←back to thread

230 points mgh2 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Insanity ◴[] No.45152959[source]
Why does it not list the brands? The article is both informative and useless simultaneously
replies(1): >>45153021 #
mgh2 ◴[] No.45153021[source]
Avoid (from other 3 articles/studies): Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands, Cancer Council, Aldi, Nivea, Estée Lauder, iPSA, Anessa, Shiseido, Curél, Sofina, Laneige, Dermacept, Bio-Essence, Fancl (Japan), Purito (Korea)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624

[2] https://labmuffin.com/purito-sunscreen-and-all-about-spf-tes...

[3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-04/questions-over-lab-th...

replies(7): >>45153085 #>>45153094 #>>45153355 #>>45153485 #>>45153680 #>>45153747 #>>45153897 #
willsmith72 ◴[] No.45153094[source]
It's impossible, essentially every accessible brand has some products test way below advertised

On the other hand, if your product said it was 50 and it tested 30, the practical difference isn't actually that big. Our parents did ok with spf5

replies(2): >>45153164 #>>45153295 #
geerlingguy ◴[] No.45153164[source]
Heh, we didn't always wear sunscreen until I was in my teens... my skin does not thank me.

We do SPF50 or 100 on the kids (and us, of course). I think besides shady products, a lot of them are too hard to apply evenly, so you either spend 10 minutes trying to get it to spread, or you look funny with white smears here and there.

replies(1): >>45153427 #
OneMorePerson ◴[] No.45153427[source]
If you look into advice from non-manufacturers (some other groups who are a bit less biased) it's widely recommended to max out at SPF 30, because any higher means sunscreen is harder to re-apply (meaning psychologically you are likely to not re-apply as often as needed) and also because it really doesn't make a difference unless you are ultra sensitive and have some kind of skin condition.
replies(2): >>45154499 #>>45154523 #
1. tehjoker ◴[] No.45154523[source]
Using higher SPF can help cover for thin application