A short history of sunscreen, from basting like a chook to preventing skin cancer
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Australians have used commercial creams, lotions or gels to manage our skin’s sun exposure for nearly a century.
But why we do it, the preparations themselves, and whether they work, has changed over time.
In this short history of sunscreen in Australia, we look at how we’ve slathered, slopped and spritzed our skin for sometimes surprising reasons.
At first, suncreams helped you ‘tan with ease’
Trove/NLA
Sunscreens have been available in Australia since the 30s. Chemist Milton Blake made one of the first.
He used a kerosene heater to cook batches of “sunburn vanishing cream”, scented with French perfume.
His backyard business became H.A. Milton (Hamilton) Laboratories, which still makes sunscreens today.
Hamilton’s first cream claimed you could “
Sunbathe in Comfort and TAN with ease”. According to modern standards, it would have had an SPF (or sun protection factor) of 2.
The mirage of ‘safe tanning’
A tan was considered a “modern complexion” and for most of the 20th century, you might put something on your skin to help gain one. That’s when “safe tanning” (without burning) was thought possible.
SenseiAlan/Flickr, CC BY-SA
Sunburn was known to be caused by the UVB component of ultraviolet (UV) light. UVA, however, was thought not to be involved in burning; it was just thought to darken the skin pigment melanin. So, medical authorities advised that by using a sunscreen that filtered out UVB, you could “safely tan” without burning.
But that was wrong.
From the 70s, medical research suggested UVA penetrated damagingly deep into the skin, causing ageing effects such as sunspots and wrinkles. And both UVA and UVB could cause skin cancer.
Sunscreens from the 80s sought to be “broad spectrum” – they filtered both UVB and UVA.
Researchers consequently recommended sunscreens for all skin tones, including for preventing sun damage in people with dark skin.
Delaying burning … or encouraging it?
Up to the 80s, sun preparations ranged from something that claimed to delay burning, to preparations that actively encouraged it to get that desirable tan – think, baby oil or coconut oil. Sun-worshippers even raided the kitchen cabinet, slicking olive oil on their skin.
One manufacturer’s “sun lotion” might effectively filter UVB; another’s merely basted you like a roast chicken.
Since labelling laws before the 80s didn’t require manufacturers to list the ingredients, it was often hard for consumers to tell which was which.
At last, SPF arrives to guide consumers
In the 70s, two Queensland researchers, Gordon Groves and Don Robertson, developed tests for sunscreens – sometimes experimenting on students or colleagues. They printed their ranking in the newspaper, which the public could use to choose a product.
An Australian sunscreen manufacturer then asked the federal health department to regulate the industry. The company wanted standard definitions to market their products, backed up by consistent lab testing methods.
In 1986, after years of consultation with manufacturers, researchers and consumers, Australian Standard AS2604 gave a specified a testing method, based on the Queensland researchers’ work. We also had a way of expressing how well sunscreens worked – the sun protection factor or SPF.
This is the ratio of how long it takes a fair-skinned person to burn using the product compared with how long it takes to burn without it. So a cream that protects the skin sufficiently so it takes 40 minutes to burn instead of 20 minutes has an SPF of 2.
Manufacturers liked SPF because businesses that invested in clever chemistry could distinguish themselves in marketing. Consumers liked SPF because it was easy to understand – the higher the number, the better the protection.
Australians, encouraged from 1981 by the Slip! Slop! Slap! nationwide skin cancer campaign, could now “slop” on a sunscreen knowing the degree of protection it offered.
How about skin cancer?
It wasn’t until 1999 that research proved that using sunscreen prevents skin cancer. Again, we have Queensland to thank, specifically the residents of Nambour. They took part in a trial for nearly five years, carried out by a research team led by Adele Green of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. Using sunscreen daily over that time reduced rates of squamous cell carcinoma (a common form of skin cancer) by about 60%.
Follow-up studies in 2011 and 2013 showed regular sunscreen use almost halved the rate of melanoma and slowed skin ageing. But there was no impact on rates of basal cell carcinoma, another common skin cancer.
By then, researchers had shown sunscreen stopped sunburn, and stopping sunburn would prevent at least some types of skin cancer.
What’s in sunscreen today?
An effective sunscreen uses one or more active ingredients in a cream, lotion or gel. The active ingredient either works:
-
“chemically” by absorbing UV and converting it to heat. Examples include PABA (para-aminobenzoic acid) and benzyl salicylate, or
-
“physically” by blocking the UV, such as zinc oxide or titanium dioxide.
Physical blockers at first had limited cosmetic appeal because they were opaque pastes. (Think cricketers with zinc smeared on their noses.)
With microfine particle technology from the 90s, sunscreen manufacturers could then use a combination of chemical absorbers and physical blockers to achieve high degrees of sun protection in a cosmetically acceptable formulation.
Where now?
Australians have embraced sunscreen, but they still don’t apply enough or reapply often enough.
Although some people are concerned sunscreen will block the skin’s ability to make vitamin D this is unlikely. That’s because even SPF50 sunscreen doesn’t filter out all UVB.
There’s also concern about the active ingredients in sunscreen getting into the environment and whether their absorption by our bodies is a problem.
Sunscreens have evolved from something that at best offered mild protection to effective, easy-to-use products that stave off the harmful effects of UV. They’ve evolved from something only people with fair skin used to a product for anyone.
Remember, slopping on sunscreen is just one part of sun protection. Don’t forget to also slip (protective clothing), slap (hat), seek (shade) and slide (sunglasses).
Laura Dawes, Research Fellow in Medico-Legal History, Australian National University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Artichoke vs Brussels Sprouts – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing artichoke to Brussels sprouts, we picked the sprouts.
Why?
Finally, a vegetable that beats artichoke—after it previously beat heart-of-palm, asparagus, and even cabbage! It was still close though, which is impressive for artichoke, considering what a nutritional powerhouse Brussels sprouts are:
In terms of macros, the only meaningful difference is that artichoke has slightly more carbs and fiber, so artichoke gets the most marginal of nominal wins in this category.
In the category of vitamins, however, artichoke has more of vitamins B3, B9, and choline, while Brussels sprouts have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B6, C, E, and K, giving sprouts the clear victory here, especially with much higher margins of difference (e.g. 58x more vitamin A, as well as 7x more vitamin C, and 10x more vitamin K).
When it comes to minerals, artichoke has more copper, magnesium, phosphorus, and zinc, while Brussels sprouts have more iron, manganese, potassium, and selenium, resulting in a 4:4 tie, and the small margins of difference are mostly comparable, with the exception that sprouts have 8x more selenium. So, Brussels sprouts win this category very marginally on that tie-breaker.
Adding up the sections we see that macros and minerals gave a small win each to artichoke and sprouts respectively, while the vitamins category was an overwhelming win for sprouts, so—with this deciding factor in mind—sprouts win the day today.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Sprout Your Seeds, Grains, Beans, Etc
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
The Diabetes Drugs That Can Cut Asthma Attacks By 70%
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Asthma, obesity, and type 2 diabetes are closely linked, with the latter two greatly increasing asthma attack risk.
While bronchodilators / corticosteroids can have immediate adverse effects due to sympathetic nervous system activation, and lasting adverse effects due to the damage it does to metabolic health, diabetes drugs, on the other hand, can improve things with (for most people) fewer unwanted side effects.
Great! Which drugs?
Metformin, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs).
Specifically, researchers have found:
- Metformin is associated with a 30% reduction in asthma attacks
- GLP-1RAs are associated with a 40% reduction in asthma attacks
…and yes, they stack, making for a 70% reduction in the case of people taking both. Furthermore, the results are independent of weight, glycemic control, or asthma phenotype.
In terms of what was counted, the primary outcome was asthma attacks at 12-month follow-up, defined by oral corticosteroid use, emergency visits, hospitalizations, or death.
The effect of metformin on asthma attacks was not affected by BMI, HbA1c levels, eosinophil count, asthma severity, or sex.
Of the various extra antidiabetic drugs trialled in this study, only GLP-1 receptor agonists showed a further and sustained reduction in asthma attacks.
Here’s the study itself, hot off the press, published on Monday:
JAMA Int. Med. | Antidiabetic Medication and Asthma Attacks
“But what if I’m not diabetic?”
Good news:
More than half of all US adults are eligible for semaglutide therapy ← this is because they’ve expanded the things that semaglutide (the widely-used GLP-1 receptor agonist drug) can be prescribed for, now going beyond just diabetes and/or weight loss 😎
And metformin, of course, is more readily available than semaglutide, so by all means speak with your doctor/pharmacist about that, if it’s of interest to you.
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Brazil Nuts vs Cashews – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing Brazil nuts to cashews, we picked the cashews.
Why?
Looking at the macros first, Brazil nuts have more fat and fiber, while cashews have more carbs and protein. So, it really comes down to what you want to prioritize. We’d generally consider fiber the tie-breaker, making this category a subjective marginal win for Brazil nuts—and especially marginal since they are both low glycemic index foods in any case.
When it comes to vitamins, Brazil nuts have more of vitamins C, E, and choline, while cashews have more of vitamins B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, and K, so while both are great, this category is a clear by-the-numbers win for cashews.
The category of minerals is an interesting one. Brazil nuts have more calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and selenium, while cashews have more copper, iron, manganese, and zinc. That would be a 4:4 tie, but let’s take a closer look at those selenium levels:
- A cup of cashews contains 109% of the RDA of selenium. Your hair will be luscious and shiny.
- A cup of Brazil nuts contains 10,456% of the RDA of selenium. This is way past the point of selenium toxicity, and your (luscious, shiny) hair will fall out.
For this reason, it’s recommended to eat no more than 3–4 Brazil nuts per day.
We consider that a point against Brazil nuts.
Adding up the section makes for a win for cashews. Of course, enjoy Brazil nuts too if you will, but in careful moderation please!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Holy Basil: What Does (And Doesn’t) It Do?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
First, a quick clarification:
- Ocimum sanctum is the botanical name given to what in English we call holy basil, and is what we will be discussing today. It’s also called “tulsi“, so if you see that name around, it is the same plant.
- Ocimum basilicum is the botanical name given to culinary basil, the kind you will find in your local supermarket. This one looks similar, but it has a different taste (culinary basil is sweeter) and a different phytochemical profile, and is certainly not the same plant.
We have touched on holy basil before, in our article:
Herbs For Evidence-Based Health & Healing
…where we listed that it helps boost immunity, per:
It’s popularly also consumed in the hopes of getting many other benefits, including:
- Calming effects on the mood (anti-stress)
- Accelerated wound-healing
- Anticancer activity
So, does it actually do those things?
Against stress
We literally couldn’t find anything. It’s often listed as being adaptogenic (reduces stress) in the preamble part of a given paper’s abstract, but we could find no study in any reputable journal that actually tested its effects against stress, and any citations for the claim just link to other papers that also include it in the preamble—and while “no original research” is a fine policy for, say, Wikipedia, it’s not a great policy when it comes to actual research science.
So… It might! There’s also no research (that we could find) showing that it doesn’t work. But one cannot claim something works on the basis of “we haven’t proved it doesn’t”.
For wound healing
Possibly! We found one (1) paper with a small (n=29) sample, and the results were promising, but that sample size of 29 was divided between three groups: a placebo control, holy basil, and another herb (which latter worked less well). So the resultant groups were tiny, arguably to the point of statistical insignificance. However, taking the study at face value and ignoring the small sample size, the results were very promising, as the holy basil group enjoyed a recovery in 4 weeks, rather than the 5 weeks recovery time of the control group:
Herbal remedies for mandibular fracture healing
An extra limitation that’s worth noting, though, is that healing bone is not necessarily the same as healing other injuries in all ways, so the same results might not be replicated in, say, organ or tissue injuries.
Against cancer
This time, there’s lots of evidence! Its mechanism of action appears to be severalfold:
- Anti-inflammatory
- Antioxidant
- Antitumor
- Chemopreventive
Because of the abundance of evidence (including specifically against skin cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, and more), we could list studies all day here, but instead we’ll just link this one really good research review that has a handy navigation menu on the right, where you can see how it works in each of the stated ways.
Here’s the paper:
An Update on the Therapeutic Anticancer Potential of Ocimum sanctum L.: “Elixir of Life”
Want to try some?
We don’t sell it, but here for your convenience is an example product on Amazon 😎
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
The Science Of New Year’s Pre-Resolutions
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
The Science Of New Year’s Pre-Resolutions
There’s a military dictum that “prior preparation and planning prevents piss-poor performance”.
Would it surprise you to know that soldiers going on the attack are not focused on the goal? Rather, they are focused on the process.
With drills and mnemonics, everything that can be controlled for in advance is; every action, every reaction, everything that can go wrong, and all the “if x then y” decisions in between pre-battle PREWAR and PAWPERSO and post-battle PACESDO (all mnemonic acronyms; the content is not important here but the principle is).
In short: take Murphy’s Law into account now, and plan accordingly!
The same goes for making your plans the winning kind
If you want your resolutions to work, you may need to make pre-resolutions now, so that you’re properly prepared:
- Do you want to make an exercise habit? Make sure now that you have the right clothes/shoes/etc, make sure that they fit you correctly, make sure you have enough of them that you can exercise when one set’s in the wash, etc.
- What grace will you allow yourself if tired, unwell, busy? What’s your back-up plan so that you still do what you can at those times when “what you can” is legitimately a bit less?
- If it’s an outdoors plan, what’s your plan for when it’s rainy? Snowy? Dangerously hot?
- What are the parameters for what counts? Make it measurable. How many exercise sessions per week, what duration?
- Do you want to make a diet habit? Make sure that you have in the healthy foods that you want to eat; know where you can and will get things. We’re often creatures of habit when it comes to shopping, so planning will be critical here!
- Do you want to cut some food/drink/substance out? Make sure you have a plan to run down or otherwise dispose of your current stock first. And make sure you have alternatives set up, and if it was something you were leaning on as a coping strategy of some kind (e.g. alcohol, cannabis, comfort-eating, etc), make sure you have an alternative coping strategy, too!
See also: How To Reduce Or Quit Alcohol
We promised science, so here it comes
Approach-oriented resolutions work better than avoidance-oriented ones.
This means: positively-framed resolutions work better than negatively-framed ones.
On a simple level, this means that, for example, resolving to exercise three times per week is going to work better than resolving to not consume alcohol.
But what if you really want to quit something? Just frame it positively. There’s a reason that Alcoholics Anonymous (and similar Thing Anonymous groups) measure days sober, not relapses.
So it’s not “I will not consume alcohol” but “I will get through each day alcohol-free”.
Semantics? Maybe, but it’s also science:
Why January the 1st? It’s a fresh start
Resolutions started on the 1st of January enjoy a psychological boost of a feeling of a fresh start, a new page, a new chapter.
Similar benefits can be found from starting on the 1st of a month in general, or on a Monday, or on some date that is auspicious to the person in question (religious fasts tied to calendar dates are a fine example of this).
Again, this is borne-out by science:
The Fresh Start Effect: Temporal Landmarks Motivate Aspirational Behavior
Make it a habit
Here be science:
How do people adhere to goals when willpower is low? The profits (and pitfalls) of strong habits
As for how to do that?
How To Really Pick Up (And Keep!) Those Habits
Trim the middle
No, we’re not talking about your waistline. Rather, what Dr. Ayelet Fischbach refers to as “the middle problem”:
❝We’re highly motivated at the beginning. Over time, our motivation declines as we lose steam. To the extent that our goal has a clear end point, our motivation picks up again toward the end.
Therefore, people are more likely to adhere to their standards at the beginning and end of goal pursuit—and slack in the middle. We demonstrate this pattern of judgment and behavior in adherence to ethical standards (e.g., cheating), religious traditions (e.g., skipping religious rituals), and performance standards (e.g., “cutting corners” on a task).
We also show that the motivation to adhere to standards by using proper means is independent and follows a different pattern from the motivation to reach the end state of goal pursuit❞
Read: The end justifies the means, but only in the middle
How to fix this, then?
Give yourself consistent, recurring, short-term goals, with frequent review points. That way, it’s never “the middle” for long:
The fresh start effect: temporal landmarks motivate aspirational behavior
See also:
How do people protect their long-term goals from the influence of short-term motives or temptations?
Finally…
You might like this previous main feature of ours that was specifically about getting oneself through those “middle” parts:
How To Keep On Keeping On… Long Term!
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
- Do you want to make an exercise habit? Make sure now that you have the right clothes/shoes/etc, make sure that they fit you correctly, make sure you have enough of them that you can exercise when one set’s in the wash, etc.
-
Indistractable – by Nir Eyal
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Have you ever felt that you could accomplish anything you wanted/needed, if only you didn’t get distracted?
This book lays out a series of psychological interventions for precisely that aim, and it goes a lot beyond the usual “download/delete these apps to help you stop checking social media every 47 seconds”.
Some you’ll have heard of before, some you won’t have, and if even one method works for you, it’ll have been well worth your while reading this book. This reviewer, for example, enjoyed the call to identity-based strength, e.g. adopting an “I am indistractable*” perspective going into tasks. This is akin to the strength of, for example, “I don’t drink” over “I am a recovering alcoholic”.
*the usual spelling of this, by the way, is “undistractable”, but we use the author’s version here for consistency. It’s a great marketing gimmick, as all searches for the word “indistractable” will bring up his book.
Nor is the book just about maximizing productivity to the detriment of everything else; this is not about having a 25 hours per day “grindset”. Rather, it even makes sure to cover such things as focusing on one’s loved ones, for instance.
Bottom line: if you’ve tried blocking out the distractions but still find you can’t focus, this book offers next-level solutions
Click here to check out Indistractible, and become indeed indistractable!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: