[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”left_offset” ]

It’s morning in the Bowery, a somewhat grimy neighborhood in southern Manhattan. Across the street from a soup kitchen, two figures sprawl on a colorful floral comforter.


Gray roots betray the woman’s honey brown hair. She stretches her legs over her companion, a middle-aged man in a touristy black NYC cap whose smile cracks into crow’s feet around his eyes.

“We’re just really good friends, first and foremost,” she says.

Lori, who looks like she’s in her 50s, was in a mental institution with bipolar disorder for 10 years. Determined to live independently, she came to New York City looking for work. She couldn’t find a job, but she did meet “King Ray” at a park.

“I saw him on his own, and it made me want to be more like him,” Lori said. He taught her to do something new: relax.

“When I’m with him, we don’t have to do anything but lay back sometimes, something I haven’t done since I was very young,” she says. “Lay back and just … almost imagine you’re just watching the TV screen, you know?”

King Ray nods, chuckling.

“This is a big, giant TV,” he says, gesturing to the streetscape in front of him. “When the bus comes by and blocks your view … that’s a commercial.”

I seem to pass more and more homeless couples lately. Though there’s not much data on them, we know that homeless families are on the rise, and it seems like couples are following this trend. Eric Tars, senior attorney at the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, suspects that homeless couples are both increasing in number and making up a larger percentage of the homeless population.

Others are noticing this trend, too: Filmmaker Paul Bettany was inspired to make Shelter by a homeless couple living outside his Tribeca apartment. The drama, released last September, tells the story of a pair of homeless drug addicts (Anthony Mackie and Jennifer Connelly) who fall in love.

[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” ]

While King Ray and Lori’s romance is still fairly casual, many homeless relationships are quite the opposite: Charise and her husband, Mike, are in their 40s (though Charise looks 25) and have been together since they met at a homeless shelter five years ago.

“I fell in love with him as soon as I saw him,” remembers Charise.

“It was sort of love at first sight,” agrees Mike in his heavy New York accent.

“Not sort of. What do you mean, sort of?”

We’re sitting on broken-down cardboard boxes under an awning near Union Square in Manhattan. Mike and Charise have been homeless for 15 years.

“He’s the male me, and I’m the female him,” explains Charise, scribbling a green sky in her My Little Pony coloring book to pass the time. “He’s my rock, and I’m his.” Mike nods, leaning back on a blue sleeping bag. He casually opens a local newspaper, cigarette in hand, with all the airs of a 1950s husband at his kitchen table.

Charise says people are sometimes surprised to see an African-American woman and a Korean man together.

“I was in love with Bruce Lee for the longest time,” she says, laughing. “Now I have my own personal Bruce Lee.”

This couple moved beyond puppy love long ago. Though Mike calls Charise his wife, they’re technically just engaged. They tried to get married once, but someone stole Mike’s ID. This was especially problematic because he was born in South Korea and immigrated to New York City as a child. He says it’s harder for immigrants to get replacement IDs.

Though they don’t have much money to go around, the two find things to do. Charise remembers a day Mike playfully chased her around a park in the Bronx. He caught her, tackled her, and tickled her. The two lay there for hours, enjoying the day.

“He made me feel like a queen,” she says.

Since neither have jobs, they spend virtually all their time together. Somehow, they rarely get in fights or want space. If they argue, they make up before they go to sleep. In separate sleeping bags.

“He has a foot odor that would kill a nation,” says Charise. “I love him, but I don’t love him that much.”

He raises his eyebrows, and she kisses him. “I love you. You and your stinky feet.”

And as for physical intimacy for a couple that can’t “get a room”?

“Subway tunnels,” explains Igor, a 20-something homeless guy. He panhandles with his girlfriend, Alexis, next to a pink rolling suitcase and a cardboard sign that reads:

Hard times

Looking 4 Kindness

Spare Change

God Bless

I ♥ NYC!

It’s covered in stars. The O’s in “looking” have been turned into smiley face eyes.

“We’ve never had sex in the tunnels,” corrects Alexis, eating from a bag of Hello Kitty cotton candy, her bright blond hair framed by the fur-trimmed hood of her coat. “We do it literally on the platform.”

She says the public display doesn’t usually cause problems.

“People just ignore us,” she says in a high-pitched giggle that manages to be adorable and jolting at the same time.

“No,” Igor says, seizing his chance to correct her. “No, they don’t.” The other day, he says, a guy took out his phone and filmed them. He claimed he got the whole thing on camera and threatened: “We don’t like your kind around here.” Alexis called him a pervert, and he backed away.

When Alexis first left home, she didn’t have a destination.

“I’m kind of running away from things I’m afraid of, people I’m afraid of,” she explains. “I think I’m just really scared.”

She resorted to staying at all-night clubs and ended up on the streets, where she met Igor.

“It’s been, like, crazy magical,” she says. “We just chill. And we smoke, and talk, and have sex, and then we eat, we keep smoking, and we fall asleep, and we cuddle … and we’ve cried with each other, and we’ve hurt each other, and we love each other hard.”

Igor makes her feel protected, no small matter for a woman without anywhere safe to go. And it’s not just emotional protection: He carries a MacGyvered mace, a belt with a combination lock attached to it, just in case.

In turn, she gives him a sense of stability, being there for him and helping him out with little things.

“Like this,” she says, wiping his nose.

“Stop!” he whines, embarrassed but obviously still pleased.

“He’s a mama’s boy.”

“No, I’m not! What the hell? No, I’m not!”

As playful as they are, there seems to be something deeper going on. Alexis has left the city several times, only to come back for him.

“I don’t know what my future is,” she reflects. “I just keep ending up here … and I keep having him in my mind … I worry about him … so I came back here, looking for him.”

She sighs. “We don’t know what forever is.” She puts her head on his shoulder and looks into his eyes. “Forever is when I wake up next to you.”

***

In Washington Square Park, a pack of dusty dogs and humans enjoy the sun.

Most city dogs, cooped up in apartments most of the day, resemble freed prisoners when they get to a park. But these bulldogs are content to lie on benches and sleepily nuzzle the grass. They’re used to the outdoors.

Their owners, boys in torn up canvas pants and girls in black boots, lean back on dusty camouflage travel backpacks.

As one girl playfully punches her boyfriend, a faded blue dreadlock falls over her worn Cleveland Steamers sweatshirt. A septum nose ring pierces her otherwise baby-like face.

“People mistake me for a dude all the time,” she says.

Sarawh and her boyfriend, Powers, have only been together for a few months, but they act more like buds than honeymooners.

“We’re the coolest people we know,” she tells me. Powers gives smiles abashedly, an expression somehow at odds with his bleached mohawk and black Jack Daniel’s shirt.

Sarawh’s parents struggled her whole life and only recently got a place of their own.

“For the record, they’re doing fucking good,” she’ll have you know. She understands their situation more now that she’s met other homeless people who couldn’t keep their children. Her parents were always there for her.

When Sarawh and Powers first met under a bridge near Sacramento and started going out, she brought him home.

“I got the ‘dad look,’ ” he said. Sarawh’s father immediately made him take a shower.

The couple traveled around the country, either in Sarawh’s van or hobo-style, train-hopping with their dogs. One of his dogs started getting in fights with one of hers, and the animals ended up covered in cuts and abrasions.

The couple likened themselves to stepparents whose kids hated each other. “It’s either you give up one of the kids or split apart. And the dogs come first with that one,” says Powers. “You don’t give up your kid.”

Sarawh and Powers were about to break up when Powers’ dog, a German shepherd named Edith, got sick and died on a Native American reservation in Montana.

Powers felt like he’d just lost a child. “I couldn’t even touch [Edith],” he remembers. “All I could do was dig.” While he prepared the grave, Serawh took care of everything, even carrying Edith’s body.

“That was an honor for me. For someone to do that for me,” Powers said.

Powers pulls down his scarf to show me a tattoo on his neck—a German shepherd paw print with a scrawl: “My Édith Piaf.”

The two represent an interesting segment of the homeless couple population: the travelers.

“We’re ninja turtles,” says Powers. “We carry our homes on our backs.”

Couples like these make their way around the country together, moving more for the journey than the destination. I see similar couples camped out on busy Manhattan sidewalks all the time.

“The average couple goes on a date and spends a few hours together,” points out Alex, half of another traveling couple. “We spend 24 hours a day together.” Alex and his girlfriend, Anna, say their plentiful time together makes them go through things faster than the average couple.

“You have to laugh a lot or you end up losing your mind,” says Anna. I notice their cardboard sign: “Don’t smoke rox. Just need sox.”

Their dates, in particular, are unusual. They’ve ridden trains through the Rockies, spending hours listening to the chugging locomotive and watching the mountains roll by under the stars, miles from civilization.

“You get to see parts of the country that no one—no one—has seen,” remembers Anna. “Other than people that built the railroad.”

Alex and Anna have been dating on and off since they were teenagers in their hometown in Connecticut. They left to escape a heroin epidemic.

“Kids were dropping dead,” remembers Anna. The two hitchhiked, train-hopped, and squatted in abandoned houses.

Since they have no privacy, strangers with less than altruistic intentions sometimes try to get involved. “A lot of guys think that since I’m homeless, I’m willing to do anything,” Anna explains. “A lot of guys are pigs.”

A few months ago, when Alex was dating a different girl, a local guy asked Alex how much for his then-girlfriend to perform oral sex on him.

“So I got up and beat the shit out of him,” says Alex, smiling. “Guy got put in the hospital.” He shows me his hands: They’re scarred all over, he says, from defending previous girlfriends.

They’ve run into weirder conflicts too. Once, at a massive hippie gathering in the woods, some of the group overheard the couple arguing and thought Alex was attacking Anna. The hippies, not a people to put up with violence, went after Alex. The couple took off running, jumped in their van, and drove off.

“We got run out of the woods by 50 hippies,” Anna said.

[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” ]

It’s hard to know how many of these stories are true. There’s no video footage to pull from a basement, no records to sort through. But if some of these tales are more myth than fact, then they’re doing what myths do: pointing at realities too universal to be limited to single moments. They’re showing me what romance means to these couples, not just what it has looked like.

***

Anna and Alex sometimes share a street corner with Emma (who asks that I change her name), a young woman with a bulldog by her feet, dreadlocks in her hair, and a bracing intelligence and melancholy in her eyes. She’s twanging a banjo, the only visible sign of musical training in this classically trained cellist: She used to hop trains with her cello, a 150-year-old German-made antique. Three hundred dollars’ worth of damage later, she stopped traveling with it.

Emma’s story begins like a typical Millennial’s: She started college, but costs grew too high. By the end, she was stealing textbooks from Barnes & Noble. Financial problems hit so hard that she dropped out and got evicted. She started sneaking onto an abandoned school bus at night to sleep. Eventually, she hit the road.

Now Emma lives in an old gray minivan with her boyfriend, Jake. The two have fixed up the place to look like a room: soft brown comforter on the ground, zebra-striped blanket over the window. Crates of clothes, cardboard to make signs, and about 80 pounds of dog food in back. A copy of The Catcher in the Rye.

There’s a ram skull on the dashboard. Emma bought it from a homeless man who was selling, inexplicably, puppets and skulls. It looks out of place in her graffiti-covered van, like it has been kidnapped out of a Georgia O’Keeffe painting and just wants to roll back home. “I come across a lot of dead things,” she murmurs. “I like to clean them up.”

Emma shows me a pair of steel-toed boots she got out of a dumpster.

“She hasn’t kicked me with them yet, so I must be doing something right,” chimes in Jake, lying on the comforter. A bulldog nuzzles his face tattoos.

“Traveler kids spend more time together than married couples,” Emma explains, leaning against the van, unflinching as a car zooms by only inches away. “They’re your only constant,” she says of travelers’ significant others. “Your world changes, but they don’t.”

As Jake steps out for a moment, Emma’s eyes take on a familiar resigned gloom. She tells me that she’s not over her last boyfriend, and she knows getting involved with Jake is a mistake.

Emma used to be in a relationship with a longtime crush. He was handsome, a brilliant cook, and twice her size, which made her feel protected. “When things were good, they were awesome,” she says.

He was also an alcoholic and suffered from schizophrenia. He would frequently insult her, lie to her, and hurt her. “I just wanted him to get better so we could be together the rest of our lives,” she says quietly. My eyes flicker back to the ram skull.

While the two were staying in an eccentric old woman’s house in the Vermont woods, her boyfriend had a schizophrenic break and attacked her.

“He had this glazed-over look in his eyes, like he wasn’t even there,” she remembers.

Other traveler kids in the house ran in and beat him up. The kids got arrested, he went to the hospital, and she never saw him again.

“He changed his relationship status to ‘widowed,’ ” Emma says, “which I guess means I’m dead to him.”

Jake returns with a handful of cigarette butts he found on the street. He uses the old tobacco to hand-roll a cigarette.

“I love you,” Jake tell her, handing her the cigarette. “I love your smile. I love your beautiful eyes. But I really, really love your ugly face.”

“You, too.”

Troubles like Emma’s aren’t unusual: Hardship makes up the borders of homeless life. Charise and Mike, for instance, have been trying to find jobs and apartments for years. The two had high hopes when a man from an aid organization said he could get them a room a few months ago. But the man stopped coming around.

As Charise describes their housing struggles, her scribbling gets fiercer. She sighs looking at the picture—a prancing unicorn. “It’s not working.” She picks up a crayon and proceeds to color the whole picture black.

Work follows a similar Kafkaesque pattern. A few months ago, a man offered Mike a dishwashing job. Mike immediately agreed, and he and Charise were thrilled. A paycheck would be a foot in the door of a new life.

The man seemed surprised to hear Mike accept the offer. He said he’d come back the next day, but he never returned. Mike and Charise realized the guy must have just wanted to see Mike’s reaction.

“Right now, we should be floating somewhere, we got so much hot air up our butts,” mutters Charise.

Mike needs back surgery. But he knows that getting surgery would mean leaving Charise on the street for a couple weeks while he recovers. He refuses to do that.

This isn’t the first medical problem Mike and Charise have had to deal with. Two years ago, when Charise was five months pregnant with their first child, she started having complications. The doctor had to induce labor. To save the baby, she says, they needed to pay for expensive procedures.

“We had no money to keep him alive,” Charise remembers. The baby passed away.

They named him Mike Pilgrim Jr. after his father. “He will always be our son,” she vows. “We’ll tell our future children about him.”

Charise shakes out of her reverie, remembering Mike frozen by the window the whole delivery, terrified. “He was the cutest thing in the world,” she laughs. “You gotta stay positive. Bitterness makes you miserable.”

[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” ]

***

It’s evening in the Bowery.

Shoes drum down the street: Converse sneakers bringing college kids to bars, Oxford loafers rushing investors home for a few hours of sleep. Shoes weaving around cigarette smokers, pushing strollers, running to catch a taxi.

Only two pairs of sneakers are motionless. They’re resting against one another on a floral comforter, attached to a familiar pair of New Yorkers: Lori relaxes into King Ray’s lap, and he nuzzles her hair.

As the sunset fades to night, the two merge into an L-shaped silhouette against the fluorescent shop lights, hands intertwined, watching their TV show go by.

  • US giving grew 3% in 2025, crossing the $600B mark for the first time
    Photo credit: AP Photo/John FroschauerThe estate of Microsoft co-founder Paul G. Allen, who died in 2018, made a big charitable bequest in 2025.
    ,

    US giving grew 3% in 2025, crossing the $600B mark for the first time

    Bequests and foundations drove a record-breaking year.

    U.S. charitable giving rose 3% in 2025, surpassing US$600 billion for the first time.

    The $617 billion that Americans gave to everything from churches to cat rescues was the second-highest ever in inflation-adjusted terms, but it fell short of the record set in 2021, when there was a burst of social services giving in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    This growth was slightly faster than the long-term annual average of 2.7%, thanks to the nation’s relatively strong – if mixed – economy. While the stock market performed well in 2025 and personal income roseconsumer sentiment was extremely low and inflation remained above the Fed’s 2% target.

    As part of my job researching trends in philanthropy and nonprofits, I’ve been the lead analyst for over a decade of this annual report from the Giving USA Foundation, produced in partnership with the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. In recent years it’s grown clearer that as giving grows, the kinds of donations the wealthy favor are gaining ground.

    US charitable giving through 2025

    Bequests and foundations led overall growth

    Charitable bequests – gifts to causes that happen after someone dies – represented about 10% of all U.S. giving in 2025, up from 9% in 2024. They grew by 16.6% to $62 billion in 2025, faster than all other sources of donations. Bequeathed gifts have exceeded $50 billion every year since 2022, growing significantly in three of the past four years.

    There are several possible reasons for this increase. One is the impending passing of tens of trillions of dollars in wealth from people over 65 to their younger heirs, often called the “great wealth transfer.” However, the total value of charitable bequests may be rising simply because stocks have been performing better than normal for several years. The stock market boom has increased the net worth of the estates of the wealthiest Americans, who are the main people making these gifts after death.

    This value does vary greatly year to year, partly because even a single very large bequest can significantly skew the total amount. And when these changes will occur is unpredictable due to the complexity of multibillion-dollar estates, which can get paid out several years after a wealthy person dies. For example, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, who died in 2018, was among the largest donors of 2025 due to the $3.1 billion bequest his estate made.

    Giving by foundations also tends to respond to strong stock market growth. By law, private foundations must spend at least 5% of their assets for charitable purposes, primarily through grants to nonprofits, to retain their tax-exempt status. Endowment growth tends to boost what foundations disburse.

    US giving by source through 2025

    Giving by foundations, which accounted for about 1 in 5 dollars given to charity in 2025, rose by 3% to $117 billion – an all-time high, even when adjusting for inflation. Giving by foundations has not decreased in any year in real terms since 2010.

    Giving by individuals, whether they’re rich, poor or in between, is clearly influenced by consumer sentiment and other trends that affect typical households more directly. And consumer sentiment declined in 2025 to the lowest annual level ever recorded.

    Giving by individuals grew by 1.4% in 2025, though that share of charitable giving has gradually shrunk. It dipped to 64% of the total in 2025 – the second-lowest share of total giving ever.

    Corporate giving was responsible for around 7% of all charitable gifts made in 2025 – a record high. It totaled $44 billion in 2025, up 0.5% from a year earlier. Giving by corporations has grown by almost 30% since 2020 in inflation-adjusted terms.

    Most kinds of donations increased

    Donations to seven of the nine charitable categories that Giving USA tracks grew.

    One exception was gifts to houses of worship and religious institutions. Religious giving was essentially flat in inflation-adjusted terms, with a 0.2% decline. That’s in keeping with a long-term trend.

    Religious giving has barely budged in the U.S. over the past two decades, increasing by only 1.2% since 2005. That pace is the most sluggish of all the categories we track. Even so, the $152 billion Americans gave to congregations and other religious institutions remains by far the largest category. It accounted for 23% of all donations in 2025.

    The other exception was gifts to foundations, which fell 18.3% in 2025 after surging to their second-highest level ever in 2024. In 2025 they represented 12% of all giving, totaling $79 billion.

    Giving to social services nonprofits, such as food banks and homeless shelters, grew 2.6% in 2025, reaching almost $100 billion. That marked a record high and represented 15% of all giving.

    Giving to education and public-society benefit causes, categories associated with wealthier donors, grew the most in 2025.

    Charitable gifts for education, which primarily support colleges and universities, grew 8.9% – faster than any other category in 2025. They totaled $92 billion, an all-time high.

    The causes that drew US charitable support through 2025

    Public-society benefit giving grew by 8.7% to $72 billion. This category consists of organizations serving the public more generally, such as advocacy organizations, independent research institutions and donor-advised funds, which function as charitable investment accounts.

    Giving to several other categories reached record highs, including the $61 billion Americans donated to hospitals and other health-related causes; the $27 billion they gave to the arts; and $25 billion dispatched to nonprofits tied to the environment and animals.

    While charitable donations did grow broadly in 2025, the giving categories the wealthiest Americans tend to favor – bequests, foundations, education, public-society benefit organizations – fared better than usual. Giving by less affluent U.S. donors – gifts from individuals and donations to religious institutions – lagged.

    Beginning in 2026, however, virtually all U.S. taxpayers will have some incentive to make charitable gifts due to the addition of the universal charitable deduction as part of President Donald Trump’s big package of tax and spending measures that Republican lawmakers passed in July 2025. That should increase the number of donors who make modest gifts to charity.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • The drawer problem: Why so many of us can’t let go of our old electronics, and what we can do about it
    Photo credit: Peter Dazeley/Photodisc via Getty ImagesThis look familiar?

    Think about the last smartphone, tablet or smartwatch you stopped using. Odds are it is not in a recycling bin or a new owner’s hands; it is sitting in a drawer.

    From our survey of 4,000 American consumers, we found the single most common thing people did with a device they were finished with was nothing at all: 39% simply stored it. Recycling and reselling, outcomes better for the environment, each accounted for only about 1 in 10 devices. Throwing devices in the trash claimed another 9%.

    What people do with old electronics

    Funded by the National Science Foundation, our multidisciplinary team blended our expertise in causal inferencesustainability and cybersecurity, to work on the tangled question of what people do with their consumer electronics when they’re done using them. We used statistical models to connect what people say – that is, their stated knowledge and attitudes – to what they actually did.

    Why the drawer wins

    Two main forces keep devices in the drawer. The first is anxiety about data. People who worried that recycling or reselling a device would compromise their data were 14% and 9% more likely to store it instead.

    The second force is simply not knowing how to. People who did not know where to recycle were 10% more likely to hold onto a device, and many also kept old gadgets as a perceived data backup.

    Recycling and reselling electronics are a lot easier than a lot of people think. In the U.S., the national chain Best Buy accepts devices for recycling; reselling online is convenient with vendors such as Back Market and Gazelle.

    Just be sure to wipe data before parting with a phone or computer. Also, remove the device from your account, for instance with Apple or Android. Unless you do, the device stays locked to you, and no one else can use it.

    We also compared what people intended to do with what they had actually done. This led to a telling detail: Data security worries led to people storing devices at a greater rate than they said they intended to.

    In other words, the fear of leaking personal data kicks in only when someone is facing the real decision of whether to hand off their device to a recycler or secondhand buyer.

    Getting at why people don’t recycle

    Researchers have long studied why people do or don’t recycle electronics: Convenience, awareness and incentives showed up as affecting the decision. But prior work examined recycling as the only option.

    Instead of considering the issue as a yes-or-no vote on recycling, we treat it as a comparison between different options: Storing, reselling, donating, trading in, recycling and throwing away the device in the trash. When modeling this way, trade-offs became visible.

    Knowing where to recycle, for instance, made recycling 47% more likely, but it also pulled people away from reselling, which is often the more environmentally friendly choice. You can explore the survey results in our interactive dashboards.

    Getting people to let go

    Storage is the worst of both worlds: A device sitting unused for years loses its resale value, and erasing its data only gets harder over time. The good news is that the main barriers – data concerns and not knowing where to turn – can be addressed with better information.

    We are experimenting with information interventions that walk people through their options, including how to securely wipe their data. We are testing nudges with randomized, controlled trials to test what leads people to give their old electronics a second life.

    It might be a good time to remember what old devices you’re holding onto and revisit your reasons for not letting go of them.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • First new US sunscreen ingredient since 1999 approved by FDA – a skin scientist explains how bemotrizinol works
    Photo credit: mihailomilovanovic/iStock via Getty Images PlusChemical sunscreens have come a long way since they were first developed in 1891.

    As summer in the U.S. heats up, people become more diligent about protecting their skin from the Sun. Another option for doing so will soon be available.

    On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first new sunscreen ingredient to be permitted for over-the-counter consumer use in the U.S. since 1999 – a chemical called bemotrizinol.

    Bemotrizinol isn’t new – consumers in Europe and Asia have used it for decades. Some are hailing its long-overdue approval and arrival onto the U.S. sunscreen scene.

    I am a biomedical engineer studying skin science – including the damaging effects of the Sun’s rays. To understand what bemotrizinol does and how it fits in with products already available to consumers in the U.S., let’s take a tour of the physics of sunlight and sunscreens.

    A short primer on sunlight

    Our planet is irradiated by a yellow dwarf star 93,000,000 miles away that we fondly call the Sun. It radiates light from its surface at a temperature of about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

    The Earth’s atmosphere blocks most of the Sun’s radiation. Of the rays that get through, about half consist of infrared light – which gives you that warm feeling you feel on a sunny day – and 40% visible light, which you are probably familiar with as daylight.

    About 10% of those rays are ultraviolet, or UV, light. UV light has the shortest wavelengths of the three types. That makes it the most dangerous – it’s invisible and can damage living tissue.

    Ultraviolet damage

    Physicists further categorize solar UV light into several types, based on the wavelength, which is measured in nanometers. About 95% of it is UVA (315-400 nm) and 5% is UVB (280-315 nm). Sunscreens need to be able to block those rays from penetrating the skin.

    The sun also emits two other types of UV light – UVC (200-280 nm) and vacuum UV (100-200 nm) – but these are stopped by the atmosphere, so sunscreens do not typically need to be able to block them.

    A graphic depiction of UVA and UVB rays penetrating the skin and their deflection with sunscreen.
    Scientists previously thought that only UVB rays were dangerous because they cause sunburns, but UVA can also damage the skin. m.malinika/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Scientists used to think only UVB was harmful because UVB rays cause sunburns. But today, researchers know both types of UV can damage the skin.

    UVB, with its shorter wavelength, has more energy, but UVA can penetrate the skin more deeply. And all UV can degrade the integrity of your skin, damage the structure of your DNA and cause skin cancer.

    The only natural safeguard your body has against UV light is a microscopically thin layer of a pigment called melanin in your epidermis. The skin produces more melanin when exposed to the sun – that’s what tanning is.

    This extra melanin does protect the skin, but not fully. That’s why protecting your skin with sunscreen is so important.

    Sunscreens old and new

    Sunscreens come in two different forms – mineral and chemical.

    The first chemical sunscreen, developed in 1891, was an ointment made from quinine – a plant-derived compound that makes tonic water bitter.

    Chemical sunscreens cover the skin in a transparent coating, acting like a solar sponge. They absorb UV photons and undergo a harmless chemical reaction, then dissipate the energy as heat. Bemotrizinol falls into this category.

    Mineral sunscreens such as zinc or titanium oxide ward off the Sun’s rays by forming a protective film that also absorbs most UV light, but reflects some of it. Unlike chemical sunscreens, the film absorbs the light naturally, without a chemical reaction – which is why they are often visible as a white film on the skin.

    Chemical sunscreens that have been available in the U.S until now combine ingredients like avobenzone, the most widely used UVA filter, with UVB filters such as octinoxate, octocrylene octisalate and homosalate. Working together, these substances protect the skin against the broad spectrum of ultraviolet rays.

    These sunscreens are only effective for a short time because they are degraded by the chemical reactions they undergo, which means they must be frequently re-applied.

    Another important element of sunscreen – whether mineral or chemical – is its Sun Protection Factor, or SPF. This number tells you how well a sunscreen prevents your skin from burning – in other words, what amount of UVB rays it absorbs.

    An SPF of 2 would mean a sunscreen cuts your exposure to UVB rays in half, filtering out 50% of those rays. An SPF of 30 means the sunscreen lets just 1/30 of the rays penetrate your skin – which is 3.3%. So it blocks about 97% of the UVB rays.

    Dermatologists generally recommend using a sunscreen with an SPF of at least 30.

    Benefits of bemotrizonol

    Bemotrizinol, while new to the U.S., isn’t a new compound. European regulators approved it in 2000. Chances are, if you brought back sunscreen from a vacation in Mexico, Europe, Canada or South Korea, you may even have some laying around your house.

    One benefit of bemotrizinol is its ability to filter both UVA and UVB rays, so it doesn’t have to be mixed with other products to do the job.

    It has some other beneficial features as well. First, its molecules prefer to sit on the surface of the skin rather than being more readily absorbed into the bloodstream, which can occur for some formulations.

    Such absorption has raised concerns that sunscreens might be harmful – though this has not been demonstrated in people, it may discourage some people from using it.

    Bemotrizinol also does not degrade as readily in the sun than other chemical sunscreen products. That photostability means it can last for four to eight hours, rather than having to be applied every two hours or so.

    Regardless of the type, as a skin scientist I can say with certainty that any sunscreen is better than none. Your skin does an excellent job protecting you from the world outside – so make sure you protect it in return.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Stories

Well-being

5 ways how stickers psychologically boost the lives of grown adults

Care

Student with severe facial burns from a frat house fire healed through new innovative treatment

Science

How window‑mounted heat pumps can give tenants efficient heating and cooling

Money

The ‘right to repair’ movement has a point, but consumers should read the warranty fine print first