People are living much longer than was common when our bodies evolved to their present form. Our physical evolution has lagged behind our rapidly improving means to increase human life expectancy. And since the negative effects of UV exposure are cumulative, it is precisely in our "unnaturally" older ages (50s, 60s and up) when cataracts and macular degeneration are more commonly observed.Originally Posted by oxmoon
Bottom line: UV protection in its various forms is not a "scam".
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
^ LOL!
Seriously???
Oxmoon: I agreed with you until I had a 40mm Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Still think there is a lot of over selling and marketing. However I tries to fish before 10:00 A.M. and After 4:00 P.M. Not even sure if UV reflects.
Did see a lot of patients with macular edema post catarct in the days before implants.
Have heard "experts" lecture that said the cataracts were much more frequent in hole in the Ozone areas. Others lecture that they were no more present there than in other areas.
Kind of like "seat belts and air bags save lives", yeah, whole 2% statistical difference and adds only about 4K to the cost of each and every car. Or helments protect you up to a 14 mph impact.
Chip
Somebody is makin a whole bunch o' money on safety equipment and we gonna make a whole bunch of o' money on sheep dip.
The human body was made to live at least 150 years, and what you refer to an "unnaturally" older ages should really just be the beginning of the prime of life. We don't live to our true expectancy because most of us live in cities with bad water, eat bad food and don't use out bodies in the way they were meant to be used. We have become disconnected from nature. Cataracts and macular degeneration are examples of the degenerative diseases our modern lifestyle has brought us. The people you see with these diseases are the ones who have chosen to fear the sun and hide indoors or under sunscreen.
LOL - I bet yogic eye exercises will help cure all that rampant mac degen and cataracts as well. ...Cause we never used to get this stuff hundreds of years ago.
Thanks Uilleann, you're making my point for me!...Cause we never used to get this stuff hundreds of years ago.
Oh right! The old timey days when people used to live for 150 years.
How is sunscreen a scam? Now I know that some sunscreens don't block UVA, which doesn't burn but causes other problems, but many do.
And since no one has EVER lived anywhere close to 150 years I don't think it's bad air, bad food, and so forth that is preventing it.
Yes and it does.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight... [/sarcasm]
You are totally right and accurate
Villeann..........................You are totally right and accurate, re-packaging and making a big fuss about it, makes it a different product.
Yes talk to rep about it.
FDA on Sinscreems.....................................
Themeasures include the following:
- final regulations that establish standards for testing the effectiveness of sunscreen products and require labeling that accurately reflects test results
- a proposed regulation that would limit the maximum SPF value on sunscreen labeling to “SPF 50+”
- a data request for safety and effectiveness information for sunscreen products formulated in certain dosage forms (e.g., sprays)
- a draft guidance for sunscreen manufacturers on how to test and label their products in light of these new measures.
Thesemeasures are necessary, says Lydia Velazquez, PharmD, in FDA’s Division ofNonprescription Regulation Development, because “our scientific understandinghas grown. We want consumers to understand that not all sunscreens are createdequal.”
“Thisnew information will help consumers know which products offer the bestprotection from the harmful rays of the sun,” Velazquez says. “It is importantfor consumers to read the entire label, both front and back, in order to choosethe appropriate sunscreen for their needs.”
Everyoneis potentially susceptible to sunburn and the other detrimental effects ofexposure to UV radiation.
FDA's Final Regulations
Thefinal regulations, which become effective June 18, 2012, establish a standard testfor over-the-counter (sold without a prescription) sunscreen products that willdetermine which products are allowed to be labeled as “Broad Spectrum.”
However,to avert a shortage of sunscreen in the upcoming months, FDA has extended thecompliance dates for testing and labeling until Dec. 17, 2012 for mostover-the-counter sunscreen products. This decision followed a review oftimelines and other data submitted by trade associations representing sunscreenmanufacturers.
“Withsummer coming, we wanted to ensure we had sunscreen products available on storeshelves for everyone,” says Velazquez.
Productsthat pass the broad spectrum test will provide protection against bothultraviolet B radiation (UVB) and ultraviolet A radiation (UVA). Sunburn is primarilycaused by UVB. Both UVB and UVA can cause sunburn, skin cancer, and prematureskin aging. A certain percentage of a broad spectrum product’s total protectionis against UVA.
Underthe new regulations, sunscreen products that protect against all types ofsun-induced skin damage will be labeled "Broad Spectrum" and “SPF 15”(or higher) on the front.
The newlabeling will also tell consumers on the back of the product that sunscreenslabeled as both “Broad Spectrum” and “SPF 15” (or higher) not only protectagainst sunburn, but, if used as directed with other sun protection measures,can reduce the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging. For these broadspectrum products, higher SPF (Sun Protection Factor) values also indicatehigher levels of overall protection.
Bycontrast, any sunscreen not labeled as “Broad Spectrum” or that has an SPFvalue between 2 and 14, has only been shown to help prevent sunburn.
ReynoldTan, a scientist in FDA’s Division of Nonprescription Regulation Development,notes that FDA has been developing testing and labeling requirements forsunscreen products for decades. However, only recently have the data becomesufficient to establish an accurate and reliable test for broad spectrum UVprotection, he says.
To helpconsumers select and use sunscreens appropriately, the final regulationsinclude these additional labeling provisions:
- Sunscreen products that are not broad spectrum or that are broad spectrum with SPF values from 2 to14 will be labeled with a warning that reads: “Skin Cancer/Skin Aging Alert: Spending time in the sun increases your risk of skin cancer and early skin aging. This product has been shown only to help prevent sunburn, not skin cancer or early skin aging.”
- Water resistance claims on the product's front label must tell how much time a user can expect to get the declared SPF level of protection while swimming or sweating, based on standard testing. Two times will be permitted on labels: 40 minutes or 80 minutes.
- Manufacturers cannot make claims that sunscreens are “waterproof” or “sweatproof” or identify their products as “sunblocks.” Also, sunscreens cannot claim protection immediately on application (for example, “instant protection”) or protection for more than two hours without reapplication, unless they submit data and get approval from FDA.
FDA Proposed Regulations, Data Requests, and a Draft Guidance
Inaddition to the final regulations, in June 2011 FDA proposed a regulation thatwould require sunscreen products that have SPF values higher than 50 to belabeled as “SPF 50+.” FDA does not have adequate data demonstrating thatproducts with SPF values higher than 50 provide additional protection comparedto products with SPF values of 50.
FDAalso requested data and information on different dosage forms of sunscreenproducts. The agency currently considers sunscreens in the form of oils,creams, lotions, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, sticks, and sprays to beeligible for potential inclusion in the OTC sunscreen monograph – meaning thatthey can be marketed without individual product approvals.
Theagency currently considers wipes, towelettes, powders, body washes, and shampoonot eligible for the monograph. Therefore, they cannot be marketed without anapproved application.
Forsunscreen spray products, the agency requested additional data to establisheffectiveness and to determine whether they present a safety concern if inhaledunintentionally. These requests arose because sprays are applied differentlyfrom other sunscreen dosage forms, such as lotions and sticks.
Inaddition, FDA issued a draft guidance to help sunscreen manufacturersunderstand how to label and test their products in light of the final andproposed regulations and the data request on dosage forms.
FDA hasreceived numerous comments on the labeling proposal, draft guidance andrequests for data. The agency is currently evaluating the data and informationincluded in these comments.
Sun Safety Tips
Spendingtime in the sun increases the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging. Toreduce this risk, consumers should regularly use sun protection measuresincluding:
- Use sunscreens with broad spectrum SPF values of 15 or higher regularly and as directed.
- Limit time in the sun, especially between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the sun’s rays are most intense.
- Wear clothing to cover skin exposed to the sun; for example, long-sleeved shirts, pants, sunglasses, and broad-brimmed hats.
- Reapply sunscreen at least every 2 hours, more often if you’re sweating or jumping in and out of the water.
Thisarticle appears on FDA's Consumer Updates page, which features the latest onall FDA-regulated products.
UpdatedMay 17, 2012
I present my reasoning.
It seems that all the novelty of the product consists in the fact that the anti-reflection on the concave side does not reflect the UV to the eye.
Wonder of wonders, our eyes finally safe! But we take some account before embarking on this amazing news.
first element
100-280 nm UV-C does not come to earth because they are filtered by the atmosphere at 100% (ozone layer)
UV-B 280-315 nm do not come to earth because they are filtered by the atmosphere of 95% (ozone layer)
315-400 nm UVC Only a part reaches the ground (about 90-95%), this radiation of the filtering effect of the clouds is evident
second element
A normal lens CR39 passes about 15% of UVA (350 nm and above), a lens MR8 (organic lens in index 1.6) does not pass (max about 5-10% between 390 and 400 nanometers).
third element
The reflectivity of different surfaces of UVA are:
grass, soil and water reflect less than 10% of incident radiation
The sand can reach a reflection of 20-25%
The snow may even reach a reflection of 80%
Fourth element
The exposure of the concave side of a lens (mounted on the glasses) to the reflected light is on average lower than the ambient light reflected from the surfaces multiplied by the sine of the average incident: an experimentally ascertained value is less than 0.5. All of course varies according to the eyeglasses amplitude and the angle of wrap of the frame
The reflection of a normal anti-reflective coating in the band grapes and about 20%
Conclusion
Do the math:
100% (UV-A) * 95/100 (the part that passes the Ozone layer) * 10/100 (a reflection of the ground) * 0.5 (due to the angle) * 20/100 (partially reflected by the AR) = 0.95% of UV-A radiation
So we are talking about less than 1% of incident radiation ... even though we were surrounded by snow with no wraparound glasses and dishes .... we would come up to 7.5%
Seen that the damage to the lens are to be considered a cumulative (as shown by several studies), we can say that the radiation, and therefore the losses due to reflection of the concave side of a lens treated AR (in a city), can be in 100 hours equal to 1 hour without glasses, with the person who looks at the environment without lenses.
Furthermore, since a CR39 lens, currently the most popular material in ophthalmic lenses, transmits about 15% of UV A (15 times more than previously concave socket in question), I worry about pushing the lens wearers to filter materials or using UV filters on CR 39.
The question is ... i DO NOT wear glasses, how can they survive without UV Essilor Crizal??
personally I think it's just advertising
FDA on singlasses......................................
Sunglasses
Choose sunglasses that are labeled with a UVA/UVB rating of 100% to providethe most UV protection.
Do not mistake dark-tinted sunglasses as having more UV protection. Thedarkness of the lens does not indicate its ability to shield your eyes from UVrays. Many sunglasses with light-colored tints, such as green, amber, red, andgray offer the same UV protection as very dark lenses.
Children should also wear sunglasses that indicate the UV protection level.Toy sunglasses may not have any UV protection, so be sure to look for the UVprotection label.
Large, wraparound-style frames may provide more efficient UV protectionbecause they cover the entire eye-socket. This is especially important whendoing activities around or on water because much of the UV comes from lightreflected off the water’s surface.
Sunglasses are the most effective when worn with a wide-brimmed hat andsunscreen.
UV protection has been neglected .............................
There has been a lot of BS discussion about damage from the UV reflected from the back surface. This is absolute minimum as the light source would be behind or from the side and not even reflect through the pupil.
Many surfaces relect UV rays, adding to overall UV exposure. The World Health Organization estimates that grass, soil and water reflect less than 10% of UV radiation; fresh snow reflects up to 80%; dry beach sand reflects 15%, and sea foam reflects 25%. Even when you are in the shade, your eyes and skin are being exposed to UV rays!
The American Academy of Dermatology awards sunglasses a Seal of Recognition if they meet the following guidelines:
- Mean UVB transmittance of 1 percent or less (absorption of 99 percent of UVB).
- Mean UVA transmittance of 1 percent or less (absorption of 99 percent of UVA).
- Minimal lens sizes for children and adults in accordance with AS/NZS 1067.
- For adults: 40mm x 28mm with centers separated by 64mm.
- For children: 34mm x 24mm with centers separated by 54mm.
- Sunglass frames should be of the wrap-around style or have sufficiently thick arms or side shields such that the eye cannot be viewed from the side when worn.
- Documentation supporting adherence for all color, traffic signal transmittance, and flammability testing specifications of ANSI Z80.3.
- Demonstration of impact resistance per FDA regulations 21CFR801.410, with lenses for children’s sunglasses constructed only from polycarbonate.
UV protection has been neglected over the past years and is and stays to be an actual threat to vision. UV protection also can be applied easily in house.
Last edited by Chris Ryser; 05-31-2012 at 04:04 AM.
No need to make ignorant statements about a product you have no direct experience with, have never used, nor indeed know anything about. A little time to learn the specifics here easily saves one from pie on their face.
Look at anyone who has spent years in the sun verses those who choose to use the correct sunscreen and wear protective clothing. The proof that sun does cause damage is in the leathery, spotted and wrinkly pudding. Fifteen minutes per day of pure exposure to the sun is all that is needed to absorb enough vitamin D to be healthy. I've watched my grandfather get cancer spots burned off his bald head, shoulders, forearms and hands for the last 30 years, after decades of yard work with no sunscreen or sleeves.
If the dangers of the sun and sunscreen are a conspiracy, than I'll drink the Kool Aid, and I'll be laughing my @ss off at the people who look like George Hamilton when they are 40. I get made fun of at the camp ground all the time, people watching me drown my kids and myself in SPF, but they are also the people asking me for skin care advice. Weird....
Chris:
I didn't know anyone had a product and that the govment on Sinscreen. Or that we had Singlasses available.
Now that I do, I can make a fortune on the Baptists and the Atheists amoung us.
Chip
*drinks kool-aid* all praise the UV gods *slathers sunscreen*
"what i need is a strong drink and a peer group." ... Douglas Adams - Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy
Its a proven fact that prolonged exposure to the sun and the UV rays cause cancer,cause cataracts,etc....
and the damage starts early..just doesn't show up til you get older. Like everything else on our bodies! Protect your kids from Uv exposure and they may not get cataracts until much much later in life. My grandmother didn't get cat sx until in her 70's. She never went out in the sun without a BIG brimmed hat. Neverlaid out in the sun and had the most gorgeous milky white complexion and hardly any wrinkles until her 70's! All because she protected herself from UV exposure.
Kitty- Don't confuse reflection with absorption. The uv never passes through the lens. A small amount is bouncing (reflecting) back. The AR allows it to pass into the lens from back to front so it doesn't get a chance to reflect back to the cornea.
Last edited by Uncle Fester; 06-01-2012 at 08:18 AM. Reason: taking Phitrace's suggestion...
So wouldn't all AR do that?Kitty- Don't confuse reflection with absorption. The uv never passes through the lens. A small amount is bouncing (reflecting) back. The AR allows it to pass through from back to front so it does'nt get a chance to reflect back to the cornea.
No need to make ignorant statements .............................
No need to make ignorant statements about a product you have no direct experience with,have never used, nor indeed know anything about. A little time to learn the specifics here easily saves one from pie on their face.
...............you being an anti education guy (see other threads on that subject), I actually should forgive you your sharp satirical language. I most probably had professionally to do with UV protection, when your mother still changed your diapers.
I hope you are going to be thankful for that.....................................
Chip
I hope you are going to be thankful for that you now can buy a larger fishing boat, and I will convince your wife to allow you to get the biggest Harley around, you still dream of.
Chris
Ding Ding Ding Ding, I think we have a winner here. Everyone in this multi thread argument keeps missing the point. Crizal UV is allowing the "UV" light to pass through the back side of the lens rather than reflect back to the eye. If you already make the lenses with A/R on both surfaces, You already are protecting your patients. I suppose Essilor could have formulated/calculated this particular product to allow UV more pass through than previous/other A/R treatments (in which I believe our master Daryl Meister elluded to in another thread) but rest assured, like usuall, it is just great marketing. Not a bad thing to market though.
Brilliant!!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks