Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday October 22 2015, @12:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-are-bad-for-the-world dept.

The sunscreen that snorkelers, beachgoers and children romping in the waves lather on for protection is killing coral and reefs around the globe. And a new study finds that a single drop in a small area is all it takes for the chemicals in the lotion to mount an attack.

Not only did the study determine that a tiny amount of sunscreen is all it takes to begin damaging the delicate corals – the equivalent of a drop of water in a half-dozen Olympic-sized swimming pools – it documented three ways that the ingredient oxybenzone breaks the coral down, robbing it of life-giving nutrients and turning it ghostly white.

Adverse effects on coral started on with concentrations as low as 62 parts per trillion. Yet measurements of oxybenzone in seawater within coral reefs in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands found concentrations ranging from 800 parts per trillion to 1.4 parts per million. That's 12 times the concentrations needed to harm coral.

Oxybenzone is used in more than 3,500 sunscreen products worldwide. Common brands including Coppertone, Baby Blanket Faces, L'Oreal Paris, Hawaiian Tropic and Banana Boat all use the Oxy.

There are alternative sunscreens with no oxybenzone. The trouble is that nobody really knows about this threat to the reefs, and they take a fair bit of convincing.

This story appeared in the Portland Press Herald


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Nerdfest on Thursday October 22 2015, @12:44PM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday October 22 2015, @12:44PM (#253194)

    Whether they need convincing or not isn't really relevant. Something that's that toxic to the environment should be banned immediately, especially if there are less harmful alternatives.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Hyperturtle on Thursday October 22 2015, @01:20PM

    by Hyperturtle (2824) on Thursday October 22 2015, @01:20PM (#253211)

    I am going to guess that someone with a profit motivation will decry government regulation and champion our freedom to poison the environment because its good business and downright unAmerican to express concern for some underwater rock in another country.

    • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday October 22 2015, @01:56PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Thursday October 22 2015, @01:56PM (#253223) Journal

      No. This is a simple case of Think of the Children. The government wants your children to get sun burned and skin cancer!

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by That_Dude on Thursday October 22 2015, @05:05PM

        by That_Dude (2503) on Thursday October 22 2015, @05:05PM (#253295)

        I read up on benzophenone-3, aka oxybenzone, and found that it is not recommended for children under 2. There are other types of sunscreen ingredients which aren't known to be toxic - titanium dioxide for instance - it's used as a coloring agent; in pastry glaze for instance. As for children under 2, they are generally vulnerable because there is a lot of biological development going on - especially to substances that mimic hormones.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @10:12PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @10:12PM (#253417)

          I was reading the coverage at the Center for American Progress [thinkprogress.org] at just about the same time that frojack was submitting this.

          The human health effects of oxybenzone, along with other chemicals found in the vast majority of sunscreens, have been called into question by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in previous years. The group has found [ewg.org] that oxybenzone penetrates the skin, gets into the bloodstream, and acts as an endocrine disruptor, much like it has been found to do in coral reefs. EWG states that concentrations of oxybenzone are linked to disorders such as endometriosis in older women and lower birth weights in newborn girls--but the group notes that the studies showing this link aren’t conclusive.

          -- gewg_

    • (Score: 5, Funny) by ikanreed on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:34PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:34PM (#253242) Journal

      ... What country do you think Hawaii is in exactly?

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:31PM (#253240)

    > Something that's that toxic to the environment should be banned immediately

    I think these results really need to be independently verified before that.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday October 22 2015, @04:39PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 22 2015, @04:39PM (#253281) Journal

    Whether they need convincing or not isn't really relevant. Something that's that toxic to the environment should be banned immediately, especially if there are less harmful alternatives.

    Unless oxybenzone is not as harmful as claimed. A claimed toxicity threshold of 1 part in 10 billion is remarkably low for a chemical that you can absorb through your skin without serious consequence aside from the occasional allergic reaction. I want to see some evidence backing up the assertions that this chemical is toxic at the concentrations found in the wild.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Thursday October 22 2015, @10:19PM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday October 22 2015, @10:19PM (#253420) Journal

      A claimed toxicity threshold of 1 part in 10 billion is remarkably low for a chemical that you can absorb through your skin without serious consequence aside from the occasional allergic reaction.

      Somewhere, Homeopaths are dancing.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 2) by gringer on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:36PM

    by gringer (962) on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:36PM (#253403)

    There may not be any less harmful alternatives, just less tested alternatives. See the BPA-free debate [ehjournal.net] for more details of a similar situation.

    --
    Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]