Sunscreen killing coral?

[BKP]

PLEASE be careful with posts like this... they sound far too rational for most people.

Apparently, you're right, Bill...

A few have even taken pains to prove your point...

 

[BKP]

I gave you the link in this thread to the paper. I did read it before I commented on it. Perhaps you could take the time to read YOUR OWN thread before you start telling me what I have read or have not read. Then follow the link and read the researcher's study where his minimum dose is 50 ul per 2 liters. I DO know how much sunscreen he used.

I took your advice and read the paper. It was enlightening. Thank you.

Perhaps you should *re-read* it:

"...Replicate sets containing nubbins from different colonies
(n=3, including more than 300 polyps each) were supplemented with aliquots of​

sunscreens at final quantities of 10, 33, 50 and 100 μl..."

Point is (again), that the research has garnered enough attention, and print, from reputable trade journals so as to at least warrant asking the question: "does it harm coral?" Until that question is answered definitively, I'd venture that not wearing it, or switching to bio-degradable, is just a hair less taxing than "not eating, not driving, and purging electricity and plastics from our existence."

P.S. If you feel compelled to do titanium dioxide/coral research, be sure and let us know how it turns out, professor.

 

[nwbobber]

Let's see, these guys are saying that a low dose of the compounds contained in sunscreen creates a condition in which a viral infection can be started, which, after removing the offending compound continues to kill the algae on which the coral depends.... Ummm I don't know, but I think I can find some other way to avoid skin cancer till they look at this one a little closer. For the reasons I dive, it will be well worth it to me. But then, I'm one of those "wackos" who believes that climate change is no plot to control us, but a very real fact of life.

 

[Guba]

I believe many people misunderstand the purpose of publishing scientific papers. It seems that far too many folks think that once a finding is published, scientists, legislators, and the masses are to make immediate changes based solely upon that new finding. That is not the intended result at all. The purpose of publishing a new discovery is to serve as an open invitation to other scientists, universities, foundations and agencies to 1) repeat the study and see if their results are similar to the original ones and/or 2) conduct new studies that test the original hypothesis, but using different methodology.
As far as I could tell, there are very few (if any) repetitions of the original study sited. I'm assuming that there will be others in the works. While the results of the preliminary study suggest a course of action and we, as divers and visitors to reefs systems, might choose to alter our practices (or not), it's probably premature to press for a specific course of action. We should, however, be vigilant in seeing what new developments are on the horizon, though.

 

[gregorio]

I have been in the worlds oceans for over 40 years and there is no evidence that they are getting warmer at all!

I think with such a brilliant demonstration, the debate is closed! Finally the definitive answer that we where all waiting for!

Thanks Papa!

 

[krawdady]

PLEASE be careful with posts like this... they sound far too rational for most people.

Dr. Bill. That's a bit condescending don't you think? Keep in mind that just because people may not agree with you, it doesn't necessarily mean you are talking over our heads. I agree that the post you commmented on was perfectly rational and well stated. It would have made a great first post. However, you seem to be conveniently ignoring the numerous posts before his moment of clarity (and almost everyone that followed) that contained irrational name calling and confrontational language.

 

[BKP]

... However, you seem to be conveniently ignoring the numerous posts before his moment of clarity (and almost everyone that followed) that contained irrational name calling and confrontational language.

I beg to differ.

It is only after the greatest consideration, measure, and respect for weighing opposing perspectives, that I will contend that someone is a dumbass.

Not at all irrationally.