[Coral-List] Sunscreen paper

[Risk, Michael]

   Good day, listers. May you all stay safe in these perilous times.

   I am a cranky old git, and some aspects of modern science annoy me. I
   regularly get MSS to review that a good student may have submitted as a
   term paper in a grad course-with 18-20 authors. I guess that was
   predictable once word got out that university hiring committees (and
   administrators) were making first-cut decisions based on a simple count
   of # of papers. This trend enhances neither my faith in university
   hiring decisions, nor the professional ethics of some of my colleagues.
   I am also not happy with postings to this site such as: "Look what we
   just published." The growth of sophisticated search engines means we
   should not need this to keep current. Coral reef biology already has
   enough self-promotion-we don't need more.


   Having got that off my chest, allow me to inform you of the new
   multi-authored paper we just published. Ho ho. I feel this carries
   several messages of relevance to this group.

   Downs et al 2021, Chemosphere:
   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352103352X?dgc
   id=coauthor


   The paper itself describes the extent of sunscreen pollution in Hanauma
   Bay, a heavily-used bay in Hawaii. Beach showers seemed to be the main
   source of the sunscreen, which is found throughout the Bay. Some very
   cool hydrodynamic modelling shows that the residence time of the
   sunscreen pollution depends on oceanographic conditions-which in many
   cases can be predicted in advance.


   The authors come from six different countries, making this a very
   international effort. What is more, the list includes employees of the
   US government, US politicians...and Iranian scientists. We need more of
   this, showing that good science can proceed even among people whose
   governments are at odds. Pollution does not respect boundaries.


   The HD modelling is worth commenting on, because it introduces
   something we could call Environmental Fluid Dynamics. The fiendishly
   clever Iranian modellers have shown that the flushing rates of the Bay
   are a function of local oceanography. Those conditions can be predicted
   in advance. This means that, once permissible levels of a pollutant
   have been established, local managers can make informed decisions as to
   bather traffic. They might say things like, "Next Tue-Wed there can be
   5,000 people in the Bay, but by Fri-Sat those numbers need to come down
   to 500."


   This is a technique that can be applied any time there is a necessary
   discharge of a pollutant along a coast or in a bay-loading ore onto a
   freighter, for example. Specific times can be identified in advance, to
   mitigate the impacts of the discharge.


   I vividly remember years ago when the sunscreen issue first surfaced on
   this board. This was a clear threat, easily dealt with: all that was
   required was that coral reef biologists speak with one voice, to say
   "Ban this stuff." Knowing their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws
   of victory, I knew better. Sure enough, there was an immediate flood of
   responses of the form "This may be important but not as important as
   what I am working on." As though fixing one relatively small (in the
   global sense) problem could not possibly be considered before the Big
   Issues were dealt with. Next, in a process familiar to those of us who
   labour in the climate wars: sure enough, industry funded research
   designed to cast doubt on the original sunscreen work.


   It sure would be nice if all the myriad projects designed to "save the
   reefs" began with this mission statement: "first we must clean up the
   water." None of them do.

   Yours in good health-Mike