rayoflight
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 607
- Reaction score
- 0
Btw, I always found Australian UVA standard odd, they require a sunscreen to protect from 90% of rays in the 320-360 nm range which means UVA-II only, while EU regulations require same from a bit more - 370 nm, all the critical wavelength equations. Aus standard also says nothing about how good is the UVA protection, kinda like the UVA seal, it just says it conforms to the law, is why PPD I find a slighty more informative system. Anyway is still insufficient given the insidious nature of UVA-I, but still better than nothing.
It just says UVA/UVB on the front of the bottle (as it always has), no ratings. But it's been ages since I bought sunscreen in Denmark, I order from France, so there's the whole UVA rating system going on.
I get that feeling when I get USA sunscreens, they didn't have any real regulations either until currently and I only bother because USA market has wide selection of zinc oxide sunscreens, which are a rarity in EU due to yet *another* set of regulations. 

Makes sense considering Ti has way higher refractive index compared to zinc.
No corpse look on flash photos so far though, I think it comes down to particle size/geometry, the bigger they are the worse it gets.