrew McGleish said:

I looked at www.boots.com The highest they had was a SPF of 60 and those
were in the Extra High SPF range.

Some of my work here is in the photobiology unit, where they have a lot
of UV flying around so the staff get through a lot of sun cream in their
day to day work. They seem to use SPF 60 primarily, which I guess must
be close to effectively "block".

Is there a SPF standard?

I thought each company have their own numbers
and a 20 from one firm might be more protective than a 40 from another?

From the L'Oreal site this:

Assessing sunscreen efficacy

UV-B Sun Protection Factors
A sunscreen's efficacy is measured in terms of its Sun Protection
Factor (SPF). This factor is the ratio between the minimum erythema
dose (MED) when the product is used and the MED value without it.
Product concentration is standardised at 2 mg/cm2. The higher the SPF
the better the protection.
Practical determination is carried out by the usual means, in a
laboratory, on the backs of healthy human volunteers, by exposing two
series of delimited areas - one with protection and the other without
- to increasingly powerful doses of UVB coming from a stable
artificial source. The doses are proportional to the length of
exposure and measurements are taken of the doses necessary to obtain
minimal erythema.

So the SPF ought to be pretty accurate but it's subject to variation
in application and removal by sweat, water or clothing so YMMV (your
milage may vary)

I never use anything less than 15 in this country and normally I use
30. Of course the best SPF is a shirt and hat provided the shirt and
hat block the light. Beware of smelly hellys that despite being dark
are fairly poor on the SPF rating.

--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

"Phil Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I never use anything less than 15 in this country and normally I use
30. Of course the best SPF is a shirt and hat provided the shirt and
hat block the light. Beware of smelly hellys that despite being dark
are fairly poor on the SPF rating.

Has anyone considered that the increase in skin cancer that people what
knows this stuff talks about correlates nicely with the increase in sun
cream usage? Dodgy stuff I reckon. Thinning ozone layer my ass.

AndyP said:

"Phil Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I never use anything less than 15 in this country and normally I use
30. Of course the best SPF is a shirt and hat provided the shirt and
hat block the light. Beware of smelly hellys that despite being dark
are fairly poor on the SPF rating.

Has anyone considered that the increase in skin cancer that people what
knows this stuff talks about correlates nicely with the increase in sun
cream usage? Dodgy stuff I reckon. Thinning ozone layer my ass.

Well until recently you couldn't get factor 60 in Australia as the
nanny state said it was more harmful than the sun it was trying to
protect you from. In Kakadu NP they are actively discouraging the use
of sunscreen as it washes off and polutes the water.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

AndyP <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"Phil Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I never use anything less than 15 in this country and normally I use
30. Of course the best SPF is a shirt and hat provided the shirt and
hat block the light. Beware of smelly hellys that despite being dark
are fairly poor on the SPF rating.

Has anyone considered that the increase in skin cancer that people what
knows this stuff talks about correlates nicely with the increase in sun
cream usage? Dodgy stuff I reckon. Thinning ozone layer my ass.

You may be right... I've been out and about and spent quite a lot of
time gardening and just lying in the sun this last week or so, and I
only felt it necessary to splodge a bit of factor 6 on today where I was
already pink.
The good ole Manchester air is equivalent to about SPF12 anyway, except
when the wind is from the East.

The SPF numbers quoted in this thread are astronomic, and I think the
major factor in contracting skin or any other cancer is in the genes,
and a matter of having 'drawn the short straw'. Some folk are
vulnerable and some are immune to the sun's effects.

In my teens I used to spend a couple of weeks with a mate at his family
caravan and got some horrendous sunburn, with no sinister results.
I still think that the best protection against sunburn is to get as much
sun as possible early in the year and get acclimatised.

The danger is getting caught out in clear clean air when the sun begins
to really bite, as has happened to me when out walking. The absence of
shade is a problem, although my Tilley has saved me some suffering.
--
Gordon Harris

Gordon Harris wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

The SPF numbers quoted in this thread are astronomic, and I think the
major factor in contracting skin or any other cancer is in the genes,
and a matter of having 'drawn the short straw'. Some folk are
vulnerable and some are immune to the sun's effects.

<snip more>

You're dead right there. I suspect that everyone else on this thread,
like me, evolved in an environment of lousy weather and poor food such
that the risk of skin cancer (and premature skin aging) was less than
the risk of rickets. Those of a ... how do I put in PC terms ... darker
complexion don't have these problems.

I worry more about my eyes than my skin. I can lose some skin, but I
don't want to lose my retinas.

Andy

Phil Cook said:

From the L'Oreal site this:

<snip illustration if standard being quite standard>

Quoted message said:

So the SPF ought to be pretty accurate but it's subject to variation
in application and removal by sweat, water or clothing so YMMV (your
milage may vary)

Good point. The basic definition of SPF is often taken as a multiplier
of the time you'd normally burn in for any given sun conditions, so if
you'd last half an hour on a given day then an SPF 2 would give you an
hour. It should be noted that such a multiplier assumes considerably
more cream being applied than almost anyone ever does, so don't take
this literally though! However, it should be the case that 20 is twice
as effective as 10 at a given level of application.

Quoted message said:

I never use anything less than 15 in this country and normally I use
30.

Ditto. I put a good dose on and re-apply every time I start feeling its
time to reapply (quite a subjective thing): I'd rather spend some extra
money on an excess of cream than get burned.

Quoted message said:

Of course the best SPF is a shirt and hat provided the shirt and
hat block the light. Beware of smelly hellys that despite being dark
are fairly poor on the SPF rating.

Travel clothing is often designed with SPF ratings particularly in mind:
c.f. Rohan's "Sunguard" rating, where the catalogue tells you if you can
expect the garment to block sun, and at what level.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Andy Champ <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I worry more about my eyes than my skin. I can lose some skin, but I
don't want to lose my retinas.

On my last eyesight test my optician said that the sight of one of my
eyes is deteriorating in a way which cannot be corrected by
prescription.
I suppose at age 71 some things start to go....
--
Gordon Harris

Phil Cook said:

From the L'Oreal site this:

I didn't even know they were doing suncream!

[Description of how l'Oreal do their tests.]

Quoted message said:

So the SPF ought to be pretty accurate but it's subject to variation
in application and removal by sweat, water or clothing so YMMV (your
milage may vary)

Sure, but we still don't know if their factor N is the same as that
of somebody else. Oh well, as long as I don't come home grilled...
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

Rudi Winter said:

Sure, but we still don't know if their factor N is the same as that
of somebody else. Oh well, as long as I don't come home grilled...

I would be quite surprised if there wasn't a fairly reproducible degree
of similarity between brands, simply because in these days of accurate
labelling legislation backed up by the considerable legal clout of the
Government and EU I doubt anyone would get away with such a thing as
grossly inflating the apparent quality of their cream.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Gordon Harris said:

I suppose at age 71 some things start to go....

www.viagraonline any help?
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

Paul Rooney <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Gordon Harris said:

I suppose at age 71 some things start to go....

www.viagraonline any help?

Ha ha!
--
Gordon Harris