Sunscreen for toddler

Cunning Stunt

Hi all, I have a 2.5yr old boy and i smother him in nivea kids factor 50 sunscreen when the weather is hot. My hubby thinks I should cut down on the spf nunber as he says its unhealthy for our boy not to get any rays through to his skin. He is a very pale colour and i dont actually know if he would burn or go brown because i have never gone less than factor 50 with him. I myself am a redhead sl i burn easily so i guess this is why i am protective of his skin...Anyway, what spf do you use on your toddlers and do you think i should try a lower factor sunscreen for him? Thanks

vicwatson

No, infact keep him out of the sun where you can. Ask an Australian

If in sun, ensure 50 spf and keep reapplying

Moonbeam

I use factor 50 on all my kids too.
Though I would let them out for 5 or 10 minutes with out it.

Millem

I use 50 and he still tans not that I want him to tan!!

uck51js9zml2yt

A tan is damage to the skin. Pale is good.

Kids burn very easliy in this weather

Dolbert

Nope, you're right and he's wrong! Children's skin is super sensitive and I wouldn't put anything less than 50 on mine.

Millem

Callie Wrong Jogger wrote: »

A tan is damage to the skin. Pale is good.

Kids burn very easliy in this weather

Yes I know I said I don't want him to tan!

Cunning Stunt

Thx all for the replies, put my mind at ease!

ted1

Aldi sun cream is just as good as Nivea. But alot cheaper http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-cream-of-the-crop-which-survey-finds-some-sun-creams-falling-short-in-the-protection-stakes-9380267.html

January

Apparently they don't sell factor 50 in Australia? Something I read somewhere?

I still use it on all mine though.

.red.

Not sure if its lidl or aldi but the Calypso brand is very good. We use it all the time and have done the last 2 years in Portugal. We put it on in the morning at breakfast before the pool, and again at lunchtime and thats it. Kids are in and out of the pool all day and no sun burn. My young lad had a small bit of sunburn on his arm one day but i think that was down to me not applying it properly as the rest of us were fine and it was only one day out of 22 over the 2 summers. Just make sure its on 15/20 mins before you hit the sun.
We get the factor 50, none of us are very fair but better safe than sorry, especially out foriegn and in this sun we're having now.
The only negative is it can sting your eyes if you go in the water too soon after applying it so make sure its on well before you need it.

dori_dormer

Just do some reading on vitamin D absorption etc. that would be the only issue with constant factor 50.

Personally these days by boy is in the garden from9am still in his pjs. I usually get him in around 10, and apply suncream for the rest of the day. I think they only need 15 min in sunlight to start the production of vitamin d but I could be wrong.

pwurple

I don't use factor 50 on the advice of my daughters dermatologist. She has excema, and factor 50 affects it. They were telling me factor 30 is more than enough for children, reglarly applied, and so I also use it for my other daughter, who doesn't have any skin problems.

Factor 30 blocks 97% of suns rays. Factor 50 blocks 98%. I can't justify the additional chemicals for 1% .

IvyTheTerrible

We put factor 50 on our little lad here, also he wears a hat to protect his head. It gets to 30+ degrees every day in the summer here (South of France) so he would rarely be outdoors between 12 and 3 in July and August, unless he can be in the shade.
He has my Irish pale skin so I wouldn't risk him being out in full sun without the suncream.

FurtherAway

pwurple wrote: »

I don't use factor 50 on the advice of my daughters dermatologist. She has excema, and factor 50 affects it. They were telling me factor 30 is more than enough for children, reglarly applied, and so I also use it for my other daughter, who doesn't have any skin problems.

Factor 30 blocks 97% of suns rays. Factor 50 blocks 98%. I can't justify the additional chemicals for 1% .

Sorry, I don't think that's true. Factor 30 means it takes 30 times longer before you get a sunburn, factor 50 means it takes 50 times longer (hence the term 'factor'). It depends very much on the individual. Someone who will usually burn after 10 minutes going on a 9 hour trip with someone who burns after 20 minutes should most certainly use factor 50 (10 x 50 = 500) whereas the other person would be fine with factor 30 (20 x 30 = 600). Nothing to do with how much is blocked out, really. And reapplying enforces the protection, but does NOT extend the time you can stay out which is something many people forget.

So OP, the factor you need depends on your child's skin type and the length of time the child is to spend in the sun.

ted1

pwurple wrote: »

I don't use factor 50 on the advice of my daughters dermatologist. She has excema, and factor 50 affects it. They were telling me factor 30 is more than enough for children, reglarly applied, and so I also use it for my other daughter, who doesn't have any skin problems.

Factor 30 blocks 97% of suns rays. Factor 50 blocks 98%. I can't justify the additional chemicals for 1% .

From an excema point of view it may be true but from a sun block point of true as a pasty white ginger who spends every opportunity surfing it in the water I call rubbish.

evolving_doors

Ultrasun sensitive 30+ for face
50 for everywhere else.
It's apply once which is great.. Expensive but great,

Xdancer

I live in the south of Spain so we get lots of sun! My daughter is now 4, but since she was a baby I have used ISDIN Pediatrics SPF 50 on her and wouldn't think of using anything lower.

pwurple

FurtherAway wrote: »

Sorry, I don't think that's true. Factor 30 means it takes 30 times longer before you get a sunburn, factor 50 means it takes 50 times longer (hence the term 'factor'). It depends very much on the individual. Someone who will usually burn after 10 minutes going on a 9 hour trip with someone who burns after 20 minutes should most certainly use factor 50 (10 x 50 = 500) whereas the other person would be fine with factor 30 (20 x 30 = 600). Nothing to do with how much is blocked out, really. And reapplying enforces the protection, but does NOT extend the time you can stay out which is something many people forget.

So OP, the factor you need depends on your child's skin type and the length of time the child is to spend in the sun.

Nope. I know it's a common misconception though.


Here's a few links as backup reading, but they all generally say the same as any doctor or dermatologist I've ever asked. Factor 30 is plenty and doesn't put as much crap on your skin as the higher factors. Main thing is to keep out of the midday sun, seek some shade for children if it's blazing and keep them cool. Putting on factor 50 and sending them out for four hours in the sun considering them protected is a false sense of security.

British associate of dermatologists... Recommended SPF is 30
http://www.bad.org.uk/for-the-public/skin-cancer/sunscreen-fact-sheet

Recommended 30 in the US.
http://www.webmd.com/beauty/sun/high-spf-sunscreens-are-they-better

Why factor 50 is misleading.
https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/whats-wrong-with-high-spf/

pwurple

ted1 wrote: »

From an excema point of view it may be true but from a sun block point of true as a pasty white ginger who spends every opportunity surfing it in the water I call rubbish.

Charming.

I was just passing on some knowledge, but feel free to scoff at the general scientific consensus. No skin off my back.

pwurple

One more on misconceptions on sunscreen, as demonstrated by that 50 times longer thing that people believe.

This one is the american association of dermatologists.

Research indicates that many are using sunscreen incorrectly

SCHAUMBURG, Ill. (May 17, 2016) — Dermatologists recommend comprehensive sun protection for skin cancer prevention
How well do you understand sunscreen? For many consumers, the answer is not so well. According to new research, many people are still puzzled by the wide range of SPF numbers on product labels, and some may not be using sunscreen properly, which could increase their skin cancer risk.

In a 2016 American Academy of Dermatology survey, only 32 percent of respondents knew that an SPF 30 sunscreen does not provide twice as much protection as an SPF 15 sunscreen. Moreover, only 45 percent knew that a higher-SPF sunscreen does not protect you from the sun longer than a lower-SPF sunscreen.

IvyTheTerrible

So what does spf mean, then?

Mink

As Pwurple says, I use factor 30 rather than 50 as there's only 1-2% difference in actual protection. I have read a couple of the studies she mentions above.

My son is very sallow so if he's in the sun for 10-15 minutes in April with no sun cream he goes brown!

He's been out in the recent Irish sun loads in morning and later in afternoon, June sun in Portugal, always had factor 30 and he never burns or tans. I always put it on him 10-15 mins before he goes out. I find it's plenty of coverage and it has the 5 star UVA ray coverage.

Having said all that, it would give more peace of mind to put factor 50 on for a lot of parents and I don't think it does any harm unless they are really affected by eczema specifically aggravated by the sun cream.

Weyhey

I am a pasty redhead and I never use more than spf 30, like pwurple says anything higher only has a small bit more protection but seems to have a lot more chemicals in it. Apart from the spf I believe you have to make sure the suncream is broad spectrum i.e. that it gives good UVA protection as well as UVB protection. I think I also read somewhere that a lot of people don’t use suncream correctly or allow it to give them a false sense of sun security if you know what I mean.

Personally I hate suncream, it makes my skin feel suffocated and I don’t trust the chemicals but I do use it. Kids hate it too and their eczema prone skin is in bits at the moment because of it.

I know apart from ‘chemical sun creams’ there are ‘physical sun creams’ that are supposed to be less irritating to skin and that ‘sit on the skin’ but these feel muck too.

I try to the avoid mid day sun and to cover up but finding light long sleeve or legged clothes is difficult especially for boys.

endacl

Asbestos boiler suit, welder a mask, and a big floppy hat! It's the only way to be sure!!!

But, yeah. As others have said. There's no such thing as a 'healthy tan'. Nothing wrong with cotton as a sunscreen.

FurtherAway

pwurple wrote: »

Nope. I know it's a common misconception though.


Here's a few links as backup reading, but they all generally say the same as any doctor or dermatologist I've ever asked. Factor 30 is plenty and doesn't put as much crap on your skin as the higher factors. Main thing is to keep out of the midday sun, seek some shade for children if it's blazing and keep them cool. Putting on factor 50 and sending them out for four hours in the sun considering them protected is a false sense of security (...)

I cannot post proper links (just add www. before the links), but suffice to say: We will have to agree to disagree. You have links, I have too...

dermatology.ucsf.edu/skincancer/General/prevention/Sunscreen.aspx

This is pointless. Yes, there is debate about the true level of protection as documented here:

scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0365-05962011000300013&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en

However, there is no consent as you claim, pwurple, and until there is, I will stick to the actual meaning of SPF as defined by Rudolf Schulze. The clue really IS in the name: Sun Protection FACTOR. It's not a misconception, but the very definition of the term.

theLuggage

Derailing slightly but can anyone recommend a suncream that doesn't stain clothes??

ted1

theLuggage wrote: »

Derailing slightly but can anyone recommend a suncream that doesn't stain clothes??

Aldo's range or parasol. Avoid p20 it stains and also doesn't Block the cancer rays