Tried Organic Sun Screen ?

[Captain Bill]

Martinini, while someone may have demonstrated a common link and and the effect can be replicated (Always a good thing in science), this does not prove that there is only one common link and no scientist would dare claim that he has proven that it is the only common link and expect to maintain his credibility. I suspect these are your words not his. Droughts in Africa are not new so what makes it different this time? Maybe it's not different this time and reef bleaching is only being observed for the first time since we have only recently started looking at reefs through face masks. The problem is that we don't know that. As Sailorgal stated there are chemicals that show effects at nanogram levels and a large number of pollutants are found in seawater throughout the globe. How does one separate that issue as a contributing factor even if all of the reefs are infected with the fungus. There have been a number of studies that have shown major bleaching events associated with warm water pulses. How do we know this common fungus is not blooming after the coral is stressed by some other factor?

Sailorgal, I was his TA in developmental biology in 1979 and 80. I had a lot of fun doing it. The only issue I had with him was he made me dive for the Arbacia in January. Dang that water was cold.

[Martinini]

This was on a Public Television special that aired in Mobile, Al. If you do a search I am sure you will find the information. Refitting this boat on SSI payments I have a lot of time after dark to watch the Boob Tube. Since I don't have Sat Or Cable Public tv is the only good thing on!

[Martinini]

Capt Bill I am pretty sure the wording was correct, to date the only common thread is the fungus. Yes there have been droughts in Africa before , but as pointed out in the special not any that have lasted this long. It was also pointed out that warmer water increased the growth of the fungus which destroyed the coral faster. The studies of coral bleaching after warm water pulses predate these findings. I am sure since he is published, a search would retrieve the information. I am kicking myself for forgetting his name though. This kind of research is way outta my league--I'm just putting it out there for others to research and make up thier own minds.

[bstreep]

Good arguments here. BTW, I was at FSU studying molecular genetics from '76-78. From there I went into a PhD program at Rice University in Houston.

Here's the thing: They have proven that high (insanely high, in my opinion) concentrations of sunblock will cause SPS corals to slime =====> the corals become susceptible to a rampant viral infection =====> "bleaching" or the expulsion of photosynthetic zooanthella. Seriously there are LOTS of things that make corals slime - it's kind of like making humans sweat. It's a natural defense process.

I'm sorry I get so wound up in this stuff. But, as a FORMER scientist, it pisses me off. Because in just about ANY scientific controversy one MUST:

JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY.

[Jerry Woodward]

As a PhD immunologist, with an active research lab, I am constantly amazed and appalled at the amount of "junk" science out there and the inordinate amount of press often heaped upon a single poorly conducted study, often times not published in a peer reviewed journal. At the other end of the spectrum, I'm equally incensed to see non-scientists attempt to discredit large bodies of scientific research because it goes against their moral or political beliefs: global warming, embryonic stem cells and evolution are a few examples.

So, when I read this topic, I initially thought this was another case of typical junk science. However, National Geographic usually doesn't fall into the trap of reporting junk. So, I looked up the article and checked out the journal. Environmental Health Perspectives has an impact factor of 5.64, which is very respectable for a peer reviewed journal and places it as number 1 among 160 environmental peer reviewed journals. This means that the article was subject to intense scrutiny and review by experts in the field. This paper is a serious piece of scientific inquiry, with state of the art methodology, appropriate controls and statistical analysis. It represents a considerable amount of work and to imply that these guys did this just to get a free trip to the tropics reflects a serious lack of appreciation of the time and effort required to complete a study like this, and get it published in a high quality journal.

To the poster who implied that this has been "debunked", I would echo Gord's response: what is your evidence? In fact, I checked, and there has been no refutation of any of the claims of this work so far in the peer reviewed literature.

So, does this mean we should take this work as gospel, that the work is beyond reproach, that the conclusions are iron clad? Of course not. No single piece of scientific work in the literature is without its faults. This is the part of science that most people don't really seem to understand. Science is continual process of experimentation, publishing of results, and then replication by independent groups. The more the results are replicated, the more it becomes generally accepted. If the results can’t be replicated, it will die a silent death. Often times, there is a completely unanticipated finding that sends the field into a whole new direction. For example, this study includes the surprising finding that these agents reactivate viruses in the Zooxanthellae. The question is why? How does this work? Might this give us a clue as to how other environmental aromatic hydrocarbons affect corals? In other words, the ultimate benefit of this research might have little to do with sunscreens.

The posters who are skeptical because of the dilution effect raise a very legitimate question. But this gets more to the interpretation of the results, rather than the data itself. Of course this study doesn’t say that sunscreens are killing our reefs, but it does open up the possibility that these compounds may be involved. Only further studies will shed light on this. Many of these compounds are not water soluble and thus may be concentrated in marine organisms as well.

Sorry for the long-winded post, but I feel strongly that people need to recognize legitimate science for what it is: it’s one piece of a very large and complex jigsaw puzzle. We also need to loudly denounce junk science when we see it. But this is not one of those.

Jerry

[Trim50]

aromatic hydrocarbons ...i.e, benzene-based

[sailorgal]

Thanks Jerry -- Very well done!

[Celestialsailor]

Well...I for one am glad we have varied opinions here. My hat is off to all you eggheads. My world is a better place for ya. Also valued are the skeptics who challenge these theory's when they rise up as gospel. The sailing community and especially this forum has quite a few creative minds and personalities. Good job.

[Bash]

...with terminal degrees. And all this time I've been using this forum as an "escape" from dealing with colleagues. Or so I thought.

Sigh.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Colorado Dreamer

That can not be good for reefs, fish, humans, the planet, or plankton. (Not in that order.)

I simply choose to live my life with as little impact on the environment as possible, not for profit or science, but so that I can look my son in the eyes in 15 years and tell him I did everything I could to try to change the course we are on.

After reading some of these posts, It makes me wonder some peoples thoughts on Climate Change or Evolution. Another thread perhaps...

Humans are what is not really good for the planet.
Who wants to get off first?

The course we are on ......hmm......I prefer sun screen to sunburn, and AC and antibiotics, and electric lighting, etc.

[svHyLyte]

While we respect the environment and make every reasonable effort to minimize our impact, we feel we have as much right if not somewhat more to be here as do any other of God'c creatures. Accordingly, as far as we're concerned, if it's a choice between zooplanton, coral, fish or humans, the foregoing are toast. On the other hand, we have great respect for those that are ready and willing to sacrafice themselves and their children for the sake of the foregoing, and urge you to do so...soon.

[pete33458]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV) I and II are frequently activated by sun exposure, colds, stress, and who knows what else?
However, ultraviolet radiation and heat has been demonstrated to kill the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus effectively.

Because it's NOT a latent virus...it doesn't become activated (enter a lytic state) upon UV irradiation.

[pete33458]

Originally Posted by Jerry Woodward

As a PhD immunologist, with an active research lab, I am constantly amazed and appalled at the amount of "junk" science out there and the inordinate amount of press often heaped upon a single poorly conducted study, often times not published in a peer reviewed journal. At the other end of the spectrum, I'm equally incensed to see non-scientists attempt to discredit large bodies of scientific research because it goes against their moral or political beliefs: global warming, embryonic stem cells and evolution are a few examples.

To the poster who implied that this has been "debunked", I would echo Gord's response: what is your evidence? In fact, I checked, and there has been no refutation of any of the claims of this work so far in the peer reviewed literature.

We also need to loudly denounce junk science when we see it. But this is not one of those.

Jerry

Gee, I'm a PhD immunologist with an active research lab as well, 4 grants from the National Institutes of Health, lots and lots of published papers. What I said stands. Can you debunk it? I don't think so.

[Colorado Dreamer]

Originally Posted by Therapy

Humans are what is not really good for the planet.
Who wants to get off first?

I would be more than happy to supply a list...

Originally Posted by Therapy

The course we are on ......hmm......I prefer sun screen to sunburn, and AC and antibiotics, and electric lighting, etc.

And that is where we differ. I live in a Strawbale home, consume power that comes from the sun, grow my own food, own a sailboat that has used less than five gallons of diesel in the last year, drive the same car I have driven since I was in High School, don't own a credit card, etc.

I prefer to leave the planet better than I found it, not worse.

[Colorado Dreamer]

Originally Posted by svHyLyte

While we respect the environment and make every reasonable effort to minimize our impact, we feel we have as much right if not somewhat more to be here as do any other of God'c creatures.

Very interesting line of thought. I would only ask what would make you feel we have a "somewhat more" right to be here than any of "gods" other creatures.

Originally Posted by svHyLyte

Accordingly, as far as we're concerned, if it's a choice between zooplanton, coral, fish or humans, the foregoing are toast.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but once the "foregoing are toast", I think we are all probably "toast". Think back to elementary school and the lessons on the food chain. That alone should convince you to rethink your stance.

Originally Posted by svHyLyte

On the other hand, we have great respect for those that are ready and willing to sacrafice themselves and their children for the sake of the foregoing, and urge you to do so...soon.

I am a little confused by this part, as I do not see how switching to Organic Sunscreen is that big of a sacrafice, but I guess to some it might be.