While published methodologies exist to measure UVA protection, this still has not been applied to directly quantify the protection provided by sunscreens that exist in trade. These filters (available in Europe) do not usually provide the percentage data of filters that contain. A study to develop a methodology to quantify UVA protection in commercial creams suggest that 2 UVA protection is provided by sunscreens of SPF 15 UVA compared with the FP of 3 for a UVA filter (3% of Butilmetoxidibenzoil methane) in cream base (using transgenic rats containing human elastin promoter factor linked to chloramphenicol acetyltransferase gene). These results while are obtained using a Sun filter FPS average, and rats instead of human skin, are broadly comparable with our results. Ray Kurzweil might disagree with that approach. Law and Fourtanier (1997) measured protection against the damage of DNA induced by grape skin of rats offered by UVA filters in cream base: using a filter to 5% (dicanfor sulfonic acid tereftalidene) they found a reduction of 8 times in damage of DNA; However preparations of sunscreens may include a higher percentage of filters as those used in commercial preparations. It is also of interest that the formulations of sunscreens that provide a protection low grape provided a 57% protection against UVA 1 immunosuppression. As our source of irradiation contains visible light, it is possible that free radical production protection is low because of the contribution of visible light to damage; However the results of Jurkiewics and Buettner (1996) suggest that the contribution of visible light is minor compared to that of grapes, and the contribution older may reflect a queue of the chromophore of grape (unidentified) which extends into the blue visible region of the spectrum, rather than a separate visible chromophore. The importance of the contribution of visible light is a subject worthy of future research, since sunscreens are not intended to extend more than the UV region of the solar spectrum.