Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 62

Thread: I knew it was coming- SPF 100

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,447

    Cool I knew it was coming- SPF 100

    Ah, the miracles of modern science. Bet this stuff protects against nuclear fallout.....now gimmee my 6 bladed razor.....

    SNAKEOIL!!!!!!!

  2. #2
    Is that an American or European sun factor?

    From what I remember it's like percent/proof for alcohol, US uses numbers that are twice as large to describe the same thing.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    7,730
    So SPF99 would be OK, but SPF100 is snakeoil?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11,965
    I'm in need of some SPF150 or so; you know, stuff that actually sucks out some of the sun's effects that are already in your skin. I burnt the heck out of my shoulders working in the yard this weekend.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,411
    I just saw a commercial for SPF 100 this morning. I couldn't help but remember an umbrella for a patio table being rated as SPF30. How is that even possible?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    7,730
    Ah, I see (maybe). SPF is not a percentage. So SPF150 wouldn't give you negative tanning. AFAIK it is a ratio (or a factor, even): SPF100 means that after 100 hours in the sun, you will have had the equivalent of 1 hour of unprotected exposure.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    7,730
    Quote Originally Posted by closetgeek View Post
    I just saw a commercial for SPF 100 this morning. I couldn't help but remember an umbrella for a patio table being rated as SPF30. How is that even possible?
    Why not? The danger is that a lot of people assume that umbrellas or clothing have a very large (infinite?) SPF. I saw something about studies of infant clothes that showed they had a very low SPF (maybe less than 10?). So even witht their skin covered they could get burned.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by closetgeek View Post
    I just saw a commercial for SPF 100 this morning. I couldn't help but remember an umbrella for a patio table being rated as SPF30. How is that even possible?
    Because there's a large amount of scattered sunlight from the rest of the sky, so even if you don't get the direct sunlight there's still a lot of UV hitting your skin.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Ah, I see (maybe). SPF is not a percentage. So SPF150 wouldn't give you negative tanning. AFAIK it is a ratio (or a factor, even): SPF100 means that after 100 hours in the sun, you will have had the equivalent of 1 hour of unprotected exposure.
    Ah. Drats. Then the gooey aloe mess I've been using will have to do. It doesn't seem to be doing anything other than making my shoulders smell like aloe and menthol though. The annoying part was that I actually thought to put on some sunscreen (I usually don't. Melanoma be damned), but the stuff we had was a few years old and I suspect even new it wouldn't have worked that well (It was 'rated' as SPF50, but it was a spray and very watery).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Ah, I see (maybe). SPF is not a percentage. So SPF150 wouldn't give you negative tanning. AFAIK it is a ratio (or a factor, even): SPF100 means that after 100 hours in the sun, you will have had the equivalent of 1 hour of unprotected exposure.
    No, SPF 100 is that you will not burn until exposed to 100 times the sunlight required to produce a burn if unprotected. It is not the most objective of measures. It also only relates to UVA. There are proscriptions in some countries as to the highest SPF rating that can be assigned.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunscreen

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    7,730
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket View Post
    No, SPF 100 is that you will not burn until exposed to 100 times the sunlight required to produce a burn if unprotected.
    That is a better definition than mine which (among other problems) assumed a constant level of exposure for 100 hours.

    It also only relates to UVA.
    UVB, surely?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    9,761
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange
    AFAIK it is a ratio (or a factor, even): SPF100 means that after 100 hours in the sun, you will have had the equivalent of 1 hour of unprotected exposure.
    No, SPF 100 is that you will not burn until exposed to 100 times the sunlight required to produce a burn if unprotected.
    And these come out differently because the sun moves in the sky: other things being equal (which they often aren't) you get a bigger cumulative UV dose around noon than you do at other times of the day.

    Grant Hutchison

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    16,837
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    And these come out differently because the sun moves in the sky: other things being equal (which they often aren't) you get a bigger cumulative UV dose around noon than you do at other times of the day.
    "These" what?
    True: exposure risks dramatically change throughout the day, but since SPF is a ratio, there is no fixed amount of exposure that the computation needs to depend on.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    9,761
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    "These" what?
    These two things I quoted in my post: Strange's "after 100 hours in the sun, you will have had the equivalent of 1 hour of unprotected exposure"; and DrRocket's "you will not burn until exposed to 100 times the sunlight required to produce a burn if unprotected".

    Grant Hutchison

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    16,837
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    These two things I quoted in my post:...
    I wasn't sure, which is why I asked. Overall, those comments discuss the ratios, so do you not agree with my post?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    9,761
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    I wasn't sure, which is why I asked. Overall, those comments discuss the ratios, so do you not agree with my post?
    I agree with your post. Do you not agree with mine?

    Grant Hutchison

  17. #17
    The point is that 100 hours in the sun does not equate to 100 times as much sunlight, since the amount of sunlight varies over time.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    16,837
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I agree with your post. Do you not agree with mine?
    I wasn't sure what you were trying to get at. I agreed with your post, but didn't see how it applied to SPF. So I put in my 2 cents.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11,965
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    I wasn't sure what you were trying to get at. I agreed with your post, but didn't see how it applied to SPF. So I put in my 2 cents.
    Coincidentally, 2 cents provide very good sun coverage, albeit over a very small surface area.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    16,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post
    Coincidentally, 2 cents provide very good sun coverage, albeit over a very small surface area.
    Sun coverage maybe, but did you ever try to pick up anything metal that's been sitting in the hot sun? Ouch, a different kind of burn.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    9,761
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    I wasn't sure what you were trying to get at. I agreed with your post, but didn't see how it applied to SPF.
    Because the "100" in SPF100 means a 100-fold increase in UV dose, which does not convert to a 100-fold increase in sun-exposure time. These two things are different. That's why Dr Rocket pointed out the correct interpretation of the "100", and why Strange was happy with the correction.

    Grant Hutchison

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    16,837
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    ... and why Strange was happy with the correction.
    Yes; Being that his comment was unspecified, I automatically took it as 100x equal exposure and didn't even take it as an issue. It's kind of hard to stay in the sun for 100 hours unless you're at the poles.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    9,761
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    It's kind of hard to stay in the sun for 100 hours unless you're at the poles.
    Well, just a bit inside the polar circle. Easy enough to get sunburned in the Arctic and Antarctic.

    Grant Hutchison

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    7,730
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    Yes; Being that his comment was unspecified, I automatically took it as 100x equal exposure and didn't even take it as an issue. It's kind of hard to stay in the sun for 100 hours unless you're at the poles.
    That is what I meant. But, oh no, DrRocket the Big Mathematician just has to come along and get all picky about the details

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    16,837
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Well, just a bit inside the polar circle...
    Yes; another clarification on the unspecified and/or shortened version "poles".
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Easy enough to get sunburned in the Arctic and Antarctic.
    I've heard that. Combination of longer total exposure and clearer skys I would assume.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    9,761
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    I've heard that. Combination of longer total exposure and clearer skys I would assume.
    And snow, which reflects UV. Worst sunburn I ever had was under my chin after a day crossing snow and ice at high latitudes.

    Grant Hutchison

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11,965
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    And snow, which reflects UV. Worst sunburn I ever had was under my chin after a day crossing snow and ice at high latitudes.

    Grant Hutchison
    Water used to do it to us. Growing up we had a boat at the local lake (mud-hole, but that's what passes for a lake 'round here), so we'd be out on the water for hours at a time two or three days a week.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,201
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    ... It's kind of hard to stay in the sun for 100 hours ...
    Some people cope just fine:



    I think this whole 100 bit is like that bull about "wind chill factor" one hears these days on weather reports. If you want to sell something (e.g. a weather report or sun blocker), come up with a way to be able to use totally absurd numbers which can somehow be justified when challenged.

    Ahh, marketing. My favorite.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Well, just a bit inside the polar circle. Easy enough to get sunburned in the Arctic and Antarctic.

    Grant Hutchison
    Would you not expect that down parka to provide some protection ?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    And snow, which reflects UV. Worst sunburn I ever had was under my chin after a day crossing snow and ice at high latitudes.

    Grant Hutchison
    That'll teach you Brits about the dangers of keeping your chin up.

Similar Threads

  1. I knew it was tough...
    By starcanuck64 in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2011-Nov-03, 01:27 AM
  2. I know someone who knew/has met...
    By AndrewJ in forum Fun-n-Games
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 2009-Aug-13, 05:15 PM
  3. I KNEW it....
    By John M. Dollan in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2005-Feb-01, 03:07 AM
  4. I KNEW this would happen!!
    By CrzyWeazl in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2004-Mar-24, 04:40 PM
  5. I knew what to expect..
    By Drakheim in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2004-Feb-18, 04:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •