On the Canada Day long weekend (first weekend in July, for all you non-Canuck readers), Glen and I visited our friends in rural Alberta for a few days of fishing and brain-tapping. They had both been on extended sojurns to New Zealand only a couple years ago, and we wished to learn from their experiences. Fuelled by large amounts of food and wine, travel stories and suggestions flowed long and fast. There were several things that we learned that weekend, not all of which came from our friends’ travel stories.
1. SPF rated clothing is a good thing; actually, for me it has become necessary. I learned this after obtaining a very nasty burn during the weekend’s two fishing expeditions. Despite my liberal application and frequent re-application of SPF 30 sunscreen on my body, SPF 55 sunscreen on my face, and a thick long-sleeved t-shirt, I succeeded in catching a sunburn on my shoulders, face, and hands. One of our friends was quite aghast, exclaiming about the impossibility of the burn, as she watched my frequent re-applications of the sunblock. I also caught one whitefish and four walleye, but that did nothing to relieve the sunburn.
Seeing as the New Zealand and Australian sun is much more intense than what my pasty white skin is accustomed to, I need to up the ante when it comes to battling sunburn. As I cannot resort to covering my entire body with opaque zinc sunblocks (mountain resort skiers from the 80’s and early 90’s will undoubtedly remember the neon coloured stripes of zinc on noses and cheekbones that were oh-so fashionable at the time) Glen and I came to the conclusion that actual SPF rated clothing will be the way to go. This is not to say that my entire travel wardrobe will be kitted out with pricy sunproof duds, however I did go to Mountain Equipment Co-Op the next weekend and purchased one long sleeved shirt with a very small collar, and a v-necked t-shirt, both of which claim to have sunblocking powers. It may not be the SPF 45000 that I seem to require, but every little bit helps.
With an odd sort of timeliness, the local paper then ran an article about summer skin care and the complexities of sunscreen application. Apparently most people do not use nearly enough sunscreen – the article cited dermatologists suggesting that people use approximately one teaspoon of sunscreen on their face and around a shot glass worth of sunscreen on the rest of their body. I personally use around two or three teaspoons on my face and neck, and a hell of a lot more than a shot glass on the rest of my whiter-than-white flesh.
Furthermore, higher SPF numbers doesn’t necessarily mean better protection. Formulas with SPF factors of 60 are intended for people with very pale skin that burn easily and still need re-applying every two hours. You can’t just slap on an SPF 60 and assume that it means double the length of protection time of SPF 30, thereby justifying your four-hour UV ray brazing session. SPF 30 should be considered the norm for most people, while SPF 15 is now considered to be a bit on the low side. Also, apply a good half hour before going out into the sun or applying insect repellent.
But what about those lovely new spray-bottle sunscreens that promise easy, simple, spritzable, non-greasy application? The commercials declare that sunbathers may mist themselves with a refreshing burst of protection, while parents can conveniently hose down their children from afar instead of having to perform a rub-down on the squirming, protesting beastie. Unfortunately, the convenience of these products outstrips their effectiveness. The Edmonton Journal article linked below states that the sunscreen is too thin and the distribution too patchy to really be effective. What you should really be using is the thick cream type sunscreens that you need to rub into your skin.
And a note to the budget-conscious: those cream sunscreens are a heck of a lot cheaper than the excitingly new and ineffective spray-on sunscreens. You may need an extra minute to rub the goo in, but you’ll save more than a few pennies.
For the informationally suspicious among you who require sources to back up my claims (I applaud your wisdom, by the way), here are a couple of articles corroborating the info I’ve supplied above:
Is 30 the new 15? (CanWest News Services)
Sunscreen: Answers to your burning questions (Mayo Clinic)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi guys:
Well what can I say other than express jealous envy.
But a little bit of nit picking and fault finding at this juncture, would not be amiss!
I do take exception to your aphorism “pasty white skin”. The more appropriate descriptive would be “Lilly White Hide/Epidermis (your choice). Glen on the other hand should be hosed down with tan in a can. His now black hair and pasty white countenance shows a little too much contrast. I should point out that spritzing with tan in a can will not cut it, he needs to be hosed down.
But I digress!
In your case Lauren “Lilly White” would only last the first 60 seconds in the sun after which, the more appropriated descriptive, would be Pretty in Pink, and after another 2 minutes, Parboiled Crustacean, would be rather more truthful.
Two questions!
1 Does the sunblock clothing really work? And are they comfortable? Inquiring minds want to know
2 Has Glen purchased a hat?
Looking forward with eager anticipation to the next installment of “Geeks Abroad”
1) I've been assuming that the sunblock clothing works, as so far I've only gotten the slightest touch of sun on my face...but I'm not sure if that's due to the sun or the wind. The clothes are comfortable, to be sure, but I'm usually so wrapped up in additional jackets and fleeces that the sunblock clothes haven't had much of a chance to do their thing! But they've worked up 'till now.
2) Glen hasn't found a hat yet, nor have I. We shall have to remedy this quickly, as we are now making our way up to the Gold Coast, aka Sunburn Paradise. If there will be sunburns to be had, it will be there.
Post a Comment