Florida senate votes against protecting reefs

[jacksin]

The city of key west florida was months away from enacting a law banning certain types of sunscreen that contain chemicals know to cause damage to coral reefs. Numerous sea side communities and countries around the world already have similar bans in place.
A "wonderful" Senator, Rob Bradley, sponsored a bill that blocked key west, and any other Florida city, from enacting such a law. He said the ban would discourage people from using sunscreen which would put their health a risk. This legislation passed on Wed. Clearly there are plenty of reef safe sunscreens that would be available.
Hopefully Gov Ron DeSantis will veto this bill.
I'm hoping we can flood the Gov with e-mails telling him the reefs are critical to south Florida's economies and they need all the protection they can get.
We can also tell Sen Bradley what an Idiot he is.

thanks for your support

 

[TheHarold]

And the federal government went back dozens of years in environmental protections..... because yay big oil and science is a myth.

Vote.

 

[locito277]

Because…Florida lol

 

[Scrubber_steve]

We can also tell Sen Bradley what an Idiot he is.

Calling someone an idiot won't help your cause.
Put up the evidence that shows Florida reefs are negatively affected by sunscreen.
Florida reefs aren't a closed system. Diffusion is key.
Rules for changing or enacting laws should be governed by facts not feelings.

Richard Ross: Dig Through Reef BS & Come Out Smelling Clean.

40:50 minute mark https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BMAN6BAgHEBM&usg=AOvVaw0lQjCZaxWxnahV35qeo9lv

 

[Humblefish]

And this is the same state where hobbyists report one another for not having an Aquaculture License :p: https://www.fdacs.gov/Agriculture-Industry/Aquaculture/Aquaculture-Certificate-of-Registration

Yes, you need to pay $100/year in order to legally sell coral frags, fish, anything alive that comes out of your tank in the State of Fla. :eek:

 

[biophilia]

I’m not really convinced of a causal link between sunscreen and reef decline in the real world, but I suppose the precautionary principle is a reasonable argument a person could make in light of all of the other sunscreen options.

The real irony of this legislation — assuming the senators actually do care about addressing skin cancer prevalence and are not just using this, as I suspect they are, to thumb their noses at any and all potential environmental regulation for ideological reasons — is that the type of sunscreens being discussed here are generally considered to do a pretty miserable job of actually preventing sun damage. I listened to a talk a while back by a researcher studying sunscreen and skin cancer and she was of the opinion that most of these chemical sunscreens backfire by giving a false sense of safety to people who then spend much more time in the direct sun than they would have otherwise.

A coat of zinc oxide is really the only type that actually meaningfully protects against skin damage and, ironically, banning the chemical kinds (even if for the wrong reason) could arguably lead to increased use of zinc oxide and, thus, less overall sun damage.

 

[Heathd]

I'm about as white as casper and roast in about 15 min when I was on the beach in Florida.

That said, the uncontrolled release of sewage by coastal communities is far more treacherous. Brevard county was awful about that. No way I would eat anything that came out of the Indian "River".

 

[CubsFan]

Calling someone an idiot won't help your cause.
Put up the evidence that shows Florida reefs are negatively affected by sunscreen.
Florida reefs aren't a closed system. Diffusion is key.
Rules for changing or enacting laws should be governed by facts not feelings.

Richard Ross: Dig Through Reef crap & Come Out Smelling Clean.

40:50 minute mark https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M_SADFFzF1Q&ved=2ahUKEwjMqejEja_nAhUUzTgGHXzEBIMQwqsBMAN6BAgHEBM&usg=AOvVaw0lQjCZaxWxnahV35qeo9lv

Feel free to make the arguments you want, but the facts vs feelings argument is divisive and unnecessary. We owe it to one another to be honest and understanding. There are studies. You can cite from differing sides. I don’t agree with name calling, but I can understand a need to express disagreement. The US is currently stripping environmental protections left and right. It’s not a secret.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Feel free to make the arguments you want, but the facts vs feelings argument is divisive and unnecessary. We owe it to one another to be honest and understanding.

I'd be in agreement with banning said sunscreens if the evidence is there to make a case. Apparently it isn't. So that would just make this a feel good crusade by professional environmentalists who get off by demanding everyone else do as they say.

 

[CubsFan]

I'd be in agreement with banning said sunscreens if the evidence is there to make a case. Apparently it isn't. So that would just make this a feel good crusade by professional environmentalists who get off by demanding everyone do as they say.

I know how you roll. We’ve done the climate change thing. I won’t bother going forward. Just saying.

 

[ca1ore]

Vote.

Exactly ..... particularly all the younger folks who’ll have to live with the mess for longer.

 

[mich2599]

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/sunscreen-corals.html
Sad to see people ignore facts...rather seek to find "alternative facts".

 

[Magellan]

Meanwhile, agricultural runoff continues unabated, creating actual toxic conditions on Florida beaches. Can we get a round of applause for the good senator?? At least beach goers will still be able to buy carcinogenic chemicals to smear on their bodies at all the drug stores in key west...

double face palm.

 

[User1]

I'd be in agreement with banning said sunscreens if the evidence is there to make a case. Apparently it isn't. So that would just make this a feel good crusade by professional environmentalists who get off by demanding everyone do as they say.

This is the lounge but I'm sure this thread will go South rather quickly, then edited, then closed. Be that has it may your opening statement is interesting.

"I'd be in agreement with banning" - I like that. In fact, let me add to it. "I'd be in agreement with banning" if we focused on the bigger issue(s) such as medical prescription waste, agriculture run off, pesticides, etc. Then come back to the table and discuss sunscreen.

Oh, and while the politicians, who do not work "for the people" or "govern", discuss how to do this simple request put up some federal money to the sun screen RnD teams so they can build a safer product...

Sadly - no one, hobbyist, civilian, or politician works like this which is why nothing gets done and we continue to pile on the regulations. We - population - are not ready for these conversations (not directed at you) but as an example above when idiot was thrown out.

 

[KrisReef]

But make sure you know what you are voting for. If you’re motivated by feelings and not facts, beware!

And no party is going to save the planet. It’s not in their control. Voting

 

[CubsFan]

But make sure you know what you are voting for. If you’re motivated by feelings and not facts, beware!

And no party is going to save the planet. It’s not in their control. Voting

I’ll refer you to my feelings vs facts comment above. Also happy to point out that it is a specific party that is rolling back environmental protections and hijacked the epa with anti science people.

 

[george51349]

I’ll refer you to my feelings vs facts comment above.

Do you have a problem with the content of the statement, or it's origin/use?
I ain't trying to be decisive or anything, just wondering why you don't like it.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I know how you roll. We’ve done the climate change thing. I won’t bother going forward. Just saying.

Well I'll just say, judging by your reaction it's obvious how you roll!

 

[Ling_Thing]

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/sunscreen-corals.html

 

[CubsFan]

It’s a divisive attack. People care about what’s important to them. It’s simple minded to say that someone who cares about issues that affect us all is simply being emotional. The arguments are often accompanied by reasons to feel that way. Specifically science and other supporting arguments. It’s a common tactic to use the feelings vs facts these days. Give it a rest. It’s not a thing.