Florida senate votes against protecting reefs

[CubsFan]

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.

Meant to attach my above to your quote

 

[CubsFan]

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

I’m just saying that in the realm of the environment, in past discussion, you and I could not reach any kind of agreement. That’s how I roll. No need for the two of us to have a back and forth on that kind of topic.

 

[george51349]

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.

Wow. That's a good observation.
But couldn't it (or something similar) apply in the case of Confirmation Bias, where people only select facts based on their pre-existing beliefs? Again, not trying to debate or anything. This just seems like an interesting conversation.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

No need for the two of us to have a back and forth on that kind of topic.

I agree; so why start with the personal stuff?

You don't need to respond to that.

 

[CubsFan]

I agree; so why start with the personal stuff?

You don't need to respond to that.

Sorry. Only made it personal based on a past discussion here between the two of us. Not sure if you remember. It was a climate change thing.

 

[CubsFan]

Wow. That's a good observation.
But couldn't it (or something similar) apply in the case of Confirmation Bias, where people only select facts based on their pre-existing beliefs? Again, not trying to debate or anything. This just seems like an interesting conversation.

Absolutely. I think most people like to accompany their argument with some kind of support. Sometimes people like to use sources that aren’t supported by the consensus. It doesn’t mean that they’re always wrong, but the current zeitgeist seems to support arguments with no support aside from the claim of a single political figure. That goes a long way for some people. Even in the strength of a well supported argument. It’s often the argument of the opposing side to say that position evolved from their “feelings”. It’s total nonsense.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

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

I'm not ignoring facts. These chemicals have been found to be toxic to corals - in laboratory tests.

But is the concentration of the chemicals in the ocean & on reefs detectable? or anywhere near high enough to affect coral? Has it been found in the tissue of wild corals, at all, or at levels to be a problem?

I don't know, but going by Richard Ross, whom I expect has done some casual research at least, it isn't a problem.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Sorry. Only made it personal based on a past discussion here between the two of us. Not sure if you remember. It was a climate change thing.

No, I don't remember. But I try not to hold grudges.

 

[CubsFan]

No, I don't remember. But I try not to hold grudges.

I’m not holding a grudge. I just know from past discussion that you and I don’t agree in that case. I don’t mind that you don’t remember. It was a while back. I’m not playing on my emotions. We simply could not agree on citations on our supporting arguments. It’s cool.

 

[george51349]

I'm not ignoring facts. These chemicals have been found to be toxic to corals - in laboratory tests.

But is the concentration of the chemicals in the ocean & on reefs detectable? or anywhere near high enough to affect coral? Has it been found in the tissue of wild corals, at all, or at levels to be a problem?

I don't know, but going by Richard Ross, whom I expect has done some casual research at least, it isn't a problem.

This is a good point. At what concentration does it effect the reef, and how much sunscreen does that require? Does one drop in the ocean do the damage, or an entire beachful of people wearing it, or would the negative effects require dumping a million gallons of sunscreen directly on top of a reef? I might try digging deeper.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

This is a good point. At what concentration does it effect the reef, and how much sunscreen does that require? Does one drop in the ocean do the damage, or an entire beachful of people wearing it, or would the negative effects require dumping a million gallons? I might try digging deeper.

I don't know, but its easy to increase concentration in a laboratory fish tank.

 

[george51349]

The study was also only conducted on Stylophora Pistillata. I don't know if they had a good reason for doing this. Maybe it has a stronger immunity than most corals. Either way, the chemicals have only been studied enough to know that they effect Stylophora pistillata, not all corals. Looks like you have to pay to get the research article too.

 

[CubsFan]

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. This is a great place for these kinds of conversations. I hope the mods not only let this play out, but also are willing to participate. It should be constructive and show a willingness to understand both sides. If any of us have nothing more to contribute without attacking the other side, we should either back out, or try another route to get our argument across. For so many of us, we can’t see any other way. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t people that are still undecided and could benefit from a discussion between people that feel strongly from either side.

 

[User1]

Sunscreen - WWII air craft carrier artificial reef (USS Oriskany (sp)). Wonder if anyone has done a study about the amount of chemicals leeched from that old ship mixed in with everything else the Navy threw at it when built vs. what was stripped out before it was sunk for one of the most amazing man made reefs and dive destinations.

Just throwing this out there to say how Mother Nature adapts because I'm pretty sure when she woke up the next morning to find that carrier there she said to herself, "Hmm...how in the heck did that get there" /rollseyes. Instead of getting frustrated, throwing her hands up and screaming down the hallway like Drew Barrymore when she met E.T. she said, "Cool". Thou shall be a reef! And so it is.

Edit: for clarity - if needed. Sunscreen, Air Craft Carrier. Both do not belong in the Ocean yet it adapts. Just something to ponder over coffee or tea tomorrow morning.

 

[TaylorPilot]

https://www.consumerreports.org/sunscreens/the-truth-about-reef-safe-sunscreen/
Here is an interesting read. It basically says that the two things they are trying to ban aren't necessarily the only things that could do damage to coral reefs. None of the studies I have seen sited were done in the wild and don't really see anything related to concentrations seen in actual reefs. It all looks like a bunch of knee jerk emotional "we've gotta do something, the reefs are dying" stuff. Also, the alternative "reef safe" sunscreens they tested were no where near as effective and none of them met up to their advertised SPF ratings. Most of them advertise 30 SPF, which isn't hardly anything. I look for the 70+....

Their suggestion was to wear a UV protecting shirt so you use less sunscreen...

 

[TaylorPilot]

The reef safe ones are mineral based, in the article they said this....

And unfortunately, in the past six years of sunscreen testing, none of the mineral products we’ve tested offer both top-notch UVA and UVB protection and meet their labeled SPF, says Susan Booth, the project leader for our sunscreen testing.

 

[george51349]

Here are a few quotes from the research article before I am off for bed:

"BP-2 is an “emerging contaminant of concern” that is often released as a pollutant through municipal and boat/ship wastewater discharges and landfill leachates, as well as through residential septic fields and unmanaged cesspits."

"Although BP-2 may be a contaminant on coral reefs, its environmental toxicity to reefs is unknown."

"BP-2 exposure in the light induced extensive necrosis in both the epidermis and gastrodermis. In contrast, BP-2 exposure in darkness induced autophagy and autophagic cell death."

"e LC50of BP-2 in the light for an 8 and 24 h exposure was 120 and 165 parts per billion (ppb), respectively. The LC50s for BP-2 in darkness for the same time points were 144 and 548 ppb. Deformity EC20 levels (24 h) were 246 parts per trillion in the light and 9.6 ppb in darkness."

I already have a headache, so I am unwilling/incapable of fully deciphering that last sentence. Maybe Randy Holmes Farley can interpret the article.

 

[html]

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

The next law will be restriction to swim in ocean since many people urine in water and destroy reefs

 

[CubsFan]

The next law will be restriction to swim in ocean since many people urine in water and destroy reefs

It won’t be. This is hyperbole. It’s a distraction and we need to do better.

 

[CubsFan]

**** the govt , we need stricter environmental protections put in place

There ya go! That's the kind of level headed comment that will win the hearts and minds of your countrymen....:rolleyes:

I don’t think either of these comments are bad or good. It’s true the US gov is guilty of perpetuating the destruction of the environment. It doesn’t encompass the entire performance of the gov, though. It’s also not an attack on the anyone’s fellow countryman. It’s in fact, looking out for your fellow countryman or your fellow human being. Still no reason to completely alienate those that could get a better understanding given further support.