Latest news with #SPF
Scottish Sun
10 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Scottish Sun
Mum who went to festival shows side effect of wearing face gems in the sun as people beg her to get a fringe ASAP
The music fan is urging others to learn from her mistake and not skip SPF SHOW CAN'T GO ON SHOW CAN'T GO ON Mum who went to festival shows side effect of wearing face gems in the sun as people beg her to get a fringe ASAP FROM Glastonbury to Wireless, music lovers can enjoy dozens of festivals during summertime. For many, attending festivals has also become a form of self-expression where they can put on their best outfits - which are often complemented by shiny gems. Advertisement 3 Rebecca Karlssoon, 32, recently attended a music festival where she stayed for the full 12 hours Credit: TikTok / @rebeccakarlssoon 3 The beauty buff opted for a huge gem collection on her forehead 3 Due to the unfortunate shape of the shiny face gems, the hilarious fail looked like ''Batman'' had left a mark on her forehead Credit: TikTok / @rebeccakarlssoon However, one mum has now shown the harsh reality of rocking sparkly face gems for several hours in the sun - and people are begging her to get a fringe. Rebecca Karlssoon, 32, recently attended a music festival where she stayed for the full 12 hours. The dark-haired beauty, from Sweden, opted to wear a figure-hugging dress covered in mini rhinestones, as well as a huge gem collection on her forehead. The epic look also included smaller gems by the outer corner of her eyes, as well as a chic up-do with some glitter in the hairline. Advertisement The 12-hour bash turned out to be a rather sunny one, as the mum ended up getting a pretty severe sunburn on her shoulders and chest. But as Rebecca was showing off the jaw-dropping damage on TikTok, it was also at this moment the mother realised the inevitable had happened - and her face would have an unfortunate print for some time. While the two tiny gems by the eyes left a cute mark, the aftermath of rocking a mega gem piece in the middle of the forehead wasn't so adorable. ''Oh f**k,'' the mortified music lover exclaimed in the video after inspecting the damage. Advertisement Due to the unfortunate shape of the shiny face gems, the hilarious fail looked like ''Batman'' had left a mark on her forehead. Urging others to never skin SPF, the mother wrote in the caption: ''Always use sunscreen, be careful and take care. I'm a bikini waxer - you're making a fake tan mistake & here's the reason why your privates are kicking up a grim smell ''I made a mistake because of bad weather, now I look like #batman in my f*****g forehead, learn by my mistake.'' 'Time for bangs I guess' Since being shared online under the username @rebeccakarlssoon the epic fail has gone viral, winning the mum more than an astronomical 5.2million views in just two days. Advertisement As over 260k people gave it a like, over 1,600 viewers flooded to comments. One said: ''You knew what was gonna happen, but we're still not ready for how dramatic it was.'' ''Well….Time for bangs I guess,'' another chuckled. Meanwhile, others shared their biggest festival blunders, with a fellow fashionista writing: ''Throw back to the time I wore those netted gloves to a festival and for the rest of the month it looked like I'd bbq'd my arms.'' Advertisement Someone else chimed in: 'be thankful you can cover it with makeup or something. ''My friend once got a fishnet sunburn and for the rest of summer she was referred to as The Ham.''
CNET
a day ago
- Health
- CNET
Not Too High, Not Too Low: Here's the Ideal SPF You Need This Summer, According to Experts
This summer, you may be focusing on staying cool and drinking enough water. But there is one product you may be forgetting that is essential for your health -- sunscreen. Especially during the summer months, sunscreen is crucial to protect your skin from the sun's UV rays, which can lead to skin cancer and premature aging. But with so many different SPF numbers out there, it can be difficult to know which one to choose. We asked a dermatologist, so you don't have to. What is SPF? SPF, or sun protection factor, describes the amount of solar energy needed to produce a sunburn on protected skin relative to unprotected skin, according to the US Food and Drug Administration. Logic would follow, then, that wearing a higher SPF would offer you better protection when you're out and about, basking in the sun's rays. Is a higher SPF better? Is higher SPF sunscreen more protective in a measurable way that actually matters? The tested difference between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is small, according to Dr. Steven Daveluy, board-certified dermatologist and program director at Wayne State University Department of Dermatology. There was a difference of 96.7% blocking versus 98% blocking, in one example he provided. Research on people wearing sunscreen out in "real life" has suggested higher SPFs are more protective, Daveluy said in an email. Combine this with the fact you're probably not wearing enough sunscreen -- studies have shown people apply only 25% to 50% of the amount that they should, Daveluy said -- and a higher SPF may come out reasonably more protective. "You should use about 1 ounce of sunscreen to cover your head, neck, arms and legs when wearing shorts and a T-shirt," Daveluy recommended, adding that people without hair should use a little more. "That means your 3-ounce tube of sunscreen is only three applications," Daveluy said. "Most people are not using that amount." What is the minimum SPF you need in a sunscreen? The American Academy of Dermatology Association recommends your sunscreen be SPF 30 or higher. It also recommends you look for sunscreen that has broad-spectrum protection (it protects against UVA and UVB rays) and make sure it's water-resistant. "If you follow the recommendations for the proper amount of sunscreen, then SPF 30 is great," Daveluy said. If you think you're skimping on the layers, though, a higher SPF could offer more benefit. He added that he generally recommends looking for at least SPF 50 or 60. Does skin tone matter when choosing an SPF? People with darker skin tones have more melanin, which does offer some protection from the sun's damaging rays. For this reason, skin cancer rates in people of color are lower than rates in white people, but the risk isn't zero. Research also suggests that people of color may be more likely to experience a missed or late diagnosis of skin cancer, making outcomes more dangerous. (It's also important to note that melanoma can have other causes besides exposure to sunlight or UV rays, and can show up in areas not typically exposed to sun.) "SPF 30 is the minimum for everyone," Daveluy said. He added that tinted sunscreens may be a better fit for darker skin tones, leaving less of a white cast. "If you have very fair skin, the higher [SPF] numbers may be a good idea, especially if you aren't using the proper amount, because you will see the consequences of underuse more easily," Daveluy said. Sunscreen red flags As long as you're wearing a minimum of SPF 30, applying it properly and also looking for products that are broad spectrum and water resistant, you've got the basics down. Daveluy added that for people with sensitive skin, finding a mineral sunscreen with "active ingredients of zinc and/or titanium" may be a good choice. Daveluy pointed out other measures of protecting yourself from the sun, including wearing a wide-brimmed hat, sun-protective clothing and hanging out in the shade when possible. But don't forget that sunscreen has a proven safety record going back for decades, he said. "The biggest red flags for sunscreen are any people or reports that try to tell you sunscreen isn't safe," Daveluy said.
CNA
a day ago
- CNA
Man faces attempted murder charge over alleged knife attack at Kallang Wave Mall
SINGAPORE: A 26-year-old man will be charged on Tuesday (Jul 15) for the attempted murder of a 29-year-old woman at Kallang Wave Mall, police said. The Singapore Police Force (SPF) said in a news release that it was alerted to the incident at 1.25am on Monday, with preliminary investigations revealing that the man had allegedly attacked the woman with a knife. The man 'was disarmed and detained by members of the public before being arrested by police officers', said SPF. CNA understands that the man and the woman are not known to be connected. The woman was taken to hospital, where she received treatment for her injuries. She is in a stable condition, police added. Police said they will seek a court order to remand the man for psychiatric assessment. The offence of attempted murder where hurt is caused to any person by such act carries life imprisonment and caning, or imprisonment of up to 20 years and fine or caning, or both.
CTV News
a day ago
- Health
- CTV News
ADVERTISEMENT Atlantic Watch Summer SPF tips Crystal Garrett gets pharmacist-approved tips for proper SPF use and application this summer.
Atlantic Watch Crystal Garrett gets pharmacist-approved tips for proper SPF use and application this summer.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Health
- The Guardian
Can I trust my sunscreen? Choice test results have created uncertainty over SPF claims and lab testing process
Sunscreen has been in the spotlight this winter, after testing by the consumer advocacy organisation Choice found 16 of 20 brands failed to provide the level of skin protection advertised on their bottles. With Australia having one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, the Choice report left many worried and wondering: can I trust my sunscreen to protect me? Even four Cancer Council branded sunscreens were flagged in the report: its Ultra Sunscreen SPF 50+ was found by Choice to have a sun protection factor of 24. The worst result, though, belonged to Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+, which Choice's testing found had an SPF of just 4. While some brands have fiercely disputed the findings, the investigation has prompted debate over the reliability of sunscreen testing, as well as questions over the way these products are regulated. What's going on? Australians love spending time in the sun and sun safety is instilled in people from a young age. So the Choice investigation, with its results published in June, created a storm. Choice tested 20 popular SPF 50 or 50+ sunscreens from a range of retailers and prices in a specialised, accredited laboratory and found 16 of them did not meet their SPF claims. No surprise, the Choice results have been contentious. Choice has said it handed over its findings to the companies before they were released publicly. Some have produced test certificates showing that their product met the claimed SPF using the same testing method that Choice used. When contacted by Guardian Australia, the brands stood firmly by their SPF claims and said they test their products in accordance with the regulations. The Cancer Council said it stood by its previous results but, out of an abundance of caution, has submitted their four products that Choice reviewed for additional testing. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Ultra Violette, the sunscreen brand that had by far the worst-performing product according to Choice's testing, has fiercely disputed the findings. The Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50 plus Mattifying Zinc Skin Screen, a higher-end product that retails for upwards of $50, returned a result of just 4 in Choice's test. A second test returned a result of 5, Choice said. Ultra Violette has disputed Choice's findings very strongly and very publicly. It has taken the step of speaking directly to consumers via social media. One of the brand's co-founders, Ava Chandler-Matthews, posted a video on Instagram in which she strongly disputed Choice's methodology. In response, Choice has defended the rigour of its testing. The SPF or sun protection factor rating of a sunscreen measures how well it protects the skin from sunburn by indicating how much ultraviolet radiation can still penetrate the skin through the product when applied properly. For example, SPF 30 is estimated to filter 96.7% of UVB radiation, whereas SPF 50 is estimated to filter 98%. Dr DJ Kim, a senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales' school of chemistry, says the difference between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is actually 'very marginal'. Kim says SPF ratings are given by timing how long it takes skin to burn with and without the sunscreen. 'Let's say that you took 300 seconds for your skin to burn with sunscreen, and then if … it took 10 seconds to burn without the sunscreen, then 300 divided by 10, that becomes SPF 30,' he says. 'So, it's not the most scientific method to measure the SPF factor, honestly.' SPF claims in Australia are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Sunscreen brands must get approval from the TGA to sell their products to Australian consumers. To do this, they undertake SPF testing in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand standard in an approved laboratory. The accepted method is to test sunscreen on human skin. The methodology involves putting the sunscreen on 10 volunteers who are exposed to artificial solar UV radiation. This is the method Choice says it used, working with an accredited laboratory that specialises in sunscreen testing. Sunscreen brands submit their results to the TGA for approval to 'self-certify' that they have tested their SPF claims and that they stack up. The TGA does not usually do its own testing. Dr Michelle Wong, a cosmetic chemist, says she doubts the TGA would have the resources to do all of the testing itself. 'And so, in terms of the regulations, most of the time, in this sort of situation where it's a public body, there is always going to be some level of an honour system,' she says. There are potential inconsistencies in sunscreen testing. SPF effectiveness is measured by essentially getting people to put sunscreens in patches on their skin and measuring how 'red' they get over time. A TGA spokesperson says it is a known issue that there is variability in SPF testing results across laboratories because testing on humans can be highly subjective and the response to a test can differ dramatically from one individual to another. 'While progress is being made internationally toward in-vitro sunscreen testing (for example, not on human subjects), which will improve consistency of results, these methods are not yet in place,' they said. Wong, who is known for her work on social media and her blog Lab Muffin, says in-vitro testing would be easier for the TGA to run in-house, which would limit the variability of the results and stop the potential for fraud at labs seeking to make a profit. She also suggests having a limited number of designated labs that are accepted by the TGA for sunscreen testing. Wong says although sunscreen is complicated and there are 'technicalities' in the testing and regulation process, the most common problem is 'user error' in that people aren't applying enough product often enough. 'Sunscreens, in general, they work very well, and they are very effective at protecting your skin against sun exposure,' she says, noting that a sunscreen with an SPF of, say, 24 still offers very good protection. Not long after Choice published its findings, sunscreen was back in the news for different reasons. Last week, the TGA said it would begin consultation on additional controls for some sunscreen ingredients, including the controversial oxybenzone. The medicines regulator says it has conducted a review of sunscreen ingredients used in Australia and is recommending additional safeguards for three chemical compounds. The review proposes that some sunscreen products containing homosalate, oxybenzone and benzophenone be reformulated to ensure sunscreens meet what the TGA considers 'the highest standards of safety for prolonged and frequent use'. Homosalate and oxybenzone are active ingredients in sunscreen, while benzophenone arises from another ingredient called octocrylene, either as an impurity during the manufacturing process or from degradation as the product ages. The TGA has begun a consultation process to help determine the level in sunscreens at which these ingredients remain suitable for use. A week before that, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission launched legal action against the maker of two popular sunscreens over allegations it had misled consumers by falsely claiming its products are 'reef-friendly'. The consumerregulator alleges Edgewell Personal Care engaged in greenwashing. While these sunscreens do not contain oxybenzone or octinoxate, another chemical linked to coral damage, the ACCC alleges that they contain other ingredients that risk causing harm to coral and marine life. Edgewell is contesting the proceedings.
