Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Coral killed by sunscreen not climate change

Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 9:21:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://wattsupwiththat.com...

The researchers found that oxybenzone, a common UV-filtering compound, is in high concentrations in the waters around the more popular coral reefs in Hawaii, and the Caribbean. The chemical not only kills the coral, it causes DNA damage in adults and deforms the DNA in coral in the larval stage, making it unlikely they can develop properly. The highest concentrations of oxybenzone were found in reefs most popular with tourists.

In laboratory experiments, the team exposed coral larvae and cells of adult corals to increasing concentrations of oxybenzone. The research team discovered that oxybenzone deforms coral larvae by trapping them in their own skeleton, making then unable to float with currents and disperse.

Oxybenzone also caused coral bleaching, which is a prime cause of coral mortality worldwide. Corals bleach when they lose or expel the algae that normally live inside them, thus losing a valuable source of nutrition. In addition, coral larvae exposed to increasing oxybenzone concentrations suffered more DNA damage.

Cells from seven species of corals were killed by oxybenzone at concentrations similar to those detected in ocean water samples. Three of the species that the researchers tested are currently listed as threatened under the US Endangered Species Act.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 11:34:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't see how this disproves that climate change is a factor.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 11:39:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 11:34:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I don't see how this disproves that climate change is a factor.

Because you can't have more than one thing killing coral at a time. Everybody knows that. They take it in turns. Climate change one year. Crown-of-thorns starfish the following year. Then sunscreen pollution the year after. It's a tag-team system.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 11:40:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 11:39:54 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/21/2015 11:34:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I don't see how this disproves that climate change is a factor.

Because you can't have more than one thing killing coral at a time. Everybody knows that. They take it in turns. Climate change one year. Crown-of-thorns starfish the following year. Then sunscreen pollution the year after. It's a tag-team system.

Lol.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 11:46:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
On a more serious note, I went on a holiday to New Caledonia recently. On one of the beaches there they had a sign prohibiting snorkelling if you were wearing sunscreen. This link between sunscreen pollution and coral damage has been known for a long time:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 11:46:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 11:39:54 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/21/2015 11:34:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I don't see how this disproves that climate change is a factor.

Because you can't have more than one thing killing coral at a time. Everybody knows that. They take it in turns. Climate change one year. Crown-of-thorns starfish the following year. Then sunscreen pollution the year after. It's a tag-team system.

I find this statement extremely insightful and it revealed to me a level of thought which I had not previously comprehended.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 11:49:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 11:46:49 PM, TheProphett wrote:
At 10/21/2015 11:39:54 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/21/2015 11:34:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I don't see how this disproves that climate change is a factor.

Because you can't have more than one thing killing coral at a time. Everybody knows that. They take it in turns. Climate change one year. Crown-of-thorns starfish the following year. Then sunscreen pollution the year after. It's a tag-team system.

I find this statement extremely insightful and it revealed to me a level of thought which I had not previously comprehended.

You're welcome. I was really only elaborating on bsh1. :-)
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 11:52:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 11:49:15 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/21/2015 11:46:49 PM, TheProphett wrote:
At 10/21/2015 11:39:54 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/21/2015 11:34:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I don't see how this disproves that climate change is a factor.

Because you can't have more than one thing killing coral at a time. Everybody knows that. They take it in turns. Climate change one year. Crown-of-thorns starfish the following year. Then sunscreen pollution the year after. It's a tag-team system.

I find this statement extremely insightful and it revealed to me a level of thought which I had not previously comprehended.

You're welcome. I was really only elaborating on bsh1. :-)

It is along your thinking that we can unlock the secrets of our world, so I applaud you for that.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 5:52:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 11:39:54 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/21/2015 11:34:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I don't see how this disproves that climate change is a factor.

Because you can't have more than one thing killing coral at a time. Everybody knows that. They take it in turns. Climate change one year. Crown-of-thorns starfish the following year. Then sunscreen pollution the year after. It's a tag-team system.

D
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 12:20:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 11:34:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I don't see how this disproves that climate change is a factor.

And we must defend climate change, it's one of the core doctrines. How can we continue to insist that incompetent and unaccomplished people be given political power if they are not required to save the planet?
This space for rent.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 1:06:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 12:20:21 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2015 11:34:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I don't see how this disproves that climate change is a factor.

And we must defend climate change, it's one of the core doctrines. How can we continue to insist that incompetent and unaccomplished people be given political power if they are not required to save the planet?

Not doctrine. Evidence based science. Please use the correct terminology.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 2:16:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 1:06:41 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 10/22/2015 12:20:21 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2015 11:34:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I don't see how this disproves that climate change is a factor.

And we must defend climate change, it's one of the core doctrines. How can we continue to insist that incompetent and unaccomplished people be given political power if they are not required to save the planet?

Not doctrine. Evidence based science. Please use the correct terminology.

"Not doctrine.... Please use the correct terminology".

You make my point, no?
This space for rent.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 3:33:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here is the abstract from the actual article rather than some mashed up newspaper reports.

Abstract
"Benzophenone-3 (BP-3; oxybenzone) is an ingredient in sunscreen lotions and personal-care products that protects against the damaging effects of ultraviolet light. Oxybenzone is an emerging contaminant of concern in marine environments"produced by swimmers and municipal, residential, and boat/ship wastewater discharges. We examined the effects of oxybenzone on the larval form (planula) of the coral Stylophora pistillata, as well as its toxicity in vitro to coral cells from this and six other coral species. Oxybenzone is a photo-toxicant; adverse effects are exacerbated in the light. Whether in darkness or light, oxybenzone transformed planulae from a motile state to a deformed, sessile condition. Planulae exhibited an increasing rate of coral bleaching in response to increasing concentrations of oxybenzone. Oxybenzone is a genotoxicant to corals, exhibiting a positive relationship between DNA-AP lesions and increasing oxybenzone concentrations. Oxybenzone is a skeletal endocrine disruptor; it induced ossification of the planula, encasing the entire planula in its own skeleton. The LC50 of planulae exposed to oxybenzone in the light for an 8- and 24-h exposure was 3.1 mg/L and 139 "g/L, respectively. The LC50s for oxybenzone in darkness for the same time points were 16.8 mg/L and 779 "g/L. Deformity EC20 levels (24 h) of planulae exposed to oxybenzone were 6.5 "g/L in the light and 10 "g/L in darkness. Coral cell LC50s (4 h, in the light) for 7 different coral species ranges from 8 to 340 "g/L, whereas LC20s (4 h, in the light) for the same species ranges from 0.062 to 8 "g/L. Coral reef contamination of oxybenzone in the U.S. Virgin Islands ranged from 75 "g/L to 1.4 mg/L, whereas Hawaiian sites were contaminated between 0.8 and 19.2 "g/L. Oxybenzone poses a hazard to coral reef conservation and threatens the resiliency of coral reefs to climate change."
*

http://link.springer.com...

Note that the 62 parts in a trillion corresponds to the LC20 of the most sensitive coral cells and the LC50 for some species is much higher at 340 parts in a billion. (5,000 times higher)

Further notice that the Hawaiian sites are contaminated to much lower levels 19.2 parts in a billion at the worst. The virgin islands are under more serious threat with conc varying from 75 parts per billion to 1.4 parts per million.

While sunscreen pollution is a threat it clearly is not able to explain all the damage to coral reefs. Large parts of the great barrier reef are suffering damage but this is unlikely to be from sunscreen due to the depth of the reef and restrictions on tourists.

* were "g/L is written it should be micrograms per litre.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 4:51:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 2:16:04 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:06:41 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 10/22/2015 12:20:21 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2015 11:34:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I don't see how this disproves that climate change is a factor.

And we must defend climate change, it's one of the core doctrines. How can we continue to insist that incompetent and unaccomplished people be given political power if they are not required to save the planet?

Not doctrine. Evidence based science. Please use the correct terminology.

"Not doctrine.... Please use the correct terminology".

You make my point, no?

Only if you consider the careful observation of evidence leading to a conclusion equivalent to blind acceptance of arbitrary conclusions.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 6:46:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 4:51:09 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 10/22/2015 2:16:04 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:06:41 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 10/22/2015 12:20:21 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2015 11:34:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I don't see how this disproves that climate change is a factor.

And we must defend climate change, it's one of the core doctrines. How can we continue to insist that incompetent and unaccomplished people be given political power if they are not required to save the planet?

Not doctrine. Evidence based science. Please use the correct terminology.

"Not doctrine.... Please use the correct terminology".

You make my point, no?

Only if you consider the careful observation of evidence leading to a conclusion equivalent to blind acceptance of arbitrary conclusions.

Yeah, the "careful observation of evidence leading to a conclusion" is not my definition of science. Do you know what's missing from that formulation? I'll give you a hint: If you have this missing ingredient you won't need to worry about stating things just the right way.

Just to state my position, since climate change arguments are ALWAYS pointless - "Climate Change" involves science, but climate change is not science. It's not even a coherent hypothesis, much less science theory. Climate Change is what you get out of the vacuum cleaner when you clean a science lab during the evening - an interesting but incoherent jumble of fears and politics and data and ego and even some legitimate caution.
This space for rent.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 10:58:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 6:46:46 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/22/2015 4:51:09 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 10/22/2015 2:16:04 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:06:41 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 10/22/2015 12:20:21 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2015 11:34:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I don't see how this disproves that climate change is a factor.

And we must defend climate change, it's one of the core doctrines. How can we continue to insist that incompetent and unaccomplished people be given political power if they are not required to save the planet?

Not doctrine. Evidence based science. Please use the correct terminology.

"Not doctrine.... Please use the correct terminology".

You make my point, no?

Only if you consider the careful observation of evidence leading to a conclusion equivalent to blind acceptance of arbitrary conclusions.

Yeah, the "careful observation of evidence leading to a conclusion" is not my definition of science. Do you know what's missing from that formulation? I'll give you a hint: If you have this missing ingredient you won't need to worry about stating things just the right way.


I didn't intend it to be a comprehensive definition of science, just a brief description. Although I'd argue that it describes the process of science fairly well. Since you brought it up, how do you define science then?

Just to state my position, since climate change arguments are ALWAYS pointless - "Climate Change" involves science, but climate change is not science. It's not even a coherent hypothesis, much less science theory. Climate Change is what you get out of the vacuum cleaner when you clean a science lab during the evening - an interesting but incoherent jumble of fears and politics and data and ego and even some legitimate caution.

How exactly is it not a coherent hypothesis? Because it seems like a pretty clear hypothesis to me. I'm curious as to where the incoherent bits are because I've never seen them.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 3:52:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 10:58:28 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 10/22/2015 6:46:46 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/22/2015 4:51:09 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 10/22/2015 2:16:04 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:06:41 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 10/22/2015 12:20:21 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2015 11:34:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I don't see how this disproves that climate change is a factor.

And we must defend climate change, it's one of the core doctrines. How can we continue to insist that incompetent and unaccomplished people be given political power if they are not required to save the planet?

Not doctrine. Evidence based science. Please use the correct terminology.

"Not doctrine.... Please use the correct terminology".

You make my point, no?

Only if you consider the careful observation of evidence leading to a conclusion equivalent to blind acceptance of arbitrary conclusions.

Yeah, the "careful observation of evidence leading to a conclusion" is not my definition of science. Do you know what's missing from that formulation? I'll give you a hint: If you have this missing ingredient you won't need to worry about stating things just the right way.


I didn't intend it to be a comprehensive definition of science, just a brief description. Although I'd argue that it describes the process of science fairly well. Since you brought it up, how do you define science then?

What's missing is testing. That's what enabled the golden age of science, the concept of testing, aka the 'scientific method'. You don't write papers and have your peers review them, you devise experiments that test your ideas. Others run your experiments, rather than reviewing your papers.

And my freshman physics professor used to say: the true scientific response to any claim is "bullsh*t! Prove it to me!". But today it's some kind of sin to say bullsh*t to the claims of popular science, so we're actually becoming an anti-science culture.


Just to state my position, since climate change arguments are ALWAYS pointless - "Climate Change" involves science, but climate change is not science. It's not even a coherent hypothesis, much less science theory. Climate Change is what you get out of the vacuum cleaner when you clean a science lab during the evening - an interesting but incoherent jumble of fears and politics and data and ego and even some legitimate caution.

How exactly is it not a coherent hypothesis? Because it seems like a pretty clear hypothesis to me. I'm curious as to where the incoherent bits are because I've never seen them.

Well, the subject of this thread is the case in point. One of the claims was that global warming is killing the coral. Somebody finds evidence to the contrary, and an early response is "doesn't mean it couldn't still be climate change". Well, if testing doesn't affect one's hypothesis, it ain't science.

My question for "Climate Change" is "how do we test it?" Can that question be answered? I don't think so. On the one hand it's a 'duh', the climate is changing all the time, and on the other hand I don't think the claims are well defined enough to devise even a theoretical test of them.
This space for rent.