Tried Organic Sun Screen ?

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Everyone's quality of life would be much higher if stupidity was PAINFUL !!!

Amen Amigo...That in itself could be a bumper sticker!

[solarbri]

One of my favorite quotes that I use with my kids is, "If you're gonna be stupid, you'd better be tough!!"
Oh yeah... stupidity is quite often painful!

[bill good]

You might even think it would stop UV killing the reef!!

[GordMay]

Can any of the skeptics (Bill et al) point me to a scientific debunking of this “hyped up myth”?

The results and conclusions, as listed in the abstract precis, of the study.

RESULTS: Sunscreens cause the rapid and complete bleaching of hard corals, even at extremely low concentrations*. The effect of sunscreens is due to organic ultraviolet filters, which are able to
induce the lytic viral cycle in symbiotic zooxanthellae with latent infections.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that sunscreens, by promoting viral infection, potentially play an important role in coral bleaching in areas prone to high levels of recreational use by humans.

See the entire report, published in Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 116, Number 4, April 2008:

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2008/10966/10966.pdf

* with as little as 10 microlitres of sunscreen per litre, coral bleaching occurred within four days. (10 parts per million)

As I understand the study, the chemicals are not necessarily toxic in themselves; but “turn on” dormant virus’ already existing in the coral or it’s environment.

Perhaps one of our Doctors (or anyone with a knowledge of virology) could comment on how much, or how little, exposure may be sufficient to trigger a latent virus.

[DeepFrz]

Hmmm, well that doesn't look like junk science. Thanks Gord.

[David M]

I just skimmed through the study. I find it interesting that not one person seems to have a doctorates degree. The PI's (principle investigators )for university based studies are always headed by someone with a PhD behind their name.

Was there any peer review? ..not mentioned.

You also have to look at the publishers name: Environmental Health Perspectives. With a name like that, you have to ask if they have an agenda.

I'm not saying the study is illegitimate. There are just some questions that need to be answered before it can be considered legitimate.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by David M

I just skimmed through the study. I find it interesting that not one person seems to have a doctorates degree. The PI's (principle investigators )for university based studies are always headed by someone with a PhD behind their name.

Was there any peer review? ..not mentioned.

You also have to look at the publishers name: Environmental Health Perspectives. With a name like that, you have to ask if they have an agenda.

I'm not saying the study is illegitimate. There are just some questions that need to be answered before it can be considered legitimate.

Roberto Danovaro was born in Genoa, where he completed studies in Biology in 1988 at the Institute of Marine Sciences, and obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Pisa.

Roberto Danovaro is a full professor in Marine Biology and Director of the Department of Marine Science at the Polytechnic University of Marche (Ancona, Italy) as well as Professor of the Excellence Doctorate in Analysis and Governance of sustainable development (Venice International University). He has taught a number of international courses and masters and at the International School of Biophysics.
Since 2003 he has been the President of the European Federation of Marine Science and Technology Societies (EFMS) (EFMS > Home). He is also a member of the scientific council of the CoNISMa (Consortium Inter-universities for marine sciences). Roberto is a member of the board of the International Association of Meiobenthologists (IAM), and Italian Society of Ecology (SItE) and is member of the Concil of Presidence of the Italian Association of Oceanology & Limnology (AIOL).

Since 2002 he has been the Editor in Chief of Chemistry and Ecology (Taylor & Francis, London), and is also member of the Editorial Board of Oceanologica Acta (Elsevier). He has been a partner in several EU funded projects: HERMES, REEFRES, CORALZOO, MEDVEG, INTERPOL, ADIOS, MATER, BENGAL and CINCS. His research is focussed on the functioning of marine systems, with special reference to deep-sea ecosystems and the relationhsips between microbial and macrobial diversity. He has over 100 papers in peer-reviewed journals and published two books on Ecology of coastal marine environments and Environmental recovery.

Lucia Bongiorni is also a PhD.

I didn't check the other authors. I suspect David didn't check any of them.

Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news on the impact of the environment on human health. EHP is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

[David M]

There must be a difference between Italy and the US. Here those with doctorates always seem to state that fact within the first page or two of their published studies.

[stevensc]

Rub it on your face and skin no problem, at 10 parts per million it poisons coral reefs!!!!??
If anyone would like a doctorate let me know, I have some friends in Colombia who know people that for $500.00 will print one out in a jiffy (take you pick of university and field), complete with "cheat sheets"; who your professors were and what went on at the university during your "studies" there so you don't get caught up in a lie during an interview.
Steve

[pete33458]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Can any of the skeptics (Bill et al) point me to a scientific debunking of this “hyped up myth”?

The results and conclusions, as listed in the abstract precis, of the study.

RESULTS: Sunscreens cause the rapid and complete bleaching of hard corals, even at extremely low concentrations*. The effect of sunscreens is due to organic ultraviolet filters, which are able to
induce the lytic viral cycle in symbiotic zooxanthellae with latent infections.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that sunscreens, by promoting viral infection, potentially play an important role in coral bleaching in areas prone to high levels of recreational use by humans.

See the entire report, published in Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 116, Number 4, April 2008:

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2008/10966/10966.pdf

* with as little as 10 microlitres of sunscreen per litre, coral bleaching occurred within four days. (10 parts per million)

As I understand the study, the chemicals are not necessarily toxic in themselves; but “turn on” dormant virus’ already existing in the coral or it’s environment.

Perhaps one of our Doctors (or anyone with a knowledge of virology) could comment on how much, or how little, exposure may be sufficient to trigger a latent virus.

I almost don't know where to start this...

1. Debunking claims that clearly defy logic and reason (more on this below) is generally not done. Why? First of all, it costs money, money that comes from peer review of research proposals. Any decent scientist performing that peer review will note that the premise being debunked clearly defies logic and reason, and therefore, money spent debunking it is wasted (by not being spent on something that will actually be productive). Secondly, most people would rather spend their time doing something useful instead of proving that, for instance, witches don't exist. Bottom line: time and money spent debunking ridiculous claims (see below) are not only a waste of those resources, but detract from other worthwhile projects;

2. 10 ppm is not an extremely low level, it's an insanely high level. Assume a patch of coral reef that is 100 meters x 100 meters x 3 meters deep (the area you might snorkel in an hour or so). You would need to dump 300 LITERS of sunscreen in to bring that small patch to 10 ppm. That's 300 LITERS!!! And unless you did this to the entire reef, it would quickly be diluted to lower levels. And even if you did, the next day it would mostly be gone;

3. the single most common way to ACTIVATE a latent virus, in use since even before people knew what viruses were, is UV radiation (think cold sores and sunburn). Yes, that's right, the stuff that sunscreen is designed to block. So, let's see. If you add (insanely high levels of) sunblock, you activate latent viruses. If you don't, you get more UV exposure, and activate latent viruses. Hmmm. What to do???

pete

[bstreep]

Gord,

10 ppm sounds like a little. It is HUGE in the water quality arena. I mean GIANT. There is no basis for this dilution level. To give an example:

Caffeine in coffee kills: 10 volunteers were given 10,000mg of caffeine, and keeled over dead within 30 minutes. Therefore, coffee kills. (1 cup of coffee contains about 100mg of caffeine).

Now, what they originally looked for, was for a loss of photosynthetic ability in the corals from the sunblock (corals have a symbiotic zoanthela living in them). But, they didn't find that. So, what next? Well, when stony corals are stressed, they "slime". If you've ever taken one out of the water (I keep a reef tank so I do all the time), "snot" just flows out of them. There's one called a Green Slimer that is particularly prolific... Anyway, it's a protection. Corals are often exposed to the air, and they slime as well. Once they slime and are recovered with water, the slime washes away. Repeated sliming DOES make them vulnerable to RTN (Rapid Tissue Necrosis) - which is thought by some to be caused by a virus that naturally occurs in SPS (Small Polyp Stony corals), but is basically dormant until a coral's immune system is lowered.

So, basically, what these guys did was introduce enough sunscreen to make the corals slime repeatedly, and then some died. Hmm.

As for the ozone "shot" above: Please tell me why this topic has completely disappeared off of the headlines? Oh, THAT'S right - they found a 2-3% increase in UV under this hole. And no one died or and the masses didn't get cancer. Does the hole exist? Yup. Will it wipe out humanity? Nope. And Chicken Little lives on!

I was in college studying to be a scientist when the "Global Cooling" panic was going on, and we were discussing how to prevent an iceage : Newsweek on the cooling world

Gord,

I've briefly looked again for the info about this - it has been extensively discussed on "reef" boards. There are so many hundreds of re-posts of the original "paper", on the internet that you can't find the arguments against it anymore. There's a scientist in the Keys who said something like: "we need to ignore the lead (from diver weights) and suntan lotion myths and concentrate on what's really damaging our reefs: anchors, anchor chains, fish pots and divers".

[bstreep]

Oh yeah, another coral myth:

Touching them with clean hands does absolutely nothing to them. I don't recommend it, since some corals (like fire corals) will sting. But you won't hurt them if it's done gently.

[David_Old_Jersey]

I wouldn't worry about sunscreen and coral reefs - I have just put some wicked exhausts on my Triumph. Now sounds like a Lancaster Bomber (a 900cc Triple one ). I also didn't ask about the Emissions I figure I will either carbon offset by eating less baked beans or will try and name my own hole in the Ozone layer

Either way, as no coral reefs around here I can genuinely say it is "Coral Reef Neutral"

[sailorgal]

Just to set the record straight, my curent colleagues have published in that particular journal (See links below for some of their publications). I have a PhD, but I don't put that behind my name in the publications on which I am an author. That is not common practice in scientific papers. I don't ask that people call me Doctor either. I think one of the previous posters had it right in that most people don't have a clue about science or the scientific process.

EHP (Environmental Health Perspectives) is a peer reviewed journal. While maybe not the top journal for enviornmental publications, it is well respected.

One of the main focuses of the EPA and scientists studying toxicogenomics (like me) and environmental toxicology is the abundance of personal care products (including components of sunscreen) in the water. Most of the studies focus on waterways into which sewage treatment plants dump their effluents. There is also a dectable concentration of drugs in many waterways (ibuprofen, anti-depressants, cholesterol lowering drugs, etc.) The presence of estrogenic chemicals has been known for some time and actually cause physical changes in male fish. They begin producing egg yolk proteins, which normally only female fish do. Here is a link to one of my publications (in a peer reviewed journal):
Temporal gene induction patterns in sheepshead min...[J Exp Zoolog A Comp Exp Biol. 2006] - PubMed Result

So while there may be unanswered questions in the scientific study in question, that's why other scientists will do follow up experiments. That is how science works. Today's scientists and researchers build on what previous researchers have published. Sometimes they find that previous research was not correct in its methods or conclusions, or additional research does not support previous conclusions, but that is why research continues.

So don't be so quick to think that the authors of that paper had a personal agenda. Just because something doesn't seem likely to the untrained eye doesn't mean it ain't so.


Universal assay of vitellogenin as a biomarker for environmental estrogens.
Expression profiling of estrogenic compounds using...[EHP Toxicogenomics. 2003] - PubMed Result

Relationship between reproductive success and male plasma vitellogenin concentrations in cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus.

[DeepFrz]

I love a good argument, especially when someone knows what they are talking about.