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."
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.
Fuck white people. If they lack the evolutionary protection from the Sun, then why don't they, you know, stay in the shade. Why should they get to destroy the fucking planet so they can have some fun?
Fuck white people and their consumerist self-gratifying culture.
You do know darker folk are perfectly capable of getting skin cancer, right?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
Keep reading...
"Bayer said there are limited, active ingredients available within the U.S. with the same proven effectiveness as oxybenzone for sunscreens over SPF 50."
Sounds like a classic example of externalized costs. Cheaper ingredients that pass the cost on to coral reefs.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
No sounds like regulation having unintended consequences. FDA decided to be super conservative about what chemistry you can put on people; to bad that forced the use of stuff that was a great deal more environmentally destructive.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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
Very interesting. One note of caution about such statements though:
...more common since the 1960s...
Any statement about "Disease X has become more common since year Y" should be taken with a grain of salt, because often times the apparent "rise" is really that we didn't know about the disease before then, or didn't have a test for it, or the definition of the disease changed. Autism is the #1 example of this: its rise coincides with us first deciding that it is a thing, then doctors really looking for it, then us changing the definition.
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.
... 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. :-)