Razones científicas (artículos indexados en PubMed) para NO usar "PROTECTOR SOLAR" ("crema bronceado

AYN RANDiano2 · 7 Jul 2012

METEDURAS DE PATA PASADAS DEL CAMPO PRO-"PROTECTORES SOLARES"

Año 2008. Reconocimiento implícito de la metedura de pata de creer que sólo los UVB dañan la piel:

UVB radiation is still considered to be the major factor responsible for most harmful effects of solar exposure. But the detrimental role of UVA has been increasingly documented. As a result, the development of a new generation of sunscreens that provide effective protection throughout the whole UV radiation spectrum has become a prime concern and a major issue

Rationale for sunscreen development. [J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

Artículo del 2003 sobre lo equivocados que estaban en los años 80:

One decade ago, a sun protection factor (SPF) of 15 was considered a complete blocker of ultraviolet radiation (UV). The logic behind that cutoff point was that sunscreens with this SPF number would always prevent erythema and that preventing erythema would prevent all the ill effects of UV exposure. Today, we know that both of these assumptions were wrong and we tend to recommend higher SPF

Sunscreens--the ultimate cosmetic. [Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

Los *!%&***@)?! de la Skin Cancer Foundation reconociendo que DIERON CONSEJOS ERRÓNEOS en esta interesante historia de los "fotoprotectores":

It was once thought that only UVB radiation, the main cause of sunburn, significantly damaged the skin and raised one's risk of skin cancer; for many years, UVA was not considered dangerous.[3] Sunscreens were thus constituted accordingly - protecting mainly against UVB. But research in the past 20 years has shown that cumulative UVA exposure was the key cause of skin aging and wrinkling (photoaging)

Quantum Leaps: New, Improved Sunscreens Have Arrived - SkinCancer.org

Estos mismos *!%&***@)?! en 1979 recomendaban los "fotoprotectores" sólo frente a UVB como la panacea frente al melanoma:

Since its inception in 1979, The Skin Cancer Foundation has always recommended using a sunscreen with an SPF of 15 or higher

If Recent Attacks on Sunscreen Concern You. . . - SkinCancer.org

Vean lo que ha pasado desde que estos *!%&***@)?! hicieron sus "recomendaciones" y las benéficas farmaceúticas regalaron al mundo sus maravillosos "protectores solares":

It is now recognized that both Ultraviolet A (UVA) and UVB wavelengths are responsible for the detrimental effects of solar radiation on skin. With our increasing knowledge on the harmful effects of UVA, the need for effective, well-balanced photoprotection has become more crucial

Need for a well-balanced sunscreen to protect human skin from both Ultraviolet A and Ultraviolet B damage Moyal D - Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol

increasing evidence of the detrimental effects of UVA on skin has led to the development of a new generation of sunscreens that provide effective protection throughout the whole UV radiation spectrum...

...the evidence that most sunscreen products are unable to prevent the harmful effects of UVA has become a major concern. It is important to note that under any meteorological conditions, UVA irradiance is at least 17 times higher than UVB irradiance. For all these reasons, it is evident that sunscreens must contain both UVA and UVB filters to cover the entire range of harmful radiation. In 2006, the European Commission recommended that the minimum level of UVA protection (UVAPF) should be at least one-third of the sun protection factor (SPF)

The development of efficient sunscreens Moyal D - Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol

No tenían ni repajolera idea de los efectos de los UVA y lo reconocen.

Estaban equivocados y lo reconocen.

* ¿En qué están equivocados hoy?.

* ¿Descubrirán dentro de 15 años que las nanopartículas en los "fotoprotectores" NO son una buena idea?.

* ¿Descubrirán dentro de 15 años que la protección UVA es muy inferior a la UVB y que la gente que usa "fotoprotectores" sigue quemándose sin compasión y SIN ENTERARSE, AUMENTANDO por lo tanto su riesgo de contraer cáncer? (como han averiguado que ha sucedido con los "fotoprotectores" UVB de antaño, tan "seguros" que nos dijeron que eran).

Aquí los tenemos -muy ufanos- vaticinando que, esta vez sí, de verdad de la buena, en serio, creednos, los "nuevos fotoprotectores" sí protegerán -de verdad- a quienes los usen_

Modern high Sun Protection Factor, broad-spectrum sunscreens, on the other hand, can be expected to be an effective measure in helping to prevent melanoma compared with sunscreens typical of those used 10-20 years ago.
CONCLUSIONS:
It is reasonable to suppose that the improvement in performance of modern sunscreens will lead to a worthwhile benefit as a preventative agent against melanoma, although these benefits may not be seen for several decades.

Sunscreens and melanoma: the future looks bright. [Br J Dermatol. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

¿Creen ustedes aún en esta gente?. Yo no. A mí ya me dijeron en los años 80 que me los "fotoprotectores" de lso 80 me iban a proteger. Ahora dicen que no, que esos fotoprotectores eran una cosa...

Engáñame una vez y es tu culpa. Engáñame 2 veces y es mi culpa.

Yo -francamente- prefiero no hacer de "testador" de sus productos farmaceúticos -encima pagándolos- y enterarme dentro de 15 años de que ES PEOR EL REMEDIO QUE LA ENFERMEDAD.

Yo me quedo con mis pantalones largos, camisa de manga larga y sombrero de ala ancha en verano.

AYN RANDiano2 · 9 Jul 2012

Solo los usuarios registrados pueden ver el contenido de este tema, mientras tanto puedes ver el primer y el último mensaje de cada página.

Regístrate gratuitamente aquí para poder ver los mensajes y participar en el foro. No utilizaremos tu email para fines comerciales.