Need Sunscreen?

**Little Chuchok** · 11-06-2012, 02:14 PM

Using sunscreen is a way of life here in NZ.

During the summer, the News on the TV and Radio always announce "Burn Time" when you are out in the sun.

This dude explains it well

Chris de Freitas: Burn Time Index best under the sun

Chris de Freitas
COMMENT

New Zealanders are risking serious sunburn and skin cancer caused by UV weather forecasts they do not understand.

Summer burn-time warnings have been replaced with a new UV Index, a decision in keeping with an international trend. But among experts the choice of index is a divisive issue.

The pros and cons are particularly important since UV radiation is exceptionally high over New Zealand and skin cancer is by far the most common form of cancer affecting us.

Some 68,000 new cases of skin cancer are diagnosed every year, compared with a total of 16,000 cases for all other forms of cancer. Two out of three New Zealanders will develop skin cancer.

We have the highest rate of melanoma and general skin cancer in the world - 19 per cent more than Australia.

Auckland has become known as the melanoma capital of the world; an estimated one in 10 of its population suffers a cancerous growth at some time. On cloudless summer days, Auckland receives about 10 per cent more sun-burning UV than Dunedin.

Three factors together cause the exceptionally high UV intensities. The first is clear air. A smaller land area in the Southern Hemisphere means there is also less dust in the atmosphere, except over parts of Africa and Australia.

The atmospheric window through which the sun shines down on New Zealand is clearer than almost everywhere else in the world.

Secondly, the Earth is closer to the sun during summer in the Southern Hemisphere than it is during the Northern Hemisphere summer. Because of this, we receive up to 4 per cent more sun-burning UV than places at equivalent latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere.

Thirdly, the protective UV shield in the air over New Zealand has been weakening. It is estimated that ozone losses since 1980 have caused our UV rate to increase by 15 per cent in the past 20 years.

The net result is that UV intensities here can be 15 to 40 per cent higher than that for equivalent locations in the Northern Hemisphere. You can effectively double this UV loading if you are in highly reflective surroundings, such as on a white-sand beach or on the water in an open boat.

A large portion of UV reaches us as so-called diffuse radiation, which does not come directly from the sun. It gets to us indirectly as light scattered by the atmosphere and through clouds. This is why you can be sunburned on overcast days or even in the shade outdoors, or under the brim of your hat.

The new UV Index supersedes the Burn Time Index which has been used previously. As an approximate guide, a UV Index of 12 corresponds to a burn time of about 12 minutes; a UV Index of 6 corresponds to a burn time of 24 minutes, and so on.

The new UV index, like air temperature, is a physical term expressed as a number on a simple linear scale, but interpretation is not intuitive. UV is not warm - we neither feel nor see it. A UV Index of less than 2 is defined as a low exposure level and 11 or above extreme.

Critics of the UV Index cite numerous reasons why the Burn Time Index is preferable. It is well established that weather factors expressed as abstract physical units are more difficult to interpret than indicators that reflect the significance or impact of weather conditions on people, such as the Burn Time Index or Windchill Index.

The UV Index is difficult to translate, thus increasing the uncertainty. On the other hand, the Burn Time Index is easy to understand, in both a relative and absolute sense.

It requires no translation or conversion. Its meaning is intuitive and better suited to the effect UV radiation has on people, one that is both physiological and cumulative.

It is more intuitive to have a measure for a potentially harmful conditions expressed in terms of how long before damage takes place. A burn time is a good indicator of relative risk.

There are large uncertainties in converting UV Index to skin response. "Burn times" are calculated for the worst-case scenario - fair skin and clear skies - without the implicit assumption that the UV will not change over the period.

Critics of the UV Index also point out that the Burn Time Index has been in widespread use internationally for some time and enables comparison between UV levels in New Zealand with other places.

On balance, both indices have their merits and each is a reliable scientific indicator that tells us in one way or another how much ultraviolet radiation there is in the atmosphere. Yet despite the care and good intentions of weather forecasters and years of campaigning by the Cancer Society, so many of us rush carelessly into the sun every summer.

So this summer, as you enjoy the season of sunshine and outdoor living, pay heed to the UV forecast and, above all, make sure you understand what it means.

* Chris de Freitas is an associate professor of geography and environmental science at Auckland University.

Chris de Freitas: Burn Time Index best under the sun - National - NZ Herald News

**natalie8** · 11-06-2012, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sailing into trouble

So anyone know of a safe sunscreen?

Coconut oil.

There are quite a few sites that talk about several benefits of coconut oil, but this one explains how and why it works, along with other benefits.

Coconut Oil For Skin : Sunburn

**taxexile** · 20-10-2012, 08:38 AM

i had a malignant melanoma removed from my shoulder earlier this year. as it hadnt penetrated very deep it in all probability hasnt spread, tests and scans didnt pick up any spread, and my prognosis is excellent. if it had spread my survival chances would be very low, it is a very aggressive cancer and difficult to treat once it spreads. i am very lucky.

i took advice from doctors here in thailand, and sent the tissue samples to a melanoma specialist in the uk for a second opinion /confirmation, and visited him after the operation to remove it.

my melanoma probably started when i was 10 years old and suffered a large blistering sunburn on my shoulder whilst on a family holiday in spain. that kind of sunburn between the ages of eight and fifteen will cause changes in the cells that predispose to melanoma later in life. my cancerous mole was small, it wasnt raised or bleeding, and didnt look too abnormal or strange. i dont know why i noticed it and sought advice, but im glad i did. something about it made me get it checked.

in thailand i try and keep out of the sun, and when in the sun i cover up. i like to swim but always wear a shirt in the pool and i never sunbathe. i swim early mornings or evenings now.

i was advised to use factor 30 or 40 sunblock every day, and to get into the habit of putting it on after showering in the morning.

i was advised to wear uv protective clothing, i havent seen these for sale in thailand, but i bought some shirts in outdoor stores in the uk.

always wear a uv protective hat. i bought a "tilley" hat whilst in the uk and never go out without wearing it now.

i get my skin checked every 3 months by a dermatologist in bangkok. no more melanomas have appeared, but 2 precancerous
lesions have been removed. these are not melanomas, which develop from moles, but solar keratoses which if left can develop into basal cell carcinomas, these are very slow growing, and unlike malignant melanomas, they remain local and do not spread, so are not life threatening, but they are best removed, it takes a second to freeze them off with liquid nitrogen.

if you have any moles that dont look right, that are changing shape, or in a place where you have suffered blistering sunburn in the past, then get them checked.

DONT PUT IT OFF, GET THEM CHECKED.

**Tizmoi** · 21-10-2012, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by taxexile

i had a malignant melanoma removed from my shoulder earlier this year. as it hadnt penetrated very deep it in all probability hasnt spread, tests and scans didnt pick up any spread, and my prognosis is excellent. if it had spread my survival chances would be very low, it is a very aggressive cancer and difficult to treat once it spreads. i am very lucky.

i took advice from doctors here in thailand, and sent the tissue samples to a melanoma specialist in the uk for a second opinion /confirmation, and visited him after the operation to remove it.

my melanoma probably started when i was 10 years old and suffered a large blistering sunburn on my shoulder whilst on a family holiday in spain. that kind of sunburn between the ages of eight and fifteen will cause changes in the cells that predispose to melanoma later in life. my cancerous mole was small, it wasnt raised or bleeding, and didnt look too abnormal or strange. i dont know why i noticed it and sought advice, but im glad i did. something about it made me get it checked.

in thailand i try and keep out of the sun, and when in the sun i cover up. i like to swim but always wear a shirt in the pool and i never sunbathe. i swim early mornings or evenings now.

i was advised to use factor 30 or 40 sunblock every day, and to get into the habit of putting it on after showering in the morning.

i was advised to wear uv protective clothing, i havent seen these for sale in thailand, but i bought some shirts in outdoor stores in the uk.

always wear a uv protective hat. i bought a "tilley" hat whilst in the uk and never go out without wearing it now.

i get my skin checked every 3 months by a dermatologist in bangkok. no more melanomas have appeared, but 2 precancerous
lesions have been removed. these are not melanomas, which develop from moles, but solar keratoses which if left can develop into basal cell carcinomas, these are very slow growing, and unlike malignant melanomas, they remain local and do not spread, so are not life threatening, but they are best removed, it takes a second to freeze them off with liquid nitrogen.

if you have any moles that dont look right, that are changing shape, or in a place where you have suffered blistering sunburn in the past, then get them checked.

DONT PUT IT OFF, GET THEM CHECKED.

Thanks for sharing Taxexile. Can you recommend a good dermatologist? I'd like to get one checked over. Thanks.

**barbaro** · 20-10-2012, 10:07 PM

^ Thanks for sharing taxexile.

That is a scary form of cancer and yes, it does kill.

Good on your preventive measures. I was not aware there is "UV protective clothing."

Is all thick clothing UV protective? No?

And what is a UV protective hat? Do you mean, any thick hat with a good, wide brim?

What is "tilley" hat?

Thanks.

**taxexile** · 20-10-2012, 11:14 PM

Uv shirts etc are just like normal shirts but thefabric hss been treated to make it impenetratable to uv rays, well relatively impenetrable. I was toldby the specialist in the uk that they reduce exposue to harmful uv rays that do penetrate normal cotton clothing. Most outdoor clothing retailers stock this kind of stuff. The shirts I bought are lightweight casual shirts with a uvf of fifty.

Thick clothing is probably uv proof, but unsuitable for thailands climate, and thin cotton shirts, even with a wide brimmed hat will allow rays from an overhead sun to hit my shoulders, just where I dont want them.

I dont want to get too paranoid about being outdoors, but I am very aware of the sun now whereas before I never really gave it much thought. The doc in bkk said they are seeing more and more malignant melanomas in falangs here, and if after biopsy they are found to be deep and advanced they advise a return to the home country as they dont have much experience here with the radiotherapy or chemo options for this cancer once it has spread, nor with the advanced surgical techniques used to deal with late stage malignant melanomas.

People who have moles should get them looked at regularly, especially if they change their size, shape or colour, if malignancy is spotted early, then a simple removal and regular follow ups takes care of it, but once it has reached a certain depth, then the chance of spread via the lymphatic system is increased and the outlook can turn grim. It really is a nasty and aggressive cancer.

Thais hardly ever get malignant melanomas apparently.

Tilley is a canadian manufacturer of hats, they are uv proof, wide brimmed hats, and hard wearing, washable etc, quite stylish too in the indiana jones, national geographic intrepid explorer style They have a website, I bought mine in the uk,but you can buy online too.

**taxexile** · 21-10-2012, 08:12 AM

Sun protective clothing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sun protective clothing is clothing specifically designed for sun protection and is produced from a fabric rated for its level of ultraviolet (UV) protection. A novel weave structure and denier (related to thread count per inch) may produce sun protective properties. In addition, some textiles and fabrics employed in the use of sun protective clothing may be pre-treated with UV inhibiting ingredients during manufacture to enhance their UV blocking capacity.
Not only limited to UV-inhibiting textile use, sun protective clothing may also adhere to specific design parameters - including styling appropriate to full coverage of the skin most susceptible to UV damage. Long sleeves, full collars, and full-length trousers and skirts are common styles for clothing as a sun protective measure.
A number of fabrics and textiles in common use today need no further UV-blocking enhancement based on their inherent fiber structure, density of weave, and dye components - especially darker colors and indigo dyes. Good examples of these fabrics contain full percentages and/or blends of heavy weight natural fibers like cotton, linen and hemp or light-weight synthetics such as polyester, nylon, spandex and polypropylene. Natural or synthetic indigo dyed denim, twill weaves and canvas are also good examples. However, a significant disadvantage is the heat retention caused by heavier weight and darker colored fabrics.
As sun protective clothing is usually meant to be worn during warm and humid temperatures, some UV-blocking textiles and clothing may be designed with ventilated weaves, moisture wicking and antibacterial properties to assist in cooling and breathability.

UV Swimwear
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Fabric
3 UPF rating
4 Summary UPF Testing Protocol
5 See also
6 Footnotes
7 References
[edit]History

Although clothing has been used for protection against solar exposure for thousands of years, in modern times sun protective clothing was popularized (but not exclusively used) in Australia as an option or adjunct to sunscreen lotions and sunblock creams. Sun protective clothing and UV protective fabrics in Australia now follow a lab-testing procedure regulated by a federal agency: ARPANSA.[1] This standard was established in 1996 after work by Australian swimwear companies. The British standard was established in 1998. The NRPB (National Radiological Protection Board) forms the basis of the British Standards Institute standard. Using the Australian method as a model, the USA standard was formally established in 2001, and now employs a more stringent testing protocol: This method includes fabric longevity, abrasion/wear and washability. (To date, the focus for sun protection is swimwear, appropriate hats, shade devices and sunglasses for children.) UPF testing is now very widely used on clothing used for outdoor activities.
The original UPF rating system was enhanced in the United States by the ASTM (American Standards and Testing Methods) Committee D13:65 at the behest of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to qualify and standardize the emerging sun protective clothing and textile industry. The FDA had reviewed clothing making sun protection claims (SPF, % UV blockage, or skin cancer prevention claims) in 1992. Only one brand of sun protective clothing, Solumbra, was reviewed and cleared under medical device regulations. The FDA initially regulated sun protective clothing as a medical device, but latter transferred oversight for general sun protective clothing to the FTC. The UPF rating system may eventually be adopted by interested apparel and domestic textile/fabric manufacturers in the industry at large as a "value added" program strategic to complement consumer safety and consumer awareness.
[edit]Fabric

Factors that affect the level of sun protection provided by a fabric, in approximate order of importance, include weave, color, weight, stretch, and wetness. In addition, UV absorbers may be added at various points in the manufacturing process to enhance UV protection levels. The more open/less dense the fabric, the worse the protection(weave weight stretch).The darker the color, the more dye, the better the protection. Getting a fabric wet reduces the protection as much as half except for silk and viscose which can get more protective when wet. Polyester contains an ester(benzene) ring that absorbs UV light.
There is some indication that washing fabrics in detergents containing fabric brighteners, which absorb UV radiation, might increase their protective capability. Studies at the University of Alberta also suggest that darker colored fabrics can offer more protection than lighter colored fabrics.[2]
Provide better protection:
Specially manufactured fabrics
black or dark blue denim jeans
wool garments
Satin finished silk of any weight
polyacrylonitrile
100%polyester
Shiny polyester blends
tightly woven fabrics
unbleached cotton(most cotton sold is bleached)
Provide low protection:
polyester crepe
bleached cotton
viscose
knits
undyed/white jeans
worn/old fabric
[edit]UPF rating

A relatively new rating designation for sun protective textiles and clothing is UPF (Ultraviolet Protection Factor). Unlike SPF (Sun Protection Factor) that traditionally uses human sunburn testing in a laboratory environment, UPF measures both UV radiation transmittance using a laboratory instrument (spectroradiometer) and an artificial light source and translates these results using a mathematical expression based upon the sunburn action spectrum (erythema action spectrum) integrated over the relevant UV spectrum. Theroretically, both human SPF testing and in vitro laboratory instrument testing measure a product's relative ability to protect against minimal sunburn compared to skin that is not protected.
Developed in 1998 by Committee RA106, the testing standard for sun protective fabrics in the United States is the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) Test Method 183.[3] This method is based on the original guidelines established in Australia in 1994. Below is the ASTM Standard for Sun Protective Clothing and Swimwear which is considered the industry standard in rating such sun protective clothing:
UPF Ratings and Protection Categories
UPF Rating Protection Category % UV radiation Blocked
UPF 15 - 24 Good 93.3 - 95.9
UPF 25 - 39 Very Good 96.0 - 97.4
UPF 40 - 50+ Excellent 97.5 - 99+
[edit]Summary UPF Testing Protocol

AATCC 183 method defines the UPF rating for a fabric/textile as the ratio of UV measured without the protection of the fabric (compared to) with protection of the fabric. For example, a fabric rated UPF 30 means that if 30 units of UV fall on the fabric only 1 unit will pass through. A UPF 30 fabric that blocks or absorbs 29 out of 30 units of UV is therefore blocking 96.7% UV. UPF tests are normally conducted in a laboratory with a spectrophotometer or a spectroradiometer.
AATCC 183 should be used in conjunction with other related standards including American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 6544[4] and ASTM D 6603.[5] ASTM D 6544 specifies simulating the life cycle of a fabric so that a UPF test can be done at the end of a fabric's life cycle – which is when most fabrics provide the most reduced level of UV protection. ASTM D 6603 is a consumer format recommended for visible hangtag and care labelling of sun protective clothing and textiles. A manufacturer may publish a test result to a maximum of UPF 50+.
While there is some correlation between the amount of visible light that passes through a fabric and the amount of UV that passes the same fabric, it is not a strong relationship. Based on some of the new-technology fibers and textiles designed for the sole purpose of UV blocking, it is not always possible to gain a good understanding of the UV protection level of a fabric simply by holding it up and examining how much visible light passes through the fabric.[citation needed]
Sun protective clothing and textile/fabric manufacturers are currently a self-regulating industry in North America, prescribed by the AATCC and ASTM methods of testing.
[edit]See also

Rash Guard
Solar radiation
Sun
Sun bathing
Sunburn
Sunglasses
Sunscreen
Suntanning
Ultraviolet
Umbrellas
UV index
[edit]Footnotes

^ Arpansa.gov
^ Safe in the sun, Consumer Reports, 00107174, Jul2000, Vol. 65, Issue 7
^ AATCC.org
^ ASTM.org
^ ASTM.org
[edit]References

Gies, H.P., Roy, C.R., Elliot, G., & Zongli, W. (1994). "Ultraviolet Radiation Protection Factors for Clothing". Health Physics 67 (2): 131–139. doi:10.1097/00004032-199408000-00003. PMID 8026966.
Gambichler, T., Rotterdam, Altmeyer, P., & Hoffmann, K. (2001). "Protection against ultraviolet radiation by commercial summer clothing: need for standardized testing and labelling". BMC (BioMed Central) Dermatology I: 6–9. doi:10.1186/1471-5945-1-6.
ARPANSA
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) Test Method 183
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D 6544
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D 6603
Stanford, Duncan G., Georgouras, Katherine E. & Pailthorpe, Michael T. (1997). "Rating clothing for sun protection: current status in Australia". Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology & Venereology 8 (1): 12–17. doi:10.1016/S0926-9959(96)00101-8.

**taxexile** · 21-10-2012, 08:20 AM

i go to a dr. chitralada in the dermatology dept. bumrungrad in bangkok.

i just picked her name out of the list, the charges for a consultation are between 1000 to 1300 baht.

this website has a lot of info about melanomas

GenoMEL - the Melanoma Genetics Consortium

tilley hats here

http://www.tilley.com/Hats.aspx

**Tizmoi** · 21-10-2012, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by taxexile

i go to a dr. chitralada in the dermatology dept. bumrungrad in bangkok.

i just picked her name out of the list, the charges for a consultation are between 1000 to 1300 baht.

this website has a lot of info about melanomas

GenoMEL - the Melanoma Genetics Consortium

tilley hats here

http://www.tilley.com/Hats.aspx

Thanks for info

**DrAndy** · 21-10-2012, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by barbaro

And what is a UV protective hat? Do you mean, any thick hat with a good, wide brim?

put a layer of tinfoil inside your normal hat, that works very well

it also stops the aliens reading your mind

**barbaro** · 22-10-2012, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by barbaro

And what is a UV protective hat? Do you mean, any thick hat with a good, wide brim?

put a layer of tinfoil inside your normal hat, that works very well

it also stops the aliens reading your mind

I heeded your advice and tried it yesterday, but it makes my head too hot.

I am thinking of spraying sunscreen on my hat and letting it soak in and dry before going out in the sun wearing it.

**DrAndy** · 22-10-2012, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by barbaro

I am thinking of spraying sunscreen on my hat and letting it soak in and dry before going out in the sun wearing it.

good idea!

another top Viz tip

I went out cycling yesterday in my other hat, the one with a brim rather than the peaked thing

much cooler and it was hot out there

the fabric is thicker and my neck and ears were also protected

it says Camel on the label but I bought it in Cambodia!! so not

**barbaro** · 22-10-2012, 12:33 PM

^ Yes, we need to wear wide-brimmed hat.

Have to cover/protect the ears and neck.

Cheers.

**Looper** · 24-10-2012, 03:33 PM

Australian researchers believe they may have found a link between where women live and their chance of developing breast cancer.

Scientists from the Westmead Cancer Institute reviewed the incidence of breast cancer and local government areas on mainland Australia.

They found women in southern states were much more likely to develop the disease, suggesting low vitamin D levels, due to less sunlight, might be to blame.

Lack of sun exposure linked to breast cancer - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

**bobo746** · 25-10-2012, 01:21 PM

This has been running for years in oz,seems to be working.

Slip Slop Slap Seek Slide - Cancer Council Australia

Thread: Need Sunscreen?

Thread Tools

Display

Hybrid View

Lack of sun exposure linked to breast cancer

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions