Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo Girl  Sure, the Vit D council would be excellent to have on board as well , as their primary focus is health benefit. Especially, the harmful effects of not enough sunlight and the carcinogenic properties of sunscreen.
But for us, the actual foundation of sunscare was methodically put in place by derms uniting to corner the market for profit. Joe Public does not know and exposing who's in bed w/who would be an offensive tactic to shake the sunscare foundation at the core.
The object of the game is to get Joe Public to question the info that has pounded in their heads on every level. I personally believe that we will eventually win this fight b/c truth is on our side. People instictively know that the sun (and sunbeds) give you more energy, makes you feel good and flock in droves to sunny vacation spots, etc.
They are only covering up and avoiding sun due to brainwashing. I don't think they WANT to, I think they feel they HAVE to for health benefits. Blowing the lid off that is what will be the game changer.
Now if your saying that it's not ITA's job due to money, bodies and financial constraints, then I absolutely agree with you. They are spread so thin and are contributing so much of their own time and money already, that it's pretty much impossible to do little else than attempt to put out small fires as they present. |
Totally agree here. It can't be an "ITA or 'US'" type of finger pointing game. What is stopping any of us from blogging secondary research articles that start scary the "Joe Publics" of the world into waking up? Look at the Environmental Working Group.
http://www.ewg.org/2014sunscreen/the...een-chemicals/ I don't know much about the EWG but they have a rating system for common FDA-Approved sunscreen chemicals. The one I found in my DC SPF-15 lip balm has to the top two offending chemicals in it. Keep in mind the directions say "apply liberally before sun exposure..." The top two ingredients are Octinoxate and oxybenzone. What's interesting is that we can't necessarily scare anyone with the "OMG it's gonna cause cancer," approach. Oddly enough a bunch of dermatologists say this is totally safe and been in good standing for nearly 20 years (oxybenzone, that is). The EWG says that oxybenzone is definitely BAD. One of its primary side effects is hormone imbalance as it acts like estrogen. With the rise of evironmental estrogen in the world as a whole this is definitely a serious side effect. We know that research shows an SPF of 15 blocks 99.9% of UVA/UVB if I'm not mistaken and in this case the liberal application of the product in question is on the lips. This stuff is not just being soaked into the skin but most likely licked and thus completely ingested. I would wager that we could bring the oxybenzone full circle back to cancer by pointing out that males with artificially elevated estrogen levels are at higher risks for certain cancers. Now, long drawn out examples like this are great for those of us behind the scenes willing to read and do the research. For Joe Public though, we need to present the hormonal imbalances in a big way. This again requires peer reviewed primary research cited in secondary research.