From the AMERICAN FRIENDS OF TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY and the “settled science” department:
Sunscreen is proven toxic to coral reefs
Tel Aviv University researchers discover chemical found in most sunscreen lotions poses an existential threat to young corals
The daily use of sunscreen bearing an SPF of 15 or higher is widely acknowledged as essential to skin cancer prevention, not to mention skin damage associated with aging. Though this sunscreen may be very good for us, it may be very bad for the environment, a new Tel Aviv University study finds.
New research published in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology finds that a common chemical in sunscreen lotions and other cosmetic products poses an existential threat — even in miniscule concentrations — to the planet’s corals and coral reefs. “The chemical, oxybenzone (benzophenone-3), is found in more than 3,500 sunscreen products worldwide. It pollutes coral reefs via swimmers who wear sunscreen or wastewater discharges from municipal sewage outfalls and coastal septic systems,” said Dr. Omri Bronstein of TAU’s Department of Zoology, one of the principal researchers.
The study was conducted by a team of marine scientists from TAU, including Prof. Yossi Loya, also of the Department of Zoology, the Haereticus Environmental Laboratory in Virginia, the National Aquarium (US), the US. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, and other labs in the US.
A deadly day at the beach
A person spending the day at the beach might use between two to four ounces of sunblock if reapplied every two hours after swimming, towelling off, or sweating a significant amount. Multiply this by the number of swimmers in the water, and a serious risk to the environment emerges.
“Oxybenzone pollution predominantly occurs in swimming areas, but it also occurs on reefs 5-20 miles from the coastline as a result of submarine freshwater seeps that can be contaminated with sewage,” said Dr. Bronstein, who conducted exposure experiments on coral embryos at the Inter University Institute in Eilat together with Dr. Craig Downs of the Heretics Environmental Laboratories. “The chemical is highly toxic to juvenile corals. We found four major forms of toxicity associated with exposure of baby corals to this chemical.”
Forms of toxicity include coral bleaching, a phenomenon associated with high sea-surface temperature events like El Niño — and with global mass mortalities of coral reefs. The researchers found oxybenzone made the corals more susceptible to this bleaching at lower temperatures, rendering them less resilient to climate change. They also found that oxybenzone damaged the DNA of the corals, neutering their ability to reproduce and setting off a widespread decline in coral populations.
The study also pointed to oxybenzone as an “endocrine disruptor,” causing young coral to encase itself in its own skeleton, causing death. Lastly, the researchers saw evidence of gross deformities caused by oxybenzone — i.e., coral mouths that expand to five times their healthy, normal size.
It only takes a drop
“We found the lowest concentration to see a toxicity effect was 62 parts per trillion — equivalent to a drop of water in six and a half Olympic-sized swimming pools,” said Dr. Bronstein. The researchers found concentrations of oxybenzone in the US Virgin Islands to be 23 times higher than the minimum considered toxic to corals.
“Current concentrations of oxybenzone in these coral reef areas pose a significant ecological threat,” said Dr. Bronstein. “Although the use of sunscreen is recognized as important for protection from the harmful effects of sunlight, there are alternatives — including other chemical sunscreens, as well as wearing sun clothing on the beach and in the water.”
The researchers hope their study will draw awareness of the dangers posed by sunscreen to the marine environment and promote the alternative use of sun-protective swimwear.
###
From the University of Florida, who also produced a press release:
The researchers found that oxybenzone, a common UV-filtering compound, is in high concentrations in the waters around the more popular coral reefs in Hawaii, and the Caribbean. The chemical not only kills the coral, it causes DNA damage in adults and deforms the DNA in coral in the larval stage, making it unlikely they can develop properly. The highest concentrations of oxybenzone were found in reefs most popular with tourists.
…
In laboratory experiments, the team exposed coral larvae and cells of adult corals to increasing concentrations of oxybenzone. The research team discovered that oxybenzone deforms coral larvae by trapping them in their own skeleton, making then unable to float with currents and disperse.
Oxybenzone also caused coral bleaching, which is a prime cause of coral mortality worldwide. Corals bleach when they lose or expel the algae that normally live inside them, thus losing a valuable source of nutrition. In addition, coral larvae exposed to increasing oxybenzone concentrations suffered more DNA damage.
Cells from seven species of corals were killed by oxybenzone at concentrations similar to those detected in ocean water samples. Three of the species that the researchers tested are currently listed as threatened under the US Endangered Species Act.
The team concluded in the published paper that “Oxybenzone poses a hazard to coral reef conservation, and threatens the resiliency of coral reefs to climate change.”
They just had to throw in “climate change”, didn’t they?
Note: Within 10 minutes of publication, the University of Florida portion was added along with a link to the Journal.
Well this would explain why these bleaching events seem to follow these researchers around the world…
I recall it being suggested maybe it was a pathogen in the past.
So Jack Cousteau and his pals are killing reefs while they antagonize he sharks to get movies for fleecing Americans for their Tropical vacation capers.
And he was the one who said sports fishermen were the lowest form of life, crawling on their bellies like snakes. That was before all those catch and release fishermen cut off their funding to Coustea.
Well we wear Buffs, when out fishing in the sun, so we don’t need sunscreen.
g
One doesn’t need sunscreen most of the time. It is another scare to drum up sales…. IMO.
I can’t comment on the truth or otherwise of this study but the sunscreen theory was being touted five or six years ago and I am sure was the subject of an article here at that time
Tonyb
Yes, I seem to recall that too TonyB. It’s all business as usual alarm in the build up to COP21 in Paris.
[Off topic. The article is about ocena ‘acidification’. ~mod.]
Climate and Environment has been politizied for the purpose and tool for Cultural Marxism?
Mod its an idea that human made ideas are todays greatest tool to dominate the world. The question is who is really behind todays in the Western World ideas and what are their motives?
The topic is Coral reefs?
Okay I understand. USA has now been so politizised With Political Correcness that more and more Words can no longer been spoken or written?
[Reply: what don’t you understand about ‘off topic’? ~mod.]
Frog extinctions and researcher spread fungus, part II?
Skin cancer is a small price to pay for healthy coral!
I grew up in South Florida in the 1960s. Never did me or my 5 siblings use sunscreen. Never. the sun causing skin cancer is a statistical fact, I’m sure. But sunshine doesn’t “give you” skin cancer. It just increases the probability. I’ve never met a skin cancer (melanoma) victim. By far, one doesn’t get it.
I have read for many years that most sunscreens are more likely to give you skin cancer than the Sunlight you’re screening. I also believe that if you go out and get your suntan by building your exposure and avoiding sunburns. the vitamin D you are creating in your skin will do you far more good. Like every other form of cancer, it sees that statistically, we are getting more of them, but as far as skin cancer is concerned, I think it is more likely the skin exposed to sunscreen is far more prone to get cancer than the that exposed to the sun, basically because sunlight IS natural, the crap in sunscreen are chemicals that were never intended to be part of human consumption.
Right RobRoy, I’ve known several old time refinery workers who used benzine to clean tools and skin and got a lot nastier cancers than melanomas. I don’t want Benzo-anything on my skin. A straw hat works great here.
Is benzophenone-3 a benzine compound?
Tom, here’s OSHA’s info on it.
https://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/partial/pv2130/pv2130.html
Geez mate, I live in Queensland (worst Melanoma rates in the World). I’ve met a few, dead and alive. It ain’t pretty.
I grew up in Central Queensland and there were no real sun-screens. I have Celtic genes and have had numerous and different types of skin cancers removed. I am guilty of using UV sun-screens since they were invented. I hate the beach and never sun-baked and don’t live near the sea. It takes, I believe, about 15 years of exposure to develop skin cancers so mine were all formed when I was young (I’m not now) and have never had a melanoma – that is in the genes and skin of suffers.
A dermatologist warns that ignoring a skin cancer is dangerous – as he said ‘They can take your head off, if left long enough.’ So perhaps now is the time for the scientists to create a new type of sun screen if people cannot or will not wear protective clothing.
Hi Rob,
I’ve had a melanoma. About 3% of the white US population has.
By far the most common skin cancer, especially in people with pale skin, is basal cell carcinoma. It comes in many variations and usually doesn’t spread and kill you. It can if it’s left untreated and causes all sorts of weird looking ulcers. Mostly it occurs on sun exposed skin, but about 1/3 apparently is genetic and occurs almost anywhere on the body. I’ve got a friend that gets 2-3 lesions removed every year, despite wearing sunscreen.
On the Mayo Clinic site;
“Just what damages DNA in skin cells and how this leads to melanoma isn’t clear. It’s likely that a combination of factors, including environmental and genetic factors, causes melanoma. ”
If they don’t know, I certainly don’t.
I met my first one today…and hers was on her head in hair and she had always been a hat wearer
as fairskinned aussie with all my ancestors out on farms- picking fruit etc outside workers
not one of us has had more than minor burnable dry ice removed skin spots
the sunscreens block the rays that help us make the Vit D melatonin
I flatly refused to wear em younger and sure wont nowdays
if you must..the old tacky white zinc cream is safest for you.
its ugh but…skin absorbable nano new stuff….avoid.
TimiBoy: You met some dead ones? Just where do you hang out?
If they will not wear sunscreen, just consider it evolution in action.
.
Stop using industrial strength perfumed degreasant aka shower gel which removes all the vitamin D-3 and oils secreted onto your skin to protect it from the sun. When you are ‘squeaky clean’ you have just removed all that natural protection. Wash with water and then only if you need to. Multiple degreasings daily is not good for the skin. Just a guess but I would not be surprised if the claimed rise in skin cancer did not correlate with the increasing use of shower gels and multiple daily showers.
The actual EVIDENCE shows that sunscreen may CAUSE cancer–in part, because it interferes with the natural absorption of Vitamin D, essential for primary prevention of melanoma. It’s also a disease-mongering lie that melanoma are caused by sun exposure to begin with; many if not most are found literally where the sun don’t shine–soles of the feet and internally such as the ovaries being two good examples. There is also vast overdiagnosis and overtreatment going on of things that years ago weren’t even classified as “cancer.”
I expect a Federal agency to ban sunscreen within hours!
Wow.
That’s low.
What’s the mechanism by which it harms coral? Because there isn’t a lot there to be active.
Maybe they should check the numbers and make sure they didn’t introduce some other untested for contaminate. Wouldn’t be the first time that “alarming results” are the result of poor experiment design or unexpected interference.
It damages DNA and disrupts the endocrine systems of the coral, according to the article.
Thank you, Aphan.
But it must have required some exceptional experimental technique to detect the effect at that level.
It’s incredible work
Literally.
“In laboratory experiments, the team exposed coral larvae and cells of adult corals to increasing concentrations of oxybenzone. The research team discovered that oxybenzone deforms coral larvae by trapping them in their own skeleton, making then unable to float with currents and disperse.
Oxybenzone also caused coral bleaching, which is a prime cause of coral mortality worldwide. Corals bleach when they lose or expel the algae that normally live inside them, thus losing a valuable source of nutrition. In addition, coral larvae exposed to increasing oxybenzone concentrations suffered more DNA damage.
Cells from seven species of corals were killed by oxybenzone at concentrations similar to those detected in ocean water samples.”
How hard is it, if you start with a normal, healthy environment, and normal healthy coral, and the only thing you change in that environment is adding incrementally increasing amounts of Oxybenzone over time until you can see a “toxicity effect” ? I can see anticipating some exceptional technique if trying to control such an experiment in the wild, but these were lab results in which the levels of everything are controlled.
I’m not saying the study is accurate or correct or even truth related. I’m just pointing out logical conclusions from the article alone.
The only thing that changes in the lab is their variable?
With living creatures (coral at least) in the setup. Invariant creatures?
I’m not saying the conclusion is definitely wrong but I am saying it’s far too confident about it’s sensitivity.
Yep. Got my doubts. I don’t know why, but this feels like a reincarnation of cold fusion.
Except that cold fusion might work …
What happens at that 61/62 PPT boundary, that is so special ??
g
Good point.
I am waiting for reproducibility studies.
Pal review means nothing.
No one can read something like this and say if it is true or not.
fossilsage
October 20, 2015 at 8:52 am
“Maybe they should check the numbers and make sure they didn’t introduce some other untested for contaminate.”
I agree with fossilage.
Contaminants loom large at that scale. By the way a better measure of 62 ppt is that it equals 9.3 metres along a trip from the earth to the sun. Probably latex gloves even dissolve that much in water. I would sure like to see a thorough description of the experiment on living coral that avoids such contaminant levels.
I’d believe a result at ppb levels, and close encounters with snorkling tourists or masses on beaches could probably get corals to the ppm in concentration. However ppt? That staggers belief.
Yeah, I’m not ready to accept their contention that tens of parts per trillion have such an extreme impact. Further study required, indeed. ;->
My bet is that these guys have already filed their grant proposal for further study.
It works that way because oxybenzone is homeopathic. The more you dilute it, the stronger it gets (tongue firmly in cheek….)
my initial reaction was that they missed a decimal place… or two.
But oxybenzone’s chemical formula is C14H12O3, see right there EVIL CARBON. It is still being caused by anthropogenic CARBON. And there is even oxygen involved, so CO2 is sort of kind of almost involved.
/sarc
Sugar: C12H22O11; glucose C6H12O6, and thousands of other organic chemical species of carbohydrates are variants not far from oxybenzone. Maybe it converts to something else in the laboratory or some other carbohydrate converts to it? Oxidation of sugars creates ketoses and aldoses and they can be further oxidized to carboxylic acids. Reduction of sugars creates another family of organic chemicals. Hey, we are talking 62 ppt! (equal to 9metres on the distance to the sun)
Again we see serious logical errors. If in fact the corals are being killed, where is this occurring? And most important, if it is chemicals from sunscreen killing the corals, why does it not happen gradually? Sunscreen chemicals only works AFTER storms?
According to the article, in coral reefs off the US Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and the Caribbean.
The article doesn’t say anything about the “speed” that it kills coral, so it could very well be happening gradually.
Where do you get the assumption that it only happens after storms?
I am referring to the events that are described in the PAL-reviewed literature.
Peer-reviewed literature does not provide any cause for alarm.
Ref.: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
“We found the lowest concentration to see a toxicity effect was 62 parts per trillion”
If the concentration of every conceivable compound was measured down to the level of 1 ppt, the number of alleged reef-killing agents would number in the millions, if not billions.
This on the level of 10 parts per trillion ok 60 parts but my physics teacher only cared that we got the order of magnitude correct when we were dealing with very large or small numbers.
OK, how much is this in terms of grains of salt in Olympic swimming pool?
Those are terms everyone can picture readily.
Lol, good call. .000015676328 grams of salt added, so about 1 and a half grains of salt…? If my math is correct and it probably isn’t.
An olympic swimming pool has about 2million liters of water. 2 kg is therfore 1ppm. 2g is 1ppb. 2mg is 1ppt. 60ppt is approximately 100mg (0.1g). A grain of salt weighs 0.1mg, so we need 1000 grains of salt in an olympic swiming pool.
To back up just a bit on the issue of sunscreen and skin cancer.
Humans evolved with the sun for millions and millions of years on this planet. Then one day back in the late 20th century, some guy in a white lab coat tells us that he has just discovered that the sun causes skin cancer, but that’s okay because we can now buy his new formula super-duper sun protection chemical concoction to slather directly onto our skins for a low low introductory price.
Also, if you look at the stats, Oregon State and Maine both report more skin cancer than California and Florida. The causes of skin cancer may be multi-variate. And the sun may not one of the major variables. Just my opinion.
Hi Terry,
Could it be that the “snowbids” from Maine, etc spend a longer time out sunbathing, than locals who tend to cover up more. Just a thought.
I would think that Floridians and Californians in general spend much more cumulative time outdoors year round wearing shorts and t-shirts, bathing suits, etc. while Maine-ites and Oregonians only get a short window in the summer to do that, and tend to wear sweaters, jackets and coats for a good portion of the year. The stats I looked at were State numbers of skin cancers cases per capita. And I was quite surprised. Not what I expected.
I think it’s the fact that Maine and Oregon tend to be “chilly” coastal areas with lower temps and a LOT of coastal winds. When we vacation in Oregon, we often “forgot” to use sunscreen because we couldn’t exactly sunbath on the beach very often. We spent a lot of time in jackets, wrapped in blankets, or sitting under a shelter of some kind to get away from the blowing sand.
If the locals think and act the same way, they probably don’t think about the amount of sun they are actually getting outdoors because it’s rare to see locals sunbathing.
we do and we tend to not use sunscreen as a whole. not actually sunbathing just limited time to get stuff like haying,etc done when sunny.
People from the Northern states are more likely to not have a tan when they encounter the summer sun. People in southern states are more likely to be well tanned all year round. It’s the bad sunburns, during which the skin replaces the epidermis in only a few days, a process that normally takes 5–6 weeks, by pulling out all of the growth controls. If a precancerous cell arises, the body’s defenses are not online to stop it from reaching a colony size that cannot be stopped. Bad burns during childhood increase the number of cells situated to go rogue in the skin.
I can vouch for that. As a child, for a period of about seven or eight years, we’d travel each summer from foggy, rainy N. Cal. (near Oregon) to the Colorado foothills. Each summer I’d burn twice, then have enough tan to last the rest of the summer.
I spent summers at the beach back in the days where hardly any kid worse a shirt. Get a bit burned (“piece by piece”), then recovery to tan, which was then reinforced. Necessary for survival, anyway.
Of course they are multi-variate. One big thing is that we are living longer. Cancer is (normally and with tragic exceptions) a disease of the old. Who cares if you have minor skin cancers if you are dead of plague at 40?
Excessive sun exposure is only one cause out of many, and it’s only significant with repeated exposure to the point of burning. However, the fact that a link exists between excessive sun exposure and skin cancer not a reasonable thing to doubt at this point in time.
Para-amino-benzoic-acid is a great, natural sunscreen. A B vitamin.
About the sun, cancer, and sunscreen: When I was a relative youngling, in my 40s and 50s, I wore shorts and short-sleeved (if any) shirts while working outside, as I had done since I was a kid. I learned about skin cancer and other dangers, and I changed to long pants, long-sleeved shirts, and added a broad-brimmed hat. The first thing I found after making the change was that I got far fewer insect bites! In May in Virginia, we get occasional infestations of nasty biting flies whose bites go deep beneath the skin. One of these got me on an exposed spot of my lower leg and gave me cellulitis. My leg started out with a red spot that graduated quickly to a purple area well over a foot long and most of the way around my leg. It didn’t hurt, but it was a bit warm, and I didn’t like the look of it, so I went to my doctor. She and I talked briefly about various matters until she said, “And what brings you here today?” I said, “It is this,” and I pulled up my pants-leg so she could see my purple leg. She gasped! Then she said, “What’s your favorite hospital?” “Don’t have one,” I replied. She ended up giving me two huge injections, one in each butt cheek, and sending me home to lie flat on my back, with my afflicted leg elevated, for 23 hours out of 24, and come back to see her in two days for more shots. Fortunately, her quick action reduced and finally eliminated the purple. She told me about cellulitis, how some call it the flesh-eating disease, and all the rest. That reinforced the long-sleeves/long-pants regime, and I have never regretted it. How about skin cancers? Every time I go to see my dermatologist, known as Skin-Man, he checks me over quickly and thoroughly, top to bottom, and most times he takes his little frozen-nitrogen bottle and blasts a few pre-cancerous lesions, which seem to arise anywhere on my body but seem never to get out of control. If the sun really “causes” skin cancer, I would expect to find it on my exposed parts–face, neck, ears, hands, etc.–but that’s not where the doctor zeroes in with his little cold-air bottle. He also told me to get out in the sun as close to naked as I legally can for fifteen minutes a day to get my Vitamin D; I try to do that, too. In my experience, then, insects are far more dangerous to my health than sunlight. I never use sunscreen, though I have it to offer to garden visitors (I grow about 15,000 daylilies) who want it. They usually request the insect repellent instead . . .
This should never have become a problem.
Ideally, light-skinned people should inhabit northern latitudes.
And dark-skinned people should live at the equator.
With a gradation of shades at all latitudes in between.
That way everybody is suited to the sunlight intensity of the region in which they live.
And they can meet their vitamin D requirements, whilst avoiding sun-burn and skin cancer.
And there would be no need for sun-cream.
I suggest that we solve this problem by redistributing everyone to their “correct latitudes”.
This project would be of immense benefit to both mankind – and coral.
I don’t imagine that there would be any political resistance to this project.
Let’s start right away…All we need is wise global governance and a vast number of cattle-trucks!!
(some sarc.)
You’ll have to drag me out of Florida kicking and screaming. It is about time old Darwin woke up and created skein that was adaptable to a more mobile population.
They’ll be lots of kicking and screaming involved. Guaranteed.
But, we cannot let individual preferences and so called “libertarian free market philosophy” stand in the way of our plan to create a new utopian global regime based on “scientific principles”.
And yes, I expect that in 100K years the skin of man will adapt to light levels like “transitions” sunglasses.
Maybe, we could help it along by experimentally combining our genes with those of a squid.
The results would be entertaining, even if not at all successful.
@Idefatigablefrog:
Dark skin increases rickets in the polar areas.
Light skin increases skin cancer in equatorial areas.
Both pressures work as selective in the wild. (I.e. whithout vitamin pills and sunscreen).
The selective pressure is a math function.
The answer is that whites in equatorial areas become blacks and blacks near the poles become white in about 25000 years.
Selection works and skin color does change. Just slowly for genetic shifts. (Tanning much faster).
BTW, the widespread use of clothing is a big pressure to lighter skin everywhere. A pale redhead in the far north can get enough Vit D from 20 min. of sun on the face only. Extreme adaptation for dark cold clothed cloudy nordic climate. In less overcast Siberia the skin tends darker. YMMV based on diet, clothing, and genetics… but not too much….
@indefatigablefrog: I recall a package trip to the south of France from the usually gloomy UK. Participants of West Indies extraction laughing at “whities” slapping on sunscreen, then after a day or two having to rush off to get their own supply. Doesn’t matter what colour your skin, if you are not used to the sun, you’ll burn.
“The daily use of sunscreen bearing an SPF of 15 or higher is widely acknowledged as essential to skin cancer prevention, ”
This is simply wrong. SPFs 15 or higher essentially prevent tanning altogether, as 15 means the number of hours you would have to stay in the sun to get the equivalent of 1 hour of unprotected sunlight. As sunlight is available at full strength for a much shorter period each day and all temporary damage is fixed within 6 hours of exposure, SPFs of 15 to 30 prevent tanning. SPF 30 means you will not tan.
This means that the first time you go outside unprotected for some unpredictable reason, you are going to get badly burned, and such burns set the stage for skin cancer.
However, the best skin defense is to use your natural defenses as well as a moderate sunscreen. So, develop a decent tan and protect yourself with a SPF 6 or 8. This was you are safe from accidental exposures that might otherwise result in a serious burn. Basically, start the summer with SPF 8 and moderate, controlled exposure times, working up to longer and/or lowering the SPF to 6.
I don’t know how SPF numbers are determined, but I’ve gotten burned using SPF 20, was NOT swimming, and I reapplied after about 3 hours. Still got burned.
If I wear less than SPF 40 while spending the day hiking in CO at 10’000’+, I too will get burned.
You have to apply it as much as an hour before going into the sun.
Most people put it on once they are on the beach or beside the pool.
Vitamin D protects us from numerous diseases.
The amount we get in half an hour of sun exposure on our skin is on the order of 20,000 i.u..
Recommended daily allowance is 400 i.u.
This is enough to prevent rickets, but do little of the numerous other functions that we need vitamin D for.
Think about all the humans who ever lived before recent times…almost everyone spent a lot of time out of doors, even in winter in northern climes.
Nowadays, some people never get any sun on thier skin, and if they do go out they wear a wide brimmed hat, giant sunglasses, head to toe clothing and or sunscreen…preventing the normal input of something every human used to get plenty of!
The aesthetic appeal of s healthy person is based on millions of years of evolution telling our brain what characteristics to look for in a potential mate or hunting partner. People who are healthy and have good genes usually look great…advertising their fitness.
So, in light of this, why does anyone suppose tan people look healthy and pale people look like they are on death’s doorstep?
Large amounts of vitamin D are so important for health and survival fitness, that people who migrated to high latitudes and perpetually cloudy regions lost most or all of the melanin from their skin.
Those who did not so adapt did not pass on their genes very successfully.
Ditto but reverse for lightly complected people in tropical latitudes/ perennially sunny locales.
Of course, such adaptation and genetic weeding takes time…a few generations just give a glimpse of the ultimate result of such selection.
People in northern regions get more cancer, except those who spend a lot of time outside…like farmers.
Why would we white guys want to get a tan ?? You should try the mountains for serious sunburn; not the beach.
g
While I support your numbers in theory, my wife will burn in a couple of hours even when using SPF50+. My point is everyone has different skin, and needs different amounts of protection.
She will not if properly applied the correct amount and interval before exposure.
The SPF number i.e. 15 means you can tolerate 15 times more sun than without. If you “burn” in 15 minutes it will take 3.75 hours with SPF 15. This is more a “rule of thumb” than precise and can vary between different individuals. The real risk is not re-applying frequently enough. Effectiveness will vary over time and activity.
The more we learn, the more we learn that we need to learn more.
And the more public grant money we need…
I see you are learning.
/grin
Commercial sunsceen is also toxic for humans, there are better alternatives.
Which is why you shouldn’t drink the stuff.
It absorbs through the skin and ends up in your urine….no need to drink it.
Dose makes the poison.
“Widely acknowledged” = scientific myth like fat makes you fat, and anti-bacterial soaps, creams, lotions, hand-sanitizers, etc. keep you from getting sick. The list of things people have been sold that are supposedly good for them is probably a mile long, but in addition to unnecessarily costing untold sums of money, they may in fact cause more harm than good.
I am so happy for my LCHF-lifestyle. Not only did I lose my type 2-diabetes and 40 kg, I also don’t need any sun screen anymore. Tested that theory @ur momisugly Gran Canaria last year. Three whole days at the beach, in Speedos. No burn. Yeay, I’m coral safe!
LCHF? lard Cheese Hotdogs Fries? Light Carrots Hair Fragrance? On wonders…
So why is the coral not all dead? Last time I looked, the coral in the USVI was doing just fine.
“Suntan lotion kills coral” sounds familiar. Have we seen this before? Recycled alarmism, very ecological of them.
Yes, we have seen this before. Visit the Wikipedia page on oxybenzone. Reference 26: Than, Ker. “Swimmers’ Sunscreen Killing Off Coral”. National Geographic News. National Geographic News. Retrieved January 29, 2008.
I have no doubts that their conclusions hold at high concentrations. However, “toxic” means “make sick” not “kill outright”, so you would just see mild damage caused by the occasional wave of excessive contact with tourists. However, this would make them more sensitive to other environmental factors.
On the other hand, a sewer system overflow could definitely a large quantity of damage, from heavy metals to algael blooms
The problem as I see it is the low concentration that they are claiming to see effects (plus “endocrine disruption”, which has been abused horribly in the past to draw conclusions from stupidly low concentrations). That reeks of false positives and overinterpretation of zeros.
“The researchers found concentrations of oxybenzone in the US Virgin Islands to be 23 times higher than the minimum considered toxic to corals.”
As coral reefs thrive on the current of seawater through their structures, are they trying to tell us that the entire area is polluted with this chemical? Otherwise it is likely that the concentration was very transient and tilted out rapidly by the flow through.
Maybe the researchers were thinking of banning tourists from the Virgin Islands so they can conduct their research in peace and private.
Bruce
I have to agree. I stopped using sunscreen more that twenty years ago. Since I stopped I haven’t had a sunburn that I can remember and I haven’t taken any special precautions to avoid the sun. I the cancer and sunscreen tales are just B**l S**t we are told just to sell us another useless item. My list of these useless items is getting quite long.
That second last line should read ” I think the cancer and sunscreen tales are b**l s**t we are told to sell us another useless item.”
If any bit of information ever needed to be hushed up, this is it. If word of this gets out, chicks will stop wearing bikinis!
Oh, the humanity!
Now that would be cruel !!!!
Have no fear, there’s always the “facekini”. Coming to a beach near you: http://www.weather.com/news/news/facekini-photos-20140826
Great for bank robbers!
Crack me up! Imagine what you look like after you come back from a day at the beach wearing your facekini !! . . . you walk around for days looking like a raccoon!
Larry whether it is bad or not would depend on what is meant by “stop wearing bikinis”. If I read the statement one way the beach will be boring, but looked at another way it could mean I will be spending a lot of time at the beach 🙂
We also have to ask about the conditions of the exposure. They indicate the concentration, but what was the exposure time. As water moves through the reef, such concentrations will be transient. We do not know what the time course of the experimental exposure was, which is very important. Transient exposures would be much less damaging, for sure.
Also, it beggars the imagination to make sweeping statements of coral in the US Virgin Islands. Are we talking about a specific bathing beach or all of the reefs in the area? It would be hard to imagine the wold US Virign Islands under such a condition would see such pollution.
[Typos fixed. ~mod.]
Don’t you hate not being able to edit your posts !!! LOL
Um. .yup!
pre-view would be a huge benefit.
Back on topic, this is about one compound used in sunblock and by one researcher, no offense intended Dr. Downs but I’m not going to get too excited until this is replicated by a few other researchers, it could be a spurious result for what anybody knows.
There are numerous other UVA-B sunblock ingrediants that haven’t been studied as well.
My exact thoughts Paul.
If you fixed all the typos, can you explain what is a “wold US Virign”?
Whatever next. It is all the enzyme ptyalin in global climate change drivel that is killing the coral.
“They also found that oxybenzone damaged the DNA of the corals, neutering their ability to reproduce and setting off a widespread decline in coral populations.” @62 PPT ! ! no one reading this thought of the fact that it is spread all over young children and young adults of child bearing age at levels measured in parts per hundred. Can only say I am glad I have NEVER used or pushed my kids to use sun screen,
“1.426 parts per billion? Just how did they manage to measure all of these amounts?”
In the laboratory studies to find the minimum toxic level they were adding it to the seawater, so they did not need to measure it. They found that by adding 60ppt they could measure a toxic effect. In the “real ” samples from BVI and Hawaii, they measured from approximately 1ug/L, or 1 ppb. The abstract does not say the analytical method they used, but solid phase adsorption followed by HPLC with UV detection has been reported to have detection limits of 1ppb, and that is using very standard analytical apparatus.
Because sunscreens are powerful UV absorbers, UV detection is very sensitive for them.
I seem to have replied to the wrong person – the above was to AtheoK below.
Such suffering during research!
U.S. Virgin Islands!?
23 times 62 parts per trillion works out to what? 1.426 parts per billion?
Just how did they manage to measure all of these amounts?
I suppose it would be too much to assume their time spent sampling tropical coral waters without wearing sunscreen? Given their severe adherence to laboratory standards in so many world class beach and coral habitats; surely there is some guarantee that their samples are pristine uncontaminated laboratory quality?
Given their belief in sunscreen lethality, they assuredly know that anyone on the ‘team’ or boat wearing any sunscreen whatsoever for quite some time has likely contaminated their samples. 62 parts per trillion or a drop in six and one half swimming pools or is that one bead of researchers sweat or slip of a finger…
Then. Then!
They willing poison threatened species and claim moral superiority while doing it!
Extreme claims require extreme proof and absolutely independent replication!
Did I mention that I want to be a verifier during the independent replications!? Either U.S. Virgin Islands or Australia will work for me, I do not mind.
yes, yes, I volunteer to go as part of the “control” group. Never have used sun screen just a minor bit of “rose” for the first three days of summer and never a burn thereafter. Where do we apply for the grant?
We need a cap & trade scheme for sun lotion. The science is settled. We are nearing a tipping point and need to take action now or all the worlds reefs will perish! Make those evil sunbathers pay for SPF credits. /sarc
That would be racist…only white people need sunscreen ……yup, the liberals will love it !!!!
In the golf business we even have sunscreen for our turf! Main ingredients zinc and titanium oxides. We spray on the greens and it reduces the damage from solar radiation that can harm very short cut turf (100″). Comes in 2.5 gal jugs that weigh 36 lbs. Should be enough to spray a whole beach of fair-skinned tanners and maybe a few elephants to boot.
http://turfscreen.com/products/
Set up a spraying booth at the beach, charge a reasonable fee. Reapply for a half fee every 2-3 hours or after swimming. You can even add “shark repellent” which could be anything cheap. Just be sure you are at a beach where there has never been a shark attack when selling the “shark repellent additive”.
100 inches !!!!!
Big fingers and clumsy .100 or 2.5mm OR less than 2 dimes…stuff does seem to work well after testing, sprayed turf has much less stress from long hot summer days
Benzophenone-3/Oxybenzone is an obsolete filter molecule, not any more (10-20 years) used in Europe. We have and use far superior UVA filters, which the FDA just not seems willing to release in the US. IMHO, B-3 should be banned.
The main problem with sunscreen is once again low information people. It is commonly thought that if you are using sunscreen you stay out in the sun as long as you like. Not so. When a person gets a slight to medium burn, it is painful to go back out in the sun until it heals. That is the natural way of letting you know “Hey pal, you got too much of a good thing, lay low for a while”. Use of sunscreen is like taking pain killers for an untreated injury. It stops the hurt but doesn’t stop you from continuing to use the injured part. Eventually it becomes severe and permanently damaged.
OXYBENZONE:
——–
Measurements of oxybenzone in seawater within coral reefs
in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands, for example, found
concentrations ranging from 800 parts per trillion
to 1.4 parts per million. This is over 12 times
higher than the concentrations necessary to impact
on coral.
Between 6,000 and 14,000 tons of sunscreen lotion are
emitted into coral reef areas each year, much of which
contains between one and 10% oxybenzone.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-scientific-study-finds-coral-reefs-under-attack-from-chemical-in-sunscreen-as-global-bleaching-event-hits-300162399.html
———
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
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00244-015-0227-7
I can see effects at 1.4 ppm. Not buying the ppt levels.
Thanks for the links.