I’m a swimmer, and in summertime I swim most days in a large natural pool in my hometown. That’s it on top of this post. Isn’t it great? The water flows into the pool from an underground aquifer, and it stays very cold (hovering a few degrees either side of 68 degrees) throughout the year.
Because of this beautiful spring-fed pool – which empties into a creek, which feeds into a river and then an ocean – and because I was born and raised in Texas where swimming pools are part of our culture – sunscreens have special significance to me. That’s why it has concerned me for some years that manufacturers are now creating clear sunscreens via the use of nano-particles.
Now Friends of the Earth along up with Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) and the International Center for Technology Assessment have compiled a report about nanomaterials in sunscreens (pdf), suggesting these products are not worth the risk.
What are nano-particles, and why are they in sunscreens? Nanotechnology is a relatively new technology – a glimmer in the eye of the world’s most brilliant physicists in the 1950s – brought into reality in the 1980s by such innovations as the scanning tunneling microscope. Nanotechnology is about manufacturing. It’s about creating things at the molecular and atomic scale – things so small that they’re measured in nanometers, with each nanometer measuring one-billionth of a meter.
A particle tens of thousands of nanometers in length is still much, much too small for the human eye to see. A conventional microscope can’t detect individual molecules that are a few nanometers in diameter. A slice of a single strand of hair – sliced across like salami – would measure about a hundred thousand nanometers across.
Scientists can now manipulate the world at these minute scales. And it turns out that materials act profoundly differently when they’re at nanoscale. At this scale, a material’s properties change. That’s why nano-particles in sunscreens create a sunscreen that’s clear instead of white.
Nano-particles are not found in nature. They’re manufactured by scientists.
And I’m not saying they’re dangerous. When I told my colleague Jorge Salazar I was writing this post, he scoffed, saying, “Titanium oxide is pretty benign stuff.” Manufactured nanomaterials are being used in sunscreens to make sun-blocking ingredients like titanium dioxide and zinc oxide rub on clear instead of white. I don’t know if these particles are dangerous, but it’s not knowing that scares me.
The Consumers Union tests of nano-sunscreens found no correlation between nanomaterial content and sun protection. Adding nano-particles to your sunscreen is for cosmetic purposes only. No more unsightly white noses around the pool.
I do know that nanomaterials have not been around very long, so they have not been tested as thoroughly as one could wish. How could they be? When I was a kid hanging out at the pool at the local YMCA, nano-particles didn’t exist and some people proudly sported white, sun-screened noses. Some available data show the small size of nano-particles makes them more able to enter lungs, pass through cell membranes, and possibly penetrate damaged or sun-burned skin. Other studies have suggested there may be environmental impacts stemming from the release of nanomaterials into broader ecosystems, like the natural-springs pool where I swim each summer now, or like the creek that pool spills into. According to Friends of the Earth, a 2006 study “demonstrated that some forms of titanium dioxide nanoparticles (popular ingredients in nano-sunscreens) are toxic to algae and water fleas, especially after exposure to UV light. Algae and water fleas are a vital part of marine ecosystems.”
Jorge says don’t worry. He says the biggest risk from nano-particles is to workers who produce nano-containing products. In the U.S. and elsewhere, there are currently no established safe levels of exposure to nanomaterials and no reliable systems and equipment to protect workers from harmful levels of exposure. A recent report from China indicates a link between exposure to nanoparticles and severe illnesses suffered by seven factory workers. One of the workers died.
According to Friends of the Earth: “Consumers need to know that manufactured nanoscale zinc and titanium oxides are not necessarily the most effective or safest choice for effective sun protection. They are also not the only option. Besides several different carbon-based active ingredients, consumers can also look for larger-scale, more opaque metal-oxide based sunscreens (e.g. titanium dioxide or zinc oxide which are ‘inorganic’ and do not contain carbon atoms), although without mandatory labeling these may be very hard to find (at least in the U.S.).”
As for me, a Texan born and raised … swimming pools are important to me. Typically, I go swimming early in the morning before the sun gets too high. So I don’t wear sunscreens, not even on my nose, and haven’t for years. If the sun gets too high, I put on a shirt and a broad-brimmed hat, or I rest in the shade of a tree. But sometimes – on weekend mornings, when I might stay later at the pool – I see many people spraying or lathering sunscreens on themselves and their children, then jumping straight into the pool. Often, late in the day, it seems as if a skin of sunscreen is floating on top of the pool. Personally, I wish all sunscreen wearers would know to put the screens on before they come to the pool. Let ‘em soak in a little! Better protection for the skin and less sunscreen in the water.
Nano-particles in sunscreens are a whole different problem. They are, simply, an unknown. Can the introduction of a manufactured particle – a particle never known in nature – be good for the underwater ecosystem that my city has tried so hard to maintain in our beloved local spring-fed pool? As for your own city pool, filled with chlorinated water, that water has to go somewhere once it’s drained. For my city, I believe it goes back into the city’s water system, ultimately to a wastewater treatment plant, before being discharged back into a local river.
So I have to agree with Friends of the Earth and company. More testing is needed. Meanwhile, nano-particles in sunscreens – which don’t really keep you safer from the sun’s harmful rays – aren’t worth the risk.
Kudos to you, Deborah! If it’s like nothing found in nature, how can it be good for nature? I’ll keep the white stuff for now!
I agree with Deborah’s very sensible comment. I have contended for years that people that rely on sunscreen as way of staying in the sun longer without getting burnt are probably fooling themselves into thinking that they are not increasing their chances of skin cancer anyway.
“Typically, I go swimming early in the morning before the sun gets too high. So I don’t wear sunscreens, not even on my nose, and haven’t for years. If the sun gets too high, I put on a shirt and a broad-brimmed hat, or I rest in the shade of a tree.”
Let’s hear it for common sense instead of dollars and sense!
Thank you Jessie and Dan. Actually this whole issue reminds me of Margaret Atwood’s great novel Oryx and Crake. It’s not about nano-particles … it’s about genetic modification (which for some reason, in reality, doesn’t scare me as much). But the book is about unintended consequences, and I think that’s one of the issues at stake here.
They were originally made by inventors (scientists) in labs, but are now manufactured by the ton in industrial factories.
When you buy a bottle of sunsceen, there’s no way of knowing whether there are nanomaterials in in – though there probably are. Here is a helpful like that lists consumer products which contain naonmatials.
http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/
Thanks Betty!
Not to mention the fact that when people use clear sunscreen, it is impossible to tell if you got enough on your skin. With the thick “white stuff,” you can actually see it and tell if you have enough on your skin as you rub it in. Seems like with the clear stuff, you run the risk of not putting enough “nano” on you, and thus an increased risk of skin cancer. I don’t worry about nano-particles in some one’s own back yard poolas much, but sensitive areas like Barton Springs are not a good place to test out theories of it’s negligible impact on the environment.
Elliot, I could not agree more. Good point about not knowing how much you put on with the clear sunscreens! I hadn’t thought of that …
I’m with you Deb. Too many times we assume foriegn substances are benign, for want of more testing. Do “natural” sunscreens have the same nano particles? Do those even exist? I’m heading to the organic grocery right now to research…
Caitlin, I doubt that natural sunscreens contain nano-particles – how natural could they be in that case? Betty, above, gave a link to some products … Thanks for stoppin’ by!
I stand by my assertion that products like nano-suncreens have demonstrated themselves to be safe, so far.
There is no scientific evidence linking any injury in anyone (yet) to products containing nanomaterials, which top 1000 according to the Pew’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/ (thanks for the link by @2020science on Twitter).
Now does that mean that I want my child to have a Benny the teddybear coated with nanoparticles of silver for extra germ-free protection (http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/browse/products/benny_bear_plush_toy/)? Not really. But the facts don’t support worrying much about these nanomaterials found in products. Believe me, when there is a real story of injury, it will be in the front pages, and I would like to be the first to report it.
Go Jorge! As I said, I don’t know that nano-particles are dangerous, although I wouldn’t want to be one of those 7 factory workers in China recently who apparently became ill (or died) from inhaling mass quantities of them. However, inhaling mass quantities of ordinary dust wouldn’t be good for you either … factory work has its own inherent dangers. What scares me about nano-particles is that they are so new and so unknown. And they don’t offer increased protection … just a ‘glam’ factor. So why use ‘em?
Sometimes, it’s best to err on the side of caution rather than wait for science to tell us, after we’ve been using the stuff for years, “yeah, it’s toxic.” Remember asbestos?
If these nano-thingies are so small, could they seep into our body through the skin or be absorbed into our digestive tract? Could they cause an autoimmune reaction? Could they be the seeds for the formation of more plaque or blood clots than usual?
Oh well, i’ll add this to the long list of things I’m pissed-off about ….
Good for you for not wearing sunscreen. We live in a country where 85% of us are clinically deficient in our levels of vitamin D. Skin cancer is much higher today than 50 years ago. I don’t know if sunscreen is to blame or not, but it encourages big doses of sun exposure when a moderate bit every day would be a good ‘work out’ for our skin letting it adjust to summer and giving us our vitamin D.
I have blood tests of many patients (even endurance athletes) who are low on vitamin D in July – its not just a winter occurrence.
Will, hello! Thanks for visiting. I can’t speak about people’s need to wear sunscreen or not. I don’t wear it myself, but my skin is olive (tans easily, never burns), and as I said I don’t go out in the blazing sun without a shirt and a hat. I know skin cancers have increased. Ozone levels decreased. It’s hard to know where to find the balance. But as the ancient Chinese would have said: practice moderation.
I echo Will’s sentiments. I recently switched internists after 16 years and the new one decided to check my Vitamin D level. It was profoundly low and I had to go on a weekly mega-dose for 12 weeks. My dermatologist may not like it, but I am going to take 15 minutes a day and expose some part of my body (maybe not my face) to the sun. The lower back pain and some other complaints I was having are gone and the new internist attributes this to better Vit. D levels! Who knew!
Deb, I usually take your stance – if it’s not really necessary, why take the risk?
Danielle, hey, thanks for dropping by. I get a LOT of sunlight, winter and summer – nearly all before about 10 a.m. Sometimes in the spring, as the sun is getting higher in the sky in the mornings before I have to go to work, I feel so grateful for the sun. It feels so warm and good. It just feels healthy! In moderation … of course.
I should add to my post that I am remarkably unqualified to be blogging with “scientific types.” This is just my considered opinion!
hi,
what you put on your skin enters your blood stream, so why use chemicals. i have red hair and fair skin and found that coconut oil is a great sunscreen. and it is edible. if you can’t eat it, don’t put it on your skin.
rob
Excellent! Get vitamin D in the sun, otherwise sit in the shade. Sunscreen use overall correlates positively with a rise in the incidence of skin cancers since their introduction.
I love the thought you’ve put into this, Deborah, but can’t help but feel that even if we’ve not yet reached the phase where we can confidently wear this kind of sunscreen, the research and development is reaching critical mass and soon we will indeed be doing so. For that reason, I’m prone to view this as an intermediary step rather than a final one to be boycotted, and am willing to wear it if only to spur the scientists on further with their research. Hope that doesn’t make me sound crazy ;)
A quick check of Wikipedia will show that nanoparticles are commonly found in nature. They are not a new invention by scientists. They are commonly found in soot, a variety of minerals, secreted from plants, etc.
What is true is that ENGINEERED nanoparticles are becoming more prevalent in consumer products, and these have not been studied in depth.
I’m grateful for you because of this wonderful content material. You actually did make my day :