Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
MAybe you should be advising the scientific team? Do you think they know about how showers would prevent things? What would propose the laws and fines or jail time be for not using your showering solution? Who would enforce it all?From the abstract to the paper referenced in the article..
Toxicopathological Effects of the Sunscreen UV Filter, Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3), on Coral Planulae and Cultured Primary Cells and Its Environmental Contamination in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands - Online First - Springer
...
LC50 and LC20 refer to the concentrations that kill 50% or 20% of the test specimens..
The tip-off here is the HUGE RANGE that they "found" in the US Virgin Isl..
To go from 75uG/L to 1.4mG/L is a huge range. And my bet is -- those largest concentrations --- if accurate, where taken in small ISOLATED areas where tourists rent snorkels and fins and float over a small portion of reef.
Situations like that are EASILY remedied by requiring showers before renting the gear and advising on wearing tee shirts or other covering instead. I'll bet a big one that those readings that are high enough represent EXTREMELY tiny portions of coral reef habitat..
remedies requiring showers before renting the gear IS regulation. No one but you has mentioned using red tape, new bureaus, enforcers.. no one but you. Cavity searches?Ooooooohhhh so regulating human activity is a good way to protect the reefs? Who would have fucking thunk it.
Did I say REGULATE?? Why is it that lefties always assume there should a law, a bureau of enforcers, and a lot of red tape. A simple sign at the flipper rental ASKING for compliance and telling them WHY would probably do --- except for maybe hard-asses like you.. We'd have a special line where cavity searches for illicit sunscreen are done on folks like you..
Theory?more from the study:
How we are all contributing to the destruction of coral reefs: Sunscreen
Research for the new study was conducted only on the two islands. But across the world each year, up to 14,000 tons of sunscreen lotions are discharged into coral reef, and much of it “contains between 1 and 10 percent oxybenzone,” the authors said. They estimate that places at least 10 percent of reefs at risk of high exposure, judging from how reefs are located in popular tourism areas.
No way in hell that 14,000 tons of sunscreen land smack dab on coral reefs every year..
Did they compare tourist areas to NON-tourist areas. Not all coral reefs are located in the vicinity of CROWDED beaches.. In fact -- very FEW are....
I think they are over the top on this "theory"...
Not only did the study determine that a tiny amount of sunscreen is all it takes to begin damaging the delicate corals — the equivalent of a drop of water in a half-dozen Olympic-sized swimming pools — it documented three different ways that the ingredient oxybenzone breaks the coral down, robbing it of life-giving nutrients and turning it ghostly white.
remedies requiring showers before renting the gear IS regulation. No one but you has mentioned using red tape, new bureaus, enforcers.. no one but you. Cavity searches?Ooooooohhhh so regulating human activity is a good way to protect the reefs? Who would have fucking thunk it.
Did I say REGULATE?? Why is it that lefties always assume there should a law, a bureau of enforcers, and a lot of red tape. A simple sign at the flipper rental ASKING for compliance and telling them WHY would probably do --- except for maybe hard-asses like you.. We'd have a special line where cavity searches for illicit sunscreen are done on folks like you..
you have issues with science provoking questions? I would hope not. But is you who raised the scary specter of regulations and body cavity searches.Theory?more from the study:
How we are all contributing to the destruction of coral reefs: Sunscreen
Research for the new study was conducted only on the two islands. But across the world each year, up to 14,000 tons of sunscreen lotions are discharged into coral reef, and much of it “contains between 1 and 10 percent oxybenzone,” the authors said. They estimate that places at least 10 percent of reefs at risk of high exposure, judging from how reefs are located in popular tourism areas.
No way in hell that 14,000 tons of sunscreen land smack dab on coral reefs every year..
Did they compare tourist areas to NON-tourist areas. Not all coral reefs are located in the vicinity of CROWDED beaches.. In fact -- very FEW are....
I think they are over the top on this "theory"...
Not only did the study determine that a tiny amount of sunscreen is all it takes to begin damaging the delicate corals — the equivalent of a drop of water in a half-dozen Olympic-sized swimming pools — it documented three different ways that the ingredient oxybenzone breaks the coral down, robbing it of life-giving nutrients and turning it ghostly white.
You should pay the $30 to read the study then. Because marine biologists are CONSTANTLY putting sea life into 6 foot tanks and assuming they've replicated the daily life of the species.
It IS a theory right now. Unless you have another dozen corroborating studies to share..
And the places they've MEASURED concentrations in actual waters are WAAY different results.
Like I said -- the higher concentrations they found were probably 20 yards from shore -- directly in front of a beach concession renting snorkels and flippers. This DOES NOT (at this moment) get GENERALIZED into the Total solution of dying corals worldwide. Not by ANY stretch..
It's interesting work -- but it simply provokes A BUNCH of unanswered questions..
Besides, the problem is simply to remove the substance from the sunscreen. Then it won't get in the water from that source.you have issues with science provoking questions? I would hope not. But is you who raised the scary specter of regulations and body cavity searches.Theory?more from the study:
How we are all contributing to the destruction of coral reefs: Sunscreen
Research for the new study was conducted only on the two islands. But across the world each year, up to 14,000 tons of sunscreen lotions are discharged into coral reef, and much of it “contains between 1 and 10 percent oxybenzone,” the authors said. They estimate that places at least 10 percent of reefs at risk of high exposure, judging from how reefs are located in popular tourism areas.
No way in hell that 14,000 tons of sunscreen land smack dab on coral reefs every year..
Did they compare tourist areas to NON-tourist areas. Not all coral reefs are located in the vicinity of CROWDED beaches.. In fact -- very FEW are....
I think they are over the top on this "theory"...
Not only did the study determine that a tiny amount of sunscreen is all it takes to begin damaging the delicate corals — the equivalent of a drop of water in a half-dozen Olympic-sized swimming pools — it documented three different ways that the ingredient oxybenzone breaks the coral down, robbing it of life-giving nutrients and turning it ghostly white.
You should pay the $30 to read the study then. Because marine biologists are CONSTANTLY putting sea life into 6 foot tanks and assuming they've replicated the daily life of the species.
It IS a theory right now. Unless you have another dozen corroborating studies to share..
And the places they've MEASURED concentrations in actual waters are WAAY different results.
Like I said -- the higher concentrations they found were probably 20 yards from shore -- directly in front of a beach concession renting snorkels and flippers. This DOES NOT (at this moment) get GENERALIZED into the Total solution of dying corals worldwide. Not by ANY stretch..
It's interesting work -- but it simply provokes A BUNCH of unanswered questions..
btw, why do you have such issues with marine biologists? It's odd some of the comments you make
you have issues with science provoking questions? I would hope not. But is you who raised the scary specter of regulations and body cavity searches.Theory?more from the study:
How we are all contributing to the destruction of coral reefs: Sunscreen
Research for the new study was conducted only on the two islands. But across the world each year, up to 14,000 tons of sunscreen lotions are discharged into coral reef, and much of it “contains between 1 and 10 percent oxybenzone,” the authors said. They estimate that places at least 10 percent of reefs at risk of high exposure, judging from how reefs are located in popular tourism areas.
No way in hell that 14,000 tons of sunscreen land smack dab on coral reefs every year..
Did they compare tourist areas to NON-tourist areas. Not all coral reefs are located in the vicinity of CROWDED beaches.. In fact -- very FEW are....
I think they are over the top on this "theory"...
Not only did the study determine that a tiny amount of sunscreen is all it takes to begin damaging the delicate corals — the equivalent of a drop of water in a half-dozen Olympic-sized swimming pools — it documented three different ways that the ingredient oxybenzone breaks the coral down, robbing it of life-giving nutrients and turning it ghostly white.
You should pay the $30 to read the study then. Because marine biologists are CONSTANTLY putting sea life into 6 foot tanks and assuming they've replicated the daily life of the species.
It IS a theory right now. Unless you have another dozen corroborating studies to share..
And the places they've MEASURED concentrations in actual waters are WAAY different results.
Like I said -- the higher concentrations they found were probably 20 yards from shore -- directly in front of a beach concession renting snorkels and flippers. This DOES NOT (at this moment) get GENERALIZED into the Total solution of dying corals worldwide. Not by ANY stretch..
It's interesting work -- but it simply provokes A BUNCH of unanswered questions..
btw, why do you have such issues with marine biologists? It's odd some of the comments you make
Why you have this compelling need to lash out at people with insults based on caricatures (false ones at that) is for another day.Did it ever enter your leftist leaning brain that you can REASON with folks who want to spend an hour snorkeling above a coral reef WITHOUT regulations and WITHOUT LAWS???
Great way to get the message out. And remind people of their responsibilities to protect nature.
Nawwww --- Screw that --- MANDATORY showers and cavity searches. And a paddywagon standing by..
Wow! a civil answer. and a very informative one. MAybe you could teach a few here some lessons?Besides, the problem is simply to remove the substance from the sunscreen. Then it won't get in the water from that source.you have issues with science provoking questions? I would hope not. But is you who raised the scary specter of regulations and body cavity searches.Theory?
No way in hell that 14,000 tons of sunscreen land smack dab on coral reefs every year..
Did they compare tourist areas to NON-tourist areas. Not all coral reefs are located in the vicinity of CROWDED beaches.. In fact -- very FEW are....
I think they are over the top on this "theory"...
Not only did the study determine that a tiny amount of sunscreen is all it takes to begin damaging the delicate corals — the equivalent of a drop of water in a half-dozen Olympic-sized swimming pools — it documented three different ways that the ingredient oxybenzone breaks the coral down, robbing it of life-giving nutrients and turning it ghostly white.
You should pay the $30 to read the study then. Because marine biologists are CONSTANTLY putting sea life into 6 foot tanks and assuming they've replicated the daily life of the species.
It IS a theory right now. Unless you have another dozen corroborating studies to share..
And the places they've MEASURED concentrations in actual waters are WAAY different results.
Like I said -- the higher concentrations they found were probably 20 yards from shore -- directly in front of a beach concession renting snorkels and flippers. This DOES NOT (at this moment) get GENERALIZED into the Total solution of dying corals worldwide. Not by ANY stretch..
It's interesting work -- but it simply provokes A BUNCH of unanswered questions..
btw, why do you have such issues with marine biologists? It's odd some of the comments you make
Accepted, but will verifyyou have issues with science provoking questions? I would hope not. But is you who raised the scary specter of regulations and body cavity searches.Theory?
No way in hell that 14,000 tons of sunscreen land smack dab on coral reefs every year..
Did they compare tourist areas to NON-tourist areas. Not all coral reefs are located in the vicinity of CROWDED beaches.. In fact -- very FEW are....
I think they are over the top on this "theory"...
Not only did the study determine that a tiny amount of sunscreen is all it takes to begin damaging the delicate corals — the equivalent of a drop of water in a half-dozen Olympic-sized swimming pools — it documented three different ways that the ingredient oxybenzone breaks the coral down, robbing it of life-giving nutrients and turning it ghostly white.
You should pay the $30 to read the study then. Because marine biologists are CONSTANTLY putting sea life into 6 foot tanks and assuming they've replicated the daily life of the species.
It IS a theory right now. Unless you have another dozen corroborating studies to share..
And the places they've MEASURED concentrations in actual waters are WAAY different results.
Like I said -- the higher concentrations they found were probably 20 yards from shore -- directly in front of a beach concession renting snorkels and flippers. This DOES NOT (at this moment) get GENERALIZED into the Total solution of dying corals worldwide. Not by ANY stretch..
It's interesting work -- but it simply provokes A BUNCH of unanswered questions..
btw, why do you have such issues with marine biologists? It's odd some of the comments you make
Not at all Dante.. It was Old School who asked me if I suddenly got religion on REGULATING people's behavior. I said NOTHING about regulations, assuming that those high concentrations HAVE to be some kind of outlier with an extraordinary density of tourists directly above the reef..
you have issues with science provoking questions? I would hope not. But is you who raised the scary specter of regulations and body cavity searches.Theory?more from the study:
How we are all contributing to the destruction of coral reefs: Sunscreen
Research for the new study was conducted only on the two islands. But across the world each year, up to 14,000 tons of sunscreen lotions are discharged into coral reef, and much of it “contains between 1 and 10 percent oxybenzone,” the authors said. They estimate that places at least 10 percent of reefs at risk of high exposure, judging from how reefs are located in popular tourism areas.
No way in hell that 14,000 tons of sunscreen land smack dab on coral reefs every year..
Did they compare tourist areas to NON-tourist areas. Not all coral reefs are located in the vicinity of CROWDED beaches.. In fact -- very FEW are....
I think they are over the top on this "theory"...
Not only did the study determine that a tiny amount of sunscreen is all it takes to begin damaging the delicate corals — the equivalent of a drop of water in a half-dozen Olympic-sized swimming pools — it documented three different ways that the ingredient oxybenzone breaks the coral down, robbing it of life-giving nutrients and turning it ghostly white.
You should pay the $30 to read the study then. Because marine biologists are CONSTANTLY putting sea life into 6 foot tanks and assuming they've replicated the daily life of the species.
It IS a theory right now. Unless you have another dozen corroborating studies to share..
And the places they've MEASURED concentrations in actual waters are WAAY different results.
Like I said -- the higher concentrations they found were probably 20 yards from shore -- directly in front of a beach concession renting snorkels and flippers. This DOES NOT (at this moment) get GENERALIZED into the Total solution of dying corals worldwide. Not by ANY stretch..
It's interesting work -- but it simply provokes A BUNCH of unanswered questions..
btw, why do you have such issues with marine biologists? It's odd some of the comments you make
Really? Then you should be advising the NOAA, not hanging out on a web messahe board. The nation needs people like you. The planet needs people like you. Shit! The cosmos needs people like you.you have issues with science provoking questions? I would hope not. But is you who raised the scary specter of regulations and body cavity searches.Theory?
No way in hell that 14,000 tons of sunscreen land smack dab on coral reefs every year..
Did they compare tourist areas to NON-tourist areas. Not all coral reefs are located in the vicinity of CROWDED beaches.. In fact -- very FEW are....
I think they are over the top on this "theory"...
Not only did the study determine that a tiny amount of sunscreen is all it takes to begin damaging the delicate corals — the equivalent of a drop of water in a half-dozen Olympic-sized swimming pools — it documented three different ways that the ingredient oxybenzone breaks the coral down, robbing it of life-giving nutrients and turning it ghostly white.
You should pay the $30 to read the study then. Because marine biologists are CONSTANTLY putting sea life into 6 foot tanks and assuming they've replicated the daily life of the species.
It IS a theory right now. Unless you have another dozen corroborating studies to share..
And the places they've MEASURED concentrations in actual waters are WAAY different results.
Like I said -- the higher concentrations they found were probably 20 yards from shore -- directly in front of a beach concession renting snorkels and flippers. This DOES NOT (at this moment) get GENERALIZED into the Total solution of dying corals worldwide. Not by ANY stretch..
It's interesting work -- but it simply provokes A BUNCH of unanswered questions..
btw, why do you have such issues with marine biologists? It's odd some of the comments you make
My issues with ANY science paper I read is whether the actual experiment accurately MODELS the real world experience. I've chuckled my way thru papers investigating high CO2 conc on squid. Where these labcoats were taking deep ocean squid and putting them in 6 foot tanks and measuring their metabolic rates...
You kidding me? Confining a creature like that to a small tank and wondering why they get lethargic and have a decreased metabolic rate? These investigations start out quite crude. And over time, someone does it better.
That's how I get I paid. Do it better than the previous guy did.
Accepted, but will verifyyou have issues with science provoking questions? I would hope not. But is you who raised the scary specter of regulations and body cavity searches.Theory?No way in hell that 14,000 tons of sunscreen land smack dab on coral reefs every year..
Did they compare tourist areas to NON-tourist areas. Not all coral reefs are located in the vicinity of CROWDED beaches.. In fact -- very FEW are....
I think they are over the top on this "theory"...
Not only did the study determine that a tiny amount of sunscreen is all it takes to begin damaging the delicate corals — the equivalent of a drop of water in a half-dozen Olympic-sized swimming pools — it documented three different ways that the ingredient oxybenzone breaks the coral down, robbing it of life-giving nutrients and turning it ghostly white.
You should pay the $30 to read the study then. Because marine biologists are CONSTANTLY putting sea life into 6 foot tanks and assuming they've replicated the daily life of the species.
It IS a theory right now. Unless you have another dozen corroborating studies to share..
And the places they've MEASURED concentrations in actual waters are WAAY different results.
Like I said -- the higher concentrations they found were probably 20 yards from shore -- directly in front of a beach concession renting snorkels and flippers. This DOES NOT (at this moment) get GENERALIZED into the Total solution of dying corals worldwide. Not by ANY stretch..
It's interesting work -- but it simply provokes A BUNCH of unanswered questions..
btw, why do you have such issues with marine biologists? It's odd some of the comments you make
Not at all Dante.. It was Old School who asked me if I suddenly got religion on REGULATING people's behavior. I said NOTHING about regulations, assuming that those high concentrations HAVE to be some kind of outlier with an extraordinary density of tourists directly above the reef..
Why you have this compelling need to lash out at people with insults based on caricatures (false ones at that) is for another day.Did it ever enter your leftist leaning brain that you can REASON with folks who want to spend an hour snorkeling above a coral reef WITHOUT regulations and WITHOUT LAWS???
Great way to get the message out. And remind people of their responsibilities to protect nature.
Nawwww --- Screw that --- MANDATORY showers and cavity searches. And a paddywagon standing by..
Dante used to use the Harbor Islands of Boston before the Park Service started to fiercely regulate it. In CA when Dante went to some desert mountain areas with long time Californians, they had similar experiences. In both instances the state stepped in with regulations because of people -- an over use by people who were genetically unable to self-regulate themselves.
Does Dante resent the regulations? Of course. But unlike you he recognizes the need for them
about that fact checking. Uhm, I can find you mentioning regulations in post #19. I cannot not find the Old one mentioning you or regulation before that post. Can you help me find it?Accepted, but will verifyNot at all Dante.. It was Old School who asked me if I suddenly got religion on REGULATING people's behavior. I said NOTHING about regulations, assuming that those high concentrations HAVE to be some kind of outlier with an extraordinary density of tourists directly above the reef..
I've got a theory on that observation. It's another topic. But simply -- If you REGULATE every little behavior and personal judgement -- people will lose the ability to excersize their judgement muscles and just bet on their chances of being caught breaking the law.
I'd rather design for DEVELOPING judgement and responsibility -- than remove the need for those things.
Applies VERY WELL to living in harmony with environmental needs..
about that fact checking. Uhm, I can find you mentioning regulations in post #19. I cannot not find the Old one mentioning you or regulation before that post. Can you help me find it?Accepted, but will verifyNot at all Dante.. It was Old School who asked me if I suddenly got religion on REGULATING people's behavior. I said NOTHING about regulations, assuming that those high concentrations HAVE to be some kind of outlier with an extraordinary density of tourists directly above the reef..
Situations like that are EASILY remedied by requiring showers before renting the gear and advising on wearing tee shirts or other covering instead. I'll bet a big one that those readings that are high enough represent EXTREMELY tiny portions of coral reef habitat..
again with the insults? You rule!about that fact checking. Uhm, I can find you mentioning regulations in post #19. I cannot not find the Old one mentioning you or regulation before that post. Can you help me find it?Accepted, but will verifyNot at all Dante.. It was Old School who asked me if I suddenly got religion on REGULATING people's behavior. I said NOTHING about regulations, assuming that those high concentrations HAVE to be some kind of outlier with an extraordinary density of tourists directly above the reef..
Instead of you checking me out in that creepy fashion --- which has NOTHING to do with the topic.. Please read my sigline again.. I'm not lying to you..
