[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)