hmmm....
Ok read them both. I think the comments by Durwood M Dugger halfway down the page in the comment section of the first article are very credible. As far as I'm aware the rise in sea temperature attributed by many to global warming is a far bigger threat to The Great Barrier Reef than the chemicals in sunscreen. Other polutants, in particular the level of polution from tourist boats and sewerage runoff is probably equally if not the bigger threat, along with the charming Crown of Thorns starfish.
With regard to the second article, well living as I do in the country with the highest rate of melanoma in the world there is no disputing that people need to be extremely careful with regard to sun exposure and whilst I don't dispute that there are some dreadful carcinogenic chemicals in many of the potions and lotions that people apply to their bodies everyday I'd be very wary of anything advocating that people forego sun protection entirely.
I'm probably at more risk from the hair dye and make up I use every day than the purported carcinogens in sunscreen AND I know I'm at a bigger risk from prolonged unprotected sun exposure. It's a very fine line between getting enough sun to ensure adequate Vitamin D intake and skin cancer.
SO whilst I agree that we need to do more to protect our precious marine environments it cannot be at the expense of our health. I don't know sickofnyc, it just seems to me that both these articles seem to be a little biased against sunscreen, which is fine but not if it's not proactive in promoting ways in which people can protect themselves from the sun. Which neither article seemed to be.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
