PDA

View Full Version : Study Claims Sunscreen Killing Coral Reefs



Sarah
02-24-2008, 01:08 AM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080129-sunscreen-coral.html

I am very skeptical of this claim.

hbh2oguard
02-24-2008, 02:48 AM
I agree! The ocean is way way too big that a little sunscreen wouldn't do much.

swimmergrl
02-24-2008, 10:24 PM
I agree! The ocean is way way too big that a little sunscreen wouldn't do much.

Actually, I wouldn't be so sure. We tend to forget that there are 6 billion people on Earth, and little things done by many build up quickly.

"According to our experiment it is estimated that at least 25% of the amount applied is washed off during swimming and bathing, accounting for a potential
release of 4,000-6,000 tons year-1 in reef areas." (Danovaro 2008)

That doesn't sound like a little bit of sunscreen.

National Geographic is a decent source for scientific reporting, but I always like to go back to the source. The link to the study in .pdf is below.

I read through it, and both the research techniques and and findings sounds firm. Sunscreen has been found to be detrimental to fresh water environments, so it makes sense that it has negatives effects in marine environments. Most of the data in the news story is from the 12th page of the study, page 13 of the pdf.

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

The study isn't claiming the chemicals in the sunscreen are killing the coral directly. Thus, concentration (amount of chemicals vs. amount of water) doesn't really matter. What their study has found is that several of the chemicals in the sunscreen activate a dormant virus in the coral. (Actually, the zooxanthellae (algae)) Viruses have no way to replicate themselves, so they dig into a healthy host cell and use the replicating mechanisms in the cell. Since they don't have any stop coded into them, the cell just churns out new virus copies until it explodes and releases them into the environment, where they will do the same to the next algae cell they find. It is basically an algae flu or HIV/AIDS. Coral and the zooxanthellae have a symbiotic relationship. The coral is entirely dependent on the algae for nutrients, so when the algae die, the coral starves and dies. It is a very interesting, and very scary finding.

Seems like a really good reason to look into biodegradable sunscreen.

Rachel

Sarah
02-24-2008, 11:35 PM
Hi Rachel,

I looked all over for the original study and tried a keyword search at the site to no avail, so thanks!

The question in my mind is is it the sunscreen from swimmers that is causing the problems with corals, or is it the fact that the areas where swimmers are likely to be in areas with denser urban populations and thus pollution.

Is there such a thing as biodegradable, non-toxic sunscreen that works? That would be interesting...

Thanks Rachel!

hbh2oguard
02-25-2008, 12:30 AM
Sure there's about 6 billion people in the world but a lot of them don't go in the water. Of those that do go in, all don't wear sunscreen, and all aren't going in the water around coral reefs. Coral is pretty sensitive and can be damaged/killed by numerous things some of which can be attributed to human activity but I'm still not sold on sunscreen. There's about 330,000,000 cubic miles of ocean and I just don't see how sunscreen could be a factor. I could see how global warming, sediment, harbors, hotels, urbinization, boats....etc can kill the reefs. There are just too many factors that have to be accounted for to conclude sunscreen.

Papa Bear
02-25-2008, 01:59 AM
The study was flawed! They put the sun screen in plastic bags and tied them around the coral! First the amount is 1000s of times more concentrated! Next plastic blocks UV which could effect the alga that grows in the coral polyp and feeds the coral! So please! Hbh is right on, with the dilution factor! There is like 62lbs of gold in a square mile of sea water! More gold then Sunscreen I bet, maybe it's the gold? Or how about all the chlorine in the Sodium chloride? That stuff will kill you!

swimmergrl
02-25-2008, 02:19 AM
Sure there's about 6 billion people in the world but a lot of them don't go in the water. Of those that do go in, all don't wear sunscreen, and all aren't going in the water around coral reefs. Coral is pretty sensitive and can be damaged/killed by numerous things some of which can be attributed to human activity but I'm still not sold on sunscreen. There's about 330,000,000 cubic miles of ocean and I just don't see how sunscreen could be a factor. I could see how global warming, sediment, harbors, hotels, urbinization, boats....etc can kill the reefs. There are just too many factors that have to be accounted for to conclude sunscreen.

By saying there are 6 billion people on Earth, I wasn't implying that all go into the ocean, I was trying to point out that little things can become huge problems when population numbers are so huge. Coral reefs are of huge importance to many people who depend on their existence to survive.

"Coral reefs are...directly sustaining half a billion people (Moberg and Folke 1999; Wilkinson 2004)." (Danovaro 2008)

Much like heavy metals, they build up in the environment, and can reach dangerous levels.

"Being lipophilic, sunscreen UV filters have the potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic animals (Giokas et al. 2007)" (Danovaro 2008)

The study isn't claiming that sunscreen is the only thing endangering coral, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a part.

If you start reading at page 6 of the study, page 7 of the pdf, it tells you that they experimented with live coral samples from different areas of the world. They took healthy live samples, washed them in virus free water, put them in water tight bags filled with 2 liters of virus free water, then put them back where they were collected. They tested with multiple species from multiple areas of the world, and had several controls for each group. They tested different concentrations. The lowest being 10 microliters of chemicals per liter of water and the most being 100 microliters per liter of water. That is 0.00001 L of sunscreen per 1 L of water to 0.0001 L of sunscreen per 1 L of water. That isn't much at all.

If you go down to page 12 of the study, 13 of the pdf, you will find the area where they did experiments to calculate the amount sunscreen released into coral reef areas.

"We consider a conservative measure of two daily application per tourist on 5 day average tourist package, and a rough estimate of 78 million of tourists year-1 in areas hosting reefs (10% world tourist registered in 2004, UNWTO). Based on this calculation and on annual production of UV filters, between 16,000 and 25,000 tons of sunscreens are expected to be used in tropical
countries. According to our experiment it is estimated that at least 25% of the amount applied is washed off during swimming and bathing, accounting for a potential release of 4,000-6,000 tons year-1 in reef areas. Since 90% of tourists are expected to be concentrated in ca. 10% of the total reef areas, we estimated that up to 10% of the world reefs is potentially threatened by sunscreen- induced coral bleaching." (Danovaro 2008)

On page 13 of the study, page 14 of the pdf, they explain the results.

"In all replicates and at all sampling sites, sunscreen addition even in very low
quantities (i.e., 10 μl.L-1) resulted in the release of large amounts of coral mucous (composed of zooxanthellae and coral tissue) within 18-48 h, and complete bleaching of hard corals within 96 h (Figure 1, Table 1)." (Danovaro 2008). (10 μl.L-1 = 0.00001 L of sunscreen per 1 L of water).

"Conclusions: We conclude that sunscreens, by promoting viral infection, can
potentially play an important role in coral bleaching in areas prone to high levels of recreational use by humans." (Danovaro 2008)

The problem really lies in the fact that there is a heavy concentration of contamination at coral areas, because those are exciting places to swim, snorkel, and scuba dive. Other factors threatening coral include climate change, pollution from industry, recreation, and cities, and agriculture. Physical damage from tourists and commercial fishing, and overfishing. Everything combined is the problem, and sunscreen is just turning out to be one more part.


Hope that helps clarify the study contents a little.

Rachel

P.S.- iDiveChick, I couldn't find it through a Google search, so I looked up the journal it was published, then searched for the author. :)

hbh2oguard
02-25-2008, 04:13 AM
The study was flawed! They put the sun screen in plastic bags and tied them around the coral! First the amount is 1000s of times more concentrated! Next plastic blocks UV which could effect the alga that grows in the coral polyp and feeds the coral! So please! Hbh is right on, with the dilution factor! There is like 62lbs of gold in a square mile of sea water! More gold then Sunscreen I bet, maybe it's the gold? Or how about all the chlorine in the Sodium chloride? That stuff will kill you!

I fully agree, except with the gold thing. It's kind of funny because I was just give some numbers in an oceanography class last week that I'm.

Element//////////////////Conc.(lbs/10^6 gal) /////////////////// $/10^6 gal

Cl ////////////////////// 166,000 lbs //////////////////////////// $33,000
Mg //////////////////////// 11,800lbs ///////////////////////////// $21,000
Al /////////////////////// 0.09lbs //////////////////////////////// $ .25
Cu /////////////////////// 0.03lbs ///////////////////////////////// $ .12
Au(gold) ////////////// 0.00004 ///////////////////////////////// $ .57


By the way Papa, how did the harbor clean up go? I talked to my normal dive buddy in So. CA the day before it and he said viz was expected to be basically nothing. I'm assuming it was nice and stormy too???

hbh2oguard
02-25-2008, 04:21 AM
never mind papa I saw your other report that you posted

Papa Bear
02-25-2008, 04:52 AM
"We consider a conservative measure of two daily application per tourist on 5 day average tourist package, and a rough estimate of 78 million of tourists year-1 in areas hosting reefs (10% world tourist registered in 2004, UNWTO). Based on this calculation and on annual production of UV filters, between 16,000 and 25,000 tons of sunscreens are expected to be used in tropical
countries. According to our experiment it is estimated that at least 25% of the amount applied is washed off during swimming and bathing, accounting for a potential release of 4,000-6,000 tons year-1 in reef areas. Since 90% of tourists are expected to be concentrated in ca. 10% of the total reef areas, we estimated that up to 10% of the world reefs is potentially threatened by sunscreen- induced coral bleaching." (Danovaro 2008)

On page 13 of the study, page 14 of the pdf, they explain the results.

"In all replicates and at all sampling sites, sunscreen addition even in very low
quantities (i.e., 10 μl.L-1) resulted in the release of large amounts of coral mucous (composed of zooxanthellae and coral tissue) within 18-48 h, and complete bleaching of hard corals within 96 h (Figure 1, Table 1)." (Danovaro 2008). (10 μl.L-1 = 0.00001 L of sunscreen per 1 L of water).

"Conclusions: We conclude that sunscreens, by promoting viral infection, can
potentially play an important role in coral bleaching in areas prone to high levels of recreational use by humans." (Danovaro 2008)

The problem really lies in the fact that there is a heavy concentration of contamination at coral areas, because those are exciting places to swim, snorkel, and scuba dive. Other factors threatening coral include climate change, pollution from industry, recreation, and cities, and agriculture. Physical damage from tourists and commercial fishing, and overfishing. Everything combined is the problem, and sunscreen is just turning out to be one more part.


I don't buy the primes! The idea that 25% of Sun Blockers are washed of has no factual evidence! "90% in CA" I am still looking for the coral reefs in CA! Please! Math is wrong, assumptions are made, bad science, and dad testing methods! These so called Scientists should get an "F" on there report cards!

BTW Coral reefs are doing fine and there is NO evidence that there is any extraordinary climate change! US industry does not pollute coral reefs! Recreation also does not damage coral reefs unless you walk on it! Not a lot of commercial fishing is done on reef structures it destroys nets and equipment as well! I think you need to get out from behind your computer and find out the truth for yourself! Your facts are just not true!

swimmergrl
02-25-2008, 07:33 AM
I don't buy the primes! The idea that 25% of Sun Blockers are washed of has no factual evidence! "90% in CA" I am still looking for the coral reefs in CA! Please! Math is wrong, assumptions are made, bad science, and dad testing methods! These so called Scientists should get an "F" on there report cards!

BTW Coral reefs are doing fine and there is NO evidence that there is any extraordinary climate change! US industry does not pollute coral reefs! Recreation also does not damage coral reefs unless you walk on it! Not a lot of commercial fishing is done on reef structures it destroys nets and equipment as well! I think you need to get out from behind your computer and find out the truth for yourself! Your facts are just not true!

I hope you are being sarcastic. If you did this just so I would answer all your questions, look it up yourself. I have an 18 hour class load, part time job, and volunteer work to keep me busy enough.

What you just said sounds totally idiotic to ANY scientist, and probably to others not in the science community. Just because you don't understand the science done in the study doesn't mean it is wrong. Please document the sources that say everything is just peachy. I'm about to graduate with degrees in animal science, wildlife biology, and international agriculture, and I need to think of a new career path if that is the case. I would love to be out of a job, unfortunately, humans tend to screw up things like the environment.

The study may not be entirely right, but it does support compelling evidence that ingredients are causing increasing viral infections in algae, leading to coral bleaching.

1) They didn't pull the 25% of sunscreen wash off out of their ass. If you read the study, they did a controlled experiment. It is pretty easy to check, actually. The actual procedure is on page 10 of the study, 11 of the pdf. I posted it below since you obviously didn't read the entire study, only the parts I posted. It is a 34 page pdf. I'm not going to post EVERYTHING from it when I talk about it.

"Quantification of sunscreen release in seawater To estimate the amount of UV filters and preservatives released from sunscreen formulae, 2 mg sunscreen cm-2 (dose recommended by the Food and Drug Administration, US) were applied to the hands of two volunteers. The hands were then immersed in 2 L of 0.45 μm filtered seawater at 24 °C for 20 min. Hands without sunscreen applications were used as controls. All experiments were repeated three times. The percentage of sunscreen released into the seawater was estimated by HPLC analyses on the sunscreen and seawater samples. To this regard some authors suggest that the sunscreen dose recommended by FDA is much lower than the amount actually utilized by tourists (Giokas et al. 2007 and literature therein), so that the quantity of sunscreen released during an usual bath could be far higher than that estimated in this study." (Danovaro 2008)

2) The study never claims there are coral reefs in California. The use of ca. before data is an abbreviation for approximately. Double check your scientific abbreviations.

3) I never claimed humans were causing global warming or that there was a HUGE jump in temperatures all of a sudden, but there is scientific data that shows global temperatures are increasing slowly. This is concurrent with the data that arctic and antarctic ice is decreasing. Here is a link about decreasing arctic ice. I have little doubt polar bears will go extinct in my lifetime because of it, which sucks because they are one of my favorite animals.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-107

4) There are some links below about problems with coral reef health.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/water_quality/principal_influences.html

http://www.reeffutures.org/topics/publications/cots-bro.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080108150436.htm

5) People don't like to realize that they are swimming in a bunch of crap, but when you get down to it, the ocean is filled with it. Do you really think cruise ships carry the trash and human waste around the ocean then dump it on land? Nope, into the ocean. Most waste plants on land dump the stuff that can't be purified enough for human consumption into the ocean or rivers, which lead to the ocean. What about oil spills? Where do you think the waste from poorer countries goes? Often, American owned hotels and resorts take advantage of the lack of infrastructure in developing areas to disregard any environmental waste management.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12467

Don't even try to claim there are no problems with excess run off of agricultural products into freshwater and marine systems. Stuff like that isn't even hard to test for. All you need are water samples and then tests to check for the different chemicals. Why do you think there are dead zones around many cities or areas with lots of industry? *coughgulfofmexicocough*

6) While there are still issues with shocking and dynamiting for fish, the main problem is that the commercial fishermen are over harvesting, and that screws up the ecology of coral reefs.

http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/coralreef/CRanthro.html

7) You say you can't hurt coral unless you walk on it. Yeah, that is the problem. New scuba divers with bad buoyancy and trim hit coral, people want to take some for souvenirs, people anchor boats without regard to the coral below them, etc. It happens.

http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/visions/coral/welcome.html#solutions

Take a look halfway down the page, and there is a picture of an idiot standing on the coral.

I don't claim to know everything. I'm landlocked until I graduate with my bachelors, then I'm moving to an ocean to study marine sciences for my masters and PhD. Hopefully there will be something left to run experiments on and save by the time I graduate. I admit my knowledge of ocean systems is not nearly what I want or need it to be, but that is why I read studies and when I question them, I try to figure out the answer myself.

Like I said, list your sources. I would much rather spend my life as a DM and instructor than documenting a bunch of biodiversity loss (i.e. DEATH) around the world and trying to fix what can be saved.

Rachel

hbh2oguard
02-26-2008, 03:43 AM
Why do you keep saying they when it sure seems like you are part of it since you are defending the study left and right? He's not being sarcastic and for the majority of the points he makes I fully agree and it doesn't sound totally IDIOTIC to THIS scientists. I don't know what school you go to in Kansas but that's far away for any ocean, and when the hell did classes become expressed in units of hours? Why don't you try units, credits? We all have jobs and we all help out for free! If this is your senior thesis that's great but some of us just don't agree and get over it! Global warming is indeed a fact of life, and temp increases are occurring at a faster rate now but predictions are usually wrong and the likely hood of polar bears becoming extinct isn't all that great in the near future. I agree with some of what you say about dumping but it's not all true, and what about oil spills? They are pretty minor compared to other environmental concerns, it's just that their affects are obvious. What about nuclear power plants releasing radioactive decay into the ocean from the cooling water? That's a little bit of a bigger issue that isn't being dealt with. It's quite obvious, and very noble of you to admit your ocean knowledge is basically nothing as you do in the next to last paragraph. If you want to know a great school, which is quite possibly one of the countries if not the world’s best school to go to if you want to study marine sciences feel free to ask, because it's the university that I'm currently attending.

hbh2oguard
02-26-2008, 03:57 AM
Like I said, list your sources. I would much rather spend my life as a DM and instructor than documenting a bunch of biodiversity loss (i.e. DEATH) around the world and trying to fix what can be saved.

I'm assuming you mean can't unless your were going to look on the bright side of things. Biodiversity isn't always bad either it might be loss for one thing but gain for another. One other thing, why would you want to teach more divers to come on in and destroy coral reefs and swim in crap? Since that's all divers do, why add to the problem?

hbh2oguard
02-26-2008, 04:23 AM
I am still looking for the coral reefs in CA! Please!

Does hydrocoral count???:)

Papa Bear
02-26-2008, 05:37 AM
As a coral yes! As a reef No! :rolleyes:

Papa Bear
02-26-2008, 05:51 AM
Swimmer, Scientist have agendas too! They vote and many are liberal and they tend to no the out come before it is proven by real science! Can it be duplicated in a lab? Observation is 60% or more of science, but it is not evidence unless it can be duplicated! You saw a picture of some one standing on coral? Oh no, Mr Bill! So what? You have not experienced anything except what your instructors have feed you! We are now within 1% of the normal northern Ice Cap! Hummm?

We just had record snow fall and a Russian scientist who is predicting 30 cold years. The Ocean has risen 3/4 inch every hundred years since the last Ice age and its right on track! So the science can't get the models to run backwards to what we have to day! It's an open system with too many variables! Period! NO CRYSTAL BALLS!

We have 25000 Polar bears were we had only 5000 in the 50s! Is the world changing? Hell yes, it's the only thing constant! You can count on change!
The pictures of the starving bears were taken when?

Many times the weatherman has to look outside to see if it is raining! Try to look outside once in a while!

Papa Bear
02-26-2008, 06:02 AM
Just a post note! Fish and whales urinate and defecate where they live! OOH!
So we are all swimming in ****!

hbh, no radiologically active material are in the effluent of Nuke Plants! The bottom of the Ocean being closer to the mantel is a huge source of radio activity! It has been suggested that spent fuel rods encased in glass could be safely disposed of at the bottom under thousands of tons of pressure where the ambient background radiation is higher than the spent rods! But not PC! It is where science meets politics!

As scientist it is your job to buck the normal and think out of the box! Observation, investigation, recreation, duplicate, then it might be real!

One of my earth science professors used to say "You can't save Half Dome! It will be a beach some day!"

One last thing, until the next, read Dixie Lee Ray's Trashing the Planet!

swimmergrl
02-26-2008, 03:04 PM
This is getting uncivil, and away from the subject of the study. The whole point of publishing studies is for peer review. This breaks down when the people criticizing it haven't actually read the study. Answer me truthfully. Have you read the entire study? Don't judge a book by its cover. The title is very misleading. The use of the word sunscreen was a catchall for effects of butylparaben, ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate, benzophenone-3 and 4-methylbenzylidene camphor. If you are going solely by what I've pasted from the study, you are missing most of the picture.

The reason I ask for sources, is because I want to read them. I want to gather all the information I can, and make my own decision. Papa Bear, I will read that book. It probably won't happen until spring break as most of my classes require reading, but I will get to it.

I have a bunch of stuff to do today, but I will post why I think this study is important later tonight. I think you might find it more "out of the box" than you currently see me.

About the 18 hours? Those are 18 credit hours. As I've never had a misunderstanding about it before, I assumed it was a widely accepted and understood use.

Last thing, take a look at the people who ran the study, and where they are located. It should be pretty obvious I wasn't a part of the study. Stop trying to attack me to disprove the study. Even if I was part of it, why shouldn't I be able to support it? My friend presented his findings on some experiments he's done with greater prairie chickens this last weekend at a natural resources conference, and when he finished, people asked questions, and he answered them. It is part of the peer review process. It is hard to put everything you've done in a 15-30 minute talk, or even a 34 page study.

Rachel

BamaCaveDiver
02-26-2008, 03:46 PM
This is why I went into mathematics, fewer lay people who care enough to argue with you :p

Papa Bear
02-26-2008, 04:26 PM
You aren't being attacked by me, otherwise you would know it, my only problem is it is just like the current shark attack! A headline meant to scare and shock! I have not and will not read the whole study once I did read the method used, because a faulty study based on 2+2=5 will always create a flawed out come.

As far as posting sources, this is not a science paper and I don't need the grade, but easy to find on Google!

I science and life you need top develop a little bit of tough skin! I can't speak for anyone else, but please do not take what is posted here personally, it is not meant that way at all! I may attack an idea, but never the hand that delivers it!
But I do bite back:rolleyes:

Papa Bear
02-26-2008, 04:30 PM
This is why I went into mathematics, fewer lay people who care enough to argue with you :p

Bama, if there wasn't so much at steak and there were not so many with a political agenda I wouldn't even care!

I like a world where 2+2=4, but always remember 2.417934 + 2.48213 can = 5!

Mountain Dog
02-26-2008, 04:41 PM
This is why I went into mathematics, fewer lay people who care enough to argue with you :p

Bama-

You just cracked my a** up. You are absolutely right. All you have to do is just start talking about simple quadratic equations and radical expressions and watch their eyes glaze over.

As for the study that is the basis of this thread, I find it very interesting. I haven't read the entire study yet, but what I have read contains a whole lot more facts than any of Papa Bear's posts.

As Swimmergrl says, it has been published for peer review. That's how it works. No one is saying that we should immediately ban all sunscreens. In and of itself, this study means very little. What it does is add to the knowledge base we can use in our stewardship of this planet. And make no mistake about this, unless we exercise diligent management of our environment, we will lose it. The earth will keep spinning to be sure, but will it continue to support sustainable, enjoyable human life? I would rather err on the side of caution here. There is no downside if I'm wrong.

Mountain Dog

Papa Bear
02-26-2008, 05:48 PM
Bama-

You just cracked my a** up. You are absolutely right. All you have to do is just start talking about simple quadratic equations and radical expressions and watch their eyes glaze over.

As for the study that is the basis of this thread, I find it very interesting. I haven't read the entire study yet, but what I have read contains a whole lot more facts than any of Papa Bear's posts.

As Swimmergrl says, it has been published for peer review. That's how it works. No one is saying that we should immediately ban all sunscreens. In and of itself, this study means very little. What it does is add to the knowledge base we can use in our stewardship of this planet. And make no mistake about this, unless we exercise diligent management of our environment, we will lose it. The earth will keep spinning to be sure, but will it continue to support sustainable, enjoyable human life? I would rather err on the side of caution here. There is no downside if I'm wrong.

Mountain Dog

All I can say is Nuts! You give up your freedom! I wont go so easy!

hbh2oguard
02-26-2008, 09:28 PM
Just a post note! Fish and whales urinate and defecate where they live! OOH!
So we are all swimming in ****!

hbh, no radiologically active material are in the effluent of Nuke Plants! The bottom of the Ocean being closer to the mantel is a huge source of radio activity! It has been suggested that spent fuel rods encased in glass could be safely disposed of at the bottom under thousands of tons of pressure where the ambient background radiation is higher than the spent rods! But not PC! It is where science meets politics!


I agree about the fish and whales but not about the power plant. There's a good reason why very very few new nuclear power plants have be put online. Unlike coal power plants each nuclear one is pretty different from the other ones. There is one (probably more in other places) in Hanford, Washington where radioactive material released from the reactor cooling water can measured in the ocean. It's been measured great distances from the plant following the ocean currents. Luck for us I haven't heard anything about San O. I did't think this was uncivil at all, were are expressing our views and sometimes(usually) it's aimed at the source. That's just a fact of life.:D

hbh2oguard
02-26-2008, 09:31 PM
http://www.doh.wa.gov/hanford/publications/history/release.html

Here's a site I found about it after a real quick search.

Papa Bear
02-26-2008, 09:41 PM
hbh, the Hanford was 44 to 72 and a research facility. Still that is not the reason we have not built more! The reason is the left wingers who are anti-nuke for a number of their reasons and very few hold water! The cooling system systems for the plants are isolated and cross contamination is impossible! One of my friends just retired after being in charge of SO for years! I have dived at the Kelp bed at the out flow and it is healthy and all is good! If even a rad was escaping it would be all over the news! My friend who worked at the plant for 25 years received less radiation than a plane flight to New York! We are hit with radiation all the time! You too should read Dixie Lee Ray's Trashing the Planet and her follow up More Trashing the Planet!

BamaCaveDiver
02-26-2008, 10:50 PM
Pops seems to have caught the gist of my response, research can be a real cut throat endeavor. My favorite saying from my favorite professor years (and years) ago was "Be careful who you ask questions, they just might be able to answer them." As papabear said, grow a thick skin or you are going to be eaten alive by your colleagues and if it is a subject area that sparks compassion in the masses, watch out :eek:

BTW, my are of specialization was non-commutative algebras and quantum field theory, so 1+1 rarely equals two for me and there are very few in the world who can dispute my theories ;)

hbh2oguard
02-27-2008, 01:18 AM
When I get a chance I'll have to read those book. Just remember nothing is impossible. It could happen. Maybe Hanford wasn't a great example just because things have changed since back then, it's just a case that I remembered about. Personally I feel they are pretty safe, but if something goes wrong it's usually very bad unlike at a coal plant.

Papa Bear
02-27-2008, 02:17 AM
More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than all the Nuclear plants in the USA for as long as they have been in operation!

hbh2oguard
02-27-2008, 02:54 AM
very funny:) But most left wing nuts don't care about how safe they've been in the US. Just look outside of the US and there has been HUGE impacts that nuclear power plants have created, and that's always their argument which has kept new nuclear plant from going on line for a long time. If I remember correctly it's been a little over twenty years since the last nuclear plant went online:confused: But I think another real major hurdle to cross is what to do with the spent cores. NO one want's them in their backyard nor in our beloved ocean.

Papa Bear
02-27-2008, 03:17 AM
Did you read what I had said about encasing spent rods in glass and dropping them in the deepest part of the ocean where the background radiation is the same level! Just not PC! But a major solution to our needs! Japan gets 95% plus power fro nuclear plants! Pretty safe considering we lose cool miners all the time to produce power! All things in life have a price, are we willing to pay? If Hillary or Obama get in look for $6.00 dollar a gallon gas! Or maybe higher! California is talking about raising the gas tax!

What are we willing to pay?

hbh2oguard
02-27-2008, 04:03 AM
yes I read it, and it will never happen anytime soon. Eventually it might since a lot of our waste ends up in the ocean. I'm not too sure I'm a fan of the gas tax especially since now it does next to nothing. Compare the price of fuel to other places around the world, it's still pretty cheap, not great though. Of course I would like to see it less, just like everyone else, but it's not terrible. If gas went to $6/gal it would make everyone conserve a little and think harder about other sources of fuel, maybe something renewable and something that's better for our earth.

swimmergrl
02-27-2008, 05:26 AM
Hey all!

Finally got out of college algebra. Evil class! ;) Thankfully, we are getting into graphing, because numbers that only have value for the purpose of the equation confuse me to death! (Note to self- don't put math class off until senior year when you've forgotten everything from high school!)

Anyway, back on subject.

About the sh*t, comment. Working in vet office and agricultural settings, I've had some pretty nasty substances on me. You know it is bad when you wish it was only urine or feces. People tend to categorize industrial waste and human waste on a different level than animal waste. I could never be human doctor or nurse! I was pointing out the industrial and human wastes being dumped into the ocean.

I have a question for you Papa Bear. What do you mean when you are talking about giving up freedom? Who is trying to imprison you? This finding isn't exactly the end of the world as we know it. The government isn't going to pass a law saying "Thou shalt not apply sunscreen to thy body!"

Findings like this are actually pretty common. Human uses 'x' chemical, puts it in tons of stuff, then finds out 'x' chemical is toxic, etc. the government procrastinates dealing with it for awhile until enough people die/sue, then legislation finally goes through, then companies reformulate, then there is a new product, and the cycle starts over. Asbestos, lead, DDT, and mercury come to mind.

Humans screw up the environment all the time, and it is documentable. Sometimes it is land management, sometimes chemical toxicity, radioactivity, overhunting, introduction of invasive species, introduction of old world disease, etc.

Katrina wouldn't have been nearly as bad if the wetlands hadn't been drained and built on, the dust bowl in the 1930s wouldn't have been nearly as bad if the government hadn't given incentives to farm every last bit of land, getting rid of native vegetation that would have held some of the soil in place. Abandoned lead mines have lead to serious problems with lead toxicity in the environment; skyscrapers, radio towers, and other tall structures account for about 28,000 migratory bird losses a year; and market hunting through to the early 1900s sent passenger pigeons to extinction and bison nearly disappeared as well. Deer nearly disappeared, but with the loss of their natural predators, and hunting regulations, they are actually severely over populated, causing billions of dollars in damage a year to agricultural crops, landscaping, and collisions. (Deer are actually the most dangerous animal in the US.) Urban sprawl has worsened the problem, because now there is suitable deer habitat in areas with too many people to hunt. When they finally get around to trying sharpshooters to thin the population, people freak out about killing Bambi! Just wait until they are in an accident with a deer! Not to mention, Bambi tastes really good...

What are we supposed to do with all the nuclear waste? What about the greenhouse gases released during the burning of coal? How do we justify using a food crop for fuel, when there are millions of people starving every day? How are we changing an area's ecology by damming up a river? Humans may not understand how the Earth systems work, but it isn't really that difficult to see how humans have affected the environment.

My personal theory about where the world is headed is based off history. It has a habit of rolling around. :) There will probably be a severe drought, maybe even during my lifetime. They've happened before, so it shouldn't be too unexpected. Underground water that is already incredible low will be used up, and then there will be even more problems with water law, because the northern states will keep more water in their dams if they can. Southern states will get mad. Mexico will probably be really mad that the US is using up all the water before it gets to Mexico, since most of their water is difficult to access underground.

There will also probably be a huge pandemic in my lifetime. It may or may not happen around the same time as the drought. I'm not going to even try to guess times! My guess is avian influenza, H5N1. All it needs to do is mutate to spread from human to human. This will be reminiscent of 1918-1920 influenza pandemic. I believe current death estimates are around 50-100 million for that pandemic. The current common flu virus going around is the worst the doctors I've talked to have seen, and it wasn't foreseen to even make it into the flu shot this year. Our student health center generally has an average of 200 students a day coming in with the flu. Not that bad with a student base of over 18,000. This winter that number jumped to over 700 students a day. Doesn't bode well for us against bird flu. I don't know if increasing obesity levels would help or hurt in that situation. It isn't a happy picture, but the truth isn't always happy.

Now that I'm done with that tirade...

My analysis of the study, "Sunscreens Cause Coral Bleaching by Promoting Viral Infections" (Danovaro 2008)

Things I found questionable:
1) The use of plastic bags.
2) The use of such a small simulated environment in situ.
3) I would like to know if the lab experiments the mentioned had any larger sample environments.
4) The study mentions even the smallest concentration used was above those detected in natural environments. I would like to know what those levels were, and why they didn't run any experiments at those levels.
5) The study mentions that most commercial sunscreens have 20 or more ingredients. Why did they only test 7?
6) Table 1 shows an apparent lack of experiments. I would like a stronger base to make decisions from.
7) Their information indicates they only tested spf 8 and 15. I use at least 30 spf, and you can get as much as 70spf in stores. How would that change the results?
8) The "sunscreen" used was actually a mix of the 7 ingredients in the concentrations used in the US. Why not also use the entire sunscreen product?

Information I found interesting:
1) The estimates of how much sunscreen is actually released into the ocean by tourists. I assume these ingredients are common in many other products, and would like to know how much they would add to the figure. I would also like to know how much of these products is deposited in the coean from freshwater sources.
2) The noted effects of butylparaben, ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate, benzophenone-3 and 4-methylbenzylidene camphor on the coral.

Hopefully, more studies will be done on this subject. I took a little bit of time to look up each chemical, not really know what they are, or why they are used.

Butylparaben- "used as a preservative in cosmetics (e.g., baby products, manicuring preparations, and deodorants and other cleanliness products), drug formulations (local anesthetic solutions and estrogen tablets), and some foods."

"Parabens (esters of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid [4-HBA], also known as alkyl p-hydroxybenzoates) have been recently reported to have estrogenic activity in experimental cell systems and animal models." Other studies say no, I'd have to read up more to have an opinion.

I got all that information from a 65 page study done by the government to assess the health risks of butylparaben. I didn't read all of it, only the first couple of pages. I may or may not go back and read the rest.

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/Butylparaben.pdf

ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate- Not much information, other than that it is widely used in sunscreen. MSDS link below is all I could find.

http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/ET/2-ethylhexyl-4-methoxycinnamate.html

benzophenone-3- Used as a broad spectrum spf. Two links below are interesting.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_o_078.pdf

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/56091.php

4-methylbenzylidene camphor- Also used as an ultraviolet filter in cosmetics and sunscreens. Link about it below.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_o_075.pdf


All in all, very interesting. I think more studies should be run in this area. The study isn't all out proof, however, there is strong evidence that the use of these chemicals could be highly detrimental to coral reef environments. I would really like to know how similar tests with whole sunscreen would turn out, how fast they break down, and what problems that could cause, the actual concentrations found in the environment, and estimates as to how it will or will not build up. I would also like to know how these chemicals function when combined with other chemicals found to cause coral bleaching. There was only slight mention of it in the study.

If other studies done in the area support these findings, I can see some major impacts on sunscreen formulation and regulation. I would like to see the industry move to more natural biodegradable formulas as it is. I would also like to know how many ingredients in sunscreens are fillers. I'm not a big fan of fillers in products. My skin doesn't like them. I don't want to pay for stuff if it isn't doing anything.

Lots of stuff to look into and think about, but time for bed now!

Rachel

hbh2oguard
02-27-2008, 05:52 AM
Hey Rachel you finally sounded like a scientists, not just some wack trying to argue a point they are passionate about. I enjoyed reading your last post and agreed with 99% of it. I fully agree that a drought is very likely, but not too sure about avian influenza, but that's just my opinion. Very well documented and informative. Thanks:)

Papa Bear
02-27-2008, 06:22 AM
Really? They tell what windows in your house, what toilet, what car, what gas mixture, what is to be in your trash, how many dogs and cats you can have and even that they must be fixed, they tell you how much insulation, soon what kind of light bulb, and freedom is more than not being in prison! I could go on for days! Read my suggested reading then we will talk!

No over hunting, not in years! Not enough! No evidence that man isn't a part of nature and what we do maybe meant to happen? I don't buy the liberal "Man is evil" we fix more than we destroy if we can! Asbestos is a great example, the north American kind doesn't case any problems at all! It was like Global warming a fraud! The South African type is the problem type! Used only in navy ship yards! DDT, not a problem! Freon! not a problem! We invent problems so the solution can be sold!

Papa Bear
02-27-2008, 06:32 AM
Here is the answer that man is bad and needs to get off the planet! So I am packing my bag and leaving for La La Land where all is just dreamy! Earth to swimmer reality check!:p

You need to stop and read DLR now! You can't afford to wait!

hbh2oguard
02-27-2008, 02:24 PM
No over hunting, not in years! Not enough! No evidence that man isn't a part of nature and what we do maybe meant to happen? I don't buy the liberal "Man is evil" we fix more than we destroy if we can! Asbestos is a great example, the north American kind doesn't case any problems at all! It was like Global warming a fraud! The South African type is the problem type! Used only in navy ship yards! DDT, not a problem! Freon! not a problem! We invent problems so the solution can be sold!

Huh:confused:

bottlefish
02-27-2008, 02:43 PM
Papa, you'll be telling is that the earth is flat soon!

IMHO, the fact that we are screwing up the world is a mute point, studies like these show us where we may be going wrong. Of course we should question them, we can't just follow every single paper written blindly, however in order to question we need to look at them completely and with an open mind, then make our decision. To prejudge based on a second line synopsis published in a magazine is hardly scientific!

There are those that prefer to take the lazy view, that we are an integral part of natures wheels, our current methods are by design, carry on cocking it up without a second thought, revel in their right to destroy as they please, or of course cloud themselves in denial and pretend that it's not actually happening, but hopefully the rest of the world is starting to take a more intelligent and responsible stance.

Papa Bear
02-27-2008, 02:53 PM
You might be screwing it up, but I haven't! I am telling the truth even if it's not popular! Unless you have evidence that anything I have said is not true it is ONLY your humble opinion! We can't afford to make decision based on how we feel! We need to understand science that is real and not all warm and fussy!

We do know that a lot of movies are made and dollars exchanged based on bad science! And who we? That's the inconvenient truth!

I would suggest to you that you read Trashing the Planet and then tell me the earth is flat will be my next statement? Is there something telling the world that it is round when everyone else believes it's flat?

bottlefish
02-27-2008, 03:45 PM
Papa, show me your research to back the truth as you state it, I'll keep an open mind :)

But at the moment, my vote goes with the large group of top international scientists who spent a long time talking about environmental issues last December in Bali.

As for fluffy ideas? If you think that asking the whole world to completely change their methods of consumption, transport and fuel, try and redirect the progression who's rate has increased exponentially since the industrial revolution to use more sustainable methods, try and persuade the people who control and make millions by keeping the problem going to admit they are wrong, is fluffy, then you really are a few sandwiches short of a picnic!

Nah, sitting back in your big gas guzzling 4 x 4 with the heating on full blast believing the suits who are getting rich off your spending when they tell you the problem doesn't exist, pretending that everything is just A OK even though the evidence is righ there in fromt of your eyes if you just open them, because it's too much hassle or requires too much thought to do anything else, that's what I call fluffy.

swimmergrl
02-27-2008, 04:31 PM
Really? They tell what windows in your house, what toilet, what car, what gas mixture, what is to be in your trash, how many dogs and cats you can have and even that they must be fixed, they tell you how much insulation, soon what kind of light bulb, and freedom is more than not being in prison! I could go on for days! Read my suggested reading then we will talk!

No over hunting, not in years! Not enough! No evidence that man isn't a part of nature and what we do maybe meant to happen? I don't buy the liberal "Man is evil" we fix more than we destroy if we can! Asbestos is a great example, the north American kind doesn't case any problems at all! It was like Global warming a fraud! The South African type is the problem type! Used only in navy ship yards! DDT, not a problem! Freon! not a problem! We invent problems so the solution can be sold!

Papa Bear, have you read any information about Easter Island? Basically, they built a population up WAY over carrying capacity, and went from a highly cultured society to a group of people living in mud huts. I'm not saying we are separate from nature, I'm just point out that we are subject to its laws like any other ANIMAL. Yes, we are part of nature. If we kick nature, it has ways of kicking back. Overpopulation in the animal world "hurts" nature too, humans just do it on a larger scale. If humans over use their resources, there will be a shortage, then something causes a decrease in population, then it evens out. The problem is, humans are using too many resources. If we want to prevent catastrophic losses of human life, we need to pull back.

Why do you say DDT wasn't a problem? A chemical that can cause the possible extinction of every bird species by weakening their egg shells so much they break as they are being laid seems like a problem. It could even affect chicken egg productions with enough build up if it got in their water supply, or contaminated the feed. If you think eggs are expensive now, wait until the industry has to revert back to human labor because the machines are too rough. (It is an entirely mechanized process. A person might stop by every 1-2 days to double check on systems, but that is it.) I don't know if you've ever been in an industrial chicken coup, but they are the most depressing animal treatment places, next to veal production.

I never said over hunting was a problem now. In the days of market hunting, yes. That ended in the early 1900s. I wouldn't count that recent. Hunters used to shoot cannons filled with shot at flocks of birds. They would bring in 4,000+ birds a day by 1-2 hunters. Now that hunting is not as popular, wildlife managers are having trouble keeping some populations in check. This is leading to tons of damage (i.e- you are paying more in taxes to subsidize farmers for their losses.), and even the spread of disease.

I was contracted for a while by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks to collect hunter kill and road kill deer samples to test for chronic wasting disease. Unfortunately, the funding for the program got cut by 45% by the state. CWD is interesting in that it is spread by prions, which are mutated proteins. They have the ability to lasts years in tissue and the environment. When ingested, they migrate towards cerebral tissue, and then change healthy proteins in the brain into more prions. There are lots of forms of it. It is BSE, or "mad cow" in cattle, and there are several forms in humans, one being CJD, or Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease. There is no cure, and it isn't the nicest death in the world. The biologists working on CWD think that prion diseases may be the next "big thing".

hbh2oguard- My university is one of the top leaders in animal disease study. If you've read The Hot Zone (VERY GOOD BOOK!), you'll have heard of Drs. Jerry and Nancy Jaax. They dealt with the Ebola outbreak in Washington D.C. They are on staff at the vet school now. When I was still pre-vet I went to a talk given by Dr. Jerry Jaax. He was closely monitoring avian influenza then, and that was 2 years ago. The numbers of infections have continued to grow, so I'm taking his and the other pathologist's lead on that. :) I'm still really interested in zoonotic diseases. I may go to vet school when I get done with my masters. Many of the diseases originate in Africa, so I would like to do some work over there. The current biosecurity lab at my university is only level 3, (anthrax, etc.), but we are bidding for a new level 4 biosecurity lab. I tried to get a job there, but it requires high level government access. :( Not really surprising.

Lots of interesting things going on in the world. :)

Rachel

hbh2oguard
02-27-2008, 08:16 PM
I don't know where to start, but I'll start with this: Papa I'm sure you've dove PV so how can you say DDT isn't a problem? That's a local issue you should know about.

Papa Bear
03-10-2008, 05:19 AM
Papa Bear, have you read any information about Easter Island? Basically, they built a population up WAY over carrying capacity, and went from a highly cultured society to a group of people living in mud huts. I'm not saying we are separate from nature, I'm just point out that we are subject to its laws like any other ANIMAL. Yes, we are part of nature. If we kick nature, it has ways of kicking back. Overpopulation in the animal world "hurts" nature too, humans just do it on a larger scale. If humans over use their resources, there will be a shortage, then something causes a decrease in population, then it evens out. The problem is, humans are using too many resources. If we want to prevent catastrophic losses of human life, we need to pull back.

Rachel

Bad example! That's a limited environment that earth firsters bring up all the time! The Doom and Gloom crowed! Do you really want to be a part of that crowed? If we are using too many it will self correct, but we are no where near that point, not even close! It is said that this is why so many "Egghead" Greenies like it when we ban DDT! Because it promotes more human death! "Lightens the load" so to speak! Too many people put us last and "Earth First" and have no concept or faith! If we were gone, who would care? We bring all value to this world and it can't be the value that doesn't value LIFE!

There is NO proof that DDT caused eggs to be thin! You can't cite proof because it doesn't exist, just was a theory!