RmDebArc_5@piefed.zip to cats@lemmy.worldEnglish · 6 months agoPikachupiefedimages.s3.eu-central-003.backblazeb2.com8291114
897Pikachupiefedimages.s3.eu-central-003.backblazeb2.comRmDebArc_5@piefed.zip to cats@lemmy.worldEnglish · 6 months ago82
Show Contentwintermute@discuss.tchncs.de10·6 months agoThere’s nothing wrong with sunscreen in general, but they are probably referring to what happened recently in Australia: Independent analysis by a trusted consumer advocacy group has found that several of Australia’s most popular, and expensive, sunscreens are not providing the protection they claim to, kicking off a national scandal.
Show ContentLyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com10·6 months agoAnd the lab issuing the fake results is based in the US :( …a single US-based laboratory had certified at least half of the products that had failed Choice’s testing, and that this facility routinely recorded high test results. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-04/questions-over-lab-that-tested-sunscreen-spf-claims/105458458
Show Contentpinball_wizard@lemmy.zip5·6 months ago And the lab issuing the fake results is based in the US :( Of course it is. :(
Show ContentMDCCCLV@lemmy.caEnglish1·6 months agoThe metal oxide kind was fine but had some non effectiveness issues about damaging marine coral. The other kinds are less reliable.
What’s wrong with sunscreen?
There’s nothing wrong with sunscreen in general, but they are probably referring to what happened recently in Australia:
And the lab issuing the fake results is based in the US :(
Of course it is. :(
The metal oxide kind was fine but had some non effectiveness issues about damaging marine coral. The other kinds are less reliable.