ATL per 3camel. Scored 50+ SPF in Choice recent test.
Be summer ready!
Item is currently on back order, usually dispatched within 2 to 4 weeks.
CamelCamelCamel.
Other way round, Amazon is doing the matching.
I'm surprised there isn't a run on this sunscreen given it was only one of 4 sunscreens that were actually 50+ - and it's the cheapest of the lot.
Can vouch that it's great even on adults.
Can you share the 4 with links please so we can check them out?
Please explain which are the "4".
@AndyC1: From the article
Sunscreens that passed the SPF test
Zinc is also a chemical tho
True, but the mechanism of protection of zinc oxide/titanium dioxide sunscreens is physical (reflecting sun rays).
it's a mineral
The main issue with chemical sunscreens is they can irritate sensitive skin on the face, and tend to run with sweat into the eyes. Zinc is more slimy feeling but doesn't run and is more suitable for sensitive skin. Though seems to be more variation in quality control with some batches seeming to change SPF a lot in testing.
Usually gluey too and harder to wash off.
I don't love the fact that they can detect those "sunscreen" chemicals in your blood either… I'm not going to pretend I know the implications of that, but I generally prefer to keep random chemicals made in a lab out of my bloodstream unless they have a really good reason to be there.
As someone who burns on a cloudy day, Im happy with a little bit on my neck and face.
Maybe. Maybe not. Lead exposure literally causes low IQ and other neurological deficits.
Cancer Council sunscreens have tested positive for dangerous lead and cadmium (another potent heavy metal neurotoxin).
https://tamararubin.com/2025/06/cancer-council-sensitive-sun…
you've linked a business that has done that testing. That is always a concern for bias. It's common knowledge that you can decide on the outcomes you want then design the study or analysis to reflect this. The business you've linked does appear to be genuine re good health. However, these are usually the things that become an irony.
Should I link to someone who hasn't had the testing done?
Their testing is done by separate independent lab.
@tenpercent: the "independent lab" performs the testing according to the requirements given to them. It's the same with studies etc which is why bias is always taken into account. What are the results you want, ask the lab how can they can achieve those results. Independent studies (not business based) are generally considered non biased or much less of a bias. There is a plethora of studies, many of them famous rorts for promoting one thing or another that's a money spinner for those involved. Foundation 41, oxycontin, fentanyl, thalidomide. With the explosion of youtube there are hundreds of these studies purporting this or that in an attempt to make money and run. David Sinclair is one of the more well known scammers, and is still popular. How does someone make their product look better than the competition? They need a selling point, a hook
testing according to the requirements given to them
You seem to think there is funny business in the testing. What sort of requirements do you think were given to them?
Please test this product and add 50ppb to the test results?
Doubt it. Such a lab would lose its accreditation.
If the test results she publishes were fabricated or manipulated then she (and the laboratory who issued the false results) would have been bankrupted from litigation years ago.
How does someone make their product look better than the competition?
I do not think Tamara is selling alternative competitor products. And I cannot see any other substantive financial benefit from this. I don't think her motive is financial as she still works full time and she started this only after her kids were lead poisoned and permanently neurologically harmed. Her company, Lead Safe Mama has in the past couple of years begun facilitating crowd-funding donations to pay for the lab tests of consumer products like the one I first linked to (you can donate to get specific products tested). I have checked the donation targets against the lab testing fees and I do not believe she is skimming the donations either.
@tenpercent: I'll give you an example of how you've already been manipulated, and this is only what is easy to see. You and I have access to the same limited data - statements given by two businesses. You present the data according to how those businesses describe it and themselves. A nice photo of some wholesome looking people is the big selling point, along with a lovey sounding blurb…that's just an aside for now. Business # 2 is described as an "independent lab". What does independent mean in this context? "Independent" to business # 1? Purity labs is a .com, a business. So I could argue, easily, that it's more accurate to describe purity labs as an "independent business". See how quickly things change. And we all know that the primary goal of business is to make money - ahhh, the potential for bias begins. Did you know that WHO is dependent on funding from various countries? China contributes a huge amount to WHO. In the early days of the covid outbreak, when various authorities were pointing out that China had an outbreak, WHO supported China in its denial. This is (supposedly) why Trump withdrew US funding from WHO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation_by_Chi…
@poohduck: Wow. What a tangent.
FWIW Cancer Council's own website is a .com.au (just the Australian version of .com) as well.
What would make you trust (or just consider) the testing results of any lab? A .org or a .io top level domain? A government run lab? A charitable foundation run lab? What if the lab passed the widely recognised ISO/IEC accreditation standards?
Going back to what we know:
You're free to draw you're own conclusions. On the balance of probabibilites I won't be using their sunscreens until they become transparent about the contamination.
Let's not get hung about semantics; "independent" / "third party" / "separate entity" / "different business" / etc the term I've used is immaterial to the point that it was not Lead Safe Mama who conducted the testing and that the lab is professionally accredited. ↩
Got any evidence of harm to back it up?
Safer to get skin cancer obviously.
Cooker theories
It's really not… Yeah there isn't a definitive link to cancer yet, but it's also not a completely unreasonable or "cooker" position to take to say "yeah na, I'll avoid the random chemicals in my bloodstream if I can thanks", especially when there is an effective replacement product being zinc based sunscreen.
Just because something isn't the mainstream opinion, doesn't automatically make it a "cooker theory", do a bit of your own critical thinking before automatically dismissing others.
@mrhamez: It's amazing the bootlickers on this page lol.
"Big corp said it's fine so it is!! End of story you cooker!! Didn't you see that Johnson and Johnson said it's fine for me!"
I'm not saying it isn't fine, I'm just saying the science is in, the chemicals do end up in your bloodstream, they haven't figured the consequences of that out yet, but they certainly haven't said it's definitely fine that they are there either.
"Big corp said it's fine so it is!! End of story you cooker!! Didn't you see that Johnson and Johnson said it's fine for me!"
Safe and effective 🤣🤣
Awareness, diagnosis, reporting etc were all markedly less effective / widespread back in the 50’s too, this is an extremely long bow to draw.
@easternculture: If you can find a study that links modern sunscreens to increased rates of skin cancer (with confounding factors accounted for) I would genuinely like to see it. I don’t think it exists as something that obviously carcinogenic in such widespread use would be banned immediately. We’d be talking something worse than formaldehyde or various dioxin-based pesticides and those were found and banned in the last half of last century.
If you can find a study that links modern sunscreens to increased rates of skin cancer (with confounding factors accounted for) I would genuinely like to see it
Im sure there is but big pharma will prevent them being published. Remember the whales control every aspect of media
@easternculture: If you can’t show solid science to back up a claim you shouldn’t spread this misinformation, you could hurt people.
@zfind: Im not. You putting petrolium on your skin. What do you expect. Skin absorbs everything into the blood stream, then you have accumilation of toxins in your system. Most of these chemicals are endocrine disruptors. Off course your going to get cancer from it if you keep exposing yourself. Doesnt need a rocket scientist. Just a brain and some basic physiology knowledge. Or you can be a sheep and just follow the science that big pharma want you to know.
Or you can be a sheep and just follow the science that big pharma want you to know.
Thanks for confirming sheep status
@easternculture: I have a decent grasp of physiology and can confidently say that endocrine dysfunction doesn’t automatically equal cancer. Sun exposure will give you cancer if you let it touch your skin long enough. Is the sun bad?
Your conclusions are so broad and thus far unfounded. You can have your views, but at least go and do the research - if you find legitimate data to say you’re right, great, but you should be open to letting science inform you.
I hate corporations as much as anyone but it’s a shame to be blinded by conspiracy and mania.
Please don’t pass on these beliefs to vulnerable people.
can confidently say that endocrine dysfunction doesn’t automatically equal cancer
Dont put words in my mouth. I never said that.
But since your at it, it can lead to cancer. For example imbalances in estrogen can lead to breast cancer. Same applies to thyroid.
Read more on cancer and hormones and educate yourself my friend or use AI, for example from gemini
How estrogen is linked to cancer
Cancer cell growth: Estrogen can attach to receptors on cancer cells, triggering them to grow and multiply.
Genomic damage: Some research suggests estrogen can also directly contribute to the development of cancer by causing DNA damage during cell division.
Estrogen's role in risk: A longer lifetime exposure to estrogen, from a long reproductive period (starting menstruation early and entering menopause late), is associated with a higher risk.
@easternculture: Latest studies esp literature (prisma) reviews and systematic reviews establish a few main things. Chemical gets absorbed, chemical can be endocrine disrupter in vivo in non sunscreen doses and in vitro + animal. All literaure (including latest and largest 2025 one) reviews find no conclusive or statistically significant data to establish link between use of sunscreens in normal dosage and any endocrine disorders. Regulatory bodies have precautionary aimed to lower max dosage but there is no conclusive evidence.
Latest studies esp literature (prisma) reviews and systematic reviews
Yeah … nah
Research funded by drug companies
skin cancer levels have increased substantially
I think you mean diagnosed cases have increased substantially in people over 65. Couple of reasons for this - increased diagnosis rates (better detection methods other than the doctors visual check) and increased awareness & use of sunscreen in younger generations. Prior to 1980 sunscreen awareness was low - 'slip slop slap' came in around 1979. Also earth is not flat, 3I/Atlas is a comet, queen elizabeth was not a lizard.
@mlakmlak: Did i also mention that the sunscreen in the spray bottles are flammable. Get one and try, it lights up with a lighter while you spray it.
@mlakmlak: If its poly, offcourse its flammable. It also sheds microplactics that get absored by your skin. Same applies to synthetic bedding
@mlakmlak: Sorry to burst your bubble
AI Overview
Yes, microplastics can be absorbed by the skin, though larger particles are generally too big to penetrate the skin barrier. However, smaller microplastics and nanoplastics, especially those found in personal care products, can enter the body through hair follicles or sweat glands. In addition, toxic chemicals like BPA and flame retardants can leach from microplastics and be absorbed through the skin.
@easternculture: So if i wear my tshirt long enough, i'll just absorb it all? cool.. and then what happens?
Research shows these chemicals can leach from the microplastics, be absorbed through the skin barrier, and even enter the bloodstream. Studies using skin models found that hydrated skin is more effective at absorbing these chemicals.
@easternculture: Wow who could have guessed hydrocarbon propellants are flammable? Ever used deoderant….
@BananaMan007: Nope. Why would you want to block or alter the function of your sweat glands? Sweating is a regulatory response by the body. It also releases toxins from the skin and blood stream.
Why dont you just block your urethra so you dont have to pee while your at it???
Its like people taking cough medicine to supress cough. Your not supposed to supress your cough reflex because its clearing toxins from your lungs. Same applies to taking panadol when you have a low grade fever, yoir not supposed to block the bodies natural mechanism to clear toxins through perspiration and clear the toxins.
Afraid of smelling? Carry a few spare tshirts in your car or chuck one in your bag and change if you get really sweaty.
@easternculture don’t waste your energy arguing with NPCs
Username checks out
Sun is life. Sun heals.
I would never use it on my skin.
Agree. People really should do research before down voting.
Sun therapy used to be an effective hospital treatment in the early 1900s
@Duece1995: I had very bad skin peeling on my index finger for months from a chemical. I tried everything in the moisturiser department and nothing worked. 1 week of 30 min sun exposure twice daily and it healed within a weak.
Sun therapy used to be an effective hospital treatment in the early 1900s
So did leeches for cancer and cocaine for hayfever
@SBOB: Except sun is nature. You can stay indoors and be afraid from the sun. Leave the sun for the real men 🤣🤣
@JumpingUnicorns: They prolong your life on drugs. Obviously your paying big pharma to live longer on medications.
Honestly i would rather die younger than live with chronic diseases, dementia, etc
They prolong your life on drugs. Obviously your paying big pharma to live longer on medications.
Big pharma wants to kill you and suppresses the research and big pharma keeps you alive longer by effective drugs.
Quite the dichotomy of opinion.
@Randolph Duke: They want to make you sick, sell you meds, and from side effects and damage to your organs you eventually die.
Win win for pharma and new world order.
Most of chronic diseases are caused by the food.
You go to the dr and they manage the symptom by giving you drugs.
You get a new symptom from the meds which is treated by another drugs.
Cycle repeats itself until you die from all the side effects from damage to your organs and drugs interacting with each other.
So whats the solution?
Sun is life. Sun heals.
i've heard if that if you stare at the sun long enough it will heal your eyes as well ..
Actually its impossible because your natural reflexes will kick in unless you tape your eyes open
Correct. Cancer Council sunscreens have been found to have lead and cadmium (both dangerous neurotoxins) in them https://tamararubin.com/2025/06/cancer-council-sensitive-sun…
FFS… the people spouting 'dangerous chemicals' would rather everyone get skin cancer and sunburn. The usual misinformation without any proper proof.. I'll bet the response will be along the lines of me being a sheep and being hoodwinked by 'big sunscreen' and 'the government'.
Pretty cool though when you think about it.
Massive Sun is gushing out radiation… the defence….
A pump pack lotion!!
P.S. These are 100% free with GMHBA private health ($50 per person per year from the cancer council). Family cover…good times!
Massive ocean trying to drown you at the beach… The defence… is a floating device.
Yeah, it's stupid.
Why is skin cancer increasing if everyone is using sunscreen?
Probably because people are getting their education from Facebook, Instagram and tiktok
*Citation needed
The average age of Australians has increased from 22.5 to 38.4 in the last century. The number of old people is increasing. Old people are more susceptible to skin cancer.
Probably an increasing number of idiots believing all the garbage misinformation on the internet so they don’t use sunscreeen but instead some BS other thing they think will save them.
Amazon price matching Woolworths, for those without prime.