[Coral-List] NOW AVAILABLE: Second edition of "The Great Barrier Reef: Biology, Environment & Management"
Naum, Catherine
catherine.naum1 at jcu.edu.au
Wed Feb 20 23:57:22 UTC 2019
Dear Coral-Listers:
I write to bring to your attention the availability of a new edition of the vital reference book "The Great Barrier Reef: Biology, Environment and Management".
It delivers a comprehensive overview of the world's largest coral reef system, with application to reefs across the globe.
The book is essential reading for undergraduate and postgraduate students, as well as a great resource for managers, policymakers and the interested public.
For more information, please see: https://www.coralcoe.org.au/blog/new-edition-of-book-captures-great-barrier-reef-state-of-knowledge
Kind Regards,
Catherine
Catherine Naum, MSc
Communications Manager
ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies ∙ JCU, Townsville, QLD Australia
T +61 7 4781 6067 ∙ M 0428 785 895 ∙ E catherine.naum1 at jcu.edu.au (Office hours: Tues - Fri)
-----Original Message-----
From: Coral-List <coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> On Behalf Of coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2019 3:00 AM
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: Coral-List Digest, Vol 126, Issue 18
Send Coral-List mailing list submissions to
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
You can reach the person managing the list at
coral-list-owner at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Coral-List digest...", e.g., cut and paste the Subject line from the individual message you are replying to. Also, please only include quoted text from prior posts that is necessary to make your point; avoid re-sending the entire Digest back to the list.
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Sunscreen & coral (Douglas Fenner)
2. Re: Sunscreen & coral (Douglas Fenner)
3. Sunscreen & Coral (Steve Mussman)
4. New Educational Kids Comic 'Coral Heroes' (Carin Jantzen)
5. Diving Safety Officer (Joana Figueiredo)
6. 7th International Symposium on Deep-Sea Corals (Santiago Herrera)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:07:44 -0800
From: Douglas Fenner <douglasfennertassi at gmail.com>
To: "Risk, Michael" <riskmj at mcmaster.ca>
Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Sunscreen & coral
Message-ID:
<CAOEmEkEmSVXOC=9d0rUj-Bri31pBuTNmZJr972x=uEyY+OrRuA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mike,
I have the same thought about high-value reefs that have large numbers of tourists wearing sunscreen on them, they are the most likely to be affected by higher concentrations of these chemicals. Whether corals will be affected or not will likely depend on what the concentrations are, if they are below the thresholds for effects on corals there will be little or no effects, if above, there will be effects. Critical question is whether concentrations above threshold are common or not. For sewage, that may depend on how it enters the ocean, how concentrated, and so on.
I'm glad to see that you think that statements that sunscreen chemicals cause mass coral bleaching events are ridiculous. Does that include the statement on Craig Downs' website, which continues to be on his website, that "Chemicals in sunscreen that come off while swimming or travel through sewage systems when washed off in the shower are ?bigger than climate change,? in causing coral reef damage, according to Craig Downs, "?
"
http://haereticus-lab.org/most-sunscreens-can-harm-coral-reefs-what-should-travelers-do/
Such statements fuel the public's view that these ridiculous statements are true and that sunscreens ARE documented to be a huge problem for corals.
Yet, as I stated, I know of no hard evidence a single coral in the ocean has been killed by them. It may be true that Downs did not say that, in which case he has put a statement he knows is incorrect on his website. No wonder so many people think it is such a big deal, even though there is no hard evidence it is killing lots of corals.
Cheers, Doug
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 6:58 AM Risk, Michael via Coral-List < coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> Thank you for that, Kurt.
> I think you are being far too modest. Readers may wish to know that
> you are a plant physiologist, Product Protection Deputy director of
> Johnson & Johnson, especially their sunscreens.
>
> On another note: there have been several time-wasting posts on this
> subject, and I am sure we are all waiting for a real expert to chime
> in. I wish to respect Craig Downs' privacy, but he is in the middle of
> a fairly serious health issue and has bigger fish to fry. Some may be
> interested in a previous statement of his:
>
> "I would like to ?put to bed? an issue that every single cosmetic
> company has asked me thus far. The statement is part of a fallacious ?strawman?
> argument.
>
> ? ?Oxybenzone threatens every coral reef in the world.? A
> modification of this statement is ?oxybenzone causes global or mass
> coral bleaching events?. It is easy to make this strawman argument,
> but it is also easy to quickly show the ridiculousness of the
> statement. What I have always said in public is that oxybenzone most
> likely threatens coral reefs that matter most to the bulk of people in different countries/society ?
> reefs near where people live and visit them. Reefs important to
> tourism, provide food, sustain real estate values, etc. Environmental
> contamination happens at least two ways on coral reefs, either by (1)
> swimmers, and/or
> (2) sewage. So wherever there are people, especially societies that
> use sunscreen protection products, there is the possibility of
> contamination/pollution. Reefs surrounding remote, uninhabited
> islands wouldn?t be expected to be exposed to oxybenzone."
>
> Email to Jim Hendee and Kurt Reynertson, Feb 2017.
> ________________________________________
> From: Coral-List [coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] on behalf of
> Reynertson, Kurt [CPCUS] via Coral-List
> [coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov]
> Sent: February 12, 2019 7:19 PM
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: [Coral-List] Sunscreen & coral
>
> Hello Coral-listers,
>
> I'm a long-time reader who has never posted. This topic, however, is
> fascinating to me both from a scientific and policy angle. My
> disclaimer: I am posting as an interested scientist, and not as a
> representative of where I work.
>
> I have read the primary literature on this topic with careful attention.
> What I fail to understand is how everyone assumes that "oxybenzone and
> octinoxate kill coral" based on the 2 papers in the primarily
> literature (1, 2).
>
> Do these 2 papers really represent a weight of evidence? I think that
> is what Terry Hughes was addressing in the Conversation post.
>
> Paper 1: The Danovaro paper places coral fragments in plastic bags and
> treats them to extremely high concentrations of sunscreen formulations
> (10
> - 100 uL/L). It's not exactly clear what is really being tested, as
> the methods are not adequately described. And it seems that the stress
> of placing a sensitive organism in a plastic bag is more than unusual.
> Coral toxicologists I've talked to dismiss the relative significance
> of this paper.
>
> Paper 2: The Downs paper is primarily based on cell culture studies.
> Cell culture has utility in science, but is NEVER used for
> environmental risk assessments. So the "toxicity" is questionable. The
> planulae assay is potentially more relevant, but has numerous
> methodological issues, including a lack of proper controls, the use of
> DMSO as a cosolvent, and test concentrations several orders of
> magnitude higher than what's been found by most of the monitoring
> studies. There?s no validation of the method for in situ coral, which
> are especially sensitive to fluctuations in light, temperature,
> salinity, etc. The monitoring portion of the paper is based on single
> samples taken from 5 sites in the US Virgin Islands and 7 sites Hawaii
> (most were below the LOQ). No replicates or blanks reported, and the
> analytical methods are lacking. Also: oxtinoxate is not even part of this study.
>
> That's it. From a risk assessment standpoint, both studies would be
> assigned a Klimish score of 3, meaning they cannot be used for
> regulatory purposes. [FYI, Two more papers were published last month
> (3,4). They also lack some critical controls and still put these
> ingredients in the "low risk category."] That does not feel like a
> solid weight of evidence. If we are to accept this as a standard for
> banning a chemical, then there are many thousands of chemicals we
> should ban at the same time, including many of the "reef-safe" UV
> filters. There are certainly more than 2 papers on coral toxicity from
> titanium and zinc, and yet everyone seems to readily accept these
> ingredients are "reef-safe" in the same breath as they damn oxybenzone.
>
> In fact, there's no regulatory or scientific criteria for "reef-safe."
> It's an opportunistic marketing term. What makes a sunscreen reef-safe
> anyway? I wish someone could explain that to me in scientific terms.
>
> So should all sunscreen be banned based on the precautionary principle?
> The dermatologists and skin cancer experts do not think so. UV
> radiation is a Group 1 carcinogen, on par with smoking, and the WHO
> says that 4/5 of skin cancers are considered preventable. Hence the policy discussion.
>
> P.S., These 2 ingredients are approved for use by heath agencies and
> regulatory bodies worldwide. Oxybenzone is NOT banned in Europe as
> someone suggested (5).
>
> Refs
> 1) Danovaro, et al. (2008) Sunscreens cause coral bleaching by
> promoting viral infections. Environmental Health Perspectives. 116: 441-447.
> 2) Downs, et al. (2016) 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. Arch Envtl
> 3) He, et al. 2019. Comparative toxicities of four benzophenone
> ultraviolet filters to two life stages of two coral species. Science
> of the Total Environment 651: 2391-2399.
> 4) He, et al. 2019. Toxicological effects of two organic ultraviolet
> filters and a related commercial sunscreen product in adult corals.
> Environmental Pollution 245: 462-471.
> 5) EU Cosmetic Regulation
> http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1223/2016-08-12
>
> Best,
> Kurt Reynertson, PhD
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
--
Douglas Fenner
Ocean Associates, Inc. Contractor
NOAA Fisheries Service
Pacific Islands Regional Office
Honolulu
and:
Consultant
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
How to win public support for a global carbon tax
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00124-x
Global warming will happen faster than we think.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07586-5
Nations falling short of emissions cuts set by Paris climate pact, analysis finds
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/nations-falling-short-emissions-cuts-set-paris-climate-pact-analysis-finds?utm_campaign=news_daily_2018-11-28&et_rid=17045989&et_cid=2515903
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:11:12 -0800
From: Douglas Fenner <douglasfennertassi at gmail.com>
To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>,
chemicalsrtoxic at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Sunscreen & coral
Message-ID:
<CAOEmEkHnUGaGC9XkeZ99_foLr73w0xHfX61=P+uHNQikOq-AgQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Joe,
A few points. I think I made the point earlier that the introduction to Craig Downs article lists and provides references to a large number of studies documenting toxic effects on a wide variety of organisms that these chemicals can cause. So if anybody is interested in looked at that, there are loads of references there. At the very least, it demonstrates that these chemicals are very capable of producing toxic effects in a wide variety of organisms.
That said, the organisms in all but a very few of the studies are not corals, and corals are located in places that are different from many of those other orgamisms. The fact that many organisms can be affected suggests it is likely that corals can too, and now we have a small number of studies that confirm that.
The problem is that those studies are not directly relevant. They do NOT demonstrate what the threshold concentrations that affect corals are, and they do NOT demonstrate what the concentrations of these chemicals are in the water where corals are (as far as I know, though I haven't looked through to find the locations of all these studies). Concentrations are critical. ALL chemicals are toxic in the right concentrations. Too much water ingested can kill a person. Corals are killed by immersion in fresh water. It's toxic in high enough concentrations. Every last chemical in every sunscreen (and beer or carrots or anything else) IS TOXIC at high enough concentrations.
Do we know that the chemicals in other sunscreens are both effective in screening out the type of UV rays that cause cancer, AND are non-toxic to corals as the concentrations present around corals where tourists swim?? I doubt it, but maybe someone could speak to that. We DO know that UV causes skin cancer, it is very common, and causes human deaths. What about precaution for that? What is the cost/benefit ratio??
Sorry, if you don't want to address the points that this person made, and just want to say that since they work for the sunscreen industry they must be biased, that's your choice. But it doesn't show that they were wrong. And the studies you refer to do not appear to show he's wrong.
(which also shouldn't be assumed to show that there is no problem, just that if he's right, the few studies on corals are not airtight proof. We scientists produce airtight proof a lot less often than we may think. If you look at many papers and ask "is this airtight proof?" The answer is often no, I think. Good information, and seems reasonable, sure. Proof?
Often not.
In a nutshell, your post does not address the points in the other email.
Your last paragraph begins with a sentence that implies much more than it states and is, in my view, highly misleading. It is quite true that if global warming was not happening, reefs would still be in decline. They were in decline before climate change kicked in significantly. Disease was the main thing that produced decline of corals in the Caribbean, until relatively recently. AND, your statement about chemicals in the waters is surely true, there are a wide variety of chemical pollutants in water (though in the USA, the Clean Water Act has forced an improvement in water quality generally). Indeed, without global warming there are still loads of other things damaging coral reefs that need to be dealt with and reduced so they don't damage corals. Some are very major, among those being land-based water pollution such as nutrients, sediment, and chemicals, and also coral disease. But that does NOT show in any way that sunscreens are a major threat to corals, or even a minor threat. Might be a minor threat, particularly to a few high value spots on reefs. Very unlikely to be a major threat, or it would be obvious many places. As it is with high temperatures causing mass coral bleaching and mortality.
Cheers, Doug
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:06 AM Risk, Michael via Coral-List < coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> Dear listers:
>
> Joseph DiNardo is a retired chemist/toxicologist who has a peripheral
> interest in this matter. He was made aware of some recent exchanges,
> and has asked me to post the following (which means, don't take it up
> with me, but with Joe):
>
> As a retired toxicologist with 43 years experience in the personal
> care industry who has also formulated dozens of sunscreen products and
> tested at least a 100 or so and who was part of providing data to the
> Food & Drug Administration (FDA) for the sunscreen monograph in the
> late 70?s ? when oxybenzone and octinoxate were first approved for
> human use based on, at best, sparse data that was submitted by
> industry who is now selling $10 BILLION a year globally compared to
> what we know today about these pseudo-persistent organic pollutants
> and endocrine disrupting chemicals ? I would like to take a shot at
> explaining the current state of affairs associated with why Oxybenzone and Octinoxate are being banned.
>
> First lets look at a very brief overview of aquatic toxicity reported
> in the peer-review literature for these substances (only the lead
> authors are noted in bold face print):
>
> Octinoxate: demonstrates a variety of toxic effects (including
> mortality) to aquatic life, including but not limited to algae,
> crustaceans, sea urchins, bivalves, coral, and a variety of fish
> species (Bachelot, BASF, Brausch, Christen, Cunha, Fent, Inui, Kaiser,
> Kunz, Molins-Delgado, Ozaez, Paredes, Sang, Schreurs and Zucchi). The
> combined toxicity of octinoxate and oxybenzone in planktonic
> crustaceans was higher than the estimated EC50 (levels that cause
> death) for either chemical alone, suggesting that these results may be
> due to a synergistic effect of the UV-filters(Jang). In coral, it can
> cause bleaching, DNA damage, embryonic deformity, and mortality at levels in the parts per billion (Danovaro, He).
>
> Oxybenzone:demonstrates a variety of toxic (including mortality) and
> endocrine disruption reactions to aquatic bacteria, microalgae, sea
> grass, planktonic crustaceans, harlequin fly, sea urchins, shrimp,
> bivalves and a variety of fish species (Paredes, Liu, Chen F,
> Corinaldesi, Mao, Braush, Balazs). In coral, it can cause bleaching,
> DNA damage, embryonic deformity, mortality, and skeletal endocrine
> disruption at levels in the parts per trillion (Downs, Danovaro, He,
> Tsui).It has been shown to be a notorious endocrine disruptor in fish
> with adult and juvenile males becoming feminized/developing egg
> proteins; reducing mature spermatozoa in testicular tissues, decreases
> aggressive behavior in Siamese fighting fish and reduces the number of
> eggs produce in females (Bluthgen, Kunz, Kinnberg, Rodriguez, Chen T,
> Schreurs, Coronado). Additionally, Spanish scientists looking at the
> eggs of migratory/predatory birds that eat fish (western marsh
> harrier, common kestrel, white stork, slender-billed gull,
> black-headed gull, the gull-billed tern, and a gadwall duck) found
> them to be highly contaminated with 11 different UV chemicals, Oxybenzone being the most common (Molins-Delgado).
>
> There are also numerous in vitro and in vivo studies demonstrating a
> variety of toxicities ranging from significant allergic and
> photo-allergic contact dermatitis reactions in thousands of people to
> increased cellular proliferation of human breast, prostate and lung
> cancer cells (12 papers) to human reproductive effects including
> decreases in human sperm mobility and Hirschsprung?s Disease that have
> been published by independent scientists from all over the world as
> well as government agencies like the US National Toxicology Program.
> In fact there are over 200 papers published describing everything from
> the bio-accumulation/magnification of these 2 chemicals in literally
> every body of water on this planet, contamination of our food chain
> and our bodies (i.e.; the Center for Disease Control has identified
> that roughly 97% of the US population has between parts per trillion
> to 3 parts per million of oxybenzone in their urine). Again, this is just a brief summary of the toxicity associated with these chemicals.
>
> Studies Demonstrating No Affect:
> One would be remiss if data from papers that report a lack of adverse
> effect(s) to oxybenzone especially were to be omitted. A lack of: male
> reproductive toxicity in mice, dermal toxicity in rats and mutagenic
> potential in bacteria have been reported (Daston,Okereke, Cosmetic
> Ingredient Review),all three results are disputed by the National
> Toxicology Programs findings (French). Additionally, a lack of:
> genotoxicity, dermal allergy potential and an increase risk of uterine
> fibroids have been reported (Robison, FDA, Cosmetic Ingredient Review,
> Pollack), again others findings disagree (Cuquerella/Zhao/Hanson,
> Warshaw, Heurung, Verhulst, SCCP,Kunisue). It is not surprising that
> conflicting results are published; what is somewhat interesting is
> that four out of the six publications are from companies in the personal care products industry.
>
> With all that said, I find it hard to believe that any person from the
> personal care industry who finds ?this topic fascinating? and wants to
> raise questions as ?just a scientist? about why these substances are
> being banned ? based on ?2 papers? with a ?Klimish score of 3? can be
> anything but partial. Especially if they work for the number one
> sunscreen company in the world that is reported to be worth $74
> BILLION that unfortunately has over 100,000 lawsuits (per the
> internet) and spends roughly $100 MILLION dollars in legal costs per
> year! I would think that such a scientist would say, let?s take 1% of
> what our corporation spends on just legal fees a year and use that to
> have independent scientists conduct research that would definitively
> prove or disprove the toxicity of these chemicals to our liking.
>
> Further more, I would like to end with one other misnomer ? if global
> warming (which doesn?t exist according to many) ended tomorrow, our
> waters would still be significantly polluted with thousands of
> chemicals which are harming aquatic life and entering into our bodies
> via the aquatic food chain ? the coral would still be dying. Banning
> these two pseudo-persistent organic pollutants and endocrine
> disrupting chemicals, is just the first step in getting our world back
> ? please continue to support the cause as an individual, as a scientist or simply as someone who cares!
>
> Most Sincerely,
> Joe DiNardo
> chemicalsrtoxic at gmail.com
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Coral-List [coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] on behalf of
> Reynertson, Kurt [CPCUS] via Coral-List
> [coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov]
> Sent: February 12, 2019 7:19 PM
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: [Coral-List] Sunscreen & coral
>
> Hello Coral-listers,
>
> I'm a long-time reader who has never posted. This topic, however, is
> fascinating to me both from a scientific and policy angle. My
> disclaimer: I am posting as an interested scientist, and not as a
> representative of where I work.
>
> I have read the primary literature on this topic with careful attention.
> What I fail to understand is how everyone assumes that "oxybenzone and
> octinoxate kill coral" based on the 2 papers in the primarily
> literature (1, 2).
>
> Do these 2 papers really represent a weight of evidence? I think that
> is what Terry Hughes was addressing in the Conversation post.
>
> Paper 1: The Danovaro paper places coral fragments in plastic bags and
> treats them to extremely high concentrations of sunscreen formulations
> (10
> - 100 uL/L). It's not exactly clear what is really being tested, as
> the methods are not adequately described. And it seems that the stress
> of placing a sensitive organism in a plastic bag is more than unusual.
> Coral toxicologists I've talked to dismiss the relative significance
> of this paper.
>
> Paper 2: The Downs paper is primarily based on cell culture studies.
> Cell culture has utility in science, but is NEVER used for
> environmental risk assessments. So the "toxicity" is questionable. The
> planulae assay is potentially more relevant, but has numerous
> methodological issues, including a lack of proper controls, the use of
> DMSO as a cosolvent, and test concentrations several orders of
> magnitude higher than what's been found by most of the monitoring
> studies. There?s no validation of the method for in situ coral, which
> are especially sensitive to fluctuations in light, temperature,
> salinity, etc. The monitoring portion of the paper is based on single
> samples taken from 5 sites in the US Virgin Islands and 7 sites Hawaii
> (most were below the LOQ). No replicates or blanks reported, and the
> analytical methods are lacking. Also: oxtinoxate is not even part of this study.
>
> That's it. From a risk assessment standpoint, both studies would be
> assigned a Klimish score of 3, meaning they cannot be used for
> regulatory purposes. [FYI, Two more papers were published last month
> (3,4). They also lack some critical controls and still put these
> ingredients in the "low risk category."] That does not feel like a
> solid weight of evidence. If we are to accept this as a standard for
> banning a chemical, then there are many thousands of chemicals we
> should ban at the same time, including many of the "reef-safe" UV
> filters. There are certainly more than 2 papers on coral toxicity from
> titanium and zinc, and yet everyone seems to readily accept these
> ingredients are "reef-safe" in the same breath as they damn oxybenzone.
>
> In fact, there's no regulatory or scientific criteria for "reef-safe."
> It's an opportunistic marketing term. What makes a sunscreen reef-safe
> anyway? I wish someone could explain that to me in scientific terms.
>
> So should all sunscreen be banned based on the precautionary principle?
> The dermatologists and skin cancer experts do not think so. UV
> radiation is a Group 1 carcinogen, on par with smoking, and the WHO
> says that 4/5 of skin cancers are considered preventable. Hence the policy discussion.
>
> P.S., These 2 ingredients are approved for use by heath agencies and
> regulatory bodies worldwide. Oxybenzone is NOT banned in Europe as
> someone suggested (5).
>
> Refs
> 1) Danovaro, et al. (2008) Sunscreens cause coral bleaching by
> promoting viral infections. Environmental Health Perspectives. 116: 441-447.
> 2) Downs, et al. (2016) 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. Arch Envtl
> 3) He, et al. 2019. Comparative toxicities of four benzophenone
> ultraviolet filters to two life stages of two coral species. Science
> of the Total Environment 651: 2391-2399.
> 4) He, et al. 2019. Toxicological effects of two organic ultraviolet
> filters and a related commercial sunscreen product in adult corals.
> Environmental Pollution 245: 462-471.
> 5) EU Cosmetic Regulation
> http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1223/2016-08-12
>
> Best,
> Kurt Reynertson, PhD
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
--
Douglas Fenner
Ocean Associates, Inc. Contractor
NOAA Fisheries Service
Pacific Islands Regional Office
Honolulu
and:
Consultant
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
How to win public support for a global carbon tax
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00124-x
Global warming will happen faster than we think.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07586-5
Nations falling short of emissions cuts set by Paris climate pact, analysis finds
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/nations-falling-short-emissions-cuts-set-paris-climate-pact-analysis-finds?utm_campaign=news_daily_2018-11-28&et_rid=17045989&et_cid=2515903
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:58:20 -0500
From: Steve Mussman <sealab at earthlink.net>
To: coral list <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: [Coral-List] Sunscreen & Coral
Message-ID: <B7F5B302-723B-48A7-A1CA-CA5AA97DEE58 at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Dear Listers,
As an avid follower of this forum and a non-scientist, I recognize the fact that I am not a qualified expert, but I have long been captivated by the science that many of you have contributed to and would like to share a few observations regarding how the science related to harmful chemicals in sunscreen products is being consumed, processed and spun in the public domain.
I don?t think it is controversial or divisive to suggest that if certain chemicals are determined to be toxic to corals and other marine life, we should support their curtailment, control or elimination. In fact, it seems logical that this advocacy should expand to include many other products and practices contributing to ocean pollution.
It seems to me that problems arise only when related scientific findings are expressly misrepresented in some way. Often it is unclear if this is done intentionally (to promote a specific agenda) or by virtue of the media?s desire to grab attention through overemphasis and sensationalism. It is unfortunate that this can lead to scientific turf wars which feed the damaging narrative that there are wide gaps and disagreements among coral scientists as to which stressors must be addressed if we are to have any chance of saving what remains of the world?s coral reefs.
The statement in quotes below is an example of one manifestation of the problem. It was taken from a popular U.S. scuba diving periodical. It seems to be clearly, if not deliberately misleading. In fact, in my opinion, if special interest groups consistently emphasize or overstate some (secondary) threats while disregarding the impacts of (what science has determined to be) the major contributing factors, one can?t help but suspect that *greenwashing is in play.
?Despite divers' training and love of coral ecosystems, however, some heavily visited reefs are degrading faster than ones visited less frequently. But rather than accidental contact, the major contributing factor to these declines is sunscreen pollution?.
I would argue that the general public (and coral reefs) would be better served if more accurate characterizations of the issue similar to the following taken from an Australian publication were the norm.
?So, where do the chemicals in sunscreen rank in the taxonomy of threats to global reefs?? ?The biggest stresses are climate change, overfishing and pollution, and pollution more generally than sunscreen?, Hughes said. ?Sunscreen, because of its source, is far less of a problem than run off of pesticides in rivers?. Downs agreed. ?My professional opinion is that agricultural run-off and sewage ... are probably responsible for the historical collapse of coral reefs for the past 40 years?, he said. So, your sunscreen could be doing damage, but not at the global scale headlines implied. Plus, sunscreen is vital to lowering your odds of skin cancer. Next time you go to the beach, consider a sunscreen without all of that oxybenzone, but more importantly, lobby your local politicians for better agricultural practices and action on climate change?.
While it is true that it would be burdensome and unrealistic to suggest that coral scientists should take on the added responsibility of monitoring and censoring the wide scope of media coverage of every coral reef issue, I believe that if we are to have any hope of changing the paradigm, we will need more scientists to be willing to step up and directly challenge any overtly unsubstantiated or misleading claims brought to their attention.
Sincere regards and thanks to the coral science community for all you do. Your efforts are greatly appreciated and I?m not sure that you hear that often enough.
Steve
*Greenwashing as defined as ?the practice of making an unsubstantiated or misleading claim about the environmental benefits of a product, service, technology or company practice. Greenwashing can make a company appear to be more environmentally friendly than it really is?.
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:15:37 +0100
From: Carin Jantzen <carin.jantzen at gmx.net>
To: Coral List <Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: [Coral-List] New Educational Kids Comic 'Coral Heroes'
Message-ID: <aead9a8e-563a-e1c8-602e-896560ac812b at gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Dear all,
Our educational comic *Coral Heroes* for kids and interested adults is released! Its a joint project of awarded illustrator Bernhard Speh (http://www.spehzies.de <http://www.spehzies.de/>) and SECORE. *Coral
Heroes* takes you into the vibrant world of coral reefs and explains why corals need our help.
*Coral Heroes* can be downloaded at our website
(http://www.secore.org/site/our-work/detail/coral-heroes-comic.53.html)
and it is freely available for any institutional education purposes or just for fun! High-resolution print files can be provided on request. We invite all kinds of teachers, zoo and aquarium tutors, scoutmasters and others to use *Coral Heroes* along with the provided teaching materials to compile a lively lecture about coral reefs. Please enjoy!
with kind regards,
Carin
Dr. Carin Jantzen
Communication and Public Relations
www.secore.org
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 20:27:12 +0000
From: Joana Figueiredo <jfigueiredo at nova.edu>
To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: [Coral-List] Diving Safety Officer
Message-ID:
<DM6PR06MB45878C56808836AC97EA6949D17C0 at DM6PR06MB4587.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Nova Southeastern University (NSU), the ninth largest private not-for-profit university in the United States, has outstanding programs and research. To support this exiting and dynamic environment, NSU invites applications for the position of Diving Safety Officer.
The Diving Safety Officer manages all aspects of the NSU Scientific Diving Program and ensures that all NSU sponsored scientific (research) diving activities are carried out in an effective and safe manner in accordance with NSU policy, state and federal regulations, as well as with the American Academy of Underwater Sciences (AAUS) standards for scientific diving.
To view a complete position description and to apply, please visit www.nsujobs.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nsujobs.com&data=02%7C01%7Cjfigueiredo%40nova.edu%7Cf88b7dac88f7457c17ba08d696a706de%7C2c2b2d312e3e4df1b571fb37c042ff1b%7C0%7C0%7C636862041445431936&sdata=joz4%2B2eLe9y4y2Nxrc8hfluQgPShwZ3Ez1h9mFr%2FGwo%3D&reserved=0> and reference position #994950 NSU offers competitive compensation and outstanding benefits. NSU considers applicants for all positions without regard to race, color, religion, creed, gender, national origin, age disability, marital or veteran status or any other legally protected status.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:35:04 -0500
From: Santiago Herrera <tiagohe at gmail.com>
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: [Coral-List] 7th International Symposium on Deep-Sea Corals
Message-ID:
<CAOr21O7OGckJWzD65DfoLoa_mZqioXjhgGeHC1BUct-eZ=KDGw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
7th International Symposium on Deep-Sea Corals, Cartagena, Colombia. July
29 - August 2, 2019
*Early registration and abstract submission are now OPEN. Visit:*
https://www.deepseacoral2019.org/
The 7th International Symposium on Deep-Sea Corals is the premier meeting for scientists, explorers, managers, policymakers, industry specialists and students to exchange ideas and share knowledge of deep-sea and cold-water corals and their ecosystems.
Topics of this meeting will include biodiversity, ecology, evolution, environment, climate, fisheries, sponges, associated fauna, mesophotic ecosystems, anthropogenic impacts, technology, and conservation.
This will be the 7th edition of the symposium, which has been running every
2-4 years since 2000. This will be the first time it will take place in South America, and the second time in the southern hemisphere.
Organizers: Juan Armando S?nchez (Universidad de los Andes), Santiago Herrera (Lehigh University), and Luisa Due?as (Universidad Nacional de Colombia).
Click here if you want to receive updates about the symposium <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfzx3A6T_hsy9Mv702Dxa8EeM6SNTvZ7k5gVK_VhIuknwbZAQ/viewform?fbzx=8540746925095785400>
Santiago Herrera, PhD
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA 18015 USA
Office: *+1 610-758-4527*
https://santiagoherrera.github.io/
Santiago Herrera
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
------------------------------
End of Coral-List Digest, Vol 126, Issue 18
*******************************************
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list