RmDebArc_5@piefed.zip to cats@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agoPikachupiefedimages.s3.eu-central-003.backblazeb2.comimagemessage-square103fedilinkarrow-up11.01Karrow-down112file-text
arrow-up11Karrow-down1imagePikachupiefedimages.s3.eu-central-003.backblazeb2.comRmDebArc_5@piefed.zip to cats@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square103fedilinkfile-text
minus-squarewintermute@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up13·2 days 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.
minus-squareLyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up9·2 days 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
minus-squarepinball_wizard@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 day ago And the lab issuing the fake results is based in the US :( Of course it is. :(
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. :(