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.
Yet another AGW myth dispelled!
We use a product called P20 by Riemann, you apply it once and it lasts for 10 hours, the wearer can go out in the sun 30 minutes after applying it, you can shower after it has been on for 30 minutes and still no sunburn. My wife is brunette, but fairly fair skinned I am blond our children are too. the only time we have ever burned is by not concentrating when applying it and then just a small patch of skin. We have used it in Morocco, Spain, Florida, California and Hawaii. It reacts with the dead skin which everyone has as a top layer and forms a protective barrier. I would guess the formulation will not affect the ecology of coral.
PS I have absolutely no financial links with Riemann (or Big Oil)
Andrewmharding, P20 by Reimann contains, among other things, Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane, Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate, Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate and/or Diethylexyl Butamido Triazone depending on SP factor.
I don’t know if these have any effect on coral ecology, but I think we could not dismiss the possibility without testing.
Having visited the Virgin Islands and Caribbean most years in the last 31 years I have seen a significant degradation in coral colonies there. We charter sailboats and have access to remote reefs that many people do not. The most damage appears to be closest to the largest population centers. The harder it is to get to the reef, the better condition they appear to be.
That is because the biggest reef threat in the Carribean (and Florida) is runoff pollution. The organic matter decomposes and produces trace hydrogen sulfide (H2S, swamp gas) dissolved in seawater. Marine organisms are exquisitely sensitive; the metabolic result is the same as cyanide in mammals, blocked oxygen uptake. The hydrogen sulfide LD50 for corals, shrimp, and crabs is just 35ppb. Essay Shell Games gives more details. This fact lies behind the bogus Milne Bay ‘coral acidification’ paper arguably comprising academic misconduct.
The hydrogen sulfide LD50 for corals, shrimp, and crabs is just 35ppb.
=======================
Do you have reference in support of that claim, Rud?
In Yellowstone there are species of algae that can survive in water that’s near boiling.
So obviously all animals can survive water that’s near boiling.
In Yellowstone there are species of algae that can survive in water that’s near boiling.
So obviously all animals can survive water that’s near boiling.
= = = = = =
According to Rud, corals,crabs and shrimp die in droves (50% mortality) when subjected to only 35 parts per billion of H2S.
So obviously, corals, crabs and shrimp can’t survive and flourish in water enriched to 210 ppm.
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2005/a2/finalwebsite/environ/geo/ventchem.shtml
(Despite the fact some surely do.)
If you could supply a reference to some real-world evidence in support of a limited version of Rud’s claim Mark, in which a subset of the named species suffer, I’d appreciate it.
Perhaps the corals themselves should be using the sunscreen. After a short while, they would adapt to it, and thus the approaching thermageddon (like a million suns) would not even faze them. As for sealevel rising by hundreds of meters — also no problem: simply install solar-powered hydraulic jacks underneath each reef and set the switch to “up only”.
Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog and commented:
Had seen this reported about a month ago or so. Makes sense to me.
Australia has plentiful sunlight, but the “slip, slop, slap” message – basically use sunscreen, shirt & hat – is so entrenched that Australia is the vitamin-D deficiency capital of the world. But when that was discovered, did the “slip, slop, slap” people apologize for putting the wrong message out? No, they just doubled up with extra government funding.
So, rather than calling for a reduction in use of this vitamin-D deficiency and coral-bleaching causing chemical, I expect that they will simply attack the study & double up on the message again.
yup
unless its biopsied a whole lotta spots called cancer precancer arent
but
it bumps their stats up..
like the bullshit mammograms
for real skin cancer melanomas use BEC5
search it
144$ for 20ml
it removes melanomas
seriously
Man, this is a great thread. The research is questionable in my estimation (62 ppt!!! how clean are all the steps in getting the coral, preparing it, measuring it – 62ppt = 9 metres divided by the distance to the sun). But the powerhouse knowledge that is drawn forth here is a goldmine. I too have been skeptical about several things related to sun tans and skin cancer, ozone layers, etc.
As mentioned, farmers making hay, etc. for 40 years puts them up there for exposure and they largely seem to be healthy. How can the ozone hole in Antarctica put sunbathers at risk. Any NASA image of the ozone on the globe shows the hole surrounded by a “rolled” collar of thicker ozone and the sunny destinations are normal. Also, I’m 78 and grew up on the prairies where it may be 40 below in winter, but goes over a 100 in the summer. I delivered newspapers as a kid and that put me out in the sun, without a hat and with a T-shirt and shorts and even bare feet sometimes.
I think there is something to the idea that we now shower and scrub ourselves of our natural oils and vitamin A and block off our sweat glands with deodorant gel, wear all these miracle fibers, etc. I never saw a bottle of sunscreen for the first 40 years and I don’t remember skin cancer being something I even knew about until recent decades. Of course, I never saw anyone allergic to peanut butter, either – this was a staple in lunches of every school kid in my day. I believe we have let a lot of bunk become “wisdom” in this world over the past half a century and fear mongering has made us wimpy. Athsma is thought by some to be from stress – and we are constantly bombarded with scary stuff. I pretty much resist most of it.
According to the National Cancer Institute’s- Agricultural Health Study-
“However, compared with the general population, the rates for certain diseases, including some types of cancer, appear to be higher among agricultural workers, which may be related to exposures that are common in their work environments. For example, farming communities have higher rates of leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma, as well as cancers of the skin, lip, stomach, brain, and prostate.”
Gary, I also grew up barefooted, and running around outside all summer. But our yard was surrounded by huge trees, and I had a treehouse, so I spent a lot of time in the shade. Being a fairskinned redhead, I burned easily, and got sun stroke quickly, so I learned to stay OUT of the sun for my own sake. My father never used a sun screen in his life, but spent his retirement from the military fishing, golfing, and doing outdoor chores, and he developed skin cancer in his 50’s.
My father being one man doesn’t prove much, just like you being one man who’s experience was different doesn’t prove much. We all have unique genetic makeups and none of us respond to the sun in exactly the same way.
This study doesn’t have anything to do with how “clean” steps were in “getting the coral, preparing it, measuring it – 62ppt = 9 metres divided by the distance to the sun).” etc.
The scientists in this study apparently exposed healthy coral to varying amounts of oxybenzone in controlled, laboratory conditions to see if it caused problems for the coral. They found that the LOWEST concentration of oxybenzone that caused a toxic response from the coral was 62 ppt in water; “equivalent to a drop of water in six and a half Olympic-sized swimming pools,”. Then they went out to coral reefs and took samples of the WATER around those reefs and measured the amount of oxybenzone in those samples-which came back at much higher concentrations than 62ppt.
Rather than measuring a concentration of 62 ppt, it’s easier to get there via serial dilution. Create a 1% solution, and use successive dilution to get down to any concentration you wish. Using volumetric flasks of 1 litre and 100 ml, you can get to the ppt level with 10 dilutions.
Sun exposure isn’t the be-all end-all of skin cancer, but the cause and effect is extremely well supported. The advertisements of sunblock, not so much (SPF above 15 is so poorly regulated that it’s effectively meaningless, and the reapplication requirements vary so much between people that it really should be on a case by case basis. For me, every two hours is horribly excessive). The key is realistically: don’t let yourself get burned. The burn is the damage, and damage to any area (especially burns in general) makes it more prone to cancer.
However, also remember. 100 years ago, living to 60 was a rarity, and living to 80 made you ancient. Now, 80 is a fine but not uncommon feat. Cancer growth accellerates with age, so an aging population will by definition be more cancerous. Finally, diagnosis has greatly increased as well, leading to apparent growth on top of real growth.
Let’s not skip skepticism and rush headlong into cynical nihilism. There is a gap between science and marketing, but the science itself is not insignificant or really ambiguous on this matter.
Lots of articles on children with rickets in Scotland caused by overly cautious mothers slathering on the sunblock. Personally during the winter months, living in Southern Vermont, I take 12000 iu of liquid D3 daily. And the winter months means November through May.
A weasel word in the first paragraph. Not a good sign.
This hypothesis looks quite easy to test: do the places where coral bleaches correlate with the places where white people swim or where their effluents go? FWIW I’m suspicious of this hypothesis, as I am of the “ocean acidification” coral bleaching hypothesis.
Mike Jonas,
It might be even easier to test:
Find the places where coral bleaching has taken place (or if it’s everywhere, find the locations where bleaching is most severe).
Then find out if those places are used for public swimming (or for any swimming). Find out who uses the places where corals have bleached. Also, compare each year over the past, say, twenty years.
I think you would find that bleaching has nothing to do with melanin.
dbstealey-
“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”
Did you catch the second part? “Submarine freshwater seeps that can be contaminated with sewage”. So people who are NOT swimming or snorkeling just offshore, but wearing sunscreen, take showers that wash that sunscreen down the drain, into the “sewage system” of some islands, and that water goes out to sea again. Now think about cruise ships. Federal law requires that cruise ships only dump treated wastewater (vs pure untreated sewage) if they are within three nautical miles of shore. How much sunscreen is used on a cruise ship, showered off into their wastewater, and then dumped before the ship gets too close to land?
Mike Jonas-
While light skinned people tend to be the wearers of sunscreen, darker skinned people also get sunburned. Bob Marley died from a melanoma on his foot that eventually metastasized inside him. Death by cancer on the inside, caused by cancer on the outside.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Naturally, the Green Cultists will demand a “national conversation” on suntan oil, with calls for “commonsense regulation.” George Hamilton, beware!
No need. Just turn off the Sun. No skin cancer. No CAGW. No one left to be harmed.
If the IPCC “et al” know what controls and how to control Climate, they must know how to control ol’ Sol.
Similar thing happened with frogs- they were “victims of climate change”. Turned out the researchers were transmitting the lethal chytridiomycosis infection.
Cretins.
On holiday in the Yucatan peninsular we were told not to use sun tan lotions as it killed the coral. That was in 2001!
So instead of “Save the Whales” we should now “Save the Coral and the Skin Cancer”?
I used to think that these people thought that “2+2=5”. Now I’m not so sure they know what “+” means.
More fun info-
National Geographic was talking about Sunscreen killing coral reefs 7 years ago in 2008-
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080129-sunscreen-coral.html
“Humans can absorb anywhere from 0.4% to 8.7% of oxybenzone after one topical application of sunscreen, as measured in urine excretions. This number can increase after multiple applications over the same period of time.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2005.07007.x/abstract;jsessionid=369243F105F39C2534D8E202D4E12213.f01t01
Benzophenones are used in hairspray, sunscreen, fragrances, cosmetics, nail polish, and in plastic food containers as an ultraviolet light absorber and stabilizer, and as a hardener in resins like Plexiglass and Lucite. Surfboards, scuba gear, boats….this stuff is everywhere.
This is about the stupidest thing I’ve ever read…
…people keep coral reefs in their houses for God’s sake!
http://www.aquariumdesigngroup.com/data/photos/68_1aquarium_reeftank_fishtank.jpg
Ocean transplanted reefs or domesticated? Ask ANYONE who has owned a seawater tank about the lifespan of their coral and fish. Ask them how easy it is to balance the right coral with the right fish with the right lighting with the right ph balance and get the correct food chain going. Ask them how many tank die offs it took them to give up on having a sea water tank. I’ll wait.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wE6FLMHFDa4/maxresdefault.jpg
so the point was totally lost on you………..
Obviously we need more sharks to keep more people from going to the beach and into the water.
(That or make watching “Jaws” compulsory each spring each year at all levels of public education.)
+10
This kind of puts the “greatest existential threat to mankind” of global warming in perspective.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/10/20/fright-night-flyby-skyscraper-sized-asteroid-will-pass-earth-on-halloween.html?intcmp=hpbt4
Meh. I guess I’ll eat all of the Halloween candy now before we all die.
Hasn’t it all melted from the Glo.Bull Warming ????
Meh, passing much closer to Venus than Earth…
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2015%20TB145&orb=1
Eh, wrong. It’s Mercury in 2022.
Mebbe…
Meh, wrong year
Didn’t bother reading but I hope it’s an old article since we’ve known this for twenty years.
Everybody is missing the whole point. The supposed effects of AGW is not the only thing that is potentially harmful to coral reefs. There, simple. Or let me put it another way. Getting hit by a car is not the only way you can die suddenly.
So you still think that CO2 is bad for coral?
Perhaps there is a Halloween costume or three in this somewhere.
We have Dr. Downs of Heretics Environmental Laboratories, with coral embryos encased in their own skeletons, bleaching, mouths five time larger than usual, unable to live in the sea. And the little drop of the XXXXX chemical in your skin protection product.
Frightful.
Sunscreen causing coral angst. Not new…
2008
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080129-sunscreen-coral.html
And the solution? …Not difficult, a sunscreen without the nasties
A lot of them are 1960’s zinc oxide wrapped in 21st century feel good “natural ingredients”
But they do the job.
http://www.alertdiver.com/Sunscreens-Coral-Bleaching
http://www.thesurfchannel.com/slide/top-10-all-natural-sunscreens-for-surfers/
Here’s a blog by a biochemist that pooh poohs the fear about oxybenzone. The authors he quotes for the chemophobic stuff on human endocrine, DNA, reproductive hormone interference (all mentioned in this corals are gonna die article). He points to the enormous dosages (50,000ppm) used in the studies reckoning that you would have to eat it by the spoonful and yes, it does occur naturally as an aromatic in flowers and other plant parts!! Gee a few posies by the sea side may be wiping out the Great Barrier Reef.
http://justlikecooking.blogspot.ca/2012/05/sunscreen-chemophobia-oxybenzone.html
Do tell how you will save the coral from sunscreen by replacing it with Toxic xxxxxxxx Heavy Metals XXX which will give the forams mouths ten times bigger than an environmentalist, and make them into green bone head and Mr Yuk shapes.
Women are going to have to cover up. They are just not going to know what bathing suits are.
“This study was sponsored by ‘Organoblock’ manufacturers of sunblock that doesn’t contain the above chemical…”
Leo Smith October 20, 2015 at 8:03 pm
“This study was sponsored by ‘Organoblock’ manufacturers of sunblock that doesn’t contain the above chemical…”
“This study sponsored by Tom’s organic switch grass toothpaste. Try it on your nose next time at the beach. For further results invest in the only product that is legal since the others were regulated out of existence yay”
The definitive word on the noxious nature of oxybenzone comes from the trio of NOWAY satellites orbiting the Earth at 37,329 km above the 1982 global mean sea-level.
Multiple sensors and an astonishingly complex array of charge coupled devices isolate the signature emissions of these enigmatic molecules as they migrate from the surface of pallid people to the precarious polyps of the world’s coral reefs.
Although the precision of the sensors is not sufficient to actually capture the interactions of oxybenzone and the polypeptides that it imperils, the satellites clearly reveal the incremental reduction in the molecule’s concentration as the polyp mouths inexorably close.
The satellite sensors are continually calibrated by Earth-bound super computers taking advantage of week-end idle time. Algorithms are applied to the most recent data from on-line advertising and travel periodicals, indicating the raw mass of humanity migrating towards sea-side destinations within 20 kilometres of known coral reefs; thus providing a robust proxy for input of oxybenzone into this incredibly fragile eco-system.
Skeptics claim that, without including homogenized, regional sun-block sales in the preceding 13.7 months, the results are not unambiguous.
This is exactly what we are finding in Hawaii. It is a disease, a chemical or both. The Warmists have driven the research and rewarded the nut cases with stupid grants for three years while actual causation is put aside for looney left political goals re CGW.
They are insane. The Warmists are crazy!
Duh. Wear a shirt when you snorkel. Sunscreen is poison to us too.