4 ms·

you're telling me some showers are the issue, not people swimming in the ocean?

eesmith 4y ago
> But even if a point source is established, Hoefner spots another hurdle: “Put yourself in the regulator’s shoes. You might look at this and go, these people have already been presumably swimming in the ocean, right?” Some of their sunscreen has already washed off into the water. “So should we really be so concerned that a little bit more is coming off an outdoor shower?” > Downs has heard that argument before. “One swimmer, one shower, does it pose a threat? But 500 swimmers and more than 500 showers?” The difference, he says, is all in the concentrations. > Cláudia Mieiro, a marine biologist at the University of Aveiro in Portugal who was not involved in Downs’ study, remarked on the high concentrations of sunscreen chemicals found in the sand near the showers. The sand, she said, appears to be acting like a sink for these compounds.
- creato 4y ago
  I don't see how this changes the argument. x% improvement on the issue of sunscreen in the ocean can be made by removing the shower, where x is probably small.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    If I understand the article, combined with my paltry understanding of the law, the argument is the shower should be treated as a point source, which is covered under certain existing legislation. Bathing is not a point source, so is covered by different legislation. Point-sources can have higher concentrations in a small area, like the sand near the showers. These need to be addressed even if the non-point sources are also an issue.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    There’s poop in the ocean, but you don’t want to swim in the sewage plant’s outlet before it dilutes, right? Same for corals.
- csdvrx 4y ago
  > > Some of their sunscreen has already washed off into the water. Yes and you can't change that, since there's already a ban. > > Cláudia Mieiro, a marine biologist at the University of Aveiro in Portugal who was not involved in Downs’ study, remarked on the high concentrations of sunscreen chemicals found in the sand near the showers. The sand, she said, appears to be acting like a sink for these compounds. Isn't that a good thing? If you care about corals and marine life, and if you know that some people will not use the ideal sunscreen, you should prefer that sunscreen to be in the sand (where UV photodegradation may clean it out), rather than in the ocean: people going back into the ocean, or taking a shower at home (with the waste water then going... into the ocean) seems far worse. So a ban + allowing showers so that the uncaught sunscreens ends up in the sand seems like the best possible outcome.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    > Isn't that a good thing? The two paragraphs after what I quoted address that, at least in passing. > where UV photodegradation may clean it out "May"? The point is with the current system "Risk assessments for both sand and water samples at a majority of the sampling sites had a Risk Quotient > 1, indicating that these chemicals could pose a serious threat to beach zones and coral reef habitats." The measured evidence is "Beach sands that are directly in the plume discharge of beach showers on three of the islands of Hawaii (Maui, Oahu, Hawai’i) were found to be contaminated with a wide array of petrochemical-based UV-filters that are found in sunscreens." (both quotes from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389422013395 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043... ) and "Oxybenzone ranged from 30 ng/L to 27,880 ng/L in near-shore waters in Hanauma Bay." - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352103352X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352... It's not staying in the sand. It's not photodegrading fast enough. For bonus points, it's not like photodegradation doesn't have it own issues. As one of the linked-to documents points out, at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00244-015-0227-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00244-015-0227-7 , "Benzophenones, including BP-3, are documented mutagens that increase the rate of damage to DNA, especially when exposed to sunlight."
RunSet 4y ago
Which is bigger, the shower area or the ocean? The answer may be relevant to the concentration of the chemicals.

> But even if a point source is established, Hoefner spots another hurdle: “Put yourself in the regulator’s shoes. You might look at this and go, these people have already been presumably swimming in the ocean, right?” Some of their sunscreen has already washed off into the water. “So should we really be so concerned that a little bit more is coming off an outdoor shower?” > Downs has heard that argument before. “One swimmer, one shower, does it pose a threat? But 500 swimmers and more than 500 showers?” The difference, he says, is all in the concentrations. > Cláudia Mieiro, a marine biologist at the University of Aveiro in Portugal who was not involved in Downs’ study, remarked on the high concentrations of sunscreen chemicals found in the sand near the showers. The sand, she said, appears to be acting like a sink for these compounds.

creato 4y ago
I don't see how this changes the argument. x% improvement on the issue of sunscreen in the ocean can be made by removing the shower, where x is probably small.
- eesmith 4y ago
  If I understand the article, combined with my paltry understanding of the law, the argument is the shower should be treated as a point source, which is covered under certain existing legislation. Bathing is not a point source, so is covered by different legislation. Point-sources can have higher concentrations in a small area, like the sand near the showers. These need to be addressed even if the non-point sources are also an issue.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  There’s poop in the ocean, but you don’t want to swim in the sewage plant’s outlet before it dilutes, right? Same for corals.
csdvrx 4y ago
> > Some of their sunscreen has already washed off into the water. Yes and you can't change that, since there's already a ban. > > Cláudia Mieiro, a marine biologist at the University of Aveiro in Portugal who was not involved in Downs’ study, remarked on the high concentrations of sunscreen chemicals found in the sand near the showers. The sand, she said, appears to be acting like a sink for these compounds. Isn't that a good thing? If you care about corals and marine life, and if you know that some people will not use the ideal sunscreen, you should prefer that sunscreen to be in the sand (where UV photodegradation may clean it out), rather than in the ocean: people going back into the ocean, or taking a shower at home (with the waste water then going... into the ocean) seems far worse. So a ban + allowing showers so that the uncaught sunscreens ends up in the sand seems like the best possible outcome.
- eesmith 4y ago
  > Isn't that a good thing? The two paragraphs after what I quoted address that, at least in passing. > where UV photodegradation may clean it out "May"? The point is with the current system "Risk assessments for both sand and water samples at a majority of the sampling sites had a Risk Quotient > 1, indicating that these chemicals could pose a serious threat to beach zones and coral reef habitats." The measured evidence is "Beach sands that are directly in the plume discharge of beach showers on three of the islands of Hawaii (Maui, Oahu, Hawai’i) were found to be contaminated with a wide array of petrochemical-based UV-filters that are found in sunscreens." (both quotes from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389422013395 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043... ) and "Oxybenzone ranged from 30 ng/L to 27,880 ng/L in near-shore waters in Hanauma Bay." - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352103352X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352... It's not staying in the sand. It's not photodegrading fast enough. For bonus points, it's not like photodegradation doesn't have it own issues. As one of the linked-to documents points out, at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00244-015-0227-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00244-015-0227-7 , "Benzophenones, including BP-3, are documented mutagens that increase the rate of damage to DNA, especially when exposed to sunlight."

RunSet 4y ago

Which is bigger, the shower area or the ocean? The answer may be relevant to the concentration of the chemicals.