Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Government United States Science

Key West Moves To Ban Sunscreens That Could Damage Reefs (miamiherald.com) 90

Yesterday, the Key West City Commission unanimously voted to ban the sale of sunscreens that contain two ingredients -- oxybenzone and octinoxate -- that a growing body of scientific evidence says harm coral reefs. The measure must now be reviewed again by the commission before it becomes law. The second vote is scheduled for February 5th. Miami Herald reports: Environmental researchers have published studies showing how these two ingredients, which accumulate in the water from bathers or from wastewater discharges, can damage coral reefs through bleaching and harming the corals' DNA. In some instances, the corals can die. A Feburary 2016 study in the Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology examining the impact of oxybenzone in corals in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands concluded that the sunscreen ingredient "poses a hazard to coral reef conservation and threatens the resiliency of coral reefs to climate change.''

Last year, Hawaii banned the sale or distribution of any sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate, a measure that will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021. It was the first state in the nation to implement such a ban. In Florida, the website for the South Florida Reef Ambassador Initiative, which falls under the state's Department of Environmental Protection, tells divers to "Avoid sunscreens with Oxybenzone and Avobenzone. The benzones are compounds that are lethal to coral reproduction in very small amounts." Experts who have studied the issue say sunscreens with zinc oxide or titanium dioxide, which are minerals, also block ultraviolet rays. They create a barrier on the skin that deflect the sun's rays .

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Key West Moves To Ban Sunscreens That Could Damage Reefs

Comments Filter:
  • While you are at it, why not also look into not selling sunscreen that is questionable for humans too...

    However I fear it may have little effect, since a lot of people bring their own sunscreen from elsewhere. But you may as well try.

    • Require signs in stores and beach entrances to educate beachgoers -- I don't think anyone WANTS to be part of damaging something beautiful.
      • I don't think anyone WANTS to be part of damaging something beautiful.

        As soon as the government shut down, people drove into Joshua Tree National Park and started cutting down Joshua trees. People would pulverize coral with sledgehammers and then dissolve it in acid if it weren't so inaccessible. A certain portion of humanity is simply shit.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          As soon as the government shut down, people drove into Joshua Tree National Park and started cutting down Joshua trees.

          When I read that sentence I thought it was sarcasm. I assumed it was some variation on "if murder wasn't illegal everyone would go out murdering tomorrow".

          Sadly, it appears you are right. A certain proportion of humanity is simply shit.

        • by Agripa ( 139780 )

          I don't think anyone WANTS to be part of damaging something beautiful.

          As soon as the government shut down, people drove into Joshua Tree National Park and started cutting down Joshua trees. People would pulverize coral with sledgehammers and then dissolve it in acid if it weren't so inaccessible. A certain portion of humanity is simply shit.

          Before coral was protected, people would collect and cut it up to make things like coffee tables.

    • Re:Good idea (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @10:56PM (#57975388)
      I dont live in an overly sunny area of the world so I dont know anything about sunscreen, so I did a quick search...

      Consumer Reports 2018, top 5 sunscreens:
      (A) La Roche-Posay Anthelios 60 Melt-In Sunscreen Milk.
      (B) Coppertone Sport SPF 50 Lotion Sunscreen.
      (C) Aveeno Protect + Hydrate Lotion SPF 30.
      (D) Banana Boat SunComfort Clear UltraMist Spray SPF 50+ Sunscreen.
      (E) Coppertone Kids Sunscreen Stick SPF 55.


      The offending ingredients named in the summary are Oxybenzone and Octinoxate

      (A) contains Oxybenzone 3.86%
      (B) neither listed
      (C) contains Oxybenzone 5%
      (D) contains Oxybenzone 3%
      (E) contains Oxybenzone 6%

      All of them (including B) listed an active ingredient with a similar sounding name to Octinoxate called Octisalate.

      Given that apparently the best sunscreens use this stuff, it would be no surprise that people would just go ahead and ignore the law.
  • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @11:13PM (#57975434)
    I can't help but think this is just spitting into the wind. There are lots of chemicals which potentially harm reefs [consumerreports.org]. Oxybenzone and octinoxate just get picked on because there was already a large conspiracy theory-ish movement to get those two banned, which quickly latched on to any alternative reason to ban them.

    if you look at all chemicals we add to the water which potentially harms coral, fertilizer would seem to be the biggest culprit [phys.org]. And we dump probably a trillion times more fertilizer into the oceans (via agricultural runoff) than sunscreen. These sunscreen bans are like making a fuss over a tiny crack in the road, while ignoring the smoking mile-wide crater.
    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday January 17, 2019 @01:27AM (#57975742)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        So if my arm is partially amputated causing massive blood loss and I have an obvious melanoma growing on my other arm I should make sure to stop and clean and dress a small scratch on my leg first? Then I can worry about the massive trauma on one limb and deadly cancer on another? Because "Tackle the small problem first."

        That's what you are saying. We should temporarily ignore the thing that is killing coral and creating dead zones larger than entire states in the gulf of Mexico and other river outlets into

        • The town council of Key West is very limited in what they can do to control fertilizer runoff. From what I can tell there is not a whole lot of farming going on there. Banning the sale of certain sunscreens is something they can do. Sure, it doesn't move the bar much but it's something they CAN do. More importantly though it does create awareness and maybe folks with consider other things which actually will make a difference.
          • by ghoul ( 157158 )

            More fertilizer runs off from lawns than farms. Farmers are businessmen. They dont want to waste money by adding more than needed whereas homeowners are amateurs. Ban fertilizer at Home Depot et al and you fix the runoff issue.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Just because something has a small effect doesn't mean it should not be treated. If we tackle all the small components it will eventually add up.

        If you waste your time on insignificant trivialities while ignoring the giant elephant in the room, you're just doing that: wasting your time.

        i.e. Tackle the small problems first

        That's the wrong way to go about. If you cannot tackle the big problems that are so much worse they're not even on the same scale than what you're doing, you've failed before even starting.

        Then you can tackle the big problems down the road when you can

        No you can't, because you're too busy wasting your time on nonsense. You could do countless of these small projects and still not make a difference. Time is finite.

        But you don't just stare at the huge problem and say "Too big.. Me go home now"...

        But that's exactl

      • Just because something has a small effect doesn't mean it should not be treated.

        That depends on if that something has a benefit. The GP's crack in the road doesn't have a benefit. The mixture of chemicals in sunscreen however dramatically help reduce skin cancer rates.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • No. I'm saying these two are by far the most effective. The alternatives are not as good at protecting against UVB and don't last as long.

            Your argument also makes no sense. Humans in general don't focus on collective good of their medical fitness alone, and decisions are imperfect targeting a specific and often changing purpose. Key West's decision had nothing to do with cancer, much less causing people to get it (that is also a really dumb stretch of logic since the type of sunscreen used doesn't "cause" a

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Translation: ban all the other (potentially) harmful things before you ban my $favorite_sunscreen.

      Go put on a hat.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You're right, but there are different degrees of harm.

      The problem with these sunscreens specifically is that first and foremost, we don't need these types of sunscreen. Honestly, you don't need sunscreen at all if you're sensible, my experience of diving is that many divers just don't use it despite being out on boats or in the sea, sometimes with long surface swims with the sun glaring down in some of the hottest parts of the world. Just wear something like a rash guard and a hat, or keep yourself in the s

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Good point. When my car started leaking brake fluid I just ignored it. It wasn't worth fixing, there was petrol leaking out of the tank anyway. I knew it was probably going to crash and catch fire and burn to the ground soon no matter what I did.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I read this as "Kanye West" and was blown away by his sudden charitable foresight, yet highly confused.

  • Lets slather ourselves with non biodegradable nanoparticles which are known photo-catalysts, can penetrate cells and go sit in UV light ... what could possibly go wrong?

  • I switched to the vanishing zinc oxide sunscreen because the Oxybenzone stuff creates terrible stains on my clothing due to the iron in my water (which runs through a cast iron pipe from the water company). I haven't noticed any decrease in sunscreen effectiveness, but there is certainly a significant increase in price for the zinc oxide stuff. Since I live 3000 miles from Key West I guess I'm doing my part for the coral reefs too.

    • I've found for me that the zinc oxide gets reduced by my sweat, I end up covered in gray, reduced zinc which does not interact with light, and a lovely burn. I guess I'll have to try the titanium oxide, but at that point I may as well stop at Sherwin Williams on the way to the beach.
  • ..and not Kanye

  • Current sunscreen products wash off fairly quickly, thus the admonition to re-apply regularly.

    There are some dyes that are fairly indelible on skin, inks and such. The upper layer of the skin is permanently stained, and the stain doesn't go away until the stained layers wear away.

    Is there (or could it be synthesized) such a dye that is opaque in UV but otherwise colorless? Apply once, good for a couple of days? (Actually, even if it did have some garish color in visible light, it might become a fashion

Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.

Working...