Florida senate votes against protecting reefs

[flsalty]

The real irony here is Bradley is nowhere near a beach. And don't expect our Governor to have sense. Now you know why some of us want South Florida to secede from the state...lol

 

[flsalty]

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.

But sometimes nature adapts by making things go extinct.

 

[CubsFan]

But sometimes nature adapts by making things go extinct.

Well put. When the best solution to pollution is dilution, you eventually run out of solution.

 

[adam finley]

I guess I’ll chime in as well. Regardless which side of the fence your on if it’s proven to be harmful we shouldn’t use it. Why wait till something is damaged before we decide to ban it? We only seem to want to protect or change things when majority of it’s already destroyed. We should always protect and cherish what we have not hurt it or wait till it’s too late. I’m sure they can come up with a safer alternative.

 

[mich2599]

I guess I’ll chime in as well. Regardless which side of the fence your on if it’s proven to be harmful we shouldn’t use it. Why wait till something is damaged before we decide to ban it? We only seem to want to protect or change things when majority of it’s already destroyed. We should always protect and cherish what we have not hurt it or wait till it’s too late. I’m sure they can come up with a safer alternative.

Great point. If it has been proven in lab tests that certain chemicals do cause harm, why wait to ban. Like I said before, they will always find a way to manipulate the facts. That's cool though. They are just kicking the can down the road not doing anything about it. The bright side is that my generation is more outspoken and will hopefully make a change.

*BTW*
They should pour a bottle of sunscreen into their tank and see what happens. :)

 

[Sierra_Bravo]

wasn’t trying to, half of the people on here voted for trump that says enough lol

Doesn't seem like you've been here long, but we refrain from trash-talking our fellow forum members, especially when it comes to political views. Maybe you ought to play a little nicer in the sandbox.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

They should pour a bottle of sunscreen into their tank and see what happens. :)

:rolleyes:
What would happen if you poured an entire container of fish food into yours? Or bucket of salt, or an entire big bottle of Vibrant, or trace minerals, or calcium hydroxide ???

If you're old enough to drink alcohol, you'd better not, because it's a poison! Infact alcohol must be banned now!

Uhh:eek:

 

[CubsFan]

:rolleyes:
What would happen if you poured an entire container of fish food into yours? Or bucket of salt, or an entire big bottle of Vibrant, or trace minerals, or calcium hydroxide ???

If you're old enough to drink alcohol, you'd better not, because it's a poison! Infact alcohol must be banned now!

Uhh:eek:

Much love man, but the “something kills so we should ban something else that kills” is about as cliche as the “facts don’t care about your feelings”.

 

[Sierra_Bravo]

Not sure how studies were conducted that concluded that UV sunscreens harm corals and under what conditions (I'm pretty sure dumping a bottle in an SPS tank wouldn't work out too well for the corals), but a U of Md Environmental Sciences study in Hawaii last year seems to have concluded that the levels found in test sites are far less than what has been shown to cause coral damage:

"Overall, the impacts of oxybenzone and octinoxate to intact corals occur at much higher concentrations than this study found in seawater near coral reefs" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190401121805.htm

That's not to say more study is not needed, but before we jump on the "Ban It! - government is stupid" bandwagon, maybe getting rid of something that can reduce skin cancer without really knowing if it helps or hurts isn't the right move.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Much love man, but the “something kills so we should ban something else that kills” is about as cliche as the “facts don’t care about your feelings”.

Simple analogy to show how silly the suggestion was.
And facts matter, because I don't believe in acting on something just because someone else feels we should.

 

[CubsFan]

Not sure how studies were conducted that concluded that UV sunscreens harm corals and under what conditions (I'm pretty sure dumping a bottle in an SPS tank wouldn't work out too well for the corals), but a U of Md Environmental Sciences study in Hawaii last year seems to have concluded that the levels found in test sites are far less than what has been shown to cause coral damage:

"Overall, the impacts of oxybenzone and octinoxate to intact corals occur at much higher concentrations than this study found in seawater near coral reefs" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190401121805.htm

That's not to say more study is not needed, but before we jump on the "Ban It! - government is stupid" bandwagon, maybe getting rid of something that can reduce skin cancer without really knowing if it helps or hurts isn't the right move.

This is excellent work for a thread like this. It’s pretty current and comes from what I believe to be a reliable source. It’s also not linked to any kind of big business with links to fossil fuels or any other petroleum connects. It seems objective. I’d like to see more of this. I didn’t do a big check. Seems like citations were there, but I didn’t check them. I might later. I’m just hanging out like the rest of yous guys. Good article. Thanks.

 

[CubsFan]

Simple analogy to show how silly the suggestion was.
And facts matter, because I don't believe in acting on something just because someone else feels we should.

I thought I pointed out earlier that a lot of these “feelings” are derived from facts. I’ll double check.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

This is excellent work for a thread like this. It’s pretty current and comes from what I believe to be a reliable source. It’s also not linked to any kind of big business with links to fossil fuels or any other petroleum connects. It seems objective. I’d like to see more of this. I didn’t do a big check. Seems like citations were there, but I didn’t check them. I might later. I’m just hanging out like the rest of yous guys. Good article. Thanks.

I'm glad that you like that research that backs my position.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I thought I pointed out earlier that a lot of these “feelings” are derived from facts. I’ll double check.

Derived from the wrong facts it appears.

 

[flsalty]

I'm glad that you like that research that backs my position.

It's way too early in the game to make the claim that study backs any position.

 

[CubsFan]

I'm glad that you like that research that backs my position.

I have no issue with reading a good article on the issue. It provides good info. I wouldn’t say it totally supports your position if that position is that there is no impact on the ocean from sunscreen. It touched on complexities of the test. I think it agreed with that we may be overestimating the impact. This is how you build a good back and forth. Is it an issue? Yes. Do we know enough to start hucking tons of cash at it? Probably other issues we should invest in first. Can beach goers keep something not ideal out of our oceans, lakes, and rivers to keep us from arriving at a place where it does become a problem? Why not? I live in Lake Tahoe. It’s highly protected. I pick up random garbage all the time. The system is smaller. I’d encourage people to not wear sunscreen that could have adverse affects on the lake. I’m a PACE plan guy. Primary, alternative, contingency, and emergency. We’re at least on the alternative plan.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

It's way too early in the game to make the claim that study backs any position.

And that also backs my position.

 

[CubsFan]

Derived from the wrong facts it appears.

Read it again

 

[mich2599]

:rolleyes:
What would happen if you poured an entire container of fish food into yours? Or bucket of salt, or an entire big bottle of Vibrant, or trace minerals, or calcium hydroxide ???

If you're old enough to drink alcohol, you'd better not, because it's a poison! Infact alcohol must be banned now!

Uhh:eek:

I was talking in general but of course, your ego may have gotten hurt and you had to make it personal. BTW your analogy falls short to be even a real comparison to the topic of the discussion. Nice distraction though the award should be arriving soon.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Read it again

Your argument is not based on facts. The whole banning position is based on the old enviro tactic of labelling something as a threat, & then demanding implementation of the precautionary principle.

The Polly didn't implement the ban because -"Overall, the impacts of oxybenzone and octinoxate to intact corals occur at much higher concentrations than this study found in seawater near coral reefs".