In most articles on pubmed it is concluded that, although some of the negative side effects of some UV-filters, wearing sunscreen every day is better than not applying sunscreen at all. For now I just believe that is true, although looking at this article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17015167
) on Octocrylene producing more ROS than control after 60min and many others about free radical production and hormonal activity/allergic reactions, I wonder if we will find in 25 years some filters weren't as good as we thought.
With that in mind I would like to have a sort of idea what uv-filters have the least possible side effects. I think you could definitely rank sunscreen actives, considering possible photodegradation, hormonal activity, ease of absorption, formation of free radicals, possible photoallergic reactions and the size ("the Dalton rule").
I've ranked some uv-filters, what do you think is the data/ranking correct?