What would've been cool is if you'd filmed in UV the affects of going in water with sunscreen on, or maybe a time lapse to show how much it fades throughout the day.
Almost nothing in this video made use of the UV camera and we learned almost nothing from the UV camera shots apart from the obvious. I kept waiting for the timelapse or... something. I guess they ran out of time spraying the van.
I had a discussion not long ago where I was in favor of including UV cameras in cell phones for creative purposes and others saw no benefit to having them. This would be a great use for them, you could see if you had applied your sunscreen properly.
Sony handicams with nightshot mode had that feature, as it turns out they see right through many clothing articles and the tan through clothes are as transparent as saran wrap!
One thing I'm surprised went unmentioned: "SPF" is defined by a testing method, where the SPF number is the threshold of how much UVA/UVB doesn't make it through the product (applied in a standardized layer). It's a very simple bit of math! SPF 4 = 1/4 or 25% of the radiation is not blocked (absorbed/reflected) SPF 8 = 1/8 or 12.5% SPF 15 = 1/15 or 6.7% SPF 30 = 1/30 or 3.3% SPF 50 = 1/50 or 2% SPF 100 = 1/100 or 1% SPF 150 = 1/150 or 0.67% So it makes good sense that you can't readily tell the difference at higher SPF's because the difference is getting tinier and tinier. The difference between SPF 15 and 30 is 3.4% radiation getting through, but the difference between 50 and 150 is only 1.3%. This is also interesting in terms of evaluating the UV camera's receptivity, because SPF doesn't discriminate between how it gets results (absorbing vs reflecting), but the camera is registering the UV radiation emitted/reflected, so as you observed absorption darkens and reflection may be invisible or actually lighter. So if you had two different brands achieving the same SPF value by different combinations of the two mechanisms, they may appear different on the camera even though they have the same efficacy from the skin's point of view.
I was surprised it didn't look white to the UV camera, since white would be reflection of UV... Absorption would be black and would also work, in both cases the UV isn't making it to the skin.
Why so complicated? Basically Sun Protection Factor is the FACTOR how much times longer you can withstand sunlight as with your skins self protection! For example: if you can go 10min without sunscreen before you get an sunburn - with SPF 2 you can go 20min, with SPF 30 its 5h and SPF 50 its 8,33h and so on...
I love how on the day we filmed this I got sunburned because I couldn't wear sunscreen or else it would show in the UV camera. I like that my stealth filming of you telling us how you really feel made it into this video. Also, why do I look so serious? Happy Physicsing Dianna!!
I have always heard the two sunscreen categories described as "chemical" and "mineral." I don't think the chemical bit is an intent at scaring people. It's just descriptive of how the sunscreen works. When in the video they say that these types of sunscreens "absorb" the UV light, what they really mean is that the UV light induces a chemical reaction within those chemicals, where they are broken down into smaller molecules. By giving energy to the chemical reaction, the light becomes less dangerous, and its frequency shifts down so that it is mostly heat rather than penetrating rays. And this is why they say you have to reapply the sunscreen every few hours: the chemicals get consumed as they work. They also get consumed if the sunscreen in left in a hot location, so it's best to not leave your tube of sunscreen out in the sun when you're at the beach. The mineral sunscreen, on the other hand, are physical barriers that are placed between the light and the skin. No chemical reaction takes place (or only a tiny one). The light simply bounces off it. This is also why you can generally see mineral sunscreens on people's skin. It's an actual physical barrier. But they also make tinted varieties that are less noticable. Both chemical and mineral sunscreen contain chemicals that are potentially toxic to some degree. The chemical sunscreens we use in the US are banned in Europe and vice versa. (But this might also just be protectionism because the chemicals in European sunscreens are produced by European companies, and the US sunscreens' are made by US companies). However, the molecules in mineral sunscreens are orders of magnitude larger than those in chemical sunscreens, and the latter get broken down into even smaller ones. So the chemicals in chemical sunscreens are much more likely to make it into your bloodstream than those from mineral sunscreens. Regarding effectiveness, my understanding is that the chemical ones tend to work somewhat better, although they need to be continuously reapplied because the UV light is constantly breaking them down. With mineral sunscreens you also have to make sure that they have BOTH zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in them, as the two minerals are effective against different light wavelengths. My personal sunscreen strategy is to use a mineral sunscreen as my every day walking about sunscreen. I mix an untinted and tinted so that it matches my skin color. If I'll have a long sun exposure, then I have a sunscreen that is primarily mineral but also contains some of the chemicals. To me that seems the best tradeoff between safety from the sunscreen vs safety from the sun.
The bit about American sunscreen filters being banned in Europe isn't quite right. Avobenzone isn't approved in Europe, but there is a lot of overlap in chemical UV filters approved in both the US and Europe. Homosalate, octocrylene, oxybenzone, padimate-o, ensulizole, sulisobenzone, and ecamsule are all organic filters approved for both regions, as well as the reliable inorganic filters. It might be better to say that American sunscreen formulations can't be sold easily with the same formulation and packaging in the EU due to regulatory differences, some of which are related to unapproved ingredients, but most of which come down to labeling and testing processes that are inefficient and costly. Much easier to formulate EU specific products than deal with developing and marketing the exact same product in both regions.
@@joshaxxe7259 I don't think I'm qualified to recommend any specific brand. I'm just some random guy on the internet who has read up on this. But I have no insight into how well the various brands are formulated. The brand I use at the moment is called SkinMedica, which is pretty expensive, but since I'm only putting it on my face and neck it doesn't make that much difference. I'd use something else if I were going to the beach (which I haven't in a while). But I chose them primarily because it seemed easier to remove at the end of the day than other brands I had tried. (Sunscreens are usually formulated to be "waterproof," presumably for use at the beach or pool, which makes them difficult to wash off). That plus they seemed to be a reasonably serious company. But this is in no way a recommendation. I have no idea how well it's actually working.
There’s a plant called Heracleum, which is pretty common in Russia (and the whole northern hemisphere if the Wikipedia is correct). It’s very invasive and grows very fast. If not destroyed it can cover very large areas very fast. What’s worse is that its juice causes severe burns. That’s common knowledge in Russia. A much less known fact is that those burns are not caused by juice itself. These are actually sunburns. The plant’s juice causes chemical reaction which dramatically increases skin’s photosensitivity. So it’s basically a reverse sunscreen. And those severe (sometimes even lethal) burns can be avoided just by covering from sunlight.
I don't get why people think inorganic is bad and organic is good. Poison can be organic as you can get it from snakes, scorpions and animals like that. Water is inorganic, air is inorganic. People really nead to understand what can do damage, to who and in what quantity. It's like I'd be against using peanuts for any purpose because some people are allergic.
I have a theory: First, most people are not interested in science at all, so the interest / knowledge about chemistry is very limited. The second factor is the BIG MISTAKES the chemistry industry has made in the past. Maybe young people have not experienced it but I'm 43 and I remember huge mistakes made by them during my life: - DDT - The CFCs and the Ozone depletion - Pregnant women taking some medicines and children developing illnesses or deformations. Also the greedy tactics some big companies like Monsanto or Bayer against Third World countries or against farmers, damage the reputation of anything labeled as "chemical".
Just curious, how well can you trust a federal program such as the fda with all the controversy of these programs being paid off by big companies? Also you remind me of Denise Austin in her younger days when you were sitting on the couch.
Spray sunscreens are necessarily easier to wash/rub off of the skin, so they seem to be worse at protecting over a given period of time (I apply in the morning, lunch, and after about 3pm). If they were 'stickier' or thicker they wouldn't spray very well at all...and they already have an ick factor that most salves and lotions don't have.
You'd also need to stay away from windows, as UV-A radiation goes through glass (and some textiles), and is actually pretty dangerous. But you'd probably do that anyway, otherwise you can't see your screen properly!
And end up with low Vitamin D levels... I live in the South-West of Western Australia, where we used to get the hole in the ozone layer move overhead during summer (40°C+ temperatures). You couldn't wear enough sunscreen to prevent long-term skin damage & tens of thousands of people ended up getting skin cancer. The social impact was huge, with massive government campaigns to indoctrinate kids into using waterproof sunscreen & protective clothing ("Slip, Slop, Slap"). Now, the current generation of parents are so paranoid that they would wrap their children in lead foil if they thought that it would help prevent cumulative skin damage & cancer.
the distinction is UVA will stop at the Ozone layer and get reflected, UVB has shorter wavelengths so its UV will pass through clouds and come in contact with our skin causing skin cancer and eye damage. But, note that the most distinct thing between them is if we didnt have the Ozone layer, UVC could get through and is the most harmful and can damage our inner layers and theres nothing a bit of sunscreen can do about it. Hence we really should prevent global warming.
catherine j UVA does come in through the ozone layer. UVA causes aging and skin cancer because it affects deeper layers of the dermis whereas UVB affects tanning and burning. Also the SPF rating only takes into account UVB protection and not UVA protection.
Also Zinc Oxide is the only reliable sunscreen ingredient that protects against UVA rays effectively, which is why I always opt for mineral sunscreens, or combo sunscreens.
9:39 And that's why it is important to spread scientific literacy as much as possible. Thanks Dianna for your work! (and thanks Derek also, I'm a great fan of him as well)
Sun is for superior ppl it’s natural energy unlike man made light. It goes to show u why blacks are hated I never knew THE SUN DESTROY NON BLACKS that’s crazy it gives me energy everyday especially coming out these cold buildings. I understand why they keep trying to block out the sun lol bc of vengeance lol
Obscurianus my whole family sun gaze not no one family ever was scorn no skin cancer my melanin protects us that’s why we were able to build in spaghetti with no hats nor sun block all we needed was food n water MELANIN IS WORTH N COST MORE THAN GOLD DIAMONDS OR ANY RUBIES I KNOW MYSELF
Obscurianus nothing lives in winter no plants grass etc my hair grows up towards the sun ☀️ Because it gives melaninated people LIFE that’s why our hair texture is different from any other nation it doesn’t go downward like animal hair but Up in Afro manner only looking for the sun n waiting on water...
@@utbigpapa where did you get yours! I can't find it online anymore and the ones on the market emit a hella harsh uv light which completely defeats the purpose
3:55 Dianna is making a mistake here not acknowledging gamma compression in grey scale values. Our eyes just aren't made to distinguish linear value changes so that part of the scale gets compressed. Just because it LOOKS like there's not much difference between 50 and 100 doesn't mean that the 100 isn't ACTUALLY twice as dark.
oliverwilson11 "the brigher parts get compressed more" Maybe it's a matter of which way we're looking at it. The point is that our eyes are less sensitive to linear changes in the dark end and more sensitive in the light end. ua-cam.com/video/WJzmcJQFlao/v-deo.html
Organic would be an even worse name than chemical, but in the other direction. "Chemical" has negative connotations and "organic" has positive connotations. In both cases, the connotations have zero to do with the actual definition of the word though.
Organic would be a correct name based on definition though. Yes, the connotation would exist, but one is "organic" because it uses chemicals naturally found. The other uses chemicals not naturally found.
The757packerfan Nope. Organic, in its technical meaning, which is the meaning used here, means "carbon based". Zinc Oxide and Titanium Dioxide, the "physical" compounds are natural while some of the organic compounds are natural and others are synthetic. The fact that you just got this so wildly wrong shows why "organic" would be a bad name for it. Most people don't know what it means and even when they do know the technical definition, they associate the usage of the term in marketing as meaning "natural" and associate that with "healthy". In fact, many of these organic compounds have insufficient testing to ensure their safety. Most are probably fine, but until recently, adequate testing was not required and so for most of them, we just don't know. The inorganic ones have been used much longer and they pose no danger.
@@allthatsheiz For the reason I said in my reply to a previous comment. While that MAY be accurate, it is neither fundamental to the difference nor does it accurately relay the information because the association of the word "organic" differs so wildly from its actual meaning. Plus, I'm not even sure it is always accurate. Are all the chemicals in chemical sun screen carbon based? I have no idea myself.
It is natural for people to be curious! So no wonder to that. Actually I believe that curiosity is been killed in the most schools. Because in school they provide all the answers, even before you ask them. But it kills curiosity
a better test for "physical" and "chemical" a piece of uv transparent glass coated with different sunscreens with uv source behind it and camera infront to see how much uv passes through
I agree. And it's pretty ridiculous that this experiment wasn't done in this video. The quality of her videos has gone down a lot as she no longer gets into the weeds and just stays on the surface.
Did you try smearing sunscreens on a clear filter and putting it in front of the camera lens? This seems like a better test of sunscreen effectiveness since reduced transmission is really what you want to test regardless of the cause be it, reflection or absorption. Sorry if this has already been proposed in the 2 years it took me to find this video. Love your channel!
The optic's involved is like trying to measure radiation through a mirror.. retina's are trained to respond to visible light pupils limit amplitude cones to spectrum and rods to intensity
As a chemist, what I can say is that inorganic UV filters must be in the form of nanoparticles in order to refract UV light. But the size of nanoparticles is very important because although smaller nanoparticles diffract UV light better, they can be absorbed by the skin more easily and at the moment there's not enough studies on the effects of absorbed nanoparticles such as zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. Moreover, nanoparticles of titanium dioxide are known to catalyse, as a result of UV radiation, the production of peroxides and radical species in aqueous environments that can be very harmful to cells. With this in mind, the size of nanoparticles must be established and regulated by law very accurately. As far as organic filters are concerned, most molecules contained in sun creams are based on natural compounds with known UV light absorption activity. That's why many creams have a slight carrot aroma for example.
The 3 simultaneous uploads caused a great deal of anxiety here also. It's like trying to watch buffy and angel with the right timeline, we need a watching guide ;)
Actually that’s a myth, most of the uv light is absorbed by both mineral and chemical sunscreen, and the information in the video is slightly outdated/now proved to be wrong. I’D recommend for example Dr Dray’s channel, she’s a dermatolologist and she talked about it a few times. There is a lot of contadictory info online now btw
Imagine putting on all those different sunscreens from weakest to strongest (In SPFs) on your arm and sorta blending them and making a gradient tanline that would be so cool
Hi, interesting video! However, a more rigorous measure would be comparing transmittance instead. You can do it on glass with a control sample. Would be interesting if you can have a good control of thickness, and measure the results with different thicknesses too.
That was an interesting video. As someone who has had several skin cancers and now has to go in to the dermatologist twice per year for a skin check, I can vouch for the fact that skin cancer is no fun. Use sun screen boys and girls.
Ok now Ya I found it amazing I was curious why native American were tan ect and whites seem to be doing fine then I moved out west away from the city and was like oh damn you guy are not doing fine lol That's some selective pressure. Well don't worry CrispR in like 100 years lol no more cancer ... Maybe
I've had skin cancer (caught early, fortunately) so I'm very protective of my skin when outdoors. I prefer to use UV-blocking clothing, wide-brim hats and gloves, but I do use sunscreen sometimes. I don't want to use sunscreen often because I don't know what long-term use will do to my health. People forget that the skin is the largest organ in the body. I figure that clothes are "safer" than topically applied chemicals. I have a photo taken of me a few years back fishing from my kayak, and you cannot see any skin at all--I have 100% coverage (including my face).
You do know that sunscreens actually cause skin cancer right ??? they block Vitamin D which is NEEDED to prevent skin cancer and other cancers. You can also get burnt through clothes which is why some clothes are now SPF. There are many foods that when eaten or applied to the skin is a safe and natural way, rather than toxic chemicals.
@@k8lynmae vitamin D is produced by the body via photolisis tho (you can also just get it in milk or fish) it isn't something that's just floating around so that's not really what sunscreen is doing Plus everything you put on your skin to prevent sunburn is a chemical that prevents uv light from getting to your skin be it by absorbing it or reflecting it that's who it works, if it doesn't do any of those things then you're just rubbing things on your skin for the fun of it
Coconut oil monoi oil is the best keep skin moisturised to stop burning, sun cream causes cancer , u need vit d from the sun to prevent from cancer , u never hear of skin cancer in the tribal regions, because they use oils and get the vitamin d they need through the skin
Katelyn Not all chemicals are toxic. It isn’t fully proven that sunscreens cause cancer, though it is being investigated. And I doubt putting food on your skin is any better. The risk of cancer without sunscreen is high, better to use sunscreen- but hey, it’s your life.
I feel like a better distinction would be sun (UV) absorbers and sun (UV) blockers vs the generic apply all sunscreen. I’m a bit confused as to why you seemed hesitant to the sun blockers (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide). I’m disappointed there was no distinction between UVB and UVA. We need to have better UVA blocking sunscreens. Edit: Change a UVB to UVA. On a mobile device. Apologies.
I'm not so surprised that the effects of sunscreen on the environment (e.g. coral) aren't so well known. What I am surprised at is that Hawaii is going to take 3 years to ban certain sunscreens. I just don't understand what part of the ban should take so long when they know it is causing damage to the coral.
Young Marshall: What advice do you have for a budding anthropologist? Dr. Aurelia Birnholz-Vazquez: So you want to be an anthropologist? Young Marshall: Yep. When I grow up, I want to go live with the gorillas, just like you did. Narrator: What she said next changed his life. Dr. Aurelia Birnholz-Vazquez: Oh, that's wonderful, but I'm afraid you can't. They'll all be dead by then.
Hawaii is applying a more immediate ban on the SALE of these sunscreens anywhere in the state. The 3 year timeline applies to tourists bringing them in from other states and countries. This allows time for the trickle of important news which travels at the speed of snail, while entertaining news travels faster than light.
Because having a sunscreen shortage in a tropical vacation spot like Hawaii would be far worse than letting a little bit of coral die for the next couple of years.
I found this.... "Sunlight energy that reaches the ground is around 4% ultraviolet, 43% visible light, and 53% infrared. Solar panels mostly convert visible light into electrical energy, and they also can make use of almost half the infrared energy. But solar panels only use a small portion of ultraviolet." If by "small portion" they mean "somewhere less than 50%", then an SPF100 sunscreen on a solar panel would decrease its' available total energy by less than 2%. Obviously the sunscreen would not absorb into the solar panel, like it does your skin; so you'd end up with a visible film over the panel, which would also block a small amount of visible light. Conclusion: You can stop your solar panels from getting sunburned if you're prepared to lose
6:37 I've traveled to Redang island more than a decade ago, we were told to not use sun screen so that we dont destroy the ocean ecosystem... it seems like someone had the foresight
This sounds more like coincidence than foresight. If they were specific and said how the sunscreen would have lead to coral death, that would have been something. To use an analogy, it would be like someone telling you not to go outside because the sun is deadly. A decade later your neighbor gets liver cancer because of a stray gamma ray from the sun knocks a nucleotide out of alignment and then praising the person who warned you about the sun in the first place for being right.
The chemical discussion here reminds me of a time I did a "science project" for school where I made molecule shapes out of toothpicks and marshmallows. I didn't want people to just eat them while they were unattended, so I just put a note on them that said "don't eat, contains chemicals".
Personally, I just wear a rash guard or spf rating long sleeve shirt. It'll keep me protected all day long and I only need to cover my face, hands, and legs with sunscreen.
The paper on skin absorbance of sunscreens concludes its abstract with: "It is concluded that the human viable epidermal levels of sunscreens are too low to cause any significant toxicity to the underlying human keratinocytes." You implied to the viewer that the study says it the sunscreen ingredients are dangerous.
Not how they came across to me. The concern expressed, as I understood them, was over some molecules being detected in breast milk after application with more study needed to determine if there are any other long term usage risks given this newfound knowledge that the molecules can be absorbed into the body,
As a person with the least melanin, other than sufferers of albinism, there is a BIG difference between 50spf and 100spf. Not many of us can get burned at sea level with 50spf, but me and my son do!
Brilliant video! Learned a lot. We need more people to make videos like this on other important topics. Luckily, there is more and more information about sun damage and sunscreen in general. As an aesthetician I am wearing sunscreen every day! You get only one skin after all. I also don’t smoke nor drink as much anymore. I’m 27 and I’m really taking care of myself now. The only thing I do, which I should definitely stop, is eating junk food from time to time. It’s like my guilty pleasure! :D It’s not okay. Love the video!!
It is all toxic and should not be on your skin. I even avoid shower gels, I actually manufacture my own bar soap so that it does not have unnecessary chemicals in it. Sunlight in sensible amounts leading to a full tan is healthy for us, that was proven years ago by proper scientists who were not bribed to say one thing or another.
The FDA has blocked sunscreen filters that have been safely used for 20 years in other counties. Most of our sunscreens wouldn't be permitted on the market in Asia and Europe. The FDA has done a HORRIBLE job regulating sunscreens.
If anything warrants a second episode it's this. Loved the vid and would love a deeper dive in the currently used elements in sunscreen. Both from a biochemical and a (bio)physical lens. Do the 'physical' sunscreens have similar issues with the oxides as with the aluminum oxides that are used in some deodorants? Is it effective to combine the 'physical' and 'chemical' sunscreens? What possible environmental impacts are there? What research/actions have been prompted by the recent findings? There's loads to look into.
Nice video, I do wish however that you would have explained what spf means in more detail, how it correlates to time, and maybe how it protects against UVA better than UVB and what that means. Also, maybe coming back an hour or so later to see how the different sunscreens have lasted over time could be interesting.
You should have tested the sunscreen wear over time. The point of high SPF is that it remains effective for a longer period than lower SPFs. Most people don't apply (and reapply) the recommended amount anyway. Higher SPF helps in that, even if you are applying insufficient amount, you're getting at least SPF 30 or 50 from a sunscreen labelled as SPF 100
@@matheusn.3568 TRUE, mineral sunscreen works the same way as chemical sunscreen except that mineral sunscreen also scatter visible light. The more accurate terms to use is actually Mineral/physical sunscreen= inorganic sunscreen Chemical sunscreen= Organic sunscreen
Was expecting this video to show how the sunscreen degraded over time under the UV camera but it only showed how dark it was on initial application :(.
@@gobbledygoook It will gradually fade. It's not very dramatic to watch to be honest. We have the only consumer product that does this. It's called Sunscreenr
When strictly speaking about the camera method of checking the UV protection you have to keep in mind that the absorbing sunscreen absorbs TWICE. This is something that you didn't adress in the video, I don't know if you've factored this in. But essentially the sunscreen lets through a small part of the UV light and absorbs the rest, and when it reaches your skin again some part is reflected and absorbed. When you get to factor 50+ it becomes hard to tell from a camera if the light had been absorbed once or twice (meaning maybe the 100 factor sunscreen absorbed almost all of the UV light the first time around, and the 50 factor one only absorbed some first, and some more on it's way back). I hope I'm being clear in what I say, I'd be interested to hear back if you factored this in.
Maybe it’s just because I’m ghostly pale, but I definitely have found that a higher spf is less likely to turn me into a lobster 😂 I’m going to stick to my 100+
Higher spf is better. Spf has to do with the time it takes you to burn. So spf 100 means it woyld take you 100 times more time in the sun to burn than if you wore no protection. So keep screening and eaven double later allowing 10 minutes after each application and wear everyday. You got this!
@@tracywofford3384 SPF is based on the amount of UV radiation that gets through a layer applied using a standardized method and resulting thickness; it's a lab test using analytical equipment. It's also a logarithmic scale, so SPF 100 does *not* provide double the protection of SPF 50. SPF 25 = 1/25 or 4% of UV light passed SPF 50 = 1/50 or 2% SPF 100 = 1/100 or 1% SPF 150 = 1/150 or 0.67%
Try a good quality zinc/titanium sunscreen. You should not turn into a lobster even with an SPF of 30. Check out EWG's ratings re: toxicity and UV effectiveness.
Enjoyed this, and I love Physics Girl and Veritasium, but I'm a bit disappointed they didn't mention sunscreen should be the last line off defense. Most dermatologists say to wear sunscreen, but also to use shade and protective clothing (hat, swim shirt etc) as your first lines of defense against the sun.
Cool videos! I also love the breakdown of inorganic (physical) vs. Organic (chemical). However, SPF is a Transmissive parameter and you are looking at reflective properties with the UV camera. Can we try this with Quartz glass & sunscreen to see how well UV gets through to the other side of the glass?
"Ladies and gentlemen of the class of '97: Wear sunscreen. If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience."
This is pretty interesting about sunscreens. I'm glad they mentioned the mineral sunscreens which is my preference. Not just for the health reasons that they discussed as we learned that some of these sunscreens that absorb light versus the mineral that reflect, it have been shown some to enter the bloodstream and be bad for the coral reef. But as someone if you has done 10 hours in the 🌞 of biking many times in her life there is quite a bit of sun damage on my face and shoulders, arms, hands. On my face when I go into the sun I can see the sun damage kind of pops out and it looks like I have freckles. 9vertime that dissolution sticks around even when il out of the sun. When I wear a mineral sunscreen I find that I get better protection and that does not happen. I have also found that I've been getting less pigmentation from the Sun. I also prefer to find an SPF clothing now when spending high amounts of time in the sun like biking or hiking. And if I was a swimmer I would probably get one of those long sleeve spf bathing suits. I am curious what these spf clothing looks like under the light
"Physical" sunscreen sounds pretty great, both because its reflective nature means it won't make you feel so warm, and because its inorganic nature makes it less likely to interact in negative ways with organic creatures like coral reefs or our own bodies (although that's not guaranteed; asbestos is inorganic and I try to limit my exposure to that!). But I've also read that it doesn't stay on your skin when you swim or sweat, and it's hard to avoid sweating when you're in the sun.
That is an informative video which was well made. The only additional thing that I would have liked you to do would have been to use the UV camera on the different types/levels of sunscreen over a period of time (to show if the higher the number equates to better protection over a longer period of time).
I find it incredibly interesting that Hawaii is banning some organic UV absorbers to protect the coral reefs, but is not doing anything about climate change that is the main cause of coral bleeching :)))
The perks of SPF 50+ is that in France the UVA protection has to be at least 1/3 of the SPF, so between SPF 30 and SPF 50+ the UVA protection is really different !
Even though there weren't many answers, i found this video one of the best on your channel for a long time ;) (I'm not a veritasium fanboy, i just liked thhee video for its quality content 😉)
Great video! If you would like to avoid using sunscreen and sun burn I recommend long sleeve outdoor shirts, long pants and a wide brim hat. I live in southern Arizona and even in intense heat this works great.
Great video, I enjoy to see sciency gadgets explaining daily concepts Geek comment: Basics on interaction of light and matter: Absorption(A) + Transmission(T) + Reflection(R) = 1 [aka energy preservation principle] To actually test the effectiveness of a sunscreen you might need to measure how much they absorb and at the same time how much they reflect, the result is T=1-(A+R), which is actually how much radiation is passing through the sunscreen and reaching your skin. [keeping in mind that the thickness or the layers applied might reduce the T] In Materials Science characterization techniques, you might used a spectrophotometer with an integrating sphere.
What would've been cool is if you'd filmed in UV the affects of going in water with sunscreen on, or maybe a time lapse to show how much it fades throughout the day.
True, having a camera setup like this is just so amazing
Yes definitely
I need to know if we really need to reapply even when we’ve been indoors 🥲
but not in natural water
Almost nothing in this video made use of the UV camera and we learned almost nothing from the UV camera shots apart from the obvious. I kept waiting for the timelapse or... something. I guess they ran out of time spraying the van.
@@peterjobrien If you watch the How to make everything video in the description they do a lot more of what you're talking about
"At the end of the day, put on sunscreen" -- uhhh wouldn't it make more sense to put it on at the beginning of the day? 😀
Here, take your *like*. You deserve it.
Derek's throwin down some bad advice there
@Kevin Fitch
just getting ready for the next day , hehe :-)
You beat me to it! Have a like.
Unless you do welding work at night, it would be useless to put sunscreen at the end of the day. Happy physicsing!
I had a discussion not long ago where I was in favor of including UV cameras in cell phones for creative purposes and others saw no benefit to having them. This would be a great use for them, you could see if you had applied your sunscreen properly.
Sony handicams with nightshot mode had that feature, as it turns out they see right through many clothing articles and the tan through clothes are as transparent as saran wrap!
except that much of our "invisible" tech operates entirely on the premise that humans cannot discern UVA or B over visible light from the same source.
It would be super nice to be able to use a selfie for that
frr i need this
Maybe useful as an add-on, like flir camera
One thing I'm surprised went unmentioned:
"SPF" is defined by a testing method, where the SPF number is the threshold of how much UVA/UVB doesn't make it through the product (applied in a standardized layer). It's a very simple bit of math!
SPF 4 = 1/4 or 25% of the radiation is not blocked (absorbed/reflected)
SPF 8 = 1/8 or 12.5%
SPF 15 = 1/15 or 6.7%
SPF 30 = 1/30 or 3.3%
SPF 50 = 1/50 or 2%
SPF 100 = 1/100 or 1%
SPF 150 = 1/150 or 0.67%
So it makes good sense that you can't readily tell the difference at higher SPF's because the difference is getting tinier and tinier. The difference between SPF 15 and 30 is 3.4% radiation getting through, but the difference between 50 and 150 is only 1.3%. This is also interesting in terms of evaluating the UV camera's receptivity, because SPF doesn't discriminate between how it gets results (absorbing vs reflecting), but the camera is registering the UV radiation emitted/reflected, so as you observed absorption darkens and reflection may be invisible or actually lighter. So if you had two different brands achieving the same SPF value by different combinations of the two mechanisms, they may appear different on the camera even though they have the same efficacy from the skin's point of view.
Very well said.
QyetOne yes math!
I was surprised it didn't look white to the UV camera, since white would be reflection of UV... Absorption would be black and would also work, in both cases the UV isn't making it to the skin.
so what number is best?
Why so complicated? Basically Sun Protection Factor is the FACTOR how much times longer you can withstand sunlight as with your skins self protection! For example: if you can go 10min without sunscreen before you get an sunburn - with SPF 2 you can go 20min, with SPF 30 its 5h and SPF 50 its 8,33h and so on...
I love how on the day we filmed this I got sunburned because I couldn't wear sunscreen or else it would show in the UV camera. I like that my stealth filming of you telling us how you really feel made it into this video. Also, why do I look so serious? Happy Physicsing Dianna!!
You guys uploaded your videos at the same time
+AJAY RAWAT For me there was a few minutes of delay on this video, I wonder why?
Possibly because the current UVC, B and A rays have been setting at extreme levels for quite some time now..
Your cancerous demise isn't for naught, my friend. Your sacrifice is for the greater good.
Leonid Izakov, testing UA-cam notification system maybe ?
I have always heard the two sunscreen categories described as "chemical" and "mineral." I don't think the chemical bit is an intent at scaring people. It's just descriptive of how the sunscreen works. When in the video they say that these types of sunscreens "absorb" the UV light, what they really mean is that the UV light induces a chemical reaction within those chemicals, where they are broken down into smaller molecules. By giving energy to the chemical reaction, the light becomes less dangerous, and its frequency shifts down so that it is mostly heat rather than penetrating rays. And this is why they say you have to reapply the sunscreen every few hours: the chemicals get consumed as they work. They also get consumed if the sunscreen in left in a hot location, so it's best to not leave your tube of sunscreen out in the sun when you're at the beach. The mineral sunscreen, on the other hand, are physical barriers that are placed between the light and the skin. No chemical reaction takes place (or only a tiny one). The light simply bounces off it. This is also why you can generally see mineral sunscreens on people's skin. It's an actual physical barrier. But they also make tinted varieties that are less noticable.
Both chemical and mineral sunscreen contain chemicals that are potentially toxic to some degree. The chemical sunscreens we use in the US are banned in Europe and vice versa. (But this might also just be protectionism because the chemicals in European sunscreens are produced by European companies, and the US sunscreens' are made by US companies). However, the molecules in mineral sunscreens are orders of magnitude larger than those in chemical sunscreens, and the latter get broken down into even smaller ones. So the chemicals in chemical sunscreens are much more likely to make it into your bloodstream than those from mineral sunscreens.
Regarding effectiveness, my understanding is that the chemical ones tend to work somewhat better, although they need to be continuously reapplied because the UV light is constantly breaking them down. With mineral sunscreens you also have to make sure that they have BOTH zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in them, as the two minerals are effective against different light wavelengths. My personal sunscreen strategy is to use a mineral sunscreen as my every day walking about sunscreen. I mix an untinted and tinted so that it matches my skin color. If I'll have a long sun exposure, then I have a sunscreen that is primarily mineral but also contains some of the chemicals. To me that seems the best tradeoff between safety from the sunscreen vs safety from the sun.
Your comment was way more informative and helpful than this video, thank you for taking the time to explain!
which specific brands do you recommend?
The bit about American sunscreen filters being banned in Europe isn't quite right. Avobenzone isn't approved in Europe, but there is a lot of overlap in chemical UV filters approved in both the US and Europe. Homosalate, octocrylene, oxybenzone, padimate-o, ensulizole, sulisobenzone, and ecamsule are all organic filters approved for both regions, as well as the reliable inorganic filters. It might be better to say that American sunscreen formulations can't be sold easily with the same formulation and packaging in the EU due to regulatory differences, some of which are related to unapproved ingredients, but most of which come down to labeling and testing processes that are inefficient and costly. Much easier to formulate EU specific products than deal with developing and marketing the exact same product in both regions.
@@gerrittlighthart Good info. Thanks.
@@joshaxxe7259 I don't think I'm qualified to recommend any specific brand. I'm just some random guy on the internet who has read up on this. But I have no insight into how well the various brands are formulated. The brand I use at the moment is called SkinMedica, which is pretty expensive, but since I'm only putting it on my face and neck it doesn't make that much difference. I'd use something else if I were going to the beach (which I haven't in a while). But I chose them primarily because it seemed easier to remove at the end of the day than other brands I had tried. (Sunscreens are usually formulated to be "waterproof," presumably for use at the beach or pool, which makes them difficult to wash off). That plus they seemed to be a reasonably serious company. But this is in no way a recommendation. I have no idea how well it's actually working.
There’s a plant called Heracleum, which is pretty common in Russia (and the whole northern hemisphere if the Wikipedia is correct). It’s very invasive and grows very fast. If not destroyed it can cover very large areas very fast. What’s worse is that its juice causes severe burns. That’s common knowledge in Russia. A much less known fact is that those burns are not caused by juice itself. These are actually sunburns. The plant’s juice causes chemical reaction which dramatically increases skin’s photosensitivity. So it’s basically a reverse sunscreen. And those severe (sometimes even lethal) burns can be avoided just by covering from sunlight.
Hepcat83 woahhhhh
Wow... That is my interesting fact of the day. Thank You HepCat83!
hah.. that's interesting. the more you know...
борщевик?
Toma да
I don't get why people think inorganic is bad and organic is good. Poison can be organic as you can get it from snakes, scorpions and animals like that. Water is inorganic, air is inorganic. People really nead to understand what can do damage, to who and in what quantity. It's like I'd be against using peanuts for any purpose because some people are allergic.
I have a theory: First, most people are not interested in science at all, so the interest / knowledge about chemistry is very limited.
The second factor is the BIG MISTAKES the chemistry industry has made in the past. Maybe young people have not experienced it but I'm 43 and I remember huge mistakes made by them during my life:
- DDT
- The CFCs and the Ozone depletion
- Pregnant women taking some medicines and children developing illnesses or deformations.
Also the greedy tactics some big companies like Monsanto or Bayer against Third World countries or against farmers, damage the reputation of anything labeled as "chemical".
Need*
Loooool
Human bite would be organic but full of bacteria!
@@almarma the theory that GMOs are safe! Not they're designed to absorb chemicals like Roundup! So we absorb those chemicals!
Stay strong Diana! We hope you feel better soon!
At 10:28 Derek says "At the end of the day, put on the sunscreen".
Bad advice.
I would put it on at the beginning of the day. :-D
Copied.
I think he meant something like "but over all, you really should be putting on sunscreen" but good pointing that out !
@@lindsayguillen7 r/woosh
Best Comment.
Ayyyeee
OH MAH GARSH. Benoît, you are very correct. FDA stand for Food and Drug administration. Apologies for the error, all.
You might want to look up common vulgar British English usage of the last word of the first sentence there! ;)
Lol.
better heart your comment to stay pinned
I'd really go with GOSH there. Trust me on this one :)
Just curious, how well can you trust a federal program such as the fda with all the controversy of these programs being paid off by big companies?
Also you remind me of Denise Austin in her younger days when you were sitting on the couch.
I was super surprised at the spray sunscreen. I always thought they feel like they cover, but aren't covering as well as normal lotion.
Spray sunscreens are necessarily easier to wash/rub off of the skin, so they seem to be worse at protecting over a given period of time (I apply in the morning, lunch, and after about 3pm).
If they were 'stickier' or thicker they wouldn't spray very well at all...and they already have an ick factor that most salves and lotions don't have.
the best sunscreen is staying inside to watch physics girl and veritasium videos all day
He means being a hermit.
You'd also need to stay away from windows, as UV-A radiation goes through glass (and some textiles), and is actually pretty dangerous. But you'd probably do that anyway, otherwise you can't see your screen properly!
Will probably die from heart disease instead of skin cancer
It is possible to exercise at night, assuming you're equating going outside during the bright daytime with sedentary lifestyles.
And end up with low Vitamin D levels...
I live in the South-West of Western Australia, where we used to get the hole in the ozone layer move overhead during summer (40°C+ temperatures). You couldn't wear enough sunscreen to prevent long-term skin damage & tens of thousands of people ended up getting skin cancer.
The social impact was huge, with massive government campaigns to indoctrinate kids into using waterproof sunscreen & protective clothing ("Slip, Slop, Slap"). Now, the current generation of parents are so paranoid that they would wrap their children in lead foil if they thought that it would help prevent cumulative skin damage & cancer.
Thanks for helping us with our experiment and trying on the sunscreens, it was a blast!
I was wondering, exactly what camera did you use for the UV?
@@PlaybyPlay225_2.0 you can use any camera. You just have to take the UV filter off
Can't understand...is it good to use sunscreens or not
@@sivadurgasri9446 You absolutely need to use sunscreen.
Uhmm I think FDA stands for “food and drug administration” not “federal drug administration” 4:56
I love the video though❤️
Disappointed that no distinction was made between UVA and UVB.
the distinction is UVA will stop at the Ozone layer and get reflected, UVB has shorter wavelengths so its UV will pass through clouds and come in contact with our skin causing skin cancer and eye damage. But, note that the most distinct thing between them is if we didnt have the Ozone layer, UVC could get through and is the most harmful and can damage our inner layers and theres nothing a bit of sunscreen can do about it.
Hence we really should prevent global warming.
@@catherinej4369 you are thinking of UVC not UVA
catherine j UVC is stopped at the ozone layer. Around 95% of UVA will hit the earths surface.
catherine j UVA does come in through the ozone layer. UVA causes aging and skin cancer because it affects deeper layers of the dermis whereas UVB affects tanning and burning. Also the SPF rating only takes into account UVB protection and not UVA protection.
Also Zinc Oxide is the only reliable sunscreen ingredient that protects against UVA rays effectively, which is why I always opt for mineral sunscreens, or combo sunscreens.
9:39 And that's why it is important to spread scientific literacy as much as possible.
Thanks Dianna for your work! (and thanks Derek also, I'm a great fan of him as well)
That's only ONE of the reasons. There are MANY.
this isn't even up for debate. it is actually every govt's responsibility to make sure every child has the opportunity to be scientifically literate.
Pomo Dorino I
shame about our current Secretary of Education :(
Can’t help but sing “THE SUN IS A DEADLY LASER”
(after applying sunscreen)
NOT ANYMORE THERE"S A BLANKET!
Sun is for superior ppl it’s natural energy unlike man made light. It goes to show u why blacks are hated I never knew THE SUN DESTROY NON BLACKS that’s crazy it gives me energy everyday especially coming out these cold buildings. I understand why they keep trying to block out the sun lol bc of vengeance lol
Obscurianus my whole family sun gaze not no one family ever was scorn no skin cancer my melanin protects us that’s why we were able to build in spaghetti with no hats nor sun block all we needed was food n water MELANIN IS WORTH N COST MORE THAN GOLD DIAMONDS OR ANY RUBIES I KNOW MYSELF
Obscurianus nothing lives in winter no plants grass etc my hair grows up towards the sun ☀️ Because it gives melaninated people LIFE that’s why our hair texture is different from any other nation it doesn’t go downward like animal hair but Up in Afro manner only looking for the sun n waiting on water...
No, it's not a laser.
SPF is also the noise you make when you accidentally open your mouth when spraying sunscreen on your face.
While i know this is a joke, the label literally tells you to spray it on your hands, and then apply it. It's people's own fault.
HAHAHAHAHA
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Isn't FDA "Food and Drug Administration" ?
Benoît Pilet counts as a topical drug doesn't it?
IhaveaPlaystation4 oh thank you
came down looking for this .. i got confused for a bit
Fda. Joke. Pushes what they are told.
I knew I'd find this comment here :)
I need a camera like this, so I can see if I put my sunscreen on correctly.
11 months later.. there is a product call Sunscreenr that connects to your smart phone.
We have one. It works. No more zebra stripes 😂
Same, I'm sooo pale and burn so bad that I can't miss a spot
@@utbigpapa where did you get yours! I can't find it online anymore and the ones on the market emit a hella harsh uv light which completely defeats the purpose
there is no spf 100 here in Europe, at least I haven't seen anything like it here in Portugal...
I think 70 is the highest I've seen in the UK
There probably is, it just isn’t labeled that way. They started labeling it here in the US as 50+
C M Does the UK even experience sunglight? That’s a serious question
Haven't seen in Germany as much sunlight as in for example Canada, Manitoba
Tranxikoritian i haven’t seen any in spain neither
3:55 Dianna is making a mistake here not acknowledging gamma compression in grey scale values. Our eyes just aren't made to distinguish linear value changes so that part of the scale gets compressed. Just because it LOOKS like there's not much difference between 50 and 100 doesn't mean that the 100 isn't ACTUALLY twice as dark.
Blackmark52 wow I had no idea about this, I hope she sees this comment
It's the entire reason for so much false color in fields like astronomy. It lets us see so much more detail we would otherwise miss.
no
the brigher parts get compressed more
+
oliverwilson11 "the brigher parts get compressed more"
Maybe it's a matter of which way we're looking at it. The point is that our eyes are less sensitive to linear changes in the dark end and more sensitive in the light end. ua-cam.com/video/WJzmcJQFlao/v-deo.html
I've already discovered the ultimate sunscreen - staying indoors.
Organic would be an even worse name than chemical, but in the other direction. "Chemical" has negative connotations and "organic" has positive connotations. In both cases, the connotations have zero to do with the actual definition of the word though.
Organic would be a correct name based on definition though. Yes, the connotation would exist, but one is "organic" because it uses chemicals naturally found. The other uses chemicals not naturally found.
The757packerfan Nope. Organic, in its technical meaning, which is the meaning used here, means "carbon based". Zinc Oxide and Titanium Dioxide, the "physical" compounds are natural while some of the organic compounds are natural and others are synthetic. The fact that you just got this so wildly wrong shows why "organic" would be a bad name for it. Most people don't know what it means and even when they do know the technical definition, they associate the usage of the term in marketing as meaning "natural" and associate that with "healthy". In fact, many of these organic compounds have insufficient testing to ensure their safety. Most are probably fine, but until recently, adequate testing was not required and so for most of them, we just don't know. The inorganic ones have been used much longer and they pose no danger.
that's why people shouldn't replace education with ads
Why not mineral based vs organic ?
@@allthatsheiz For the reason I said in my reply to a previous comment. While that MAY be accurate, it is neither fundamental to the difference nor does it accurately relay the information because the association of the word "organic" differs so wildly from its actual meaning. Plus, I'm not even sure it is always accurate. Are all the chemicals in chemical sun screen carbon based? I have no idea myself.
Thanks, now I know which sunscreen to get.. Sharpie
thats what i thought too !!
Candi Soda yup !
Why is your pfp a clown
a bandage ;-)
WOW where di you find all these people who are actually interested in learning something!!?? Well done!! Nature is AWESOME cool Vid!!
It is natural for people to be curious! So no wonder to that.
Actually I believe that curiosity is been killed in the most schools. Because in school they provide all the answers, even before you ask them. But it kills curiosity
What an utterly strange question
are you under the impression that you're the only person who likes to learn things ?? what an ego...
The title card for the video, with Dianna's face split down the middle between UV and visible light, is a work of art and would make a great poster.
a better test for "physical" and "chemical" a piece of uv transparent glass coated with different sunscreens with uv source behind it and camera infront to see how much uv passes through
yes, this is what i want to know! great idea!
It would be a good way to compare reflective and absorbent type sunscreens too
Ujjwal Bansal yea its much better since reflective type could simply be not working no way to know using their method
I agree. And it's pretty ridiculous that this experiment wasn't done in this video. The quality of her videos has gone down a lot as she no longer gets into the weeds and just stays on the surface.
Did you try smearing sunscreens on a clear filter and putting it in front of the camera lens? This seems like a better test of sunscreen effectiveness since reduced transmission is really what you want to test regardless of the cause be it, reflection or absorption. Sorry if this has already been proposed in the 2 years it took me to find this video. Love your channel!
The optic's involved is like trying to measure radiation through a mirror.. retina's are trained to respond to visible light pupils limit amplitude cones to spectrum and rods to intensity
@@georgeelgin3903 it's a UV camera.
As a chemist, what I can say is that inorganic UV filters must be in the form of nanoparticles in order to refract UV light. But the size of nanoparticles is very important because although smaller nanoparticles diffract UV light better, they can be absorbed by the skin more easily and at the moment there's not enough studies on the effects of absorbed nanoparticles such as zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. Moreover, nanoparticles of titanium dioxide are known to catalyse, as a result of UV radiation, the production of peroxides and radical species in aqueous environments that can be very harmful to cells. With this in mind, the size of nanoparticles must be established and regulated by law very accurately.
As far as organic filters are concerned, most molecules contained in sun creams are based on natural compounds with known UV light absorption activity. That's why many creams have a slight carrot aroma for example.
Is big piece of titanium dioxide transparent for UV?
tfw you're subscribed to both channels and don't know which to watch
first, so you just freeze and sit there looking at your sub box
Same bruh
When you are subscribed to all 3 lol
Both? I'm subscribed to all three of them.
Physics!
The 3 simultaneous uploads caused a great deal of anxiety here also. It's like trying to watch buffy and angel with the right timeline, we need a watching guide
;)
how to be a toxic person: Use reflective sunscreens, persuade your friends not to wear one, and give your friends skin cancer
Reflective sunscreen are safe! Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are the main ingredients of physical sunscreen
@@es5398 The joke is that your sunscreen will reflect off you and onto your friends who aren't wearing sunscreen..
@@lambgaming1347 it’s doesn’t work like that hun! 😂
@@es5398 That's not the point... doesn't matter if it actually works, its a joke.
Actually that’s a myth, most of the uv light is absorbed by both mineral and chemical sunscreen, and the information in the video is slightly outdated/now proved to be wrong. I’D recommend for example Dr Dray’s channel, she’s a dermatolologist and she talked about it a few times. There is a lot of contadictory info online now btw
@4:55 - FDA stands for Food and Drug Administration.
I love "Happy Physicsing"!!! It is very cheerful and helps to take away the stigma associated with most science and engineering.
Imagine putting on all those different sunscreens from weakest to strongest (In SPFs) on your arm and sorta blending them and making a gradient tanline that would be so cool
That would be called "ombre tan" 🤗🤣😂🤣😂🤣
It's as bad as when people say they don't eat chemicals.
God, that's bad. Specificity is a virtue.
Most chemicals are fine. I just quit eating metals. My food tastes very bland and my nerves are having trouble firing.
Yep, no chemicals in my body - nor any molecules or even elements. I’m pure spirit and imagination. So it must be true. :-)
Ethan Poole That was a vacuous comment.
;-)
Hi, interesting video! However, a more rigorous measure would be comparing transmittance instead. You can do it on glass with a control sample. Would be interesting if you can have a good control of thickness, and measure the results with different thicknesses too.
You should make another video and show us that how long does the sunscreen stays on your face specially in summer 🌞🌞🙃🙃🙃
That was an interesting video. As someone who has had several skin cancers and now has to go in to the dermatologist twice per year for a skin check, I can vouch for the fact that skin cancer is no fun. Use sun screen boys and girls.
ua-cam.com/video/sTJ7AzBIJoI/v-deo.html
orrrrr stay indoors and watch youtube videos :D
First ok my darker skin people get checked we die of skin cancer to at higher rates because we don't get checked
Ok now
Ya I found it amazing I was curious why native American were tan ect and whites seem to be doing fine then I moved out west away from the city and was like oh damn you guy are not doing fine lol
That's some selective pressure.
Well don't worry CrispR in like 100 years lol no more cancer ... Maybe
Woah didn’t veritasium and how to make everything make a video similar to...
Oh it’s alright I saw them on... this is intentional.
I've had skin cancer (caught early, fortunately) so I'm very protective of my skin when outdoors. I prefer to use UV-blocking clothing, wide-brim hats and gloves, but I do use sunscreen sometimes. I don't want to use sunscreen often because I don't know what long-term use will do to my health. People forget that the skin is the largest organ in the body. I figure that clothes are "safer" than topically applied chemicals. I have a photo taken of me a few years back fishing from my kayak, and you cannot see any skin at all--I have 100% coverage (including my face).
You do know that sunscreens actually cause skin cancer right ??? they block Vitamin D which is NEEDED to prevent skin cancer and other cancers. You can also get burnt through clothes which is why some clothes are now SPF. There are many foods that when eaten or applied to the skin is a safe and natural way, rather than toxic chemicals.
@@k8lynmae vitamin D is produced by the body via photolisis tho (you can also just get it in milk or fish) it isn't something that's just floating around so that's not really what sunscreen is doing
Plus everything you put on your skin to prevent sunburn is a chemical that prevents uv light from getting to your skin be it by absorbing it or reflecting it that's who it works, if it doesn't do any of those things then you're just rubbing things on your skin for the fun of it
Coconut oil monoi oil is the best keep skin moisturised to stop burning, sun cream causes cancer , u need vit d from the sun to prevent from cancer , u never hear of skin cancer in the tribal regions, because they use oils and get the vitamin d they need through the skin
🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂
Katelyn Not all chemicals are toxic. It isn’t fully proven that sunscreens cause cancer, though it is being investigated. And I doubt putting food on your skin is any better. The risk of cancer without sunscreen is high, better to use sunscreen- but hey, it’s your life.
Happy to see both together . I'm a big fan of both channels
I feel like a better distinction would be sun (UV) absorbers and sun (UV) blockers vs the generic apply all sunscreen. I’m a bit confused as to why you seemed hesitant to the sun blockers (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide). I’m disappointed there was no distinction between UVB and UVA. We need to have better UVA blocking sunscreens.
Edit: Change a UVB to UVA. On a mobile device. Apologies.
Buy from an European market
I'm not so surprised that the effects of sunscreen on the environment (e.g. coral) aren't so well known. What I am surprised at is that Hawaii is going to take 3 years to ban certain sunscreens. I just don't understand what part of the ban should take so long when they know it is causing damage to the coral.
Young Marshall: What advice do you have for a budding anthropologist?
Dr. Aurelia Birnholz-Vazquez: So you want to be an anthropologist?
Young Marshall: Yep. When I grow up, I want to go live with the gorillas, just like you did.
Narrator: What she said next changed his life.
Dr. Aurelia Birnholz-Vazquez: Oh, that's wonderful, but I'm afraid you can't. They'll all be dead by then.
When I went on a vacation on the Cayman Islands, you musnt were sunscreen when snorkling etc.
Hawaii is applying a more immediate ban on the SALE of these sunscreens anywhere in the state. The 3 year timeline applies to tourists bringing them in from other states and countries. This allows time for the trickle of important news which travels at the speed of snail, while entertaining news travels faster than light.
They are giving time for the local shops there to finish selling their stock of bad for environment sunscreens.
Because having a sunscreen shortage in a tropical vacation spot like Hawaii would be far worse than letting a little bit of coral die for the next couple of years.
I just want to know what happens if you spray sunscreen on a solar panel. Would it still work as well?
Good question
I found this....
"Sunlight energy that reaches the ground is around 4% ultraviolet, 43% visible light, and 53% infrared. Solar panels mostly convert visible light into electrical energy, and they also can make use of almost half the infrared energy. But solar panels only use a small portion of ultraviolet."
If by "small portion" they mean "somewhere less than 50%", then an SPF100 sunscreen on a solar panel would decrease its' available total energy by less than 2%.
Obviously the sunscreen would not absorb into the solar panel, like it does your skin; so you'd end up with a visible film over the panel, which would also block a small amount of visible light.
Conclusion: You can stop your solar panels from getting sunburned if you're prepared to lose
Love you Physics Girl!! Please get well soon! ❤💐
6:37 I've traveled to Redang island more than a decade ago, we were told to not use sun screen so that we dont destroy the ocean ecosystem... it seems like someone had the foresight
Had the same experience on the Cayman Islands
This sounds more like coincidence than foresight. If they were specific and said how the sunscreen would have lead to coral death, that would have been something.
To use an analogy, it would be like someone telling you not to go outside because the sun is deadly. A decade later your neighbor gets liver cancer because of a stray gamma ray from the sun knocks a nucleotide out of alignment and then praising the person who warned you about the sun in the first place for being right.
Sunray in malaysia is not dangerous 🤔🤔..
The chemical discussion here reminds me of a time I did a "science project" for school where I made molecule shapes out of toothpicks and marshmallows. I didn't want people to just eat them while they were unattended, so I just put a note on them that said "don't eat, contains chemicals".
Personally, I just wear a rash guard or spf rating long sleeve shirt. It'll keep me protected all day long and I only need to cover my face, hands, and legs with sunscreen.
The paper on skin absorbance of sunscreens concludes its abstract with: "It is concluded that the human viable epidermal levels of sunscreens are too low to cause any significant toxicity to the underlying human keratinocytes." You implied to the viewer that the study says it the sunscreen ingredients are dangerous.
Not how they came across to me. The concern expressed, as I understood them, was over some molecules being detected in breast milk after application with more study needed to determine if there are any other long term usage risks given this newfound knowledge that the molecules can be absorbed into the body,
What I got from this video is that I'd love to have an outdoor couch.
As a person with the least melanin, other than sufferers of albinism, there is a BIG difference between 50spf and 100spf. Not many of us can get burned at sea level with 50spf, but me and my son do!
Brilliant video! Learned a lot. We need more people to make videos like this on other important topics. Luckily, there is more and more information about sun damage and sunscreen in general. As an aesthetician I am wearing sunscreen every day! You get only one skin after all. I also don’t smoke nor drink as much anymore. I’m 27 and I’m really taking care of myself now. The only thing I do, which I should definitely stop, is eating junk food from time to time. It’s like my guilty pleasure! :D It’s not okay. Love the video!!
Spray sunscreen doesn’t seem to make much sense because you are essentially protecting your skin at the expense of your lungs.
It is all toxic and should not be on your skin. I even avoid shower gels, I actually manufacture my own bar soap so that it does not have unnecessary chemicals in it.
Sunlight in sensible amounts leading to a full tan is healthy for us, that was proven years ago by proper scientists who were not bribed to say one thing or another.
@@richardsandwell2285 b did you watch the video
Yes.
There are safe sunscreens, it just takes a lot of searching lol. Zinc oxide seems to be generally safe
They've also been known to make people freakin BLIND (mostly children) which is horrifying.
The FDA has blocked sunscreen filters that have been safely used for 20 years in other counties. Most of our sunscreens wouldn't be permitted on the market in Asia and Europe. The FDA has done a HORRIBLE job regulating sunscreens.
What a great day. Physics girl and veritasium notifications at same time.
If anything warrants a second episode it's this. Loved the vid and would love a deeper dive in the currently used elements in sunscreen. Both from a biochemical and a (bio)physical lens. Do the 'physical' sunscreens have similar issues with the oxides as with the aluminum oxides that are used in some deodorants? Is it effective to combine the 'physical' and 'chemical' sunscreens? What possible environmental impacts are there? What research/actions have been prompted by the recent findings? There's loads to look into.
Nice video, I do wish however that you would have explained what spf means in more detail, how it correlates to time, and maybe how it protects against UVA better than UVB and what that means. Also, maybe coming back an hour or so later to see how the different sunscreens have lasted over time could be interesting.
You should have tested the sunscreen wear over time. The point of high SPF is that it remains effective for a longer period than lower SPFs. Most people don't apply (and reapply) the recommended amount anyway. Higher SPF helps in that, even if you are applying insufficient amount, you're getting at least SPF 30 or 50 from a sunscreen labelled as SPF 100
No sunscreen=cancer
Sunscreen=cancer
Lol
Shadows save lifes
The risk of cancer from the sun is way higher.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 #LoveMyMelanin
Caillou=cancer
Live=cancer
zinc oxide: reflects uv lights
Wrong! It absorbs too, the reflexion is minimum
@@matheusn.3568 TRUE, mineral sunscreen works the same way as chemical sunscreen except that mineral sunscreen also scatter visible light. The more accurate terms to use is actually
Mineral/physical sunscreen= inorganic sunscreen
Chemical sunscreen= Organic sunscreen
@@matheusn.3568 to be fair, they wrote this when that was less known
"At the end of the day...put on sunscreen." - Or, maybe, put it on at the *beginning* of the day when the sun is coming up?
I like that there wasn't a single mention that they're doing a collaboration
While still doing it
WOW
Still here to support one of the greatest content creators on this platform!!! Love and miss you Diana
Was expecting this video to show how the sunscreen degraded over time under the UV camera but it only showed how dark it was on initial application :(.
I was also hoping for that
@@gobbledygoook It will gradually fade. It's not very dramatic to watch to be honest. We have the only consumer product that does this. It's called Sunscreenr
When strictly speaking about the camera method of checking the UV protection you have to keep in mind that the absorbing sunscreen absorbs TWICE. This is something that you didn't adress in the video, I don't know if you've factored this in. But essentially the sunscreen lets through a small part of the UV light and absorbs the rest, and when it reaches your skin again some part is reflected and absorbed. When you get to factor 50+ it becomes hard to tell from a camera if the light had been absorbed once or twice (meaning maybe the 100 factor sunscreen absorbed almost all of the UV light the first time around, and the 50 factor one only absorbed some first, and some more on it's way back). I hope I'm being clear in what I say, I'd be interested to hear back if you factored this in.
Retina vs tapetum lucidum
Dianna's face at 9:40 (holding almost perfectly still for 11s) is everything!!!
It would be so cool to hang out with Derek and Dianna
Sam Butler heck yesss!
Why didn't you apply reflective (and absorbing) sun screens to transparent foil (transparent in UV) and check its shadow?
I feel like this video should have been one of those that are like 30 seconds long and uploaded 15 years ago.
I love the “happy physicsing” tag line. Say it with pride Dianna. You have a lot to be proud of.
Maybe it’s just because I’m ghostly pale, but I definitely have found that a higher spf is less likely to turn me into a lobster 😂 I’m going to stick to my 100+
You sure does look like one, you should probably stick to 100+
Higher spf is better. Spf has to do with the time it takes you to burn. So spf 100 means it woyld take you 100 times more time in the sun to burn than if you wore no protection. So keep screening and eaven double later allowing 10 minutes after each application and wear everyday. You got this!
@@tracywofford3384 SPF is based on the amount of UV radiation that gets through a layer applied using a standardized method and resulting thickness; it's a lab test using analytical equipment. It's also a logarithmic scale, so SPF 100 does *not* provide double the protection of SPF 50.
SPF 25 = 1/25 or 4% of UV light passed
SPF 50 = 1/50 or 2%
SPF 100 = 1/100 or 1%
SPF 150 = 1/150 or 0.67%
Try a good quality zinc/titanium sunscreen. You should not turn into a lobster even with an SPF of 30. Check out EWG's ratings re: toxicity and UV effectiveness.
@@rsmith02 I’ll have to try that out, I’ve had some bad sunburns in my lifetime so whatever works is a lifesaver for me! Haha
Okay... I'm hooked.
Enjoyed this, and I love Physics Girl and Veritasium, but I'm a bit disappointed they didn't mention sunscreen should be the last line off defense. Most dermatologists say to wear sunscreen, but also to use shade and protective clothing (hat, swim shirt etc) as your first lines of defense against the sun.
Cool videos! I also love the breakdown of inorganic (physical) vs. Organic (chemical). However, SPF is a Transmissive parameter and you are looking at reflective properties with the UV camera. Can we try this with Quartz glass & sunscreen to see how well UV gets through to the other side of the glass?
Looking like a proper badass in the thumbnail
"Ladies and gentlemen of the class of '97:
Wear sunscreen.
If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience."
Can we use sesame oil as sunscreen?
Every time i put sunscreen, i hear this in my head.
@@Ghazala_Aizal what? Bro sesame oil is not spf, just wear spf
"I will dispense this advice...now".
:)
Golden oldie as far as the interwebs are concerned.
Zinc oxide works the best as sunscreen. 50 plus last the longest. Just remember to reapply.
Bob Charlie It’ll leave you a thick white cast.
Tinosorb M and Tinosorb S are the best
Love you, Dianna.
Call them absorptive and reflective: Boom goes the dynamite.
+
Physical sunscreens still absorb about 95% of the UV radiation though, it only reflects 5%.
I realize just now that every summer, without anyone knowing it, im secretly doing blackface ... 😲
This is pretty interesting about sunscreens. I'm glad they mentioned the mineral sunscreens which is my preference. Not just for the health reasons that they discussed as we learned that some of these sunscreens that absorb light versus the mineral that reflect, it have been shown some to enter the bloodstream and be bad for the coral reef. But as someone if you has done 10 hours in the 🌞 of biking many times in her life there is quite a bit of sun damage on my face and shoulders, arms, hands. On my face when I go into the sun I can see the sun damage kind of pops out and it looks like I have freckles. 9vertime that dissolution sticks around even when il out of the sun. When I wear a mineral sunscreen I find that I get better protection and that does not happen. I have also found that I've been getting less pigmentation from the Sun. I also prefer to find an SPF clothing now when spending high amounts of time in the sun like biking or hiking. And if I was a swimmer I would probably get one of those long sleeve spf bathing suits. I am curious what these spf clothing looks like under the light
Veritasium and the tumbnails matched in my subbox D:
I happened here too. At first glance i was like "wait, what?" haha
9:40
My face when I'm looking a Physics Girl's or Veritasium's video.
I appreciate how they actually use a real study and not an article as media tends to oversimplify and assume a lot of results of academic studies
"Happy physicsing" isn't bad. It's adorkable
Get well, Diana!❤
Would have been cool if you talked about the ingredients, especially those found in Asian sunscreens. Also the wavelengths they are best used for.
"Physical" sunscreen sounds pretty great, both because its reflective nature means it won't make you feel so warm, and because its inorganic nature makes it less likely to interact in negative ways with organic creatures like coral reefs or our own bodies (although that's not guaranteed; asbestos is inorganic and I try to limit my exposure to that!). But I've also read that it doesn't stay on your skin when you swim or sweat, and it's hard to avoid sweating when you're in the sun.
That is an informative video which was well made. The only additional thing that I would have liked you to do would have been to use the UV camera on the different types/levels of sunscreen over a period of time (to show if the higher the number equates to better protection over a longer period of time).
Tom Courtney
I believe the guy said he made a detailed video of the same over a 1yr period. Link is attached on here.
I find it incredibly interesting that Hawaii is banning some organic UV absorbers to protect the coral reefs, but is not doing anything about climate change that is the main cause of coral bleeching :)))
The perks of SPF 50+ is that in France the UVA protection has to be at least 1/3 of the SPF, so between SPF 30 and SPF 50+ the UVA protection is really different !
Even though there weren't many answers, i found this video one of the best on your channel for a long time ;) (I'm not a veritasium fanboy, i just liked thhee video for its quality content 😉)
I’m a Veritasium fanboy.
Jk. thank you for the kind comment! I’m glad you liked this one.
healthy sunscreen alternatives:
shadow
t-shirt
Don't forget hats!
But there's not much shadow on a strawberry field and it gets so warm under long clothing :/ I'm thankful that sunscreen exists
You still need to wear sunscreen even if you're in the shadow tho
Living at 60 degrees latitude
@@ximerodriguez9488 No you don't.
Great video! If you would like to avoid using sunscreen and sun burn I recommend long sleeve outdoor shirts, long pants and a wide brim hat. I live in southern Arizona and even in intense heat this works great.
Best way to avoid uv, work third shift.
Work what??
@@exemplaryname Work at night, that means.
For me as a European it‘s so weird that there are spfs higher than 50 😂🙈
Great video, I enjoy to see sciency gadgets explaining daily concepts
Geek comment: Basics on interaction of light and matter: Absorption(A) + Transmission(T) + Reflection(R) = 1 [aka energy preservation principle]
To actually test the effectiveness of a sunscreen you might need to measure how much they absorb and at the same time how much they reflect, the result is T=1-(A+R), which is actually how much radiation is passing through the sunscreen and reaching your skin. [keeping in mind that the thickness or the layers applied might reduce the T]
In Materials Science characterization techniques, you might used a spectrophotometer with an integrating sphere.
It should be called reactive vs physical
But then idiots will just mistake "reactive" with nuclear reactors...
True xD
1Rekuiem
Or reactive vs reflective. Or absorbing versus reflecting.