Which is worse for your skin ?

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Is sunscreen enough to prevent skin damage? I live in a hot country and am nervous now...

Sunscreen and avoiding too much exposure on sunny days and/or the times of day when the sun's rays are strongest (11am-3pm) will see you right, provided you're a) using a high enough SPF and UV protection rating and b) applying enough of it - don't be trying to cover a whole arm with a 10c sized dollop.
The Irish Cancer Society has a guide to this, I think. I'm on an iPod touch so it's a bit tricky to insert a link here, sorry. But the things you should know are widely available on the intertubes

The protection factor you need will depend on what skin type/ethnicity you have. I think the ICS recommends factor 30 or higher for Irish people. Personally because I am very very pale and burn within five minutes of leaving the house, I use factor 50. But then my mum and all my aunties have had skin cancer, so I might be a bit overcautious.

If you do have to be out of doors between 11 and 3 you might want to wear a hat. At the very least wear good quality polarised sunglasses because the skin around your eyes is much thinner and more delicate than elsewhere.

I personally don't think that moisturisers or foundations with built in sun protection are enough because you're unlikely to be putting enough on to give you proper protection. It's better to use a seperate sunscreen IMO.

If you are a person who wears makeup and you want your sunscreen to play nice with your foundation, I have always found that the Chanel sunscreen (I can't remember the proper name) works as an excellent base for liquid foundations. it's factor 50, good quality protection.

There was another one I used to use before I heard recommendations for the Chanel one, and it was also good and possibly a wee bit cheaper. I can't remember the brand because I'm a spa. Sorry. But what I'm getting at is, there are a few different options on the market nowadays.

Finally, if you wear mineral makeup it acts as a physical sunblock, which is good. It also has the advantage of not melting off your face in the sun. It tends to suit people with oily/combination skin best. If you want to try it don't get Bare Minerals, it's crap. I use LilyLolo, it's much better.

Sorry for the novel. I need a lie down after typing all that WITH MY THUMBS I HOPE IT DOES SOMEBODY SOME GOOD;)

Latchy wrote: »

Smoking and drinking will defo make your skin more haggard and aged looking .

Drugs too. If you want to see a testament to clean living, see the last Led Zeppelin live performance, Celebration Day. John Paul Jones (who stayed away from the excesses of his colleagues) looks about half the age of either Page or Plant

monflat wrote: »

Smoking I think
this is based on the smokers I know..... around their mouth they are destroyed with wrinkles and they have that yellow tinge off them !
Like wallpaper in a smokers room all yellow and dirty

Anyone who has wallpaper doesn't deserve happiness.

Reindeer wrote: »

The sun is, by far, the worst. Just ask any doctor.

That's exactly what I've been saying

Reindeer wrote: »

You live in Ireland, so this question is basically moot.

How so? Does Ireland have some kind of special UV filter in our airspace that we haven't been told about? Is it a conspiracy or something? Cause my tinfoil hat is at the drycleaners, they said it wouldn't be ready until Wednesday, maybe we should discuss it then?

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Except for, you know, battery acid and....lots of stuff.

I'm not saying everyone should lay out in the sun for hours but this kind of scare-mongering isn't needed for a country that's likely to be full of people with low vitamin D levels (which is an indicator for cancer and lots of other diseases, donchaknow)

Well to be fair Kaiser we only need 5-15 minutes of sunlight exposure to the face and hands, 2-3 times a week to get our Vitamin D. We can also get it in our diet.
The country is not full of people who are low on Vitamin D.

What it is full of is people who will get skin cancer in the next year, because skin cancer is actually the most common cancer in Ireland. Most cases are treatable if caught early, but I hardly think you can reasonably call educating people about it "scaremongering".

Far from there being some kind of mass hysteria and panic over skin cancer, most people are very ill-informed about the actual facts.

starling wrote: »

Well to be fair Kaiser we only need 5-15 minutes of sunlight exposure to the face and hands, 2-3 times a week to get our Vitamin D. We can also get it in our diet.
The country is not full of people who are low on Vitamin D.

What it is full of is people who will get skin cancer in the next year, because skin cancer is actually the most common cancer in Ireland. Most cases are treatable if caught early, but I hardly think you can reasonably call educating people about it "scaremongering".

Far from there being some kind of mass hysteria and panic over skin cancer, most people are very ill-informed about the actual facts.

Scaremongering is exactly what I'd call telling fair-skinned people that the Sun is the 'worst thing for them' (a preposterous statement). A study of Irish athletes (most who would be outside more than average) showed 70% were low in vitamin D, which is a pretty serious condition seeing as it's one of our most important vitamins (more like a hormone, in fact). You can get it from your diet but you'd have to be eating an awful lot of fish to get the same amounts from 10 minutes of exposure to the sun.

And if we're talking about cancer, the most common type is non-melanoma skin cancer, which is easily treatable and usually appears where the skin has been exposed to the sun. Melanoma skin cancer is a lot more dangerous and usually appears where there has been no sun exposure. Low vitamin D levels are also associated with serious cancers such as the breast, prostate, bowel and lung varieties

starling wrote: »

A preposterous statement that no-one's made.

Reindeer wrote: »

If you are fair-skinned, the sun is the worst thing for it.

Pay attention.

OP asked which is worse for your skin, smoking, drinking or the sun.
Answer: Smoking is worst, closely followed by sun.
Since many people are unaware of just what the risks are regarding sun damage, which includes but is not limited to skin cancer, telling them the facts cannot reasonably be considered scaremongering.

What facts? 'Stay out of the sun, you'll get cancer, dur!'

starling wrote: »

Do try to actually pay attention to the facts. The poster you're referring to has exhibited much of the same ignorance I was talking about, by claiming that if you live in Ireland, the point is moot.
Skin cancer is so common in ireland because people mistakenly think that there is not "enough sun" to be a problem.

The poster I was referring to was the one I was replying to, then you come along and claim that no one made a statement, one which I had directly quoted. Clearly you didn't read the post which you replied to. The mind boggles.

Non-melanoma skin cancer may not be fatal, but that doesn't mean I want to get it. Removal of tumours will leave a scar. On your face. The several people in my family who have had skin cancer would have preferred to have understood the risks and avoided this outcome.

Ah, so you have a personal reasons yo your posts. Explains a lot.

No, the facts I've posted. The facts about sun damage, skin aging and skin cancer. The facts you can easily check for youself. That would be facts now, not random ignorant conjectures like "Ireland is likely to be full of people who are Vitamin D deficient,dur."

You seem to be confusing the words 'facts' and 'statements'.

Here's the study I referred to, sample, 94% of GAA players were vitamin D deficient during winter and 74% of athletes deficient in vitamin D after winter. It is reasonable to ascertain from these statistics that the average Irish person (likely to be indoors more than athletes) is vitamin D deficient.

How about a quote from the Food Safety Authority?

Q. Why has this report been published?

The recent re-emergence of rickets (a severe form of vitamin D deficiency causing deformity of the bones) amongst infants in Ireland indicated the widespread low levels of vitamin D in the Irish population. A working group was established to investigate the problem in infants and to publish recommendations based on their findings.

Q. Why has vitamin D deficiency become a problem in Ireland?

Vitamin D deficiency was thought to have been eradicated in Ireland after the Second World War, due to better nutrition. However, over 20 cases of rickets in infants and toddlers have been reported at two Dublin hospitals in the last four to five years. Further evidence is emerging that there is widespread low levels of vitamin D in the general population in Ireland. There are several factors which have contributed to this.

Vitamin D is mainly produced in the body by exposure of the skin to sunlight. However, because of Ireland’s northerly latitude, in the months between November and March there is inadequate quality and quantity of sunlight to enable sufficient production of vitamin D by the body (the current recommended dietary daily amount of vitamin D is 5 µg). Even on sunny days in the winter, the sun’s rays are of the wrong type for the production of vitamin D. In addition, with more people working indoors and using sunscreen when outside, vitamin D from sunlight exposure has decreased.
.......
Dietary sources of vitamin D are not consumed in sufficient quantities to counter the lack of sunlight exposure

Of course, because this doesn't fit in with your beliefs, I'm probably making this up

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Ah, so you have a personal reasons yo your posts. Explains a lot.

You've caught me - I am horribly, horribly biased against skin cancer.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You seem to be confusing the words 'facts' and 'statements'.

Here's the study I referred to, sample, 94% of GAA players were vitamin D deficient during winter and 74% of athletes deficient in vitamin D after winter. It is reasonable to ascertain from these statistics that the average Irish person (likely to be indoors more than athletes) is vitamin D deficient.

How about a quote from the Food Safety Authority?



Of course, because this doesn't fit in with your beliefs, I'm probably making this up

There's no need to get insulting here. I will happily accept facts from the FSA and it is true that babies and toddlers are much more likely to be either kept out of the sun or covered in sunscreen by their parents than they were years ago when people didn't realise the risks of sun exposure on children's skin.

However that does not negate the fact that a vast number of people in Ireland don't fully realise the risks when it comes to sun damage. Again, I'm not just talking about cancer here. The thread is more about the effect of the sun on the skin's appearance in general, compared with the effects of smoking and drinking.

I stand by my assertion that educating people about skin damage from the sun is not "scaremongering" in any form. If you don't want to use sun protection that is entirely your right. However lots of people, especially women, would rather protect their skin from both premature wrinkles, other signs of aging, and skin cancer. The benefits of using sun protection outweight the risk of not getting enough Vitamin D, since it can be supplemented if someone tests as being deficient.

The sun, I reckon.

My sister is 5 years younger than me, and people always think I'm the younger sister. We both smoke (though, I do regularly quit, was never an all-day smoker and didn't start as young as my sister did) but she has spent a lot more time in the sun than I have, quite a lot more time. She's not great at cleaning and moisturising her skin either, while I am quite diligent in that respect, so that may play a part too. All those things considered, I suspect the sun is more damaging.

Fizzlesque wrote: »

The sun, I reckon.

My sister is 5 years younger than me, and people always think I'm the younger sister. We both smoke (though, I do regularly quit, was never an all-day smoker and didn't start as young as my sister did) but she has spent a lot more time in the sun than I have, quite a lot more time. She's not great at cleaning and moisturising her skin either, while I am quite diligent in that respect, so that may play a part too. All those things considered, I suspect the sun is more damaging.

I reckon your care of your skin as opposed to your sister's treatment of hers is definitely standing to you there. Especially if she regularly falls asleep with makeup on :eek: