> 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

> 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."