[HN Gopher] Benzene detected in many sunscreen products
___________________________________________________________________
Benzene detected in many sunscreen products
Author : rchiba
Score : 358 points
Date : 2021-05-26 16:15 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.valisure.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.valisure.com)
| azinman2 wrote:
| So this is bad, obviously, but I want to plug Valisure and
| consumerlab both. For whatever reason there's so little testing
| out there for both generic drugs and vitamins and supplements,
| and both of these guys really do have our backs. I'm very happy
| to support both to be doing what I feel like the FDA with more
| funding should be doing themselves.
| macinjosh wrote:
| > I'm very happy to support both to be doing what I feel like
| the FDA with more funding should be doing themselves.
|
| IMHO, I prefer an organization like Valisure over the FDA any
| day. Democratic governments must represent all of their
| constituents which means there will always be a path (pressure
| groups, fundraising, etc.) for corporate interests to get
| outcomes they want under the guise of lobbying their
| representatives.
|
| When the organization doing the checking is actually
| independent and setup for the sole purpose of their mission I
| personally feel much more confident in the findings.
| cinntaile wrote:
| Why can't they lobby Valisure?
| nojs wrote:
| On the other hand, there is a parallel thread [1] showing the
| problems with blindly trusting private interests for
| regulation and law enforcement.
|
| 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27295320
| azinman2 wrote:
| Except Valisure has no responsibility to answer to anyone but
| themselves and their own financial interests, and has no
| mandate from congress or ability to respond to legislated
| guidelines.
|
| They so far seem like "the good guys" but Id far rather find
| a way to have a public institution be able to do this without
| worries as to profit or sustainability.
| always_left wrote:
| There's a good book called bottle of lies that talks about how
| overwhelmed the FDA is and how often many products slip through
| the cracks, including generic medicines.
| totalZero wrote:
| In 2019, the FDA budget was 0.86% of the DOD budget.
|
| As in, not within two orders of magnitude.
| delfinom wrote:
| Intentionally overwhelmed. Lawmakers and the revolving door
| heads don't actually want regulation to work.
| [deleted]
| strict9 wrote:
| I didn't know about Valisure and consumerlab, but have used
| Labdoor before buying something new.
|
| Strongly agree this field of testing/validation is desperately
| needed.
| bredren wrote:
| This seems to be true across markets and regulatory levels.
|
| For example, browser extensions must be analyzed by neutral
| third parties because the code can not be trusted to be
| persistently safe with each new publication.
|
| This is similar to different formulations across batches in
| sunscreen.
|
| I've noticed in consumer products like backpacks, the
| hardware (zipper pulls, etc) can sometimes vary in the same
| brand and model. The company does not outwardly acknowledge
| variability, and it is not discussed in product reviews.
|
| Apple made changes to its Secure Enclave Component unusually
| in fall 2020. [1]
|
| Not every update of every product is going to contain a
| shocker. But with the rate of releases and rapid adoption of
| physical and virtual consumer products, we could use less
| unboxing and more hard analysis of what is shipping and it's
| potential for harm.
|
| [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/12/apple-made-security-
| cha...
| GloriousKoji wrote:
| I haven't looked into Labdoor in a while but many years ago
| they weren't very reputable, they had questionable testing
| methodology and their scoring was heavily weighted just based
| on what ingredients were in a product and ignored the claims
| of a labels accuracy.
|
| Did they improve their process over the years or just
| marketing and brand recognition?
| ucha wrote:
| I'm quite surprised that some mineral sunscreens contain benzene
| too... I thought the only use of benzene would be as a reactant
| in the synthesis of some of the chemical sunscreens only.
| asdff wrote:
| It's also used to wash substances. If it was used for that it
| sounds like perhaps they just didn't evaporate the solvent for
| long enough after the wash.
| heavymark wrote:
| Seems like if this is true, it's something that shouldn't be
| behind a paywall. Does anyone have a list of the affected
| products? The actually research data and details I certainly
| support being behind a paywall however. Actually upon a quick
| google found the direct links to the files that list the products
| that are and are not contaminated. Glad that most all EltaMD (the
| most popular on Amazon are not effected but a couple models are).
| tyingq wrote:
| Affected products (starting on page 12):
| https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen...
|
| Products that aren't affected: https://www.valisure.com/wp-
| content/uploads/Attachment-A-Tab...
| purple_ferret wrote:
| >Fruit of the Earth - Gel - Aloe Vera Gel - 2.78 2.94* (ppm
| Benzene)
|
| Aloe Vera Gel? Sounds like straight up terrible quality
| standards to get benzene in an Aloe Vera gel. Stuff like like
| this makes me hesitant to use _any_ product
| pie420 wrote:
| The less chemicals you use, the better. Use simple soaps
| and deoderants, etc.
| tyingq wrote:
| Aloe Vera is supposed to be in that category of "simple".
| envy2 wrote:
| I know aloe vera is often said to be useful in clearing
| benzene and formaldehyde from the air as a houseplant:
| perhaps this is being picked up from the environment,
| rather than any production issue per se?
| [deleted]
| autojoechen wrote:
| Table 2 and 3 of product that have benzene detected starting on
| page 12: https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-
| Citizen...
| mephitix wrote:
| It's not behind a paywall. Scroll down to the bottom of the
| article - there are links to documents with the affected
| products and not affected products. Here's the document with
| the affected documents: https://www.valisure.com/wp-
| content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen...
| [deleted]
| jasonhansel wrote:
| The FDA concentration limits are generally _very_ conservative.
| Is there any evidence that concentrations this low (at most 6ppm)
| are actually harmful, given that this is through skin contact
| rather than inhalation?
| rchiba wrote:
| I found this article through a friend of my wife's who is a
| skincare expert.
|
| Check your cabinets. I actually found the Neutrogena lotion that
| we use in the table of affected products!
|
| List of affected products: https://www.valisure.com/wp-
| content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen...
|
| List of unaffected products: https://www.valisure.com/wp-
| content/uploads/Attachment-A-Tab...
| sergiomattei wrote:
| Yikes. Had a bit of a scare: living in Puerto Rico, I regularly
| use Walgreens SPF50, Neutrogena sunblock and After Sun gel.
|
| The closest UPC was the After Sun, but mine was a couple of
| digits off.
|
| Makes you think what stuff you're putting on that you don't
| know about!
| piercebot wrote:
| How are things in PR these days? I can't imagine what it must
| be like to deal with a pandemic while simultaneously trying
| to rebuild basic infrastructure.
|
| Have you been able to get back to some semblance of normalcy
| yet?
| divbzero wrote:
| Note that the list of affected products has several tables with
| different levels of severity:
|
| - Table 2. Benzene detected at 2 ppm or higher.
|
| - Table 3. Benzene detected at 0.1 ppm to 2 ppm.
|
| - Table 4. Benzene detected at below lower limit of
| quantification (LLOQ).
| benevol wrote:
| Next question:
|
| Why would anyone trust that 100% of what's in vaccines is fully
| declared on the labels?
|
| (In this article, Neutrogena is being accused which is part of
| Johnson & Johnson which produce one of the Covid vaccines
| available.)
| greesil wrote:
| The offending stuff > 2ppm in the list is mostly sprays. With I
| think one exception none of the offenders are zinc oxide,
| either.
| idlewords wrote:
| Why does this stuff make the front page? Gasoline is full of
| benzene, it's not some death chemical.
| carb wrote:
| How often do you rub gasoline on your skin?
| idlewords wrote:
| Every time I fill my gas tank
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| I think you need to aim better.
| doytch wrote:
| Do you smear gasoline on your skin daily?
| envy2 wrote:
| You don't rub gasoline into your skin. This is not hard to
| understand.
| [deleted]
| buildbot wrote:
| Most of the high concentrations are in sprays, which makes some
| intuitive sense, as they sunscreen has to be suspended and
| propelled, which I imagine takes some fancy chemicals to do. Most
| neutrogena lotions are fine for example.
| amelius wrote:
| How much compared to the amount you inhale or get on your skin at
| a gas station?
| datameta wrote:
| Open-source firmware? Color me impressed! And I must laude the
| clean, well thought-out UX of the website.
| plaidfuji wrote:
| Haven't seen anyone point this out but it helped me filter out
| anything in my cabinet pretty quickly: none of the sunscreens
| with >2ppm benzene have SPF <50. In fact there's only one actual
| sunscreen in high end of the list with SPF 50, the rest are 60+.
| Interesting that this also seems to correlate, in addition to the
| spray and brand trends.
| Jimmc414 wrote:
| "Epidemiologic studies and case studies provide clear evidence of
| a causal association between exposure to benzene and acute
| nonlymphocytic leukemia and also suggest evidence for chronic
| nonlymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia." [1]
|
| "There is probably no safe level of exposure to benzene, and all
| exposures constitute some risk in a linear, if not supralinear,
| and additive fashion."[2]
|
| "on marine vessels benzene air concentrations typically range
| from 0.2-2.0 ppm during closed loading and 2-10 ppm during open-
| loading operations" [2]
|
| [1] https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Benzene
|
| [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4360999/
| moultano wrote:
| Should I conclude anything from the fact that almost all of the
| products with high benzene contents are sprays instead of
| lotions?
| [deleted]
| not2b wrote:
| Yes. Don't use sprays. You wind up breathing that stuff as well
| if you do.
| notacoward wrote:
| To clarify further, even the "innocuous" chemicals in
| sunscreen might not be so innocuous when inhaled. Benzene
| doesn't even have to be part of that equation.
| anonymousiam wrote:
| So apparently putting on sunscreen lotion is less healthy than
| not doing so?
| not2b wrote:
| No, the high benzene products are mostly sprays, not lotions.
| 1270018080 wrote:
| Definitely not.
| tyingq wrote:
| Pretty interesting. Some of the products where benzene was
| detected don't even have anything volatile on their list of
| active ingredients. "Ethical Zinc Lotion", is just supposed to be
| 22% zinc oxide, with no Octocrylene, Oxybenzone, etc.
| dylan604 wrote:
| At 22% zinc oxide, you're going to have a layer of white film
| all over you which most people prefer not to have that look.
| asdff wrote:
| zinc sunscreen rubs in if you keep rubbing. it takes longer,
| which i guess most people just shrug and give up and assume
| you are coated in white film, but you can in fact rub it in.
| dylan604 wrote:
| suncreen works by blocking UV rays before getting to the
| skin. how does something rubbed into the skin block UV
| rays?
| etskinner wrote:
| You'd be rubbing it into the top layer of skin, which is
| dead skin cells. The part that gets burned is living, and
| is lower.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Unless the rubbing process transmutes it into other
| elements (congrats on the Nobel, if so!) the zinc is
| still presumably there. The outer layers of your skin are
| dead cells; you're looking to protect the underlying
| dermis.
| istorical wrote:
| tinted mineral suncreens containing iron oxides and other
| natural pigments can be tan / skin tone but still contain
| only zinc or titanium as active ingredients.
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| Does volatility imply constituents?
|
| A quick search shows that oxybenzone is a compound containing
| two carbon rings.
| purple_ferret wrote:
| Benzene is used as a precursor for many solvents (in addition
| to being one itself). IIRC, many things are _washed_ with
| benzene derivatives and that 's where a lot of contamination
| concern is.
| asdff wrote:
| It sounds like manufacturers should just extend the time
| the substrate is on the rotovap to purge the benzene.
| grawprog wrote:
| So going through the list i see Neutrogena a lot. Neutrogena is
| owned by Johnson and Johnson. Sun Pharmaceuticals owns Banana
| Boat, Coppertone is owned by a German company called Beiersdorf,
| CVS Health is the next largest brand to show up and it owns these
| subsidiaries:
|
| CVS Pharmacy, MinuteClinic, CVS Caremark, CVS Specialty, Drogaria
| Onofre, Longs Drugs, Navarro Discount Pharmacies, Accordant,
| Coram, Omnicare, Wellpartner, EncompassRx, Aetna, Grupo DPSP.
|
| These parent companies should be held responsible for the
| products their subsidiaries produce.
| jeffbee wrote:
| I bet if you wait a month, you would get different results.
| These brands are just brands, they buy product in bulk from
| manufacturers you've never heard of and stick it in a bottle
| with a lot of words on it to try to pretend like their product
| is differentiated.
| p49k wrote:
| This might be true at the very low end of the market, but
| most sunscreen brands that people care about enough to have
| loyalty are uniquely sourced products.
| s0rce wrote:
| They aren't using benzene intentionally as an ingredient.
| So even if they aren't just reselling a generic product
| this is likely an impurity in one of the ingredients. It
| doesn't really matter if its a white label or if its custom
| manufactured for the big brand. In the end it could still
| vary next month if the source materials are not
| sufficiently controlled. Although it could be the same if
| the process results in consistent levels of impurities.
| rkk3 wrote:
| Does expiration date reflect a difference in
| manufacturing date? For the listed affected products
| between .1ppm & 2ppm Benzene, Expiration dates range from
| July 2021 to May 2023.
|
| https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-
| Citizen...
| sjg007 wrote:
| Sunscreen is FDA regulated so maybe there will be a crackdown. I
| think they'd prefer people wear sunscreen unless they can
| otherwise coverup though so I am sure there is a line.
| alach11 wrote:
| Initially when I read these low ppm concentrations, I wasn't
| concerned. However even a 1 ppm exposure to benzene in air over
| an 8 hour workday has been shown to be harmful. Hopefully the FDA
| cracks down on this...
| WalterBright wrote:
| I've reduced using sunscreen a lot by wearing a hat with a wide
| brim, and long sleeve shirts when I expect to be outside for a
| while.
|
| Yeah I look stupid in the hat, but one advantage to growing older
| is one quits worrying about that. Besides, my aussie outback hat
| has grown on me :-)
| gher-shyu3i wrote:
| The manufacturers should be sued.
| shoto_io wrote:
| A friend of mine developed a shit free sunscreen.
|
| It's pretty good:
|
| https://new-layer.com/collections/sunscreen
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| I'd love for an oil free sunscreen - I have an OCD-ish type
| tendency where I can't stand to have anything oily on my skin,
| especially my face or hands.
|
| I take some sun protective supplements instead, which work well
| enough where I don't get significantly burned from working
| outside all day.
| float4 wrote:
| Your friend's SPF 50 ingredients list[0]:
|
| Aqua, Diethylhexyl Adipate, Ethylhexyl Salicylate, Pentylene
| Glycol, Decyl Oleate, Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl
| Benzoate, Polyglyceryl-4
| Diisostearate/Polyhydroxystearate/Sebacate, Undecane, Bis-
| Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine, Glycerin,
| Diethylhexyl Butamido Triazone, Tridecane,
| Fructooligosaccharides, Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid,
| Magnesium Sulfate, Zinc Stearate, Hydrogenated Polydecene,
| Hydrogenated Polyisobutene (synthetic, no Paraffin), Beta
| Vulgaris Root Extract, Ethylhexyl Triazone, Hydrogenated
| Poly(C6-14 Olefin), Arginine, Polyglyceryl-3 Polyricinoleate,
| Parfum, Ethylhexylglycerin, Potassium Lactate, Lactic Acid,
| Sodium Phytate, Alcohol, Tocopherol, Helianthus Annuus Seed Oil
|
| Needless to say that I do believe in your friend's expertise
| and intentions. I only posted this to show how impossible it is
| for normal consumers like myself to assess sunscreen quality.
|
| https://new-layer.com/collections/sunscreen/products/pro-vit...
| [deleted]
| callumprentice wrote:
| I copied the entries from the PDF of affected products here:
| https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen...
| and cleaned it up a bit - might be useful for a first pass before
| referring to the PDF for details:
|
| Aveeno Lotion Baby Continuous Protection Sensitive Skin Sunscreen
| Lotion Broad Spectrum SPF 50
|
| Babyganics Spray Kid's Sunscreen Continuous Spray - SPF 50
|
| Banana Boat Spray Kids Max Protect & Play Sunscreen CSpray SPF
| 100
|
| Banana Boat Spray Kids Max Protect & Play Sunscreen CSpray SPF
| 100
|
| Banana Boat Spray Kids Sport Sunscreen Lotion Spray SPF 50
|
| Banana Boat Spray Protective Dry Oil Clear Sunscreen Spray with
| Coconut Oil SPF 15
|
| Banana Boat Spray Simply Protect Kids Sunscreen Spray SPF 50+
|
| Banana Boat Spray Ultra Defense Ultra Mist Clear Sunscreen Spray
| SPF 100
|
| Banana Boat Spray Ultra Sport Clear Sunscreen Spray SPF
|
| Banana Boat Spray UltraMist Deep Tanning Dry Oil Continuous Clear
| Spray SPF 4
|
| Coppertone Spray Whipped Sunscreen Lotion Spray SPF 50
|
| CVS Health Gel After-sun Aloe Vera Moisturizing Gel
|
| CVS Health Lotion 70 Beach Guard Sun Sunscreen SPF 70
|
| CVS Health Lotion Ultra Sheer Broad Spectrum Sunscreen Lotion SPF
| 100
|
| CVS Health Lotion Ultra Sheer Lotion Broad Spectrum Sunscreen SPF
| 45
|
| CVS Health Spray After-sun Aloe Vera Soothing Spray
|
| CVS Health Spray After-sunAloe Vera Soothing Spray
|
| CVS Health Spray Sheer Mist Spray Broad Spectrum Uva/Uvb Cont.
| Spray Sunscreen SPF 70
|
| CVS Health Spray Sport Clear Spray Sunscreen SPF 100+
|
| EltaMD Spray UV Aero Broad-Spectrum Full-Body Sunscreen Spray,
| SPF 45
|
| Equate Lotion Kids Broad Spectrum Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 50
|
| Ethical Zinc Lotion Natural Clear Zinc Sunscreen SPF 50+
|
| Fruit of the Earth Gel Aloe Vera Gel
|
| Goodsense Lotion Sunscreen Lotion
|
| La RochePosay Spray Anthelios Sunscreen Lotion Spray SPF 60
|
| Live Better by CVS Health Spray Body Mineral Spray Sunscreen SPF
| 50
|
| Max Block Lotion Sport Sunscreen Lotion Water Resistance Blue 30
| SPF
|
| Max Block Lotion Sunscreen Lotion 4 Fl Oz Broad Spectrum Water
| Resistant SPF 30
|
| Neutrogena Lotion Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Face Sunscreen SPF 50
|
| Neutrogena Lotion Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch Water Resistant Sunscreen
| SPF 70
|
| Neutrogena Spray Beach Defense Oil-Free Body Sunscreen Spray -
| SPF 100
|
| Neutrogena Spray Beach Defense Spray Body Sunscreen SPF 50
|
| Neutrogena Spray CoolDry Sport Water-Resistant Sunscreen Spray
| SPF 50
|
| Neutrogena Spray CoolDry Sport Water-Resistant Sunscreen Spray
| SPF 70
|
| Neutrogena Spray Invisible Daily Defense Body Sunscreen Broad
| Spectrum SPF 60+
|
| Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Body Mist Sunscreen Broad Spectrum
| SPF 30 Spray
|
| Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Body Mist Sunscreen Broad Spectrum
| SPF 45
|
| Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Weightless Sunscreen Spray, SPF 100+
|
| Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Weightless Sunscreen Spray, SPF 70
|
| Raw Elements Lotion Eco Formula Sunscreen Lotion SPF 30
|
| Raw Elements Lotion Eco Formula Sunscreen Lotion Tin SPF 30
|
| Solimo Lotion Sheer Face Sunscreen Lotion SPF 55
|
| Sun Bum Gel Cool Down Gel
|
| Sun Bum Lotion Oxy Free Zinc Oxide Sunscreen Lotion - SPF 50
|
| Sun Bum Spray After Sun Cool Down Aloe Vera Spray
|
| SunBurnt Gel Advanced After-Sun Gel
|
| TopCare Everyday Lotion Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 70
|
| TopCare Everyday Lotion Ultimate Sheer Sun Lotion Sunscreen SPF
| 55
|
| TopCare Everyday Lotion Ultimate Sheer Sunscreen Lotion SPF 70
|
| Up & Up Gel Clear Aloe Vera Gel
|
| Walgreens Gel After Sun Gel
|
| Walgreens Lotion Broad Spectrum Sport SPF 50 Sunscreen
|
| Walgreens Lotion Sport Lotion Sunscreen SPF 50
|
| Walgreens Lotion Sunscreen Sport SPF 50
| Geee wrote:
| I knew it.. Skin cancer is caused by these products. No wonder
| why skin cancer numbers are going up all the time.
| jpmattia wrote:
| My family recently went through the search for a decent sunscreen
| and settled on this link for useful info about which sunscreens
| have nasty chemicals: https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/
|
| Our search was not exhaustive (and I can't really vouch for the
| link that was used) so if you have a better link, please don't
| keep it a secret.
| istorical wrote:
| ironically after combing through EWG to look at sunscreens,
| came to the conclusion that the absolute most conservative
| approach is to use mineral sunscreens with non-nano zinc or
| titanium particles. brands such as badger and raw elements are
| in that category, but they often leave an undesirable white
| cast. which leads one to tinted versions (that contain natural
| pigment to make the white cream instead skin tone color).
|
| but guess what, after an exhaustive search over a couple years
| that led to Raw Elements daily moisturizer with SPF 30, it
| turns out Raw Elements is in this list of affected products!
| guess you just can't win!
| dcolkitt wrote:
| I'm gonna make a radical suggestion. Maybe just try ditching
| sunscreen altogether. Yes, it's probably true that exposure to
| the sun increases the risk of skin cancer. But in the US skin
| cancer accounts for fewer than 1% of all deaths.
|
| In contrast the quintile of people with the highest exposure to
| the sun have _half_ the all-cause mortality as the quintile
| with the lowest sun exposure.[1] In particular sunbathers enjoy
| significantly lower rates of heart disease, liver cancer, colon
| cancer, and neurodegenerative disease.
|
| It seems counterintuitive, but it's probably smart to accept
| the higher risk of skin disease. If you quadruple your skin
| cancer risk, but lower your heart disease risk by 10%, you're
| still ahead of the game. Heart disease is 50 times as likely to
| kill you.
|
| Unless you're going to be outside for very extended periods of
| time, ditch the sunscreen. It's not needed unless you're at the
| point of burning. Getting a healthy tan is just that healthy
| and natural.
|
| [1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24697969/
| anoraca wrote:
| Why do you feel qualified to offer medical advice like this?
| Are you a medical doctor?
| dcolkitt wrote:
| Medical doctors are no more trained to digest scientific
| evidence than anyone else. Especially when it comes to
| population epidemiology.
|
| Statistical illiteracy is widespread among medical
| doctors.[1] There's no reason to trust a doctor to
| interpret a p-value. For these types of questions you're
| much better off listening to a data scientist because they
| have actual training in interpretative statistics.
|
| [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693708/
| piercebot wrote:
| They linked a study from a medical journal. Are you asking
| for additional qualifications? Should there be restrictions
| on who is allowed to share scholarly articles?
| datameta wrote:
| This is a somewhat counterintuitive idea that actually makes
| sense for a lot of people. However I must note that there are
| those taking medications that increase their skin cancer risk
| as a side effect. For them the risk calculation may be
| different.
| smileysteve wrote:
| Less radical suggestion; wear UPF clothing, avoid the most
| direct sunlight part of the day; saves the chemicals, saves
| the reefs, and reduce likelihood of skin cancer.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| You'd get burnt in 15 minutes in NZ or AU. Maybe 30 if
| you're in shade. Even with best protection (spf 70 and
| shade), I still get burnt after half day on the water.
| nerdponx wrote:
| At the beginning of spring and summer, I need sunscreen to
| avoid burning in a surprisingly short amount of time. Later
| in the season when/if I've accumulated a decent tan I can go
| without. But I usually am not shirtless and therefore not
| tanning my upper body, so I need it pretty much no matter
| what if I go to the beach.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > In particular sunbathers enjoy significantly lower rates of
| heart disease, liver cancer, colon cancer, and
| neurodegenerative disease.
|
| That's mildly interesting, but without analysis that controls
| for confounding causes, I wouldn't drive lifestyle choices.
| RankingMember wrote:
| Thanks. As amazing as the internet is for being such a wealth
| of information, at the same time simple questions like "which
| damn sunscreen should I buy" can end in hours of scrolling and
| wheel-spinning. Sites like this help a lot (as long as there's
| not a billion of them).
| gwittel wrote:
| We went through a similar search recently. Part of the
| challenge is that the US rules are well behind Europe and Asia
| in terms of whats OK or not ingredient wise. With the new push
| toward reef friendly ingredients, it also complicates things.
| Physical barriers like Zinc generally offer reasonable UVB
| (this is the SPF rating) protection, but poor UVA (not sure
| there is a rating in US, but you'll see PA++++... on imports).
|
| Ingredients approved in EU and Asia that offer solid UVA and
| UVB protections are not yet legal in the US [1]. So we get
| older 'less good' or 'less reef friendly' ingredients instead.
|
| We ended up buying some imported from EU sunscreen. The US
| market formulation was actually different and lacked the UVA
| protection.
|
| [1] https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/official-
| correspondence/co...
| axolotlgod wrote:
| Just curious, what EU brand/brands did you end up going with?
| I couldn't find anything specific to that on the EWG website.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| I use the Shiseido brand on my family. They are benzene-
| free according to ConsumerLab and Valisure. I believe they
| are Japanese but readily available in the US. As a bonus,
| it is probably the best-feeling sunscreen I've used
| (lightweight and not clammy). Downside is a large bottle is
| almost $50.
| gwittel wrote:
| Currently using:
|
| * La Roche Posay Dermo Pediatrics Lotion SPF 50. There is a
| USA version, but its a different active ingredient vs the
| EU version. EU version has UVA/UVB ratings, US version is
| UVB only due to different active ingredients.
|
| * UltraSun Face Fluid SPF 50
|
| Previously used:
|
| * Anessa and Shiseido. Preferred the above for both feel
| and performance.
|
| * Think Kids/Baby SPF 50 (Zinc). Its OK as a physical
| barrier, but lacks UVA protection. They also just
| reformulated it so unclear how performance is impacted.
|
| I'm not sure what EWG will say about the EU ingredients.
| EWG tends to be very cautious, possibly too cautious. They
| give me vibes of natural=best or over alarmist; leaving out
| context (requires 100000x normal dose, etc.).
| vvpan wrote:
| Sprays do the worst by a big margin.
| minikites wrote:
| It seems to me that it's been proven over and over again that
| market pressure has insufficient power to ensure consumer safety
| or product efficacy. That argument is often a tactic to blame the
| victim for corporate malfeasance or carelessness. For example,
| you should actually look up what happened to the woman who
| spilled McDonalds coffee on her lap instead of believing all of
| the '90s sitcom jokes about it.
|
| A powerful government is needed to check the power of
| corporations and there need to be consequences for the
| corporation and its leaders which cause actual harm, so they
| don't just treat it as another cost to their business.
| morsch wrote:
| On a related note: _Benzophenone Accumulates over Time from the
| Degradation of Octocrylene in Commercial Sunscreen Products_
|
| https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.0c00461
| jashephe wrote:
| I'd be quite interested to see if there's any correlation
| between Valisure's measurements and time elapsed since
| manufacture for each lot.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Gasoline has around 2% Benzene in it, by the way. That's
| 20,000ppm vs 6ppm for the worst offenders here. Crazy we let
| teenagers pump this stuff and then the rest of us just breathe in
| the fumes.
| soheil wrote:
| Yeah but hopefully you don't rub that stuff all over your face
| and just pump it into your car.
| mod wrote:
| I frequently get some on my hands when filling the mower or
| doing similar tasks.
|
| Touching the funnel or the pour spout. Sometimes
| troubleshooting engines, sometimes spilling at the station.
|
| I don't use sunscreen often, and I'd guess I've touched
| gasoline more frequently than sunscreen in my life.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I got a bunch all over me while working on the jetski this
| weekend. Whee
| soheil wrote:
| It's important to keep in mind the exposure frequency, with
| sunscreen some people use it daily or more.
| fieryskiff11 wrote:
| huge and freaky brah
| woliveirajr wrote:
| And some brands/products even have a 70% Std.Dev... seems to be
| more manufacturing inconsistency and bad quality control.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Pretty sure age is a big factor. The components of many
| sunscreens (non mineral) break down into benzene. They
| recommend throwing out your unused sunscreen after every
| year.
| RALaBarge wrote:
| Sorry to ask, but did you have a source for this?
| giantg2 wrote:
| https://phys.org/news/2017-06-sunscreen-creams-dangerous-
| che...
| tape_measure wrote:
| I can't tell if this is sarcasm. Anyway, I think my exposure to
| gasoline is higher than to sunscreen.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Not sarcasm. After driving electric for a while (used are
| affordable... at least until the last couple months when the
| price of used cars went through the roof), the smell of
| gasoline seems especially pungent.
| soheil wrote:
| Funny you say that because I specially like the smell of
| gasoline, kind of like smell of glue or diesel exhaust. I
| know, kind of weird but I know a lot of other people who
| are in the same boat.
| kens wrote:
| There's a relevant line from the book "Generation X"
| about gasoline: "Isn't the smell of gasoline great? Close
| your eyes and inhale. So _clean_. It smells like the
| _future_. "
|
| (The 1991 book "Generation X" is what popularized the
| term "Generation X", for those who didn't know there was
| a book.)
| asdff wrote:
| Some people are actually turned on by the smell of
| gasoline somehow
| nitrogen wrote:
| I've heard but cannot verify that eating more potassium
| will make it smell bad again. That is, that a mineral
| deficiency may cause some things to smell good that
| otherwise wouldn't.
| soheil wrote:
| Funny how seemingly unrelated stuff tells you something
| as fundamental as this about someone. I wonder what other
| deep secrets about our lives we're exposing that we're
| completely unaware of by just being ourselves.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| I know someone who had an intensely positive reaction to
| wet, musky smells (think basements, dirt, old carpets,
| that sort of thing). Their doctor put them on vitamins
| for a separate issue and the attraction went completely
| away.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Gas stations already have fume extractors though.
| gengelbro wrote:
| Not universally, here in Colorado it's 20/80 with/without.
| af16090 wrote:
| Where did you get the 2% figure from? The EPA says "[t]he
| national benzene content of gasoline today is about 1.0
| vol%"[0]. Not that 1% is much better but I'm still curious
| where your figure comes from.
|
| [0]: https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-mobile-
| sourc...
| wolfretcrap wrote:
| One day I had to siphon the gasoline out of my car for some
| work....and I ended up with gasoline in my mouth
| contemporary343 wrote:
| This is why you should live as far away from a gas station as
| you can!
| t0mbstone wrote:
| What if skin cancer was actually caused by sun screen?
|
| Wouldn't that be ironic, don't ya think?
| BTCOG wrote:
| You can get throat cancer from simply drinking hot water daily
| for extended periods of time. In which case, water itself is
| the carcinogen with applied heat. Same with drinking way too
| hot of coffee for extended years. The dose makes the poison,
| and nearly everything (including water, a solvent itself) can
| become a carcinogen.
| spfzero wrote:
| As ironic as obesity being caused by low-fat, high-carb diet
| recommendations?
| [deleted]
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| No? There is nothing surprising about a cancer having more than
| 1 cause since more than 1 thing can cause damage to DNA.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| The irony is people use sunscreen to avoid getting skin
| cancer, and OP is pointing out it may be causing it instead.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| That's why you need to look at all-cause mortality. Trying
| really hard to prevent one cancer may create enough other
| issues to outweigh your efforts.
|
| The benzene and sunblock ingredients aren't just absorbing
| into the skin, but into the whole body. The evidence is
| good that they prevent skin cancer, but...
|
| The evidence on sunblock improving all-cause mortality
| isn't clear.
|
| Here's one study that didn't find a mortality difference
| between daily and discretionary sunblock use:
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30885518/
| CydeWeys wrote:
| ... quite possibly still not as much as if they hadn't used
| it, though. So maybe not that ironic.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Or quite possibly far more than if they hadn't used it,
| if we're just going to make things up.
| anoonmoose wrote:
| There is something surprising about a cancer being caused by
| a treatment that is intended to prevent that same cancer for
| occurring though
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Oh, I misinterpreted it as the sun not causing skin cancer
| for anyone, but rather sunscreens.
| cholmon wrote:
| Sure, but skin cancer caused by the very stuff that's
| supposed to help prevent it? A little too ironic, I really do
| think.
| swayvil wrote:
| It's a very neat way to make money.
|
| Other possibilities :
|
| A drug that promises to make you feel good that actually makes
| you feel bad.
|
| A vaccine that promises to cure you that actually makes you
| ill.
|
| An economic system that promises prosperity while creating
| poverty.
|
| Food that creates malnourishment.
|
| It's pretty obvious when you think about it. All you need is a
| bunch of cheap poison and a good marketing campaign.
| not2b wrote:
| It might be caused by using the wrong sunscreen, but there are
| plenty of products that are safer. The Environmental Working
| Group has a good list: https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/
| istorical wrote:
| Raw Elements is one of the main brands you'd pick if you use
| EWG as your sole resource in analyzing compositions, and Raw
| Elements is on this list of affected products. So EWG may not
| be enough.
| [deleted]
| rangoon626 wrote:
| Take that same thinking to other personal care and cleaning
| products, and start to go through your bathroom and kitchen.
| You'll be surprised at what we're being low-grade poisoned with
| each day.
| mnd999 wrote:
| Well that's what this is saying, some sunscreens contain
| unacceptably high levels of carcinogens. It's not a huge
| logical leap to go from there to some people getting skin
| cancer from the sunscreen. That doesn't mean you aren't also at
| risk of getting skin cancer from excess sun exposure.
| everdrive wrote:
| It's sort of a shame when there are perfectly non-
| carcinogenic methods for avoiding the sun. Wear long-sleeves
| and and big hat.
| reader_x wrote:
| My basic research suggests benzene exposure is not associated
| with skin cancer: " Benzene works by causing cells not to
| work correctly. For example, it can cause bone marrow not to
| produce enough red blood cells, which can lead to anemia.
| Also, it can damage the immune system by changing blood
| levels of antibodies and causing the loss of white blood
| cells."
| https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.asp
|
| Anecdotally, my mother died of multiple myeloma, a cancer
| related to bone marrow and blood, which is often misheard as
| "melanoma" (but that's a different cancer). Her oncologist
| told me her cancer was associated with benzene exposure, but
| until now I could not imagine how she might have been
| exposed.
| contemporary343 wrote:
| A related point: check how close you (and your kids especially)
| live/ work/ go to school near a gas station. Benzene exposure
| from living near a gas station is surprisingly high and there's a
| definition cancer correlation.
| dcolkitt wrote:
| How close is close out of curiosity?
| contemporary343 wrote:
| The regulated minimum is around 300 feet, but I'd double that
| as a minimum (and depending on wind directions):
| https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-
| now/news...
| mocmoc wrote:
| https://codecheck-app.com/
| erulabs wrote:
| Neutrogena is owned by Johnson and Johnson - which just payed out
| on a case relating to cancer from baby-powders [1]. Combined with
| Neutrogena being more or less _very high_ in benezine content and
| J&J having a very deep suite of cancer treatment drugs [2]...
| This seems like a horrific story of a self-fulfilling product
| pipeline. I know they're a giant organization and suggesting
| conspiracy is a bit insane but I can't help but think I'll be
| avoiding J&J and all their subsidiary brands actively from here
| on out. At very least, their quality control for one of the
| biggest manufacturers on earth is awful.
|
| 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/health/baby-powder-
| cancer...
|
| 2. https://www.barrons.com/articles/johnson-johnson-stock-
| pipel...
| TheManInThePub wrote:
| > Johnson and Johnson - which just payed out on a case relating
| to cancer from baby-powders
|
| I asked this question in another post and did not get a reply.
|
| The US links sited state no evidence for talc causing cancer. A
| search of the NHS website also suggests no clear evidence [1].
| Cancer Research (a respected UK charity) give a layman's
| summary (albeit focusing on ovarian cancer), stating no clear
| evidence and pointing out that there are far more serious risks
| to worry about [2].
|
| Given the above, what is the hype about? Is this because the US
| is so _insanely_ litigious?
|
| [1]
| https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?om=[{%22ety%22:[%22Inform...
|
| [2] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-
| canc...
|
| EDIT: Down votes for asking a genuine question? Shame on you.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Is this because the US is so insanely litigious?
|
| Part of it is the weird setup of jury trials for civil cases,
| especially impactful in cases revolving around fairly
| technical, detail-oriented stuff like malpractice.
|
| Twelve randomly selected lay people may not be the best
| determiners of scientific evidence and in-depth statistical
| analysis.
| linuxftw wrote:
| It's enough to put people to death, so it should be enough
| for everything else.
| seiferteric wrote:
| At least that requires unanimous decisions vs civil cases
| where it just has to be the majority.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The legal standard for a conviction/judgement also
| changes, from "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal to
| "preponderance of the evidence" in civil- i.e. 99.9%
| certainty becomes 51% certainty.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Twelve randomly selected lay people shouldn't get to
| decide to allow the State to kill people, either.
| linuxftw wrote:
| No argument here. I was just point out how trivial our
| systems are, and we still kill other humans based on the
| feelings other humans.
| swiley wrote:
| >The US links sited state no evidence for causing cancer.
|
| It's _benzine._ It 's a known carcinogen, no need for
| empiricism here.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| The links are about talcum powder, not sunscreen. Totally
| separate type of product that has nothing to do with
| benzene.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| There are lots of known carcinogens for which the dosage is
| important. For example... sunlight.
|
| There's a reason the "this product contains a chemical
| known to the State of California to cause cancer" warning
| labels are a bit of a joke, after all.
| nyolfen wrote:
| benzene is not one of those
| ceejayoz wrote:
| One molecule of benzene will guarantee a cancer case?
| rkk3 wrote:
| You aren't guaranteed to die from being shot in the head
| either. However there are things which the medical
| community recognizes have no safe level of exposure.
|
| From the original article: "The toxicity of benzene in
| humans has been well established for over 120 years. The
| hematotoxicity of benzene has been described as early as
| 1897. A study from 1939 on benzene stated that "exposure
| over a long period of time to any concentration of
| benzene greater than zero is not safe," which is a
| comment reiterated in a 2010 review of benzene research
| specifically stating "There is probably no safe level of
| exposure to benzene, and all exposures constitute some
| risk in a linear, if not supralinear, and additive
| fashion."
| kvna wrote:
| It's presumably not the talc but the asbestos found in the
| talc deposits that makes its way into the baby powder
| mikeyouse wrote:
| We know that asbestos causes mesothelioma and that J&J baby
| powders contained asbestos since talc/asbestos are often
| found together in mines.
|
| J&J knew for decades that they were shipping asbestos to
| consumers in a powder form that's regularly inhaled -- they
| ghost-wrote and sponsored studies to deny that asbestos
| existed in their products and lied to the FDA in their
| disclosures..
|
| https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-
| report/johnsona...
|
| It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc
| has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know
| causes cancer.
| saul_goodman wrote:
| And guess what? Aftermarket brake pads are still made with
| asbestos! New vehicles sold in North America no longer have
| asbestos pads, but if you have had a vehicle long enough to
| have new pads put on then your car almost certainly has
| asbestos pads now!
|
| https://www.theasbestosinstitute.com/2020/05/27/asbestos-
| in-... https://www.autoserviceworld.com/jobbernews/growing-
| threat-a...
|
| So, if you happen to still do your own brake work, remember
| to spray down the parts with a water mister before you
| handle them to keep the dust from getting into the air.
| Vacuuming up any brake dust left behind is probably a bad
| idea too, wetting it down and handling as a liquid is
| safer.
| TheManInThePub wrote:
| > It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some
| talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which
| we know causes cancer.
|
| So no evidence, just suspicion?
|
| I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why
| the US courts have ruled the way they have.
|
| EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain
| yourselves. Are people defending something without
| evidence?
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| It's not uncommon, science does not hold the ultimate
| truth of the world, it's a complex system based on
| intuition and beliefs and politics. Medical
| responsibility is highly complex and it does not follow
| the same rules (thankfully). In Europe, courts have been
| compensating people who got multiple sclerosis induced by
| the Hep B vaccine for decades even though there is no
| evidence of a causal link.
| jacobwilliamroy wrote:
| The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the
| talc to cause cancer, and multiple executives at Johnson
| and Johnson knew, and people who used it got cancer. I'm
| not sure how you could believe the people who unknowingly
| inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do
| not have standing.
| TheManInThePub wrote:
| Thank you for being the first person to post an
| informative reply rather than down voting a question. HN
| is turning into reddit.
|
| > I'm not sure how you could believe
|
| Though this is unnecessarily insulting.
|
| > the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed
| it all over their babies do not have standing.
|
| If the concentration was so low as to be negligible (as
| the links I have posted state) then why the successful
| litigation? This is the question I am asking!
|
| > The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the
| talc to cause cancer,
|
| This is the evidence I am asking for. The NHS and other
| respected UK bodies state differently. This seams to be a
| purely US issue and I am asking why.
| jacobwilliamroy wrote:
| Researchers at Johnson & Johnson detected unsafe levels
| of asbestos in the talc as part of their own internal
| testing. There are internal emails that show high level
| executives asking researchers to switch to a less
| sensitive test which would allow them to make the
| concentration of asbestos appear lower than it really
| was. I remember that when the story first dropped, the
| people writing J&J's press releases were very careful to
| use only the present tense when discussing the asbestos
| levels in their talcum products which implies to me that
| they did eventually rectify it. That's all I know. I
| didn't follow the story for very long.
| contrahax wrote:
| The information in the article posted by the person
| you're responding to answers your questions - J&J knew
| their product had high levels of asbestos and hid it from
| regulators while doing nothing about it. There absolutely
| was evidence of this, if you would read any of the
| information posted above. If I sold you a bottle of water
| with enough asbestos in it to give you cancer, knew about
| it, and didn't tell you: that would be illegal - it is
| pretty straightforward.
| foerbert wrote:
| Can't even downvote myself, but my guess is that it's
| related to the extremity of your position. It sounds a
| lot like you're saying since we know cyanide is poisonous
| by itself, it's very strange to be able to win a lawsuit
| if you find significant amounts of cyanide in your bread.
| Most bread is fine, right? So merely finding cyanide in
| it should only count as suspicion of a problem and not
| count as evidence... seems to be what you're saying.
| telchar wrote:
| That's an interesting example to choose, because almonds
| have a small amount of cyanide naturally. I think that
| highlights that quantity matters
| TheManInThePub wrote:
| Cyanide occurs naturally in apple cores. It is the dose
| that makes the poison.
|
| The UK links I have cited say the low levels are not an
| issue. I've genuinely asked what evidence the US courts
| are using and I appear to have come up against group
| think. I did not expect this on HN.
|
| I'd genuinely appreciate it if somebody can provide
| evidence citing the risk is other than negligible.
| craftinator wrote:
| Asbestos -> Cancer.
|
| Safe amount = 0.
| TheManInThePub wrote:
| What an inane response. Perhaps I can counter with
|
| Alcohol -> Cancer.
|
| Safe amount = 0.
|
| Alcohol content of fresh bread > 0
| foerbert wrote:
| This is why I specified significant amounts, but the
| exact details of my highly contrived example are
| obviously not that important.
|
| If you phrased it the way you phased this response, I
| think you would have gotten a better response.
|
| You didn't phrase it as "I have reason to believe certain
| levels are not a problem, and I am unaware of the levels
| recorded in the lawsuit. Where they high enough to be a
| problem?"
|
| You instead phrased it far more absolute terms that
| stated that 'merely' finding a dangerous substance in a
| product was not evidence of it being dangerous. It
| absolutely is evidence. It may not be sufficient evidence
| on it's own, but each piece of evidence does not need to
| be sufficient to prove the case entirely on it's own.
| Your statements have also carried the extremely strong
| implication - and that's being generous - that the US
| courts were definitely wrong. I don't think anybody read
| your posts and thought you were requesting information
| and not stating a strong position in defense of J&J.
|
| People have limited time and effort. You made it as
| difficult as possible to get the information you wished.
| I wouldn't blame this one on HN groupthink.
| njovin wrote:
| From the parent comment's link:
|
| > A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as
| well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from
| at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company's raw talc
| and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small
| amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine
| managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over
| the problem and how to address it while failing to
| disclose it to regulators or the public.
|
| I think you're being downvoted for not RTFA, not for
| asking a question.
| TheManInThePub wrote:
| > sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos
|
| And the question I have asked is where is the evidence
| that such small quantities are a risk? The UK links I
| have posted suggest otherwise. This is why I am asking.
|
| I'm puzzled... are the US courts are saying "OMG
| Asbestos" rather than looking at safe levels? What if the
| same courts said "OMG 5G" ! This is why I am asking a
| genuine question.
| gmadsen wrote:
| conspiracy to falsify info to regulators is a crime by
| itself
| 0xFF0123 wrote:
| As other comments have pointed out, talcum powder in its
| pure form is talc, which is a mineral and safe. The issue
| is that some cosmetics were contaminated with asbestos,
| which is not safe.
| alsetmusic wrote:
| If this gets another "shame on you" edit, I'd reflect on
| we people are downvoting you. Fwiw, I haven't voted on
| your comments either way.
| TheManInThePub wrote:
| If people could explain why they are down voting honest
| questions I would appreciate it.
|
| I've never heard of claimed talc-cancer links in the UK.
| rkk3 wrote:
| Because there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos.
|
| From the above Reuters article "The World Health
| Organization and other authorities recognize no safe
| level of exposure to asbestos. While most people exposed
| never develop cancer, for some, even small amounts of
| asbestos are enough to trigger the disease years later."
|
| https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-
| report/johnsona...
| makomk wrote:
| As I understand it, there's also trace levels of
| naturally-occurring asbestos pretty much everywhere
| humans live, so there's also no way to completely avoid
| exposure.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| The impact is cumulative so unavoidable environmental
| exposure _increases_ the concern about additional
| exposure from consumer products.
| acomjean wrote:
| Asbestos has to be in a "friable" form for it to be bad.
| The particles are so small they can get into deep your
| lungs.
|
| I actually was at a landfill expansion project where a
| backhoe digging down through the trash hit some bags
| labeled asbestos. I'm glad it was raining. Also worked in
| a building with asbestos in the floor tiles. Fine when
| not disturbed, but anytime they had to remove them it was
| a production.
|
| https://ehs.oregonstate.edu/asb-when
|
| https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/haz/haz07b.htm
| jliptzin wrote:
| In high school I helped a friend rip up the floor tiles
| in his basement which were probably from the 50s. Years
| later I realized I could have been exposed to asbestos,
| is there any way to know whether asbestos would have been
| in the particular tiles I was ripping up?
| soperj wrote:
| You can get the tiles tested if you still have access to
| any of them.
| TheManInThePub wrote:
| > Because there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos.
|
| I think we are getting to the bottom of this :-)
|
| The UK Health and Safety Executive state...
|
| "The control limit for asbestos is 0.1 asbestos fibres
| per cubic centimetre of air (0.1 f/cm3). The control
| limit is not a 'safe' level and exposure from work
| activities involving asbestos must be reduced to as far
| below the control limit as possible."[1]
|
| Maybe this is where the differences arise. The UK are
| comfortable with a minimum practical level where risks
| are very low, whereas the US state none at all.
|
| Thank you for helping answer a question and not
| mindlessly clicking on down vote. HN is beginning to turn
| into Reddit rather than seeking inquisitive
| technical/scientific conversation.
|
| [1] https://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/regulations.htm
| rkk3 wrote:
| That link has to deal with regulation and risk mitigation
| for removing Asbestos, not selling a consumer product
| with Asbestos.
|
| The UK took its time but they did fully ban Asbestos in
| 1999.
| matco11 wrote:
| Talc is a mineral in clay mined from underground deposits.
| It's the softest mineral known to man and that makes it
| useful in a wide range of consumer and industrial products.
| Asbestos is also found underground, and veins of it can often
| be found in talc deposits, leading to a risk of cross-
| contamination, geologists say.
|
| Full article here:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/business/talc-asbestos-
| po...
| pkaye wrote:
| Talc comes from the ground so sometimes there are veins of
| asbestos deposits interspersed. I think they screen out those
| sections with high asbestos contents but it might not be
| perfect enough so there might be trace contents.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| I see people started downvoting this, if you do, please
| explain why.
| jacksnipe wrote:
| Because J&J didn't get in trouble for talc being
| carcinogenic. J&J got in trouble for their talc being
| contaminated with asbestos, which is definitely
| carcinogenic.
| dqv wrote:
| You have got to give people more than 6 minutes to respond
| with a counter-argument, especially if you want a
| thoughtful answer.
| leesalminen wrote:
| Makes you wonder what else J&J could be doing to other products
| they manufacture.
| chmod600 wrote:
| I didn't find neutrogena in the original article or either of
| your links. Where does it say that's high in benzene?
| hristov wrote:
| The original article has a link to a petition the lab is
| making to the government. There they show a table of
| sunscreens sorted by concentration of benzene. Most of the
| top 20 entries are nutrogena.
| notacoward wrote:
| I think that's a bit misleading. The clearest pattern I see
| in that data is that _sprays_ are particularly bad. The top
| of the list is dominated by them, out of all proportion to
| their prevalence in the market overall. Any manufacturer
| who makes a lot of different products, and particularly
| spray products, is likely to have some entries on that
| list. Indeed, if you look at Appendix A (the "not
| detected" list) you'll find a ton of other products from
| Neutrogena, Banana Boat, and all the other big players. And
| a much lower percentage of sprays.
|
| Without adjusting for the number of products a vendor
| makes, and how closely they're related (e.g. 70SPF vs.
| 50SPF versions of the same thing), you're going to get the
| wrong idea of who the "bad guys" are. For example, "Fruit
| of the Earth" has only one product on either list, and it's
| on the bad one. Would you buy their product over a
| Neutrogena gel or lotion?
| nashashmi wrote:
| JnJ tries to label each product differently so that bad name
| from one does not affect the name of the other. Such as in the
| case of Tylenol recall.
|
| How do you know that other product lines are not affected by
| one raw supplier. Maybe there was some pollutant in a supply of
| product A that lots of companies use and put in their own
| products. They would also be affected.
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| From what I've seen, it's not that uncommon (eg the GM street
| car consipiracy). Companies aren't as overt as they used to be,
| but I think they still do it. One example I'm curious about is
| investment firms ownership in US car companies prior to the
| spike in oil prices and great recession.
| ChickeNES wrote:
| > From what I've seen, it's not that uncommon (eg the GM
| street car consipiracy).
|
| And much like the GM street car conspiracy it's just that, a
| conspiracy theory:
| https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/20/16340038/los-angeles-
| streetc...
| JoeyBananas wrote:
| I'm sure glad I took that Johnson and Johnson vaccine
| buovjaga wrote:
| All around classy company:
| https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas...
|
| Quote from the article:
|
| "Oh, they've already reserved for that stuff," one of them told
| me during a coffee break. He meant that in Johnson & Johnson's
| financials, there had been money taken from earnings and put
| into a column vaguely called "accrued liabilities," in order to
| account for the expected billions that might still have to be
| paid out in verdicts or settlements.
|
| --------
|
| I wonder how their accrued liabilities column looks like for
| the sunscreen products.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| _They will settle for 50 million. And sure, that 's a lot of
| money, but not to them, not really. We started a rainy-day
| fund just for this occasion. The fund itself has already made
| five times that amount._
| infogulch wrote:
| If anybody ever wondered, this is a concrete example of what
| it looks like when a company treats its negative
| externalities as a "cost of doing business".
| WalterBright wrote:
| In America, you could have a product that saves 1000 lives
| but kills 1, and you'll get your pants sued off for the
| one.
| foerbert wrote:
| This is one of those things that sounds bad on first
| glance, but doesn't withstand deeper scrutiny. It's
| largely either a good thing or else not true.
|
| If the 1000 lives were not in imminent danger or else
| could have been saved by other means, it's not trivially
| true that only killing 1 in 1000 should be neglected. How
| does that compare to the alternative methods? Could it
| have been avoided with small or reasonable changes to the
| product? Were people properly informed of the risks?
| There's a bunch of stuff to unpack here. It's not
| trivially and obviously true that it's A Bad Thing to get
| sued if you save 1000 lives and kill 1.
|
| On the other hand, if you are in the situation where
| those 1000 people are absolutely going to die imminently,
| your product has the only possible chance of saving them,
| and in the end 1 person dies sooner than they would have
| without treatment... you're not going to see a major and
| massive lawsuit out of this. You can be sued, but your
| annoying neighbor can also sue you for being annoying if
| they want. Doesn't mean it'll go anywhere, or that you'll
| lose your pants from it.
| WalterBright wrote:
| The government provides immunity for vaccine producers
| because of this.
|
| Another example is nuclear power.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| That is sort of an inevitable human behavior, you just have
| to make the cost high enough.
| loceng wrote:
| And continue the liability to include the chains of
| command during the times of malpractice.
| abfan1127 wrote:
| this is interesting. Given the biodiversity of human
| beings, it should be safe to say that any product may have
| negative consequences at scale. Certainly the HN crowd can
| appreciate what it means to work at scale. The fact that
| J&J knows these consequences exist and plans for them makes
| them evil? If your company planned on extra engineering
| resources strictly to assist launch issues, is that evil?
|
| Evil comes from them knowing issues and shipping anyways
| (see the opioid crisis). Being prepared for adverse
| outcomes is just common sense.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| One is accepting the risk of not knowing almost infinite
| amount of chemical interaction of human bodies vs some
| novel chemistry but still maximizing the safety as its
| simply the right thing to do for everybody long term,
| including J&J. The other is accepting the usage of
| highly-questionable-at-best compounds as part of baby
| care products, because current bonuses take priority
| above everything else.
|
| Evil comes in many ways. This can be argued is just
| massive negligence and ignorance, or even arrogance. As a
| father, when all this topic is paired with babies, I
| don't mind calling it evil and treat it as such.
| abfan1127 wrote:
| agreed on all points, except the assumption of evil.
| There is certainly evil in the world, yet "never
| attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
| stupidity".
|
| Malice or stupidity, they both should be held
| accountable. They are prepared to be held accountable
| using this fund.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
| msrenee wrote:
| I'd say greed falls somewhere much closer to malice than
| stupidity.
| romseb wrote:
| There are benzene-free sunscreen products on the market
| and J&J could sell such products, but instead they decide
| not to in order to make more profit.
| abfan1127 wrote:
| why would they add benzene to products? how does adding
| it make it cheaper to increase profits? Its not like some
| shady benzene dealer pays J&J to sprinkle it in, but only
| at really low levels (2-6 ppm). Its not like they chose
| benzene as an active ingredient over zinc oxide.
|
| Engineers are asked all the time on ways to save money.
| Did they skip a processing step? is their process control
| not optimized? Of course they are pressured to improve.
| Lower costs drive down consumer prices and increase
| profits (thanks 401k).
|
| https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-
| reports/exclusives/9279...
| an_opabinia wrote:
| They don't add anything to their products. Someone in
| China submits the lowest bid to make the thing, passing
| on sweatshop savings to J&J. So how then does the
| _manufacturer_ make a profit? By skimping on the raw
| materials.
|
| The root cause isn't the supply chain or transparency or
| QA or whatever. It's the attractiveness of too-good-to-
| be-true deals.
| The_Beta wrote:
| This is standard accounting principles. GAAP/IFRS accounting
| require you to do this. It's not malicious
| intricatedetail wrote:
| If penalty can be labelled as a cost of doing business, is it
| really a penalty?
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Ironically Neutrogena received best rating when measuring their
| SPF (according to Consumer NZ). It's my favourite too as it
| actually works, while zinc ones my partner touts are pain to
| apply and don't really work that well in extreme sun.
|
| From my previous research the benzene is confused with sodium
| benzene which is safe and widespread. Perhaps manufacture of it
| leave some trace.
| throwkeep wrote:
| I don't understand why people are so eager to slather chemicals
| on their skin, when we evolved with the sun and it's not hard for
| most people to avoid sun burn. You just have get sun exposure on
| a somewhat regular basis (healthy to do anyway) and acclimate
| between seasons (ie, don't go abruptly from no sun to all the
| sun).
| lostlogin wrote:
| In New Zealand in summer the burn time gets down to below 10
| minutes. Light clothing isn't enough to protect skin.
|
| I have burnt a child though their t-shirt. I have burnt my eyes
| and have burnt my skin rather too often.
|
| Even vaguely light skin gets burnt with a short duration
| exposure in January or February.
|
| I think you are under-appreciating people fierce it gets.
| asdff wrote:
| We evolved to be fertile in about 15 years then die after
| rearing young. There is no fitness advantage to being resistant
| to skin cancer and living into your silver years. You will have
| already bred and passed on your skincancer susceptible genetic
| information to your offspring by the time it kills you.
| Evolution isn't the story of perfect, it's the story of just
| good enough to make progeny.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| leesalminen wrote:
| I live at altitude (~8000 ft) and have very fair skin. I burn
| within 20 minutes of being in direct sunlight. So, I'm not sure
| what it is I'm supposed to do.
| chabes wrote:
| I have very fair skin and used to burn easily, but now I
| don't wear sunscreen 99% of the time I would have in the
| past. I just make sure to go outside regularly (starting in
| the winter months, here in the northern hemisphere) and
| expose my body to the sun, all year, and not just during
| vacation months.
|
| UV intensity changes with the seasons. Expose your skin to
| the sun when UVs are lower and your skin will adjust to the
| higher UV levels slowly over time.
|
| Before the industrial revolution, lots of work was outdoors,
| such as farming. Changes in industry drove folks to work more
| indoors, in factories and offices. Combine that with the
| culture of working all year and vacationing in the
| summertime. Folks stayed inside when UV intensity was
| manageable, and went outside for the bulk of their vacation,
| when UV levels were more intense. No wonder people think they
| need a product to protect their skin at all times from UVs.
|
| I'm not against sunscreen. I'm against unnecessary use of a
| product that encourages more use of said product. At high
| altitude, I'll sometimes put zinc on my nose and ears, though
| I usually wear long sleeves to protect the arms.
| asdff wrote:
| The idea that you simply need to tan or lay out in the sun
| to become resistant to skin cancer is a fallacy. That's not
| how your body works. There is chemical damage to your DNA
| taking place that your body is actively repairing, but your
| repair mechanism isn't perfect. There is an inherent error
| rate. Increase exposure to sun, you are more likely to roll
| the dice and have a damaged cell that evades detection by
| your repair mechanisms, and all cells that come from this
| one damaged cell will also have this mutation that makes
| them invisible to your defense mechanisms. these cells can
| slough off the mass and slip into your circulatory system
| and take root elsewhere in your body. Bob Marley died of
| skin cancer, and he was plenty tan.
| chabes wrote:
| Not saying fair skin people need a tan. I'm still fair
| skinned, even though I am outside often.
|
| Nor am I calling for simply increasing exposure to
| sunlight.
|
| All good things in moderation. There's a balance to be
| found between adequate sun exposure and overexposure.
|
| The best way is intermittent exposure. A little here and
| a little there. Hang out in the shade of trees in the
| heat of the day, out of direct light, but exposed to
| healthy amounts of ambient UV. Early and late hours of
| the day have lower UV levels as well. Just need to be
| more conscious about factors like that.
| LgWoodenBadger wrote:
| I have taken to buying long-sleeved (and hooded) fishing gear
| to wear outdoors in the spring and summer. With modern
| synthetics it's not bad at all, certainly better than cotton.
| Same with pants.
| fallingfrog wrote:
| I used to be like that, but I started going outside for a 10
| minute walk with a t shirt on every day. (I wore a wide brim
| hat.) Now, I never get sunburned. My skin doesn't look any
| different but it stands up to sunlight a lot better. Ymmv
| ping_pong wrote:
| I think what OP is suggesting is to go out 1 min the first
| day, 2 mins the second day, etc, until you have built up
| enough melanin in your skin and have a natural defense
| against it.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Is there any basis to this theory, at all, in science?
| asdff wrote:
| Bob marley died of skin cancer, and he was certainly tan.
|
| There is a documented difference between caucasians and
| other races with skin cancer rates:
|
| "[skin cancer] represents ~ 35-45% of all neoplasms in
| Caucasians, 4-5% in Hispanics, 2-4% in Asians, and 1-2%
| in Blacks."
|
| What strikes me about this is that it's only caucasians
| that have elevated rates here. Many asians are light
| skinned but score similarly here to blacks. While it is
| tempting to conclude melanin offers protection and that
| is one theory laid out in this paper, I think there are
| confounding variables here that elevate the risk among
| caucasion populations relative to Asian populations that
| have about the same skin tones.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757062/
| BTCOG wrote:
| Of course there is. It's called acclimatization to UV.
| Humans, plants, animals are all living beings exposed to
| solar radiation.
| asdff wrote:
| There is no fitness advantage to being resistant to UV
| rays. natural selection isn't about you living a long and
| happy life. It's about you living long enough to breed
| and rear offspring and whatever happens afterwards
| doesn't really matter, as it's not selected for. Humans
| are fertile in 15 years. You can get skin cancer and
| still make successful progeny.
| lostlogin wrote:
| According to what I was taught and also the FDA websites, a
| tan is skin damage and increases the risk of skin cancer.
|
| https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-
| products/tanning/risk...
| BTCOG wrote:
| Wear a gardening/fishing type hat, wear long sleeve shirts
| that are cool breathing, and wear jeans/pants throughout the
| summer. I was out gardening for 7 hours straight this past
| Sunday in 86 degree weather with high UV index and by wearing
| the type of clothing to cover your skin you'll be able to
| stay out for hours without burning. Also you'll of course
| want to take measured breaks and cool downs. Look at how
| people have to dress in middle-Eastern countries for a
| reference point. Keep most the skin covered. This way, you
| may only need to apply any sunscreen to the tops of the
| hands/fingers.
| ajkdhcb2 wrote:
| I encourage you to learn about rates of skin cancer in
| Australia. Most people get it. People of european genetics
| didnt evolve to live there
|
| In other countries you may have a point, I am not sure
| [deleted]
| rsync wrote:
| "It's not hard for most people to avoid sun burn. You just have
| get sun exposure on a somewhat regular basis ..."
|
| Or, even simpler, and less controversial:
|
| Just buy some super lightweight, long sleeved shirts ... like
| capilene zero or equivalent. And put on a sun hat.
|
| Problem solved.
| throwkeep wrote:
| Yes, thanks, I should have added that too.
| not2b wrote:
| Those of us in the US and Australia who are of northern
| European ancestry are descended from people who lived at much
| higher latitudes than where we live now. So no, we didn't
| evolve with the sun that we're currently dealing with, but a
| much weaker one that was lower in the sky.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| I hope this isn't a newsflash to anyone, but you don't need to
| get sunburnt to get heightened skin cancer risk from sun
| exposure.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| I mean, you ever been to a beach? You can't acclimate to being
| out at the beach all day.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Some people can. I am one. I will burn if I don't ramp up to
| it, but I eventually get very brown and can stay out all day
| without burning.
| lostlogin wrote:
| It's the browning that some of us are tying to avoid - it
| comes with a heightened risk of skin cancers, which is very
| unfortunate as my unhealthy pallor could do with it.
|
| https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-
| products/tanning/risk...
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| This bad advice would raise the rate of perfectly preventable
| skin cancer if people followed it, which we absolutely should
| not.
| lambdaba wrote:
| It's because people's body fat has shifted towards
| polyunsaturated fats since they were told to avoid saturated
| fat.
|
| Eating saturated fat and avoiding polyunsaturated fat I don't
| sunburn anymore. At all.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Most numerous listed: Neutrogena, CVS brand, Banana Boat.
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| If numerous Dell laptop variants and MacBook Pro were affected
| by some vulnerability, could still mean that the majority of
| the vulnerable laptops are MacBook Pros.
|
| The interesting thing to me would be the ratio of shipped
| products by a brand that are affected. And maybe the total
| number of affected units.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| "Ain't nobody got time for that." Maybe if you love shopping.
| SloopJon wrote:
| I don't have a sense of how big a deal this is, but I had a
| totally random thought I after I read this:
|
| > FDA currently recognizes the high danger of this compound and
| lists it as a "Class 1 solvent" that "should not be employed in
| the manufacture of drug substances, excipients, and drug products
| because of their unacceptable toxicity ... However, if their use
| is unavoidable in order to produce a drug product with a
| significant therapeutic advance, then their levels should be
| restricted" and benzene is restricted under such guidance to 2
| parts per million ("ppm").
|
| This reminds me of a story I heard about Kosher Coca-Cola. They
| had designed it such that its impurities were below a certain
| threshold. (Googling it now, the ingredient in question was
| glycerin derived from non-Kosher beef tallow.) However, the
| consulting rabbi explained that the threshold only applied to
| accidental impurities; you can't put them in on purpose.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-26 23:01 UTC)