[HN Gopher] A common sunscreen ingredient turns toxic in the sea...
___________________________________________________________________
A common sunscreen ingredient turns toxic in the sea - anemones
suggest why
Author : gmays
Score : 142 points
Date : 2022-05-10 14:12 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| ravenstine wrote:
| I never use sunscreen at the ocean, both because I just hate
| putting it on and because I always thought it was probably not
| the best thing to put that crap directly into the ecosystem.
| Unless I'm spending a ton of time at the beach, which rarely
| happens, I feel like I can deal with an hour or so of that kind
| of sun exposure every now and then.
|
| If one is spending a ton of time in the sun, then yeah, use
| sunscreen. Since I'm indoors most of the time, I rarely find
| sunscreen that helpful. Anecdotally, I think I became more sun
| tolerant after changing my diet. In short, I highly limit eating
| processed foods and stick to meat and some plants that are low in
| natural defense chemicals. Since that's a low-inflammatory diet,
| maybe that explains it. But I'm purely speculating.
| fullstop wrote:
| I would look like a tomato if I were exposed to 1 hour of mid-
| day sun at the beach.
| nkingsy wrote:
| I burn about as easily as anyone, but 20 mins on each side
| with my face and neck covered doesn't result in a burn for
| me.
|
| I do wear mineral sunscreen on my face, neck and arms for
| normal outdoor activities.
| fullstop wrote:
| The sunlight reflecting off of the water and the sand
| doesn't help.
| dymk wrote:
| Getting the sunburn has nothing to do with your body's
| inflammatory response.
|
| Like, taking aspirin won't keep you from getting sunburnt. Same
| way it won't prevent you from getting burned if you touch a hot
| stove. It makes no sense.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Sunburns are _absolutely_ an inflammatory response. Nearly
| any given academic literature will state that it is
| definitively. It 's dumbfounding how you state sunburns have
| "nothing to do with inflammation." Feel free to check out the
| links I'll add below for more info.
|
| Second, yeah, _of course_ aspirin won 't stop sunburns.
| Sunburns, being _inflammatory_ , are caused by _damage_. In
| particular, the inflammation is responding to damage from UV
| radiation. Aspirin can only somewhat reduce inflammation
| after the damage has taken place, but it can do nothing to
| prevent the damage itself.
|
| As inflammation is a response to damage, and nothing (known)
| about any diet can stop UV damage, so yeah, you are right
| that my diet won't prevent sunburn. It's not like I actually
| said that it would in the first place. The idea is that if
| one doesn't already have a level of inflammation then
| something like a sunburn won't get as aggravated or
| aggravated as quickly. As I said in my original comment, it's
| _speculation_. I just don 't think it's as farfetched as you
| seem to believe per your aspirin-stove analogy.
|
| ---
|
| "Sunburn" (Encyclopedia Britannica)
|
| https://www.britannica.com/science/sunburn
|
| > sunburn, acute cutaneous inflammation caused by
| overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation of the so-called
| UVB wavelength band
|
| "Sunburn" (National Library of Medicine)
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534837/#_article-29684.
| ..
|
| > UVA and UVB rays both play a role in sunburn, though UVB
| rays are responsible for directly damaging DNA by inducing
| the formation of thymine-thymine cyclobutane dimers.[6] When
| these dimers are formed, the body generates a DNA repair
| response, which includes the induction of apoptosis of cells
| and the release of inflammatory markers such as
| prostaglandins, reactive oxygen species, and bradykinin. This
| leads to vasodilation, edema, and pain which translates into
| the classically red, painful skin seen in a sunburn.
| Additionally, skin exposure to UVB causes an increase in
| chemokines such as CXCL5 and activates peripheral
| nociceptors, which results in over-activation of the pain
| receptors of the skin.
|
| "What Inflammation Is And Why Is It Dangerous?" (Harvard
| Medical Publishing)
|
| https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/what-is-
| infla...
|
| > But sometimes this immune response occurs when it
| shouldn't. It can be triggered, for example, when you are
| exposed to toxins, and by other causes such as chronic
| stress, obesity, and autoimmune disorders. In these cases,
| instead of moving in, healing the problem, and then returning
| to normal, the inflammation persists over time. It's thought
| that this chronic state of inflammation can lead to numerous
| health problems, including heart disease, arthritis,
| depression, Alzheimer's disease, and even cancer.
| dymk wrote:
| That's a whole lot of links that make no connection between
| a low-inflammation diet and getting sunburnt. So you're
| right, I'm dumbfounded. Why would you think there's a
| connection there? Maybe it hurts less, but you're still
| doing damage to your skin.
|
| Again, it's like thinking taking asprin (an anti-
| inflammatory!) is going to prevent the sunburn itself. The
| mechanism of a sunburn is like touching a hot pan, not an
| allergic reaction or a bruise. It'll make it feel less
| painful, sure! But you're still sunburnt.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Actually aspirin totally does have a powerful effect on
| sunburns... the aspirin probably doesn't actually protect
| your skin from damage, but it reduces the painful
| inflammation afterwards, which is the part we actually feel
| and consider a 'sunburn.' I know several people that take
| aspirin instead of using sunscreen.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Symptomatic relief is great, but isn't the real worry skin
| cancer?
| hadlock wrote:
| Oxybenzone studies have in the past been funded by a sunscreen
| company in hawaii, and used those to push for the ban of
| Oxybenzone sunscreen sales in Hawaii. Since Hawaii is an island,
| everyone needs to buy sunscreen on arrival after landing at the
| airport. Oxybenzone studies have been questioned previously based
| on the amount used in sunscreen, dilution in The Ocean, and those
| used in the study. Follow the money.
| dave5104 wrote:
| > Since Hawaii is an island, everyone needs to buy sunscreen on
| arrival after landing at the airport.
|
| If you're implying this is somehow enforced at the airport,
| this is not even remotely true.
|
| Source: Brought my own sunscreen from outside of Hawaii and
| used it all last week while visiting.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| I think the implication instead is you can't carry on
| sunscreen since it's a liquid, so you'd have to buy when you
| get there. But you're right, if you're checking a bag, you
| can bring all the sunscreen you feel like schlepping.
| ocschwar wrote:
| Confirmed that enforcement is lax.
|
| And also that there is a horrifying amount of broken coral
| washing ashore at Waikiki.
| dave5104 wrote:
| I'm still having trouble finding any sort of indication
| that there's a law on the books that prohibits travelers
| from bringing whatever sunscreen they want into the state
| via air (or boat, I suppose). Nothing on banning possession
| either. Do you have a source?
|
| Best I can find is that Hawaii prohibits the _sale_ of
| sunscreens containing oxybenzone or octinoxate, which took
| effect in 2021.
|
| https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Archives/measure_indiv_Archi
| v...
| robocat wrote:
| For better technical details see
| https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/05/corals-convert-sunsc...
|
| TLDR: oxybenzone from sunblock gets glucose attached, which turns
| oxybenzone into a UV light driven catalyst. The catalyst doesn't
| degrade, and the UV light catalyses biological molecules of the
| coral, damaging or killing the coral, particularly bleached coral
| lacking protective symbiotes.
| ODILON_SATER wrote:
| Check out EWG's sunscreen list, it rates sunscreens based on
| toxicity and UV protection.
|
| https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/
|
| They rate most products found in North America. It is my go-to
| resource for sunscreens
| nate wrote:
| Thanks for this! This explains so much. I've been allergic to
| various sunscreens for years, and now I see why :)
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| It was recently publicized that a lot of sunscreens (even
| popular ones like Neutrogena) have benzene. Choose one
| without it:
|
| https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/cancer-causing-
| compounds...
| simiones wrote:
| How toxic can this be, compared to the enormous dilution it would
| reach in the ocean?
|
| If this is indeed a major cause of the coral reef issues, I would
| expect that there is some entity dumping large amounts of the
| stuff directly into the ocean. Intuitively it seems very unlikely
| that the amount that will wash off swimmer's skin would be a
| major contributor, at least for anything that is not living right
| next to the beach side.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| Living organisms are SUPER sensitive to chemical and
| temperature changes. The fact that oil spills, algae blooms
| from ag runoff have wide reaching effects shows that dilution
| is not as significant as we want it to be in making problems go
| away.
| shakezula wrote:
| Not to mention places like Hawaii have outlawed certain
| chemicals in sunscreens specifically because of these types
| of issues. It's not really a question of if anymore but how
| much and how bad.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| People have also outlawed plastic straws, for no good
| reason whatsoever, while doing less than nothing to stop
| plastic pollution from fishing equipment.
|
| Making it seem like you're doing something for the
| environment while not doing anything hard can win plenty of
| points.
| hall0ween wrote:
| Yea. If it's not a perfect solution, let's do nothing!
|
| Where have people outlawed these straws, and what is your
| source for it (if it happened) doing less than nothing?
| shakezula wrote:
| Nice (plastic) straw man argument that has absolutely
| nothing to do with sunscreen and it's effects on juvenile
| coral reefs [1] and other highly sensitive ocean
| ecosystems. Comparing the two is disingenuous.
|
| > outlawed plastic straws
|
| I'm assuming you're referring to Vancouver's single-use
| plastics reduction legislation. It's far too convenient
| to single out plastic straws and then claim it has done
| nothing when 1, it only went into effect in December 2021
| and 2, it covered much more than just straws.
|
| > while not doing anything
|
| [citation needed]
|
| 1. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/sunscreen-corals-
| noaa-stu...
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Comparing oil spills and agricultural runoff to skin residue
| is absurd. We're talking about trillions of times the
| quantity, if not more, even from a small oil spill.
|
| A whole tube of sunscreen has a few hundred grams, of which
| you only wear a fraction, which you then slowly dilute in
| many tens or hundreds of thousands of kilograms of water
| close to the shore. I'd doubt you get more than a few
| molecules ever reaching any particular organism.
| mrfusion wrote:
| 10 internet points if you can point me to a sunscreen that's
| sweat resistant, non greasy, and non toxic (physical)
|
| I've been trying to find one for months.
| easyat wrote:
| Lightweight clothing covering your skin is the best way
| dymk wrote:
| Unfortunately my hands, feet, neck, and ears sunburn easily,
| and can't really be covered when swimming or on the beach, so
| a sunscreen is still needed
| causi wrote:
| Zinc oxide for the best protection, titanium dioxide for
| less oil, less visibility, and less irritation of skin
| acne. At least 8% content for both. If you want to go
| expensive, La Roche-Posay Anthelios 60, if you want to go
| cheap try Coppertone Water Babies SPF 50 or Equate Ultra
| Protection SPF 50. Reapplying every few hours is important.
| alsdjfklasjdf wrote:
| beware with La Roche-Posay line! Well, most mega corp
| cosmetic chem corps have this exact same problem.
|
| They use the exact same brand/package design/names for
| completely different products, depending on where you
| are.
|
| For example, USA you get "Anthelios 60 Mineral", with 8%
| Ti dioxide and 6% zinc ox. In the EU you get 6% Ti diox
| and 12% zinc ox. In south america you get Oxybenzene and
| no minerals :shrug
|
| Now, guess which one you will end up getting on the
| cheaper listings on amazon even in the USA.
| dymk wrote:
| This is gold, thank you
| causi wrote:
| It absolutely is _not_. Thin clothing is bad at blocking UV.
| For example, a cotton t-shirt blocks 41% of UVA and 40% of
| UVB. That 's like wearing SPF 1.7 sunscreen, i.e., you're
| getting twenty times the UV exposure you'd get wearing bare-
| minimum SPF-15 sunscreen.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4414538/
| uncensoredjrk wrote:
| I am extremely sensitive to the sun and have NEVER been
| sunburned through a t-shirt or other layer of clothing. I
| still think it's a valid defense.
| m55au wrote:
| Did you just take two random numbers from that paper
| without reading any of it?
|
| Their black cotton shirt blocked >99% of both UVA and UVB
| and the white one roughly 90%.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Shiseido Ultimate Sun Protector Lotion SPF 50. It also is free
| of benzene, unlike many other sunscreens:
|
| https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/cancer-causing-compounds...
|
| warning: it is expensive but worth it
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| It's it possible to have sunscreen that is sweat-resistant and
| non-greasy?
| hadlock wrote:
| Coppertone Sport SPF 50 (in the blue bottle) seems to be the
| best I've found. It's used almost exclusively in the sailboat
| racing communities, particularly in sunny areas like south
| texas.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Not greasy?
| hadlock wrote:
| Not in my experience. The boat is a pretty active, highly
| dynamic place, you need a good grip, either on the boat to
| steady yourself, grabbing/working with lines (ropes) or
| working the winch handles. We wouldn't use it if it were
| greasy. EVERYBODY in the fleet uses coppertone sport spf
| 50. About six years ago I noticed that big box stores have
| started offering generic version in a similarly
| sized/shaped blue bottle, but can't confirm it's the exact
| same formula.
|
| It might be greasy for the first 5 minutes while it
| dries/cures but after that you don't know it's there. We
| usually reapply every 3-4 hours as we're in direct sun for
| 5-8 hours typically
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| It's a clear liquid spray.
| hadlock wrote:
| Comes in both lotion and spray types. Seems like spray is
| more popular on the east coast for whatever reason.
| Almost exclusively sold as a lotion in Texas based on my
| personal subjective experience.
| volkl48 wrote:
| Hero Cosmetics's line has worked pretty well for me (for a face
| sunscreen). Zinc oxide only, doesn't make me (a white guy) look
| ghostly.
| aryik wrote:
| Supergoop and kinship both make pretty great non toxic
| sunscreens.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| I hate sunscreen but I have pale skin that burns in an instant.
| I've been going for the mineral based products for the last few
| years. Though they are mostly greasy and need to be reapplied.
| xxpor wrote:
| Get some Korean/Japanese sunscreen from Stylevana.
|
| For example:
|
| https://www.stylevana.com/en_US/kao-biore-uv-aqua-rich-water...
|
| The watery gel stuff isn't approved by the FDA, but it feels a
| million times better than anything we can get here. Absorbs
| nearly instantly, doesn't feel greasy, and over SPF 50.
| dljsjr wrote:
| Contains benzene still so probably not what the parent
| comment is looking for.
| xxpor wrote:
| Another one I've used is
| https://www.stylevana.com/en_US/isntree-hyaluronic-acid-
| wate...
|
| Seems OK based on https://incidecoder.com/products/isntree-
| hyaluronic-acid-wat...
|
| They also say "Skin irritation test completed: Proven to be
| hypoallergenic with skin irritation index of 0.00"
| jabl wrote:
| I usually get some SPF 50+ kids sunscreen. The one I use has
| the downside that one looks like a mummy, but I guess that's
| the price one has to pay for physical protection (titanium
| dioxide usually IIRC).
|
| Personally I'm the kind that turns from ghastly pale into red-
| like-a-boiled-crab at the flick of a switch, so I tend to wear
| long-sleeved shirts and a wide-brimmed hat as much as possible
| in the summer.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Titanium dioxide is no longer considered safe as a food
| additive in the EU at least. Hopefully it's not as
| problematic on the outside of your body, but you never
| know...
| morsch wrote:
| I just hope the titanium dioxide is as non toxic as we hope,
| since it's damn hard to avoid, including in stuff that you
| put inside your body as opposed to just on it. I failed to
| get a toothpaste without it, but it's in other stuff I
| consume, too (for no particular reason other than optics).
| changoplatanero wrote:
| I learned that countries in Europe and Asia have better
| sunscreens because the bureaucracy of the FDA in America makes
| it too difficult to get those sunscreens imported here. I like
| using it though. If it's good enough for Europeans it's good
| enough for me.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| I think ISDIN carries those sorts of sunscreens:
| https://www.isdin.com/en/product/fotoprotector-
| isdin/fusion-...
|
| It was the first time I realized sunscreen doesn't need to be
| greasy and/or a thick paste that never absorbs. And my
| Mexican girlfriend pointed out that state of sunscreen tech
| is much better than what we have in the US.
|
| It blew my mind to use sunscreen that spreads like a watery
| cream that instantly absorbs and leaves behind no residue. I
| finally became a daily user.
| belval wrote:
| The comments here seems to be missing the point, yes the article
| is not technically clickbait, but it also explicitly mentions
| that while oxybenzone causes bleaching, it is not responsible for
| THE coral bleaching that we are seeing in most reefs around the
| world.
|
| > The study lacks "ecological realism", agrees Terry Hughes, a
| marine biologist at James Cook University in Townsville,
| Australia. Coral-bleaching events on Australia's Great Barrier
| Reef, for example, have been linked more closely to trends in
| water temperature than to shifts in tourist activity. "Mass
| bleaching happens regardless of where the tourists are," Hughes
| says. "Even the most remote, most pristine reefs are bleaching
| because water temperatures are killing them."
|
| And this gem as a final note:
|
| > Hughes emphasizes that the greatest threats to reefs remain
| rising temperatures, coastal pollution and overfishing. Changing
| sunscreens might not do much to protect coral reefs, Hughes says.
| "It's ironic that people will change their sunscreens and fly
| from New York to Miami to go to the beach," he says. "Most
| tourists are happy to use a different brand of sunscreen, but not
| to fly less and reduce carbon emissions."
| RRL wrote:
| Ref final note:
|
| Exactly. I have quite a few friends who regularly fly/travel to
| these scenic ocean/river systems, but will absolve themselves
| of concern because they're using some 'reef safe' sunscreen
| when they dip in to the water. Greenhouse gas emissions are
| always someone else's fault. Industry, diesel trucks, etc etc.
|
| They're also the same folks that attack Airbnb and
| gentrification at home, but are the first to jump on to the
| Airbnb moneyed expat lifestyle when traveling.
|
| At this point, it's not even worth the time to debate.
| jstanley wrote:
| > the same folks that attack Airbnb and gentrification at
| home, but are the first to jump on to the Airbnb moneyed
| expat lifestyle when traveling.
|
| Are you sure they're the same people?
|
| It is a classic mistake to lump everyone you've ever
| disagreed with into a single group and then lampoon the group
| for its contradictions.
| RRL wrote:
| This (subset) of the people who attack Airbnb and
| gentrification at home.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| I have certainly seen the very same people express concern
| about gentrification but then will also go out of their way
| to book airbnb or airbnb-style accommodations for travel
| because it feels more authentic than a hotel.
| gusgus01 wrote:
| This feels like a corollary of the concept of "Voting with
| your wallet", which is a debatable concept at best.
| Individual actions in the face of corporations like airlines
| and airbnb won't affect the company. It's only going to
| negatively impact your life. Working on systemic change is
| the answer.
| upsidesinclude wrote:
| Debatable at best? In what sense?
|
| There are a thousand examples of companies evaporating for
| exactly that reason.
|
| 'Systemic change' doesn't mean anything in reality. You
| can't destroy a national economic model and just replace it
| any more than you can make people spend money where they
| aren't going. Economies rely on travel and so travel has
| subsidy.
|
| During 2020 no one flew anywhere and the airlines were
| smashed with losses. That's not sustainable for any real
| length of time. If individuals cared to stop flying, they
| would and airlines would be bankrupt in 2-3 years. No
| amount of subsidy can maintain those organizations without
| broad customer support. The soviet infrastructure decline
| of the 80s is a perfect example of that process in action
| serf wrote:
| > Debatable at best? In what sense?
|
| in the sense that it's impossible to enact in a
| coordinated fashion without something cataclysmic like a
| plague to push the group action.
|
| Yeah, no one flew in 2020 -- they were concerned with
| their own personal well-being while being told from every
| existing outlet that there was a virulent pathogen that
| may end their life.
|
| How, pray tell, do you recreate that kind of action? You
| could cry wolf about some global disaster, but eventually
| the listening ears will get tired of reacting.
|
| Reef-bleaching isn't a "you're going to die from a deadly
| virus in several weeks" concern, it's a "think of
| generations after you" concern -- and historically we as
| humans tend to stick our heads in the sand when
| confronted with issues like that; we'd prefer to have
| luxury ourselves than save it for later generations.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Everybody is bad, except me of course, but in the end this is
| a little step in the right direction.
|
| So... Why is a problem that a few less anemones don't die?.
| Conservation is not like zapping a magic wand and all is good
| again.
|
| Even little steps helps and every little problem solved is
| one less problem that we have.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| You could make a compelling argument that no one with any
| real power would care about the reefs if they weren't
| regularly visited by relatively wealthy tourists that have at
| least some connection to those in power and the broader
| public. Yellowstone wouldn't exist without people like John
| Muir. Travel helps people connect with the physical world and
| the people who inhabit physically and culturally remote
| places.
| RRL wrote:
| I've heard this used as the line of thinking for why we
| still have zoos as well. To help conservation. If animals
| are out of sight and out of mind then they're out of my
| concern. So, let's keep the zoos to keep wild animals on
| top of mind, and hopefully around a little longer.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I'm somewhat ambivalent about zoos, but they are
| important for education and as centers for wildlife
| conservation efforts.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Hunters were the first American conservationists with any
| success.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| In the sense that they destroyed most megafauna within a
| few centuries of arrival? Or in the sense that modern
| hunters are now regulated so they don't drive their
| choice species extinct?
| ch4s3 wrote:
| No, he means people like Roosevelt. The North American
| megafauna that went extinct all died off at the end of
| the Pleistocene during a period of rapid warming, it
| isn't know how much humans contributed in North America.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Neither. Teddy Roosevelt was famously a conservationist
| in part because he was a hunter.
| pentae wrote:
| Indeed. I imagine it would be pretty hard for people to enjoy
| swimming in these places without taking a commercial flight
| dymk wrote:
| This is why we need a net carbon tax. Behavior won't change
| unless people start paying the real cost of emitting carbon.
| belval wrote:
| Carbon tax only works if everyone agrees which is the actual
| crux of the issue. If you enforce new legislation to tax
| carbon-emitting industries in the US, all you are doing is
| offshoring that manufacturing to some place where the tax
| does not exist.
|
| Not saying that it's inherently a bad idea, but there are no
| silver bullets on that issue. I'd like to see more work done
| on point source capture of carbon/methane.
| https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-capture
| dymk wrote:
| Air travel isn't something that can be offshored - if
| somebody in America wants to fly, they're getting on a
| plane in America, where an American carbon tax would apply.
|
| Sure, it doesn't fix industries which can offshore, but
| it's a good place to start. Commercial air is a major
| source of carbon emissions.
| Raidion wrote:
| My quick google says it's 2.5% of carbon emissions (for
| both passengers and cargo).
|
| If we add a carbon tax, do you consider the prime benefit
| to be the reduction in demand (if it means 20% less air
| travel, that's .5% total global carbon emissions
| reduction)
|
| Or do you feel like the prime benefit is to
| spur/incentivize more carbon neutral strategies (like
| electric aircraft?)?
|
| Or, do you feel like the primary benefit would be the
| "offsets" (like protecting trees, carbon capture
| technology, etc)
|
| I see a lot of talk about reducing carbon emissions, but
| it seems like there are a lot of things a "carbon tax"
| could change, and I feel like deciding on what one of
| those is the primary benefit is a harder problem than
| leveraging the tax in the first place.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| Naive question: Are airliner emissions more harmful
| because they are further up in the atmosphere?
| vkou wrote:
| Yes, they are, but not vastly. Air travel is still a
| small fraction of the average westerner's carbon
| footprint.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| But aren't some of the emissions (sulfur based ones)
| significantly more harmful than pure CO2 released, and
| (from what I remember about Nathan Myhrvold's work) much
| more impactful when released at 40k feet? Just wondering
| if measuring the CO2 volume is less relevant when talking
| about releasing sulfurs at altitude.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| No they are not. Airliners fly in the lower stratosphere,
| the troposphere is what is primarily warming. The effects
| on ozone are another story.
|
| [edit] for anyone downvoting, I'm referencing this
| paper[1] in the Encyclopedia of Global Environmental
| Change from 2002, which says:
|
| > Increases of the concentration of small particles
| emitted from aircraft with similar residence times have
| also been measured near dense flight routes. CO2 on the
| other hand, has a lifetime of the order of 100 years and
| gets distributed essentially over the whole atmosphere.
| Therefore, the effects of CO2 emissions from aircraft are
| indistinguishable from the same quantity of CO2 emitted
| at the same time by any other source.
|
| It's consistent with older research as well, and I can't
| find anything newer that refutes the claim.
|
| [1] https://www.dlr.de/pa/en/Portaldata/33/Resources/doku
| mente/m...
| dymk wrote:
| From some googling, they lack catalytic converters, so
| the emissions they do put out are more harmful to the
| environment per-pound-produced than what comes out of a
| car's tailpipe.
| xorcist wrote:
| _Any_ type of reduction would be a huge deal. 0.5% net is
| more than most would dare to hope for.
|
| Remember that each and every year we release _more_
| carbon in the atmosphere than the year before. So far
| with only one exception, during the covid lockdowns, but
| now we 're back again with an even bigger increase than
| before.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Or would in data claims air travel accounts for about
| 3.5% of carbon emissions.
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation
| dymk wrote:
| We agree that that's a huge amount, right?
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| In gross tonnage, yes sure.
|
| I don't agree that 3.5% is a _huge fraction._
| Gravityloss wrote:
| Yes, we need to have have international agreements
| negotiated in the united nations.
|
| But it doesn't work if some of the most powerful countries
| think climate change does not even exist.
| arbitrage wrote:
| it's not that they don't believe in climate change --
| that's a bit naive, tbh. it's that it's an incredibly
| weak bargaining position. the thinking goes like this:
| you care about the earth so much? then you cut back on
| your emissions. go ahead. that's the US's stance. it's
| the same stance Brazil uses re: deforestation &
| agricultural sprawl. they're negotiating in bad faith;
| they're not stupid.
|
| the US in effect wants to be the last person to exit the
| room and turn off the lights. do you want them to move
| faster? then you need to get out of the room first. the
| smaller players need to stop pretending that they're the
| same size as the US, China, and India. That's just
| foolish wishful thinking. nobody's going to hold them
| accountable to environmental treaties or any carbon
| targets.
|
| when everyone small leaves the room, then the US will
| shove the last remaining countries out before it, too.
| because it can. because you care more about the
| "environment" than they do, collectively.
| Gravityloss wrote:
| That's exactly what negotiations and agreements are for.
| Nobody wants to cut emissions if the others are not
| chipping in too.
|
| Paying taxes is annoying. Yet we need things like law
| enforcement or defense. So to make it happen, we agree on
| rules and then we enforce them on everyone. It wouldn't
| be possible if it was based on just altruism.
|
| But we will never get there if leaders don't even admit
| it's a real thing happening.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZq2L_49PBQ
| truckerbill wrote:
| You could tax the products on import though too
| [deleted]
| sfe22 wrote:
| Maybe we do indeed need that tax. My only request would be
| the decision to be democratic and making sure the revenue
| doesn't go to to the monopoly that injected people with
| plutonium. Instead it can be used to reverse the damage and
| with any excess being returned to their rightful earners.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Any tax will be used to make the chosen elites richer. Al
| Gore is prime example of getting rich off this movement
| while he takes private Jets
| sfe22 wrote:
| Right, looks like we have a bigger problem to fix before
| looking into the carbon problem.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| Best way to do it would be to tax anyone flying on PJs. You
| could buy an annual private jet license and it would be very
| expensive.
| upsidesinclude wrote:
| Absolutely and utterly fictional. Carbon credit schemes are a
| way to push cost off and allow for corporations to pollute.
| Look at industrial pollutants and carbon is one of the least
| concerning. It's a political talking point why? Because
| lobbyists tell politicians they need it and hand them money.
|
| Investigate a little deeper. You will find that the entire
| world must agree to participate for something like carbon tax
| to work... the world is not on board with hobbling industry
| cryptonector wrote:
| _all the private jet-set elites join the chat_
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| I just got back from a trip to Cairns and the reef is basically
| gone in the few locations I visited. 20 years ago it was like
| swimming in a Disney movie with Nemo. Now you might as well be
| swimming off the rocks at Batemans Bay.
|
| The 21/22 bleaching event has finally killed the reef I think.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/ulmgcb/leaked_dr...
|
| Found this today too.
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/10/devastat...
| lesgobrandon wrote:
| lostcolony wrote:
| How common is oxybenzone (or octinoxate for that matter)
| currently? Just a couple years ago it seemed to be in nearly
| every container of sunscreen (and all the articles I can find
| about it were from then), as I actively tried to avoid it. I went
| looking for sunscreen just last week, and I literally didn't see
| it listed once, even in the most commodity brands like Banana
| Boat and Sun Bum.
| gruez wrote:
| "Amazon's Choice" for "sunscreen" contains 6% Oxybenzone.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Neutrogena-Ultra-Dry-Touch-Sunscreen-...
| lostcolony wrote:
| I don't know if I believe that, actually.
|
| If you look at one of Amazon's "best sellers" in the
| category, https://www.amazon.com/Sun-Bum-Moisturizing-SPF-
| Hypoallergen..., you see the description says both Oxybenzone
| and Octinoxate free, but that the image of the ingredient
| list shows Octinoxate. They clearly updated the product, but
| not the images.
|
| If I search for the particular sunscreen you link and go to
| Neutrogena's website, I get
| https://www.neutrogena.com/products/sun/ultra-sheer-dry-
| touc..., which is, as you'll note from the URL, Oxybenzone
| free (and Octinoxate as well). Searching more broadly, I
| can't find -any- reference to the 70 SPF ultra sheer dry
| touch with Oxybenzone on Neutrogena's site; I can find the
| 100 SPF at https://www.neutrogena.com/products/sun/ultra-
| sheer-dry-touc... (via Google), but as you'll note, that's
| discontinued.
|
| I can also comment, in Target, I looked at every Neutrogena
| product. I can't say for certain I saw the 70 SPF, but I can
| say I definitely checked out the ultra sheer dry touch line.
| No Oxybenzone.
|
| So my expectation is that either that item on Amazon is old
| stock, or they haven't updated the product details (I don't
| see an indicator it's being filled by a third party else I'd
| also suggest it might be a formulation for another country
| that doesn't have regulations/awareness around oxybenzone).
| It's not actually being sold by Neutrogena in the US any
| more.
| alsdjfklasjdf wrote:
| Ingredients move back and forth between lots all the time!
| I would trust the last-mile seller to be more correct than
| the manufacturer website!
|
| Check on https://www.cosdna.com/ a distributed effort to
| document what is being sold where at different times.
|
| If you look that site, any big brand (and neutrogena, which
| is just a front for J&J today, is the biggest you can get)
| will show dozens of variations for each product. All around
| the same geographic region and time frame.
| scythe wrote:
| The persistence of these *benzones in sunscreen is largely an
| American problem. As of 2019, the FDA had not approved _any_
| new sunscreen ingredients in two decades:
|
| https://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/regulations/spf-sun/n...
|
| So if you live outside the US, you probably see very different
| ingredient lists.
| qgin wrote:
| Pretty much every other country has better and less toxic
| sunscreen than the US, but unfortunately we categorize
| sunscreens as drugs and there's not enough money in sunscreen
| do the kind of trial FDA requires for new drugs.
| wrycoder wrote:
| Toxic to anemones, that is.
| dtagames wrote:
| The concern is that it's toxic to coral, an important part of
| the food chain in the ocean.
|
| The risks of sunscreen chemicals to coral has been known for
| years in reef communities like Cancun and Hawaii, but it isn't
| widely known elsewhere. Of course, many tourists still use
| these chemicals when they swim in the reef.
| wrycoder wrote:
| _> Oxybenzone -- a chemical linked to coral bleaching --
| transforms from a UV-blocking agent into one that damages
| cells when exposed to light._
|
| The article subhead, copied above, suggests that oxybenzone,
| once exposed to seawater, could damage cells. Without
| qualification, human cells. That was my initial takeaway.
|
| It turns out that anemones convert oxybenzone to a molecule
| that could damage coral. That's very different.
| mherdeg wrote:
| We're all-in on zinc oxide for sunscreen (90%+ of the time
| avoiding other chemical alternatives).
|
| I don't know if the *-benzones or the other ingredients
| actually pose any health risks to humans and I doubt the risk
| is greater than the risk of melanoma after sunburn. But it
| doesn't cost us much extra to stick to a single ingredient,
| it's something we already smear on our kids all the time (as
| Desitin), and it's only slightly more inconvenient to apply
| without looking like a spooky ghost, so why not?
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| zinc is also toxic to corals.
| https://beachapedia.org/Reef_Friendly_Sunscreens
| mistrial9 wrote:
| zinc is toxic to humans, too.. in not-too-much larger
| amounts. probably need some rational weighting on some of
| these reactions chains, including dilution, persistence
| and bio-accumulation, among other things..
| kleton wrote:
| Everyone really should only be using "physical" blockers like
| zinc oxide, like is in the baby sunscreens. You might not like
| how Zuck looked on his board with face painted white, but it's
| coming out that the organic compounds that absorb UV are bad
| news.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-10 23:00 UTC)