Hacker News Reader

Comment by bee_rider | Hacker News Reader

This is totally unwarranted, completely unfounded speculation not at all based in any science whatsoever:

I dunno sunscreen just seems a little too good to be true IMO.

This is already an issue, the fancy chemicals in modern sunscreens contribute to the destruction of coral reefs. When anywhere near these places, you are supposed to wear reef-safe sunscreens that are much simpler, basically zinc oxide or titanium dioxide (white pigments).

Probably still better than skin cancer overall. There are also inert mineral sunscreens. I still go for long clothes over sunscreen personally, I never liked roasting in the sun

Why speculating then? There is plenty of hard data on skin testing of various sunscreens. There are physical sunscreens, too, which were around even longer. We have MUCH better understanding of biological processes as well than in asbestos times. What is this drive that makes supposedly technologically literate people flock to the GP question and come up with unfounded paranoid theories?

The thing that makes people answer with unfounded theories is that GP is literally asking for undetected issues. So, if it was a well founded theory, it wouldn’t be undetected, right?

Sunscreen has had environmental issues, contamination issues, and effectiveness issues (the whole UVA/UVB thing). None of those indicate a problem with the underlying product when used properly, and it is definitely better than nothing! I prefer to cover up with clothes and just avoid the noon-time sun, though.

https://time.com/6084625/sunscreen-safety-regulations/?amp=t...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com