Today I am going to complete the series of post that we have dedicated that we have dedicated to improving your information on the protection of the skin against the sun, influencing the diet, and the absorption of vitamin D.
I had to talk about mineral protectors (We already know the chemists because they are in the supermarket, the perfume shop, etc.). I have been reading about these sunscreens since my children were babies. The fear of the presence of parabens in the composition of chemical protectors, motivated discussions in a parenting forum to which it belonged. Then I discovered a cream with sunscreen 50 for children in a supermarket, and I trusted, I did not carry those preservatives.
However, this year I have known that the fact that it is announced as 'paraben free' does not mean that other components that may act as endocrine disruptors have been excluded in its composition. I have to tell you that for many people, the best option is mineral based creams, which create an opaque layer on the skin with very high natural protection (up to 95%), against all UV rays.
These do not chemically alter the functioning of the skin, as do chemical protectors, which penetrate the skin and are believed to alter the hormonal systems of the body. The mission of the physical filter is to reflect the sun's rays, and it is not necessary for it to be absorbed, in fact, that is why they leave a white film on the skin.
Chemical or mineral filters?
In all this mess of terminology that involves the SPF, the components of the creams (reading the labels is an adventure), its operation, etc. It is not difficult to get lost.
To try to clarify all this a little, I will tell you that mineral (or organic) filters reflect radiation without penetrating the skin, and are willing to act once applied. As we know with chemists it is better to cover the exposed surface with a minimum of 20/30 minutes.
It is said that with babies under six months, a physical filter is always better, although on the other hand, there are also those who warn us that at those ages, the skin is very immature, and it is better not to be exposed. I would take such a small child to the beach very early in the morning (very unlikely if you have other children and we are on vacation) or from six in the afternoon, there is still sun but more indirect, putting a mineral filter cream; or it wouldn't take him, that the others can be taken by grandparents, or dad, or they can go with friends.
In fact, older children would not have them in the central hours of the day under the sun, except as an unrepeatable exception
Another difference lies in the poor water resistance of physicists that would cause renewals in the application every hour (approximately), and this rhythm is difficult to follow daily, another thing is that the amount of days that we expose ourselves to UV rays is reduced Let's not forget the clothes that can protect us - t-shirts, caps - , because they can complement and overcome the disadvantages of some and other types of protectors.
The downside is that they can be more expensive than chemical protectors, but I think it will be a matter of priorities, because if once informed, we decide that the best for our family are physical filters, we will not mind allocating more money to the purchase of sunscreens and creams.
And of course we must find a proper balance between the prevention of melanoma, the absorption of the necessary Vitamin D, and a sunscreen as healthy as possible, do not you think?
