[Coral-List] Hawaii bans sunscreens deemed harmful to coral reefs

Sat May 12 20:00:41 EDT 2018

      I’m glad as I’m sure many are, to see something that we can actually
make progress on, to protect coral reefs.  Glad to see action taken.  What
I worry about is whether this is a priority or not.  Getting something
constructive done that helps reefs is great.  But we’d better be realistic,
or we’re going to lose the world’s coral reef ecosystems.  I think we are
in a time in which we have to do triage.  Triage is when a medical team is
flooded with patients, they have to choose which to treat first.  They
generally choose those that are in the worst condition for which they have
a chance of saving their lives.  Those that can wait will have to.  It
would be counter-productive to treat small scratches while patients are
dying of bullet wounds.  Our patient (the world’s coral reef ecosystems) is
dying, it is abundantly obvious.  We can concentrate our effort on
scratches, and if we do our patient will die.  People are starting to say,
“we’ve done all we can on climate change” implying further effort there is
wasted.  The deniers and fossil fuel industry, plus the cost of action and
inertia, have conspired and have won.  Congratulations deniers, you’ve won.
Meantime, the dive industry won’t speak up, and the world’s nations are
offering too little too late, they aren’t doing what they promised, and
they aren’t increasing their promises enough to avoid disaster.  This is a
planetary emergency and fiddling while Rome burns isn’t going to save reef
ecosystems or corals.  Are sunblock chemicals worth a lot of effort?  Yes
if you have high value reefs that have huge numbers of tourists.  No if you
have vast areas of reefs far from all but a few tourists.  And the vast
majority of the world’s reefs are in the latter condition.  Do triage, and
you find out that sunscreen chemicals are truly the scratch on the wrist,
while global warming is the bullet that went into the heart (and things
like overfishing, nutrients, sedimentation, and coral disease are next on
almost everybody’s list).

       I think it is time to redouble efforts to get climate change under
control.  It can be done, we’d better act fast because the deniers have
successfully delayed action until it is almost impossible, and they’re
still fighting tooth and nail (successfully) to save the trillions of
dollars that go into their favorite fossil fuel companies.  Make no mistake
about where the real threat is.  It isn’t in sunscreens (unless you have a
reef that is tiny, high-value, and highly impacted by tourists).  How many
reefs have been documented to have been killed by sunscreen?  (none that I
know of.)  How many by mass coral bleaching?  (we’ve lost count.)  I say
let’s get real and face the facts.  Sunscreens don’t threaten the world’s
coral reef ecosystems.  Mass coral bleaching from global warming does, and
so do several other things.  If we allow ourselves to be sidetracked by
minor local things and spend effort on that instead of on the big issues,
kiss coral reefs good-by.

Cheers, Doug

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Emilie Johnsen <emiliejohnsen2 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Liz,
>
> Thank you so much for providing that new report! I am a recent graduate of
> Nova Southeastern University's Oceanographic Center (Dania Beach, FL).
> Coincidental to the recent news, my capstone investigated the toxicological
> effects of commercial sunscreens on corals and other reef organisms in
> addition to a pilot study involving Coral Restoration Foundation's
> sunscreen exposure to* A. cervicornis*. There is a lot of information
> regarding sunscreen toxicity that the public (science community, even) does
> not know. I wish articles and social media posts would be more accurate....
> Anyway, below is the summary of my investigation (with the guidance of Dr..
> Esther Peters and Dr. Joshua Feingold) to add to that report:
>
> Based on the review of 40 studies involving the exposure of commercial
> sunscreens to various marine organisms:
>
>    -  Chemical UV filters can be toxic, but it depends on many factors :
> species, individual health, environmental factors, and the UV filter being
> tested, among others (based on 13/40 studies). Additionally, toxicity
> depends on how much of the chemical is being exposed, how much is absorbed
> by the organism, and the organism's ability to expel and/or detoxify the
> toxicant. Whether or not there are any physicochemical reactions between
> chemical UV filters and seawater is poorly studied. Currently, their
> toxicity is only considered dose-dependent with influences from
> environmental conditions.
>
>    -  Mineral UV filters are also considered toxic, but the reasoning is
> more complex. Based on 28/40 studies, mineral ZnO and TiO2 nanoparticle
> toxicity is not only dose-dependent like chemical UV filters, but their
> physicochemical effects in seawater also make them a threat to various
> marine life. These physicochemical reactions include dissociation of
> mineral oxides into free-metal ions, photoreactivity, and aggregation into
> sediments. In some cases, free Zn2+ and Ti2+ was considered more toxic,
> especially for marine phytoplankton. (Free metal ions can actually inhibit
> manganese uptake which is vital for phytoplankton growth!) Interestingly,
> in addition to the influence of environmental factors on mineral UV filter
> toxicity, particle size was also a huge factor. This is why many
> "reef-safe" brands will advertise the use of "non-nano" mineral UV filters.
> Metal oxide nanoparticles have toxic capabilities, but a couple studies
> indicate that non-nanoparticles ( > 100 nm) can actually be more toxic to
> certain filter feeders due to higher uptake concentration (D'Agata *et al*.,
> 2014), while some crustaceans and fish struggle with bioavailability (Wong*
> et al*., 2010). Despite this, it does appear that--compared to chemical
> UV filters and mineral nanoparticles-- non-nano mineral UV filters are most
> promising to best reduce (albeit not completely eliminate) toxicity to
> marine organisms.
>
> Furthermore, there are no current regulations that enforce the integrity
> of sunscreen advertisement claims. Many brands will claim themselves as
> "eco-friendly", but there is nothing but their word to actually back it up.
> (See the brand "Reef-Safe" as a perfect example.) I therefore applaud
> Hawaii in their efforts to ban certain sunscreen chemicals, however it is
> just the tip of the iceberg. Our oceans face a plethora of issues under the
> name of climate change, but we all must remember...chemical pollution is
> one of the hierarchal problems here, and it is disguised in many forms.
>
> Best,
>
> Emilie Johnsen
>
> Master's Recipient, 2018
> Nova Southeastern University's Halmos College of Natural Sciences and
> Oceanography
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Liz Wood <ewood at f2s.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear listers,
>>
>> To add to the on-going debate about sunscreens I would like to draw your
>> attention to a briefing on this issue posted on the International Coral
>> Reef
>> Initiative website in February 2018, prior to the implementation of the
>> ban
>> in Hawaii.
>>
>> https://www.icriforum.org/sites/default/files/ICRI_Sunscreen.pdf
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Liz Wood
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Douglas Fenner
>> Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2018 1:28 PM
>> To: coral list
>> Subject: [Coral-List] Hawaii bans sunscreens deemed harmful to coral reefs
>>
>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/hawaii-bans-sunscreens-deemed-har
>> mful-054453351.html
>>
>> Open-access.
>>
>> Hawaii approves bill banning sunscreen believed to kill coral reefs.
>>
>> https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/02/607765760
>> /hawaii-approves-bill-banning-sunscreen-believed-to-kill-coral-reefs
>>
>> Open-access.
>>
>> No, your sunscreen isn't killing the world's coral reefs.
>>
>> https://mashable.com/2015/11/10/sunscreen-killing-coral-reef
>> s/?utm_campaign=Mash-BD-Synd-Yahoo-Science-Full&utm_cid=
>> Mash-BD-Synd-Yahoo-Science-Full#45AuyLkru5qH
>>
>> Open-access.
>>
>> Cheers, Doug
>>
>> --
>> Douglas Fenner
>> Contractor for NOAA NMFS Protected Species, and consultant
>> PO Box 7390
>> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799  USA
>>
>> New online open-access field guide to 300 coral species in Chagos, Indian
>> Ocean
>> http://chagosinformationportal.org/corals
>>
>> Even without El Nino, 2017 temperatures soared.
>>
>> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/even-without-el-ni-o-
>> 2017-temperatures-still-soared?utm_campaign=news_weekly_
>> 2018-01-19&et_rid=17045989&et_cid=1800664
>>
>> Coral reefs are bleaching too frequently to recover
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/the-glob
>> al-scourge-on-coral-reefs/549713/?utm_source=atlfb
>>
>> How to save the "tropical rainforests" of the ocean
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/01/
>> 09/coral-reefs/?tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.80ce291c546b
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>
>
>

-- 
Douglas Fenner
Contractor for NOAA NMFS Protected Species, and consultant
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799  USA

New online open-access field guide to 300 coral species in Chagos, Indian
Ocean
http://chagosinformationportal.org/corals

Even without El Nino, 2017 temperatures soared.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/even-without-el-ni-o-2017-temperatures-still-soared?utm_campaign=news_weekly_2018-01-19&et_rid=17045989&et_cid=1800664

Coral reefs are bleaching too frequently to recover
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/the-global-scourge-on-coral-reefs/549713/?utm_source=atlfb

How to save the "tropical rainforests" of the ocean
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/01/09/coral-reefs/?tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.80ce291c546b