Slashdot Mirror
Hawaii To Ban Certain Sunscreens To Protect Coral Reefs (npr.org)
Hawaii lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday that would prohibit the sale of over-the-counter sunscreens containing chemicals they say are contributing to the destruction of the state's coral reefs and other ocean life. NPR reports: The chemicals oxybenzone and octinoxate, which are used in more than 3,500 of the world's most popular sunscreen products, including Hawaiian Tropic, Coppertone and Banana Boat, would be prohibited. Prescription sunscreens containing those chemicals would still be permitted. As NPR reported, a 2015 study of coral reefs in Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Israel determined oxybenzone "leaches the coral of its nutrients and bleaches it white. It can also disrupt the development of fish and other wildlife." Even a small drop is enough to damage delicate corals. At the time, researchers estimated about 14,000 tons of sunscreen lotions end up in coral reefs around the world each year. Opposition to the ban came from sunscreen manufacturers, including Bayer, the maker of Coppertone. And the state's major doctors group said the ban goes too far. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser wrote: "Bayer said there are limited, active ingredients available within the U.S. with the same proven effectiveness as oxybenzone for sunscreens over SPF 50. The Hawaii Medical Association said it wanted the issue to be studied more deeply because there was a lack of peer-reviewed evidence suggesting sunscreen is a cause of coral bleaching, and overwhelming evidence that not wearing sunscreen increases cancer rates."
inb4 melanoma in hawaii skyrockets.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
they weren't kidding about getting out the riffraff? unexpand along; https://www.youtube.com/result... .. just don't call it media manipulation..
We're denying them their RIGHT to oxybenzone!
There's a shock. But then who cares about the enviroment when you have profit to worry about.
https://www.newyorker.com/cart...
Anti science Republicans won't like this though
Actually scientists aren't so sure about his. From the summary:
"The Hawaii Medical Association said it wanted the issue to be studied more deeply because there was a lack of peer-reviewed evidence suggesting sunscreen is a cause of coral bleaching, and overwhelming evidence that not wearing sunscreen increases cancer rates."
But hey, science isn't needed when your regulations are politically correct and well meaning.
I wonder if they will just double down on the somewhat nasty titanium Dioxide then..
Just when its use seemed to be going down. sigh.
The "active ingredients" being banned also degrade into end products that can mimic hormones, and/or promote skin cancer ( says the Environmental Working Group: https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/... ).
Better for you (and maybe for coral) are sunscreens with mineral filters like zinc oxide or titanium dioxide.
And nobody needs sunscreen over 50SPF, no matter what the manufacturers say. At 50, you're already protecting yourself from the sun AND the moon ('cuz you have equivalent-hours protection for way more hours than the sun is up).
Does banning a product within a specific state infringe upon interstate commerce in any way?
It's not the lack of sunscreen that gives you cancer, it's the overdose of UV light.
Sunscreen protects you from sunburn, but not entirely from the UV damage. Just put on a light shirt and avoid direct exposure during midday hours. Also, go with the natural rhythm: your skin is more sensitive in the spring than in late summer, so adapt your timing. If you need to a spend long hours swimming at noon (like me), then put on a rash guard or wet shirt. Your skin has some built-in UV protection, and can even benefit from careful exposure. Just not enough to get you though a full day at the equator (if your white).
Do the experiment yourself: put on sunblock and spend the day in the sun; then wonder why your skin is still warm and itchy in the evening, despite "protection". Or be careful to spend just as much time in the sun as your skin naturally permits without getting burned, and feel the difference in the evening.
Lego, avoid sun block, so you can get dark. Winners, all round.
I enjoy Legos too, but in this case you might have meant ergo?
How much sunscreen is being tipped into the sea?
My understanding was that there is no real evidence that sunscreen protects against cancer in practice. Instead, by preventing burning, it allows people to stay out in the sun for much longer periods of time leading to more cancer, not less.
In Europe, about a dozen advanced sunscreen compounds (which avoid many of the shortcomings and dangers of older substances) are approved which are not yet (after more than 10 years of delays) FDA-certified.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i20/Decade-FDA-Still-Wont-Allow.html
One resort in the Caribbean had two bins of sunscreen for sale: one for lounging on the beach, the other for swimming in the water.
No need for the coral-safe version if you are just going to sunbathe anyway . . .
It's difficult for me to believe that sun screens are causing the coral reef damage.
Coral reefs are dying all over the world, including places that do not have people with sun screens swimming in the water.
I suspect humans are doing harm to the oceans in ways that far exceed the use of certain sun screens.
Which translates into "We refuse to acknowledge the existence of peer-reviewed evidence specifically on this topic and have no countervailing peer-reviewed evidence of our own, thus that uncertainty means that the state should not act to protect corals because you just might be too lazy to switch sunscreen types..."
The sun does degrade plastics and weakens them. It probably is best to keep your legos out of the sun, or to apply sun block to them.
What's the problem with TiO2? Eons ago, when I was young and living in California, I remember all those white-nosed surfers.
Hawaii is right to protect to coral. We aren't in any danger of running out of humans, we have plenty to spare and making more doesn't take very long, Coral takes a very long time to make, and more importantly we can't make it to the same quality as nature can. Coral is innocent. Let humans take the fall fir once. We do the most fuckups. We should take our licks.
There are indeed alternatives and unfortunately some require a life style change:
- thin, but sun blocking long sleeved clothing
- spend more time in the shade
- loose clothing, such as sarongs (seen in Asia and Pacific) or robes (seen in Middle East)
- avoid the mid-day sun
In many ways western culture is a bit crazy: go out in the mid day sun, with maximum skin exposure and make sure that is compensated by being in the sunniest location. I must admit I have been guilty of this too.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Which translates into "We refuse to acknowledge the existence of peer-reviewed evidence specifically on this topic and have no countervailing peer-reviewed evidence of our own, thus that uncertainty means that the state should not act to protect corals because you just might be too lazy to switch sunscreen types..."
Finding ONE study does not refute the claim of "a lack of peer-reviewed evidence suggesting sunscreen is a cause of coral bleaching", given the piss-poor rate of reproducing scientific results:
The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) refers to a methodological crisis in science in which scientists have found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate/reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves. The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s as part of a growing awareness of the problem.
So, four papers from one study is strong enough to make a public health decisions that will cost several tens of thousands of cases of skin cancer, hundreds of millions of dollars, and directly cause many deaths?
Let's at least replicate it once. "Peer review" means that a handful of people who may have studied similar things have found your grammar and wording adequate, don't see anything blindingly obviously stupid about the experimental design, and that their works, if relevant, are cited. There's probably something important going on here, but we need a truly independent replication before we decide to kill people.
Yeah, sorry but that group is full of quacks. Read up on their cell phone radiation coverage, which pretty much goes against all mainstream scientific studies.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Or, maybe the manufacturer should prove that the chemicals are not toxic in the areas used before they can sell them to the public.
So.
Dead coral BAAAAAD!
Melanoma GOOOOD!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The coral can't get out of the sea, but people can get out of the sun. Grow up and stop being so self-centered - take some responsibility for the wider implications of your actions and change your lifestyle a tiny bit to help out the rest of the planet. You have the same attitude as the people who will drive from one store to the one next door instead of just walking between them!
If you are that sensitive to sun maybe dont live in a hot and sunny climate. Many people from the global South cant stand the Snow. Should they be rooting for Global Warming? It would be morally equivalent to what you are doing - desroy the planet so you can live in a part of the planet you are not evolved for.
**Life is too short to be serious**
I suspect humans are doing harm to the oceans in ways that far exceed the use of certain sun screens.
Very likely but banning Coppertone from a handful of people is a lot easier than banning diesel fueled container ships that move trillions of dollars worth of goods at any one time. Low hanging fruit, brother.
It's a complex problem and there isn't one solution but any reasonable step in the right direction helps. But as it said upthread, there isn't any serious proof that it's a solution at all. So it may all be a folly regardless of intent.
Or, maybe the manufacturer should prove that the chemicals are not toxic in the areas used before they can sell them to the public.
Only idiots seriously suggest proving a negative.
This is the kind of dumb shit that happens when you go outside.
in the light of all i've read on this platform . i don't know if any of you have heard of this hacking firm . QUADHACKED 'AT' GMAIL 'DOT' COM . i was on a poor credit rating, having just terrible payment history and long debt record that won't go. i once paid a sum of 5k once just to clear the debts and the condition of my ratings still didn't improve, car loans debt were still popping up too of which i cleared all of them when i started the repair procedure on my own. i was feeling frustrated and almost gave up on the whole thing . then i was reading a blog where i read of someones recommendation just like i'm recommending now. they got the best service i'll say. all i've been battling with for over a year they made disappear after just a three week duration of approval from the federal bureau all he did . i was left astonished . if you are in the dark and in the need of credit repairs and hacks i'll recommend you mail them at today to describe your credit problems having them solved . QUADHACKED 'AT' GMAIL 'DOT' COM
... They're not the ones who got these laws passed and signed by the governor ...
True, the ABC stores got the laws passed. They want the tourists using locally sold sunscreen. :-)
I wonder if Hawaiian lawmakers made any investments in that area recently.
Local sunscreen manufacturers and ABC stores. :-)
You never heard of Lego blocks?
Was told this (sunscreen is bad for the fishies and coral).
It puts you in a bad spot. You don't want to harm the sea life but if you don't use sunscreen, you'll burn to a crisp. Staying inside is a bad answer, why not just stay at home then?
Yes, I wore a hat, and sunglasses, and sometimes a light jacket. It's not enough, especially when you are out on the water. And there's not enough time on a vacation to tan up au naturel. Some people pre-tan for a vacation but I never do (it's expensive, time-consuming, and increases your risk of skin cancer anyways).
It's a complex problem and there isn't one solution but any reasonable step in the right direction helps. But as it said upthread, there isn't any serious proof that it's a solution at all. So it may all be a folly regardless of intent.
The fact that there's no evidence of sunscreen being related to coral reef issues doubly so makes it an UNREASONABLE step, Because (1) Thus harms people if they're forced to use less-effective sunscreens, or different formulations that later turn out to be dangerous, OR (2) The new formulations turn out to cause environmental harm that the previous ones didn't.
If Oxybenzone is an estrogen mimicker, xenoestrogen, then oxybenzone will cause breast cancer.
5 Out of 6 Chemicals Used to block UV in Sunscreen are Estrogenic
Margaret Schlumpf and her colleagues (Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Zurich, Switzerland) have found that many widely-used sunscreen chemicals mimic the effects of estrogen and trigger developmental abnormalities in rats. (Schlumpf , Margaret; Beata Cotton, Marianne Conscience, Vreni Haller, Beate Steinmann, Walter Lichtensteiger. In vitro and in vivo estrogenicity of UV screens. Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 109 (March 2001) pp 239-244) Her group tested six common chemicals that are used in sunscreens, lipsticks and facial cosmetics.Sunscreen causes fibrocystic breast disease Five of the six tested chemicals (benzophenone-3, homosalate, 4-methyl-benzylidene camphor (4-MBC), octyl-methoxycinnamate and octyl-dimethyl-PABA) behaved like strong estrogen in lab tests and caused cancer cells to grow more rapidly. Only one chemical - a UVA protector called butyl-methoxydibenzoylmethane (B-MDM) - showed no activity. Uterine growth and endometriosis :One very common sunscreen chemical, 4-MBC, was mixed with olive oil and applied to rat skin. This caused a doubling of the rate of uterine growth well before puberty. "That was scary, because we used concentrations that are in the range allowed in sunscreens," said Schlumpf. Three of the six caused developmental abnormalities in animals. The major cause of sterility in women in the USA is endometriosis, a condition afflicting 5.5% of American women. Exposure to excessive estrogen, that may have come from such sunscreens, is felt to be the primary cause of endometriosis. Perhaps a sunscreen using zinc oxide is a better choice.
Oxybenzone is in widespread use in American chemical-based sunscreens. Lab testing shows skin penetration rates of 1 to 9 percent. That’s concerning, given the fact that it acts like an estrogen in the body and is linked to abnormal sperm function in animal studies and endometriosis in studies of women. Oxybenzone also acts as a skin allergen in a significant number of people. (So does methylisothiazolinone, a common sunscreen preservative found in 94 products surveyed.)
https://draxe.com/best-sunscreens/
https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/the-trouble-with-sunscreen-chemicals/#.WuuHw8gh1bU
Only reason I know about them is the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast talked about them a year or so ago. On the surface they look pretty legit, it takes some scientific-paper-reading-skill above my pay grade to understand how they take stuff out of context and over-inflate the warnings some papers issue.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.