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
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).
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?
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 . . .
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..."
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.
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.
So.
Dead coral BAAAAAD!
Melanoma GOOOOD!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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.
No, you have it all wrong. It's not even the sun that causes cancer. It's the chemicals released by government jet planes that give you cancer. If you're out on the beach and see a chemtrail, get inside FAST.
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**
... 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. :-)
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.
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.