BLU
Active topics
  1. In my humble opinion, an argumented, long-thought post is quite less hostile than a constant stream of piss off's (and similar dismissings).


    Ok, you might have read it, but you clearly didn't understand it.
  2. Hey, don't start a war now Sergio or Aaron It's "only" politics and I don't think people need to be banned for political views.
  3. Originally posted by LikeASong:In my humble opinion, an argumented, long-thought post is quite less hostile than a constant stream of piss off's (and similar dismissings).


    Ok, you might have read it, but you clearly didn't understand it.

    I did. When are we going to quit these passive agressive games?
  4. Originally posted by Mr_Trek:Hey, don't start a war now Sergio or Aaron It's "only" politics and I don't think people need to be banned for political views.

    I was suspended once.

  5. There's nothing passive in my post. I openly told you to STOP insulting and dismissing everyone who doesn't share your opinion, that is all. Nothing passive, nothing veiled. An open "threat" (now that you choose the term), as open as your insults.
  6. Originally posted by LikeASong:I haven't heard anything about it, and when I search the internet I only find information about... ehm... the United States thinking of forbiding them For example: http://www.myhealthbeijing.com/2011/06/is-your-sunscreen-spf-50-dont-waste-your-money/ (2011 article speaking of a probable 2012 ban). This article gives figures that support my previous post: SPF 2 blocks 50% // SPF 15 blocks 93% // SPF 30 blocks 97% // SPF 50 blocks 98% // SPF 70 blocks 98.6% // SPF 90 blocks 98.9%...

    And this is an online petition to, erm, United States Food&Drug Administration, to ask for a ban of those high SFP sunscreens: http://forcechange.com/21405/ban-misleadingly-branded-high-spf-sunscreens/ ... "sunscreens with an SPF above 50 don’t actually offer any additional protection, despite the higher number on their label. People who wear high-SPF sunscreens are therefore deluded into thinking they can stay out in the sun for longer without reapplying sun protection–a delusion that leads to irreversible skin damage.".


    So, there you are.


    Thanks for your research and info, Serg. I never really use sunscreen anyway, but this all good information to know!
  7. No prob Steve It looks like a good thing to do in my opinion (I mean forbidding the advertising of 70, 80 or 90 SFP sunscreens as it's misleading). Everything a government can do to protect its citizens should be done.


  8. Yeah, I know MA's health care law is a state level law. I was comparing Obamacare to the MA law since the two are alike, and the results and consequences since it passed. I mean, MHRA is obviously a state law, but I thought it was interesting to compare it to the ACA.
  9. Originally posted by LikeASong:No prob Steve It looks like a good thing to do in my opinion (I mean forbidding the advertising of 70, 80 or 90 SFP sunscreens as it's misleading). Everything a government can do to protect its citizens should be done.

    True. I'm gonna hop on the flipside and argue against this, just for fun's sake.

    If the government bans the sale of sunscreen for anything above SPF 50, that leaves sales for only SPFs 15, 30, and 50 to remain.

    In theory, isn't SPF 70 and 90 more expensive than those three? So, if the government bans those products, sunscreen companies no longer have reliable income from those products. As a consequence, the prices of SPF 15, 30, and 50 rise to compensate for that loss.

    So to sum up so far, a law banning anything over SPF 50 results in higher sunscreen costs.

    One way to avoid rising costs for these products instead of banning a product would be to advise against buying it. Like say, a PSA. In a perfect world, there wouldn't be a lobby against this PSA, for the benefit of the citizens. Anyways - as a hopeful result of the PSA, people would be informed to buy lower SPFs at higher quantity for more effectiveness. This creates an increase in Lower 3 sales. These sales would hopefully balance out the loss in sales from higher SPF products. Eventually, and hopefully, the companies carrying SPFs 70 and 90 discontinue their products due to poor sales, while the lower ones enjoy better sales at relatively the same cost.
  10. Did you read the links I provided? Governments are plaaning to make companies call their all 70, 80, 90 sunscreens "+50" SPF, just to avoid the customers thinking that a 90 SFP sunscreen is three times better than a 30 one - which is false. Calling them all 50+ is fair towards companies (whoever who doesn't know a shit and thinks that a 80 SPF protects twice more than a 40, will still be buying the 50+) but also protects the rest of the people by avoiding misleads.
  11. Originally posted by LikeASong:Did you read the links I provided? Governments are plaaning to make companies call their all 70, 80, 90 sunscreens "+50" SPF, just to avoid the customers thinking that a 90 SFP sunscreen is three times better than a 30 one - which is false. Calling them all 50+ is fair towards companies (whoever who doesn't know a shit and thinks that a 80 SPF protects twice more than a 40, will still be buying the 50+) but also protects the rest of the people by avoiding misleads.

    Whoops, haha. Felt lazy there, but I'll admit it. But in that case, that's great! It blocks companies from increasing prices for loss of sales cause.
  12. OMG, this is one of my first times in here in YEARS and all I see is angry and hostility @________@ (runs back to U22 topic discussion)
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.