SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Hawaii will ban the sale of sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate, which have been found to be toxic to coral and algae. The ban would take effect in 2021, and wouldn't apply to prescription sunscreens, online purchases, or sunscreen brought from out of state.
Hawaii bans sunscreens with chemicals that damage coral reefs, but Australia reluctant to follow
But there is far less enthusiasm for a similar ban in Australia, with some experts questioning the evidence behind Hawaii's decision. [...] Hawaii's decision was partly based on a report from 2015.
[...] "It's still a matter of balancing our planet health with human health when we know that two out of three Australians will develop skin cancer in their lifetime," Cancer Council Australia CEO Sanchia Aranda said.
Professor Aranda said there was still no conclusive scientific evidence the chemicals caused coral bleaching. "If there was evidence for marine damage strongly and the TGA, who regulates sunscreen and the chemicals that go into sunscreen, believed that it was harmful, then we would also seek to support that," she said.
2015 study reported at UCF and NPR.
Toxicopathological Effects of the Sunscreen UV Filter, Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3), on Coral Planulae and Cultured Primary Cells and Its Environmental Contamination in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands (DOI: 10.1007/s00244-015-0227-7) (DX)
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Lester on Saturday May 05 2018, @01:50PM (14 children)
No clear evidences, but let's destroy markets: Tourism, sunscreeners, retailers. Will jobs, people's income be affected? So what?
They can't do nothing to stop it. What a wonderful feeling of power!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @02:05PM (7 children)
Maybe the burden of proof is backwards, and the standard for chemicals should be that things like sunscreen ingredients are used only when they are shown to be safe, rather than banned when they are shown to be unsafe.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Virindi on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:12PM (6 children)
Except there is clear evidence that sunscreen use prevents deaths. Sunscreen is a critical safety product for anyone with a light complexion. We're not talking about some pointless product here.
Because of that, whether it kills coral is secondary. What matters is, how effective can sunscreen be without these ingredients? If the answer is "less effective" or "less useful" then an alternative must be found before it can be banned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @08:19PM (1 child)
Point me to a non-toxic, transparent* adhesive that doesn't break apart in sea-water but washes out with drinking water and soap and I'll show you a sunscreen suitable for the beach.
To be clear, sunscreens lotions are a con. UV radiation is exactly what gives you a tan so they're not suitable for tanning on the beach. They break apart in the sea (and in chlorine) so they're not suitable for swimming. The ones that actually stay on your skin and filter-out UV will use adhesives that block skin pores so putting them on your face will break out zits. The fake ones vaporize in minutes and do nothing.
Basically, they're all moisturizers that keep the skin from drying up so researchers can always come up with papers proving their "effectiveness" as long as they don't use other moisturizers as control groups.
Scam.
*visible range, can block UV
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @09:12PM
> UV radiation is exactly what gives you a tan so they're not suitable for tanning
Tanning oil exists. Don't expect to tan while wearing sunscreen.
> The ones that actually stay on your skin and filter-out UV will use adhesives that block skin pores so putting them on your face will break out zits.
https://consults.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/what-to-look-for-in-a-sunscreen/ [nytimes.com]
I accept the opacity and the chalky appearance. You want something "transparent." Why is that important to you?
> Basically, they're all moisturizers that keep the skin from drying up so researchers can always come up with papers proving their "effectiveness" as long as they don't use other moisturizers as control groups.
Their effectiveness at absorbing UV can be assessed in vitro with a spectrophotometer. In vivo,I suppose the ingredients that are on the market have been tested on animals. If they weren't effective on humans, people would get sunburned and promptly stop using them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @09:14PM
> an alternative must be found before it can be banned.
https://www.webmd.com/beauty/features/whats-best-sunscreen [webmd.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @12:17AM (2 children)
> whether it kills coral is secondary. What matters is, how effective can sunscreen be without these ingredients? If the answer is "less effective" or "less useful" then an alternative must be found before it can be banned.
Wow. You're insane. By this token, we should burn all the fossil fuels ASAP, because we don't have another equally effective energy source. We should reinstitute slavery, because it was more useful to the owners. We should bring children back into factories, because their little hands are more effective at pulling debris out of jammed gears.
Your perspective is so short sighted that I would be nervous as a passenger if you were piloting.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Sunday May 06 2018, @01:27AM (1 child)
I value human lives above coral lives. If that's what passes for "insane" these days, then yep.
All things being equal, of course I would like to protect coral as well.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @10:33AM
Speaking in terms of Asimov's Laws of Robotics, that'd be the First Law.
You're forgetting the Zeroth Law: "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."
Environment destruction falls under "harm humanity" clause.
(Score: 5, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday May 05 2018, @04:42PM (5 children)
A quick Gogle search turned up this
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/nov15/sunscreen-corals.html [noaa.gov]
Looks like there might be some clear evidence to warrant this action by Hawaii.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by Lester on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:28PM (1 child)
I can't see that evidence.
So? Bleach is toxic for human, but something similar is dropped in swimming pools every day. Everything depends on concentration. Is concentration of oxybenzone in the wild, near the coral reef, significant? That is the question. If the sum of use of sunscreens along the years has been like a drop of tea in a Olympic swimming pool then we are overreacting.
OK, it is toxic and should be replaced by other innocuous components. But if there is no immediate danger, banning right now, over the night, is a little... trying to be whiter than white.
It looks that nowadays overreacting is the new rule.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @09:34PM
> It looks that nowadays overreacting is the new rule.
Someone wrote "let's destroy markets: Tourism, sunscreeners, retailers." I think that's an overreaction, because there are other ingredients that can be used in sunscreens, and there are sunscreens already on the market that use those other ingredients without octinoxate or oxybenzone. Some people were already avoiding the ingredients that Hawaii is banning.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Virindi on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:31PM (2 children)
Unfortunately, a single study is not very useful, especially nowadays. It is especially not conclusive. If the bar was merely to ban any product that a paper or two claimed was hazardous, no products would exist.
"Further study is needed."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @12:25AM (1 child)
> Unfortunately, a single study is not very useful, especially nowadays. It is especially not conclusive
What? Your thought process is garbo. There are good and bad studies, but consider existence proofs.
Study quality varies. More studies aren't inherently better than fewer. More /study participants/ generally improve the strength of statistical conclusions.
Look at, for example, LD50 studies using lab strains of mice. Run one such study using data from a couple of labs and with a sufficient count of mice, and the results are tremendously useful.
You should be able to see the flaw in your thinking by examining the words "especially nowadays." What you really mean is, "there are bad studies," not "no individual study is good."
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Sunday May 06 2018, @04:49AM
No, what I really mean is what I said: one study is not conclusive. Policy should not be made on the basis of a single study, no matter its quality. Coming to a conclusion cannot happen when only one group has put work into the subject; others must examine it as well. Any one study can be easily flawed in a way that goes unnoticed. The number of studies is important because it is a barometer for how many different groups have looked at the question from different angles.
And throwing out pejoratives doesn't make your case sound any more reasonable, either.