[superka]

Zdziwił mnie (i wkurzył) ten fragment:


Meanwhile, those SPFs are popping up all over the place, in foundations, moisturisers and lipsticks. Perhaps manufacturers stick the sunscreens into these pots and potions just because they think we like it - and will pay for it. But Antczak suggests a few alternate reasons. First, loading moisturisers with sunscreens corroborates any product claims on wrinkle management, since it is known that these screens offer protection against the kind of premature ageing brought on by exposure to UV light. Meanwhile, many everyday moisturisers are actually skin peelers, which is how they make good the claim of bestowing younger, fresher skin upon the user.

"The outer layer of skin cells is the one that protects you from UV light," Antczak explains. "If you strip those away with skin peelers, the light can penetrate into the skin and cause damage such as premature ageing. SPFs are there to put back the protection that the peelers strip away."


Wyjątkową bzdurą jest ten fragment:


The single point on which there is any consensus, in a field seemingly saturated with conflicting opinion, is this: in the dead of winter, there is little reason to use sun-screen-enriched moisturiser or make-up - and not just because the very idea of being 15 times more resistant to a nonexistent sun is aggravating.

Przecież w zimie często bywa tak, że słońce świeci jak szalone i odbija się od pierzynki śnieżnej tak, że nie można oczu otworzyć

Co do samego artykułu, to potwierdza on tylko wnioski nasuwane przez zdrowy rozsądek: 100UVB/UVA czy nie, lepiej się nie smażyć.

Jak będziecie miały coś jeszcze, to chętnie luknę. pzdr.