6 ms·

Only a limited subset of the available chemical filters are suspected of having an effect on coral. Further, even for those filters that are suspected, I have r

Only a limited subset of the available chemical filters are suspected of having an effect on coral. Further, even for those filters that are suspected, I have read that the science is inconclusive. I personally am skeptical of the idea that sunscreens are actually responsible for marine ecosystem changes, rather than climate change or other large forces. The majority of a chemical sunscreen formula is inert base. And we’re talking about thin films of sunscreen diluting into a vast body of water. Further, most people at the beach are using water resistant sunscreen, further reducing the potential for harm. Sunscreens are really valuable technology. They prevent skin cancers and sun damage, and I think policy should err on the side of encouraging their use. I further think that reactive, feel-good measures like banning straws and demonizing sunscreen do much more harm than good, because they cause fatigue and apathy about environmental issues and do little to solve them.

arcticbull 4y ago
This article has come up before and might interest you. [1] tl;dr: exposure to sunlight without sunscreen has benefits for cardiovascular health - and the kinds of cancer you get from direct exposure to sunlight on a regular basis (basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas) are almost never fatal. The benefits to CV health significantly outweigh the increased risk of these carcinomas. Melanomas only account for 1-3% of skin cancers and are less likely in outdoor workers and tanned people than they are in indoor workers. > “The risk factor for melanoma appears to be intermittent sunshine and sunburn, especially when you’re young,” says Weller. “But there’s evidence that long-term sun exposure associates with less melanoma.” Makes sense, humans probably wouldn't have made it this far without going outside. [1] https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science/ https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...
- bearmode 4y ago
  Without sunscreen I burn in just a few minutes and have painful skin for the next few days. I'm okay thanks, I'll keep using it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ajb 4y ago
    Resistance to sunburn increases exponentially with regular exposure, and without it falls back to your genetic base level. That's not hyperbole, UV treatment in medical facilities have to start with seconds of treatment which is increased by a percentage each time until you get to effective levels. That's not to recommend that you try doing that yourself, just a weird fact I learned. its hard to calibrate sun exposure. But theoretically starting from very sensitive skin isn't a barrier.
    - refurb 4y ago
      And UV damage is cumulative as well. Even if you ignore melanoma, there are several non-cancerous or pre-cancerous skin conditions from sun exposure. If you go to Asia where most women avoid any sun exposure at all (up to wearing masks and gloves) you’ll note there skin looks amazing even into their 50’s. And the few minutes of exposure you get each day is usually enough to provide vitamin D. I think it’s like 12 min of upper body exposure in moderately intense sunlight is enough.
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        The point the article makes is that it's not just about vitamin D but also nitric oxide synthesized which lower blood pressure and improve CV health in excess of whatever risk you accrue from the sun exposure. It's important to consider of course that different races age differently. Is it masks and gloves, or is it being of the local ethnicity? Not getting any sun at all is really bad, after all, since as the article shows, vitamin D supplementation is quite ineffective.
      - watwut 4y ago
        > If you go to Asia where most women avoid any sun exposure at all (up to wearing masks and gloves) you’ll note there skin looks amazing even into their 50’s. I kind of resent the idea that this is model to strive for. Ok, you look somewhat better, but you also pay price of constantly limiting activities and having to be careful what you do ... all the time.
- nradov 4y ago
  This shouldn't be down voted. Regular sun exposure is correlated with lower all-cause mortality. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12251 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12251 It reduces blood pressure. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11567-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11567-5
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Yep, that's exactly what the article I linked says too haha. Folks out here worried about how wrinkly their skin might look at 75 when nobody cares instead of cardiovascular health though :)
CamperBob2 4y ago
I personally am skeptical of the idea that sunscreens are actually responsible for marine ecosystem changes, rather than climate change or other large forces I would've said so, too, before my GF got into the reef tank hobby. Corals are ridiculously sensitive to pretty much everything. Light, chemicals, nutrients, water flow, diurnal rhythms, you name it. It's fairly believable that something in the low parts per billion might affect them adversely, particularly organisms that are already stressed.
- sethammons 4y ago
  We lost several hundred dollars worth of coral and fish in our reef aquarium when a house guest, after being told explicitly not to, used body spray stuffs two or three rooms over in a large house. These things are _sensitive_.
  - 9991 4y ago
    I have to ask: How did you trace cause to effect and eliminate other possible culprits?
    - stoppostingdumb 4y ago
    - sethammons 4y ago
      It has happened before when our kids were younger and discovered perfume. These things don't mix well with reef aquariums. The rule stands at our house: no spraying anything that you are not 100% sure is reef-safe safe to spray.
grapeskin 4y ago
I think instead of bending the knee to the idea of fatigue, it’s more important to accept that humans really are screwing up things on a massive scale faster than ever. Plastic straws, chemical sunscreens, gasoline, etc are all very recent inventions. It’s not unreasonable to look at massive unprecedented changes in the world and conclude that some of these things that came into widespread existence within recents decades is also causing massive destruction that only began in recent decades.
- throwaway1851 4y ago
  Completely disagree. Fatigue isn’t just an “idea,” it’s an unavoidable consequence of repeated exposure to a stimulus. The political will to solve problems is a finite resource. Squandering it on trivial crusades is, IMO, one of the most wasteful and harmful decisions that could be made.
  - RunSet 4y ago
    > The political will to solve problems is a finite resource. Gee, humanity had better act fast to protect that precious finite resource. What would our children and grandchildren think if we squandered our political will to solve problems?
    - throwaway1851 4y ago
      I imagine they’ll think that the problems went unsolved?
  - grapeskin 4y ago
    Less finite than earth’s natural resources amidst the unprecedented rapid deterioration and destruction of basically everything on earth sans colossal asteroid strikes? Trivial to some upper class person in an air conditioned home who doesn’t want to think about bad things and who’ll survive no matter what is certainly not trivial to billions increasingly struggling to survive with no way to escape to greener pastures.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Sunscreens are really valuable technology But is there anything functionally wrong with zinc oxide sunscreen? If not, why is it not available as the default option with chemical sunscreens available for those who want to go out of their way to not look pale?
- nradov 4y ago
  Titanium dioxide appears to be just as good as zinc.
- throwaway1851 4y ago
  That’s a good point. I think tolerability is the only drawback, otherwise zinc is functionally superior because it doesn’t get depleted in the way that chemical filters do. It does tend to be a lot heavier and greasier, though, and I’d say most people aren’t okay with the white/blue cast if they’re not at the beach. So chemical filters have an important role to play in terms of making sunscreen something that people can use consistently.
- aboodman 4y ago
  I am confused. the situation is exactly as you describe, modulo the word "default": zinc oxide sunscreens are available, chemical sunscreens are also available. And I'm not sure what "default" means in this context. Anyway, if you spend a lot of time in the sun or at the beach the functional problem with zinc oxide is pretty clear: it's harder to spread and put on. This might not seem like an issue but if you spend a lot of time dealing with it, the annoyance adds up.
girvo 4y ago
Chemical sunscreens are absolutely dwarfed in terms of magnitude to oil, farm run-off and mining and industry damage/chemicals, at least here in Queensland.

arcticbull 4y ago

This article has come up before and might interest you. [1] tl;dr: exposure to sunlight without sunscreen has benefits for cardiovascular health - and the kinds of cancer you get from direct exposure to sunlight on a regular basis (basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas) are almost never fatal. The benefits to CV health significantly outweigh the increased risk of these carcinomas. Melanomas only account for 1-3% of skin cancers and are less likely in outdoor workers and tanned people than they are in indoor workers. > “The risk factor for melanoma appears to be intermittent sunshine and sunburn, especially when you’re young,” says Weller. “But there’s evidence that long-term sun exposure associates with less melanoma.” Makes sense, humans probably wouldn't have made it this far without going outside. [1] https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science/ https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...

bearmode 4y ago
Without sunscreen I burn in just a few minutes and have painful skin for the next few days. I'm okay thanks, I'll keep using it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ajb 4y ago
  Resistance to sunburn increases exponentially with regular exposure, and without it falls back to your genetic base level. That's not hyperbole, UV treatment in medical facilities have to start with seconds of treatment which is increased by a percentage each time until you get to effective levels. That's not to recommend that you try doing that yourself, just a weird fact I learned. its hard to calibrate sun exposure. But theoretically starting from very sensitive skin isn't a barrier.
  - refurb 4y ago
    And UV damage is cumulative as well. Even if you ignore melanoma, there are several non-cancerous or pre-cancerous skin conditions from sun exposure. If you go to Asia where most women avoid any sun exposure at all (up to wearing masks and gloves) you’ll note there skin looks amazing even into their 50’s. And the few minutes of exposure you get each day is usually enough to provide vitamin D. I think it’s like 12 min of upper body exposure in moderately intense sunlight is enough.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      The point the article makes is that it's not just about vitamin D but also nitric oxide synthesized which lower blood pressure and improve CV health in excess of whatever risk you accrue from the sun exposure. It's important to consider of course that different races age differently. Is it masks and gloves, or is it being of the local ethnicity? Not getting any sun at all is really bad, after all, since as the article shows, vitamin D supplementation is quite ineffective.
    - watwut 4y ago
      > If you go to Asia where most women avoid any sun exposure at all (up to wearing masks and gloves) you’ll note there skin looks amazing even into their 50’s. I kind of resent the idea that this is model to strive for. Ok, you look somewhat better, but you also pay price of constantly limiting activities and having to be careful what you do ... all the time.
nradov 4y ago
This shouldn't be down voted. Regular sun exposure is correlated with lower all-cause mortality. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12251 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12251 It reduces blood pressure. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11567-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11567-5
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Yep, that's exactly what the article I linked says too haha. Folks out here worried about how wrinkly their skin might look at 75 when nobody cares instead of cardiovascular health though :)

CamperBob2 4y ago

I personally am skeptical of the idea that sunscreens are actually responsible for marine ecosystem changes, rather than climate change or other large forces I would've said so, too, before my GF got into the reef tank hobby. Corals are ridiculously sensitive to pretty much everything. Light, chemicals, nutrients, water flow, diurnal rhythms, you name it. It's fairly believable that something in the low parts per billion might affect them adversely, particularly organisms that are already stressed.

sethammons 4y ago
We lost several hundred dollars worth of coral and fish in our reef aquarium when a house guest, after being told explicitly not to, used body spray stuffs two or three rooms over in a large house. These things are _sensitive_.
- 9991 4y ago
  I have to ask: How did you trace cause to effect and eliminate other possible culprits?
  - stoppostingdumb 4y ago
  - sethammons 4y ago
    It has happened before when our kids were younger and discovered perfume. These things don't mix well with reef aquariums. The rule stands at our house: no spraying anything that you are not 100% sure is reef-safe safe to spray.

grapeskin 4y ago

I think instead of bending the knee to the idea of fatigue, it’s more important to accept that humans really are screwing up things on a massive scale faster than ever. Plastic straws, chemical sunscreens, gasoline, etc are all very recent inventions. It’s not unreasonable to look at massive unprecedented changes in the world and conclude that some of these things that came into widespread existence within recents decades is also causing massive destruction that only began in recent decades.

throwaway1851 4y ago
Completely disagree. Fatigue isn’t just an “idea,” it’s an unavoidable consequence of repeated exposure to a stimulus. The political will to solve problems is a finite resource. Squandering it on trivial crusades is, IMO, one of the most wasteful and harmful decisions that could be made.
- RunSet 4y ago
  > The political will to solve problems is a finite resource. Gee, humanity had better act fast to protect that precious finite resource. What would our children and grandchildren think if we squandered our political will to solve problems?
  - throwaway1851 4y ago
    I imagine they’ll think that the problems went unsolved?
- grapeskin 4y ago
  Less finite than earth’s natural resources amidst the unprecedented rapid deterioration and destruction of basically everything on earth sans colossal asteroid strikes? Trivial to some upper class person in an air conditioned home who doesn’t want to think about bad things and who’ll survive no matter what is certainly not trivial to billions increasingly struggling to survive with no way to escape to greener pastures.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> Sunscreens are really valuable technology But is there anything functionally wrong with zinc oxide sunscreen? If not, why is it not available as the default option with chemical sunscreens available for those who want to go out of their way to not look pale?

nradov 4y ago
Titanium dioxide appears to be just as good as zinc.
throwaway1851 4y ago
That’s a good point. I think tolerability is the only drawback, otherwise zinc is functionally superior because it doesn’t get depleted in the way that chemical filters do. It does tend to be a lot heavier and greasier, though, and I’d say most people aren’t okay with the white/blue cast if they’re not at the beach. So chemical filters have an important role to play in terms of making sunscreen something that people can use consistently.
aboodman 4y ago
I am confused. the situation is exactly as you describe, modulo the word "default": zinc oxide sunscreens are available, chemical sunscreens are also available. And I'm not sure what "default" means in this context. Anyway, if you spend a lot of time in the sun or at the beach the functional problem with zinc oxide is pretty clear: it's harder to spread and put on. This might not seem like an issue but if you spend a lot of time dealing with it, the annoyance adds up.

girvo 4y ago

Chemical sunscreens are absolutely dwarfed in terms of magnitude to oil, farm run-off and mining and industry damage/chemicals, at least here in Queensland.