Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday May 05 2018, @03:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the no-problem-in-the-UK dept.

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)


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2, Disagree) by Virindi on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:12PM (6 children)

    by Virindi (3484) on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:12PM (#676092)

    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.

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

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @08:19PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @08:19PM (#676149)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @09:12PM (#676154)

      > 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.

      In addition to being nonirritating and nonallergenic, titanium dioxide is non-comedogenic, meaning that it doesn’t produce or aggravate acne. The Food and Drug Administration, in its monograph on sunscreens, lists it as one of the most effective active ingredients for sun protection. Zinc oxide also provides physical protection from damaging rays, absorbing primarily UVA light rather than scattering or reflecting it. It is also a mild antimicrobial and wound healing substance and is considered to be non-comedogenic.

      The problem with physical blocks containing titanium dioxide or zinc oxide is that they are too chalky and opaque for daily use.

      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

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @09:14PM (#676155)

    > an alternative must be found before it can be banned.

    Ingredients with broad-spectrum protection include benzophenones (oxybenzone), cinnamates (octylmethyl cinnamate and cinoxate), sulisobenzone, salicylates, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, avobenzone (Parsol 1789) and ecamsule (Mexoryl SX).

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @12:17AM (#676200)

    > 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)

      by Virindi (3484) on Sunday May 06 2018, @01:27AM (#676220)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @10:33AM (#676318)

        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.