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
Related Stories
Popular Science tells the story of proposed legislation which would provide that (quoted from the bill)
No person shall use or apply sunscreen, sunblock, or cosmetic containing any oxybenzone while on a beach or in the ocean.
The article seems to imply a broader ban, saying
[...] Hawaii's ban, if successful, would be unusual for its scale—it would be state wide, across all of the islands, affecting even those who may never set foot in the ocean.
The bill, it says, is motivated by studies indicating that oxybenzone (also known as benzophenone-3), can harm coral.
Related Stories:
Sunscreen: Coral Reef Killer?
Cloud Solution Proposed for Coral Bleaching
Severe Bleaching Hits the Great Barrier Reef for Second Year in a Row
Rising Global Temperatures and El Niño are Contributing to Coral Reef Loss
Great Barrier Reef Experiencing Worst Bleaching on Record
(Score: 4, Informative) by Nerdfest on Thursday October 22 2015, @12:44PM
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.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hyperturtle on Thursday October 22 2015, @01:20PM
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
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
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
I was reading the coverage at the Center for American Progress [thinkprogress.org] at just about the same time that frojack was submitting this.
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Funny) by ikanreed on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:34PM
... What country do you think Hawaii is in exactly?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:31PM
> 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
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
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
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 [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by WillAdams on Thursday October 22 2015, @12:45PM
What elements and compounds are there in quantities which would make commercial exploitation feasible?
Why not include refining in desalination plants?
(Unfortunately, we're a long way away from the pseudolife mining which Hal Clement posited in his short story, “The Mechanic”.)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SanityCheck on Thursday October 22 2015, @01:14PM
Likely the alternatives are just as bad, it's just that we don't have studies about the effects of the alternatives. I don't think humans will ever stop casually fucking things up. It jsut becomes more casual the more of us there are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @06:23PM
This is not news since 2008 at the very least. And still in 2015 it is business as usual. There is money to be made, and dead corals are somebody else's problem. :(
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @01:41PM
I guess we've solved all the world's problems, which is why we're talking about THIS.
I just stayed up all night trying to get an Ubuntu box to boot properly after someone hosed some System D configuration file.
With System D out in the wild, I can hardly deem this article newsworthy.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Thursday October 22 2015, @01:46PM
Whereas some of us have much broader interests.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @01:52PM
Whereas some of us have much broader interests.
A response straight out of the System D apologist playbook.
"Deflect, ridicule, ostracize. "
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:03PM
A response straight out of the System D apologist playbook.
"Deflect, ridicule, ostracize. "
Maybe the problem is you. Everyone else seems to like systemd ("NOT SYSTEM D") except on AC on some forgotten, ghost-shop news aggregator site.
You are the last of a dead breed.
Give it up.
The init wars are over, and you have lost. Your lack of perspective and constant whinging are not welcome here.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday October 22 2015, @03:50PM
I prefer OpenRC. Hell, I'd prefer a kooky makefile-based init I came up with some years ago just to see if I could make the idea work. (Think make -j10 runlevel5.)
Systemd, if I understand the capabilities it offers, might make sense for a smartphone, even a laptop. My server in the clouds and my gaming rig are neither. Also, I want Poettering-ware nowhere near my stuff. It amazes me how on earth PulseAudio is still in use when ALSA provides dmix right out of the box.
Oh, right, sunscreen. Every time I use the stuff it always makes me feel icky. I guess I'll just keep risking skin cancer. (Oh noes! Cancer! Tremble in terror! Aaaaaaa!)
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:04PM
There is more to life than systemd. TFA is about protecting coral and I have to applaud your attempt to introduce systemd into the discussion.
But, just for the record, I abhor systemd. However, I realise that I will have to understand it in order to maintain systems that use it. How many buggy whip shops are there in your town?
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:06PM
However, I realise that I will have to understand it in order to maintain systems that use it. How many buggy whip shops are there in your town?
BURN! Mod this guy up (even though we're supposed to be talking about sunscreen, it's really should be pinned on the homepage).
System D is clearly 100X better than any greasy old init system you may still be clinging to. RedHat has won, and Lennart has won. You have lost, end of discussion. Evolution favors the System D.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:16PM
I guess that's what bill gates thought when they started using msoffice in schools.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:24PM
You still can't spell systemd properly. Your credibility to judge the validity of an init system is non existent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:15PM
You are wrestling with a pig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @03:10PM
You are wrestling with a pig.
Nah, janrinok is actually pretty cool if you check hir posting history.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @04:03PM
The whip shops in my town are completely bug-free! :-)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 22 2015, @05:50PM
"Deflect, ridicule, ostracize. "
Well, we're certainly seeing the deflection (away from the environmental concern under discussion).
Sounds like the work of a different sort of apologist, though...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @03:58PM
I can see that as someone whose waking hours are at night, you'd have no use for sunscreen. Well, others are awake during the day. :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @11:16PM
The 2015 version of antix (pronounced "Antiques") is antiX 15 "Killa P" and has been available since the end of June. [google.com]
It is compatible with Debian Testing repos. [google.com]
antiX has never shipped with systemd. SysVInit [google.com]
The antiX ISO still fits on a 700MB CD.
Why not give it a test drive--instead continuing to hit yourself in the head with that hammer just so that you can appreciate how good it feels when you stop?
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @12:51AM
This is about, you know, saving the fucking PLANET. Coral reefs are pretty important (and definitely qualify as one of 'the world's problems'.
Where are you going to boot Ubuntu when the planet becomes incapable of supporting human life?
But if you've been up all night, clearly you need some sleep. Go to bed and re-read your comment after you've had some rest.
(Score: 3, Informative) by That_Dude on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:34PM
After digging around and reading these two articles, I wonder just how far back up the food chain this substance goes and also its effect on plankton and cyanobacteria.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/src-swb110606.php [eurekalert.org] - "Sunscreens with benzophenone-3 unsuitable for children."
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search2/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@rn+@rel+131-57-7 [nih.gov] - "AQUATIC FATE: Based on a classification scheme(1), an estimated Koc value of 2,700(SRC), determined from a log Kow of 3.79(2) and a regression-derived equation(3), indicates that 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone is expected to adsorb to suspended solids and sediment(SRC). Volatilization from water surfaces is not expected(3) based upon an estimated Henry's Law constant of 1.5X10-8 atm-cu m/mole(SRC), developed using a fragment constant estimation method(4). According to a classification scheme(5), a BCF range of 33-160(2) suggests the potential for bioconcentration in aquatic organisms is moderate to high(SRC). This substance is expected to biodegrade slowly in water based on 4% degradation after 28 days in a MITI screening test(2).
[(1) Swann RL et al; Res Rev 85: 17-28 (1983) (2) Chemicals Inspection and Testing Institute; Biodegradation and bioaccumulation data of existing chemicals based on the CSCL Japan. Japan Chemical Industry Ecology - Toxicology and Information Center. ISBN 4-89074-101-1 (1992) (3) Lyman WJ et al; Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods. Washington, DC: Amer Chem Soc pp. 4-9, 15-1 to 15-29 (1990) (4) Meylan WM, Howard PH; Environ Toxicol Chem 10: 1283-93 (1991) (5) Franke C et al; Chemosphere 29: 1501-14 (1994)] **PEER REVIEWED**"
(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.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @05:50PM
When I took my first scuba course in c. 2003 we were taught that sunscreen harmed the coral. It also causes your mask to leak so it's a no-brainer to wipe off before diving.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday October 23 2015, @01:12AM
I hate the beach. Sand everywhere, sharp rocks everywhere, fecal bacteria everywhere, loud obnoxious people, sticky sea water, seaweed, broken glass despite all the signs, no parking, dirty restrooms, expensive food, sticky sweat, hot sun, and sticky uncomfortable sunblock coating your skin. I don't get why people go there at all. The best situation would be taking a walk along the beach where there aren't many other people with my frilly parasol. No need for sunblock at all.
For snorkeling or diving use a suit. Keeps you warm, protects your skin from minor injuries, and the sun, and protects the coral.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @09:03AM
I am a person of european (ha ha! you're a peon. inferiority and hierarchy at the very core of our self identity, okay, okay, my ancestors hail from the caucus region, have a decent spicing of neanderthal blood and suffer from many congenital defects and a shortened life span, the result of a lot of inbreeding and spending too much time living in caves cohabiting with dogs) origin living in a hot place in the sothern hemisphere. I have very pale skin. When I was a kid I used to burn, you know whenever I forgot to cover up with sunscreen ;)
Since I was a teen, I won't touch sunscreen.
I make sure I get lots of sun every day. If the winter is mild, which it usually is, I keep as much skin exposed all year round as I can. I never burn anymore, I'm not even that tan but I can sit or work in the sun from morning until night and not burn. I can do it here or in the bushveld or at the beach. In a train or on a plain, in a house (with no roof, you get them around here) and with a mouse, you know I CAN STAND UP IN THE FIRE and NEVER GET BURNED.
The two secrets are, like I said constant exposure to keep the MELANIN up and HYDRATION.
Just like when you're frying something in the pan, it doesn't start to crisp until sufficient moisture has evaporated from it. The same with your skin! I drink beer or orange juice (and whiskey) constantly when I am outside. The sugars and alcohols are great for synthesizing nutrients from the sun in that precious chemical factory which we casually like to call our skin and the WATER keeps everything going at a perfect SIZZLE so the sun don't burn it just provides the ENERGY for the CHEMICAL REACTIONS essential to LIFE.
Drinking in the sun at 9am in the morning? You think I might have a problem? It's less of a problem than skin cancer innit?
White people already suffer from chronic lack of calcium and vitamin D deficiency because our melanin lacking skin (this is an inbred defect, not an optimization for cold weather, but that is a different story) cannot properly synthesize vitamin D (and all sorts of other things) properly from the sun.
The last thing you want to do when you are already lacking the ability to properly synthesize those life giving nutrients is to put another additional (weird and funky) chemical barrier between you and those life giving rays.
How little do you trust your god that you think he would make your own sun hostile to you? Trust those rays and you will get melanin.
Suncream is a con. It is a plot, an illusion. Just drink lots of beer and get a lot of sun. You'll be fine. :D