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
(Score: 1) by terrab0t on Thursday October 22 2015, @03:36PM
I started using micronized zinc oxide sunscreen long ago out of concern for my health. Apparently I'm also not poisoning everything around me. That's good to know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @04:07PM
You don't know that. You only know that you're not using a substance that is known to be poisonous for the environment. Well, actually you don't even know that; all you know is that you never heard about that substance being poisonous.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @05:36PM
http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC35158 [pesticideinfo.org]
High toxicity in "PAN Bad Actors" and "Developmental or Reproductive Toxin"
PAN Bad Actors are chemicals that are one or more of the following: highly acutely toxic, cholinesterase inhibitor, known/probable carcinogen, known groundwater pollutant or known reproductive or developmental toxicant.
---
Make of that what you will, I am not enough of an expert to evaluate anything on that page.
(Score: 1) by termigator on Thursday October 22 2015, @05:52PM
IIRC, zinc oxide products may contain traces of lead. I think it may be related to the processes used. It was along time ago, so I do not have any links.
I try to avoid using sunscreen, and just monitor how much my skin is exposed to to the sun. If I know I am going to be out in the sun for a long period of time, I dress up like yard/lawn workers do: long sleeves, pants, hat. Yes, it gets warmer but better than getting burnt. Key is to stay hydrated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @10:17PM
The heavy clothing is a good idea, but it can be inconvenient to cover the nose, ears and tops of the hands that way.
What I just learned is that zinc is most commonly obtained from sphalerite (ZnS) whereas lead is most often gotten from galena (PbS), and that these minerals are usually found together.
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/11/f4/lead_zinc.pdf [energy.gov]
http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/mining/techdocs/leadzinc.pdf [epa.gov]
The lead and zinc have to be separated, by various processes that aren't going to be totally effective. Still, a sunscreen made from large particles of zinc oxide or titanium dioxide--the kind that remains as a white paste--would be the one for me. An invisible sunscreen is unnecessary for me, because I'm not trying to impress anyone by my appearance. I suspect that large particles of zinc oxide, containing some lead, may be less hazardous to my health (or a more manageable hazard) than some of the compounds in the disappearing sunscreens, because it seems unlikely that the lead will be absorbed through my skin. Now, if the mineral particles are made so small ("micronized") that they become transparent, I'm not so confident they won't be absorbed.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday October 23 2015, @02:51AM
IIRC, zinc oxide products may contain traces of lead.
I seriously doubt that. With as paranoid as the FDA is about lead? Not happening.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by termigator on Friday October 23 2015, @05:02PM
FDA only knows if it tests, and they are a stretched pretty thin. Who knows how much they devote to testing all the myriad of cosmetics and lotions that exist along with the other duties of overseeing drug testing and approval and food safety.
Also, you have the phrase, "unacceptable levels of lead," whenever a product is recalled due to lead. I ask, "What is an acceptable level of lead?" We are never told, at least in news articles and recall notices.
I have a running joke of opening the "Acceptable Levels of Lead" store, where it only carries products with acceptable levels of lead.
IMO, there is no level of lead that acceptable. Due to the nature of lead and how it can accumulate and the affects it can have (which can be permanent), any level of exposure should be avoided.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday October 23 2015, @06:41PM
FDA only knows if it tests, and they are a stretched pretty thin. Who knows how much they devote to testing
Ok, Ok, my bad. I assumed what was posted was something believable, even if wrong.
Had I known you were launching off on another nut-case conspiracy theory I would have just modded you troll and moved on.
Howbout a heads up next time?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by termigator on Saturday October 24 2015, @03:03PM
Underfunding of the FDA is a known fact:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK52926/?report=classic [nih.gov]
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/FDAGeneral/53517 [medpagetoday.com]
And when funding is provided, strings are attached to weaken its enforcement capabilities:
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bill-raises-funding-nih-fda-so-why-doesnt-everyone-love-n390241 [nbcnews.com]
Or any increases are still deficient in funding all the responsibilities the FDA has:
http://www.raps.org/focus-online/news/news-article-view/article/3575/ [raps.org]
Add to that the revolving door and undue influence on the FDA:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/hazard/independent.html [pbs.org]
You also have to realize that the FDA has limited oversight capabilities when dealing with cosmetic products, so it is unwise to believe the government has adequate consumer safeguards in place for such products.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday October 24 2015, @06:08PM
Post evidence of lead in zink oxide products or STFU. You made a claim, now back it up.
Stop trying to parlay an unsupported opinion into an indictment of an entire government agency.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by termigator on Sunday October 25 2015, @03:56AM
Search for "lead" in the following:
http://www.camdengrey.com/essential-oils/zinc-oxide-powder.html [camdengrey.com]
http://www.bettersheabutter.com/zinc-oxide-powder/ [bettersheabutter.com]
http://www.jostchemical.com/products/zinc/productcode2980/ [jostchemical.com]
http://www.ghchemicals.com/products-specifications/description-of-grades.html [ghchemicals.com]
And these are actual product websites stating that there are trace amounts of lead. A google search of "zinc oxide lead" will give the above and much more, including the following covering how zinc oxide is mined:
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/11/f4/lead_zinc.pdf [energy.gov]
If you are okay with the amounts, so be it, but I prefer to avoid any exposure when possible. Basically, the nature of the product makes it virtually impossible to make it lead free, so it is one of those, "acceptable levels of lead," scenarios.