tangent //
Curses! I checked out my "crunchy" friend's Facebook links and now my Facebook feed is full of stuff about chemical-free sunscreen for kids and photos of sunburnt toddlers.
//end tangent.
tangent //
Curses! I checked out my "crunchy" friend's Facebook links and now my Facebook feed is full of stuff about chemical-free sunscreen for kids and photos of sunburnt toddlers.
//end tangent.
"Chemical free sunscreen" by definition doesn't exist.
The expectation that we can wait for fully audited accounts before taking action is simply misplaced. We have to act based on the forecasting currently available, because in all cases, previous forecasts, even the most pessimistic, have proven too optimistic. The climate has warmed faster and become more stable faster than all but the most pessimistic ever thought.
Or to take an example closer to home, for me: there is little research done on how to help late-diagnosed neurodivergent adults. But this doesn't mean I can wait for the research to be done to address my own neurodivergence: I have to try what is available, and see what improves my life.
I understand your inclination and respect your knowledge, but I feel that the situation doesn't leave time for the body of research that you are talking about to accrue before we make decisions. Rather, we have to abandon caution and try lots of things, and keep doing them for long enough to see what is working. This involves treating the current generation as an enormous test group, but rather as with earlier researchers into vaccines, what choice do we have but to experiment on ourselves if we want to survive? We have already used up the time we had to proceed otherwise, working harder on business as usual, rather than putting an alternative in place before it was needed.
I think this is a view that it is important to acknowledge. It is human nature to want to do something.
The trouble is that there's a difference between science and myth and making policy based on flimsy evidence might easily mean you do the wrong thing or there are unintended consequences.
I have no knowledge of neuro-divergence or any associated medicine so cannot comment on whether there are any similarities there.
Also while the type of person @KarlLB describes exists, it's not super common in the UK and is at the very extreme end.
I'm not aware that it's less common in the UK than elsewhere - and have certainly seen academic work on 'cosmic right' 'querdenken' style formations that indicate it's an ambient presence across multiple countries.
On this, I am not a sociologist so this is only my impression, but there are various groups who are passionate about environmental issues. There are some on the extreme left, but those have in recent decades been on the decline (in the UK and I think in Europe generally) as there are not many who want to live in communes.
It has become much more fashionable to be on the Far-Right and eco-fascists are absolutely real.
The former generally are trying to create small microcosms of a better world, the latter are gleefully planning how to exploit the inevitable collapse of society.
In terms from North America, the left are hippies and peaceniks living in intentional communes, the right are preppers.
There are overlap between these groups and regional variations.
tangent //
Curses! I checked out my "crunchy" friend's Facebook links and now my Facebook feed is full of stuff about chemical-free sunscreen for kids and photos of sunburnt toddlers.
//end tangent.
"Chemical free sunscreen" by definition doesn't exist.
A good coating of mud might fit the bill, although I admit there could be other issues arising from that.
tangent //
Curses! I checked out my "crunchy" friend's Facebook links and now my Facebook feed is full of stuff about chemical-free sunscreen for kids and photos of sunburnt toddlers.
//end tangent.
"Chemical free sunscreen" by definition doesn't exist.
A good coating of mud might fit the bill, although I admit there could be other issues arising from that.
tangent //
Curses! I checked out my "crunchy" friend's Facebook links and now my Facebook feed is full of stuff about chemical-free sunscreen for kids and photos of sunburnt toddlers.
//end tangent.
"Chemical free sunscreen" by definition doesn't exist.
A good coating of mud might fit the bill, although I admit there could be other issues arising from that.
Mud is made up of chemicals.
True indeed, although it is not the chemical action of the mud which is important.
My gran used to cover me with vinegar! I smelled like a chip!
Eventually she took me to the doctor, who told her off for letting me get so sunburned and prescribed calamine lotion.
tangent //
Curses! I checked out my "crunchy" friend's Facebook links and now my Facebook feed is full of stuff about chemical-free sunscreen for kids and photos of sunburnt toddlers.
//end tangent.
"Chemical free sunscreen" by definition doesn't exist.
A good coating of mud might fit the bill, although I admit there could be other issues arising from that.
Mud is made up of chemicals.
True indeed, although it is not the chemical action of the mud which is important.
I am not sure this is correct, there is evidence in published science of a chemical interaction between and through the skin and a mudpack.
Presumably people using it as a sunscreen are using it for it's physical properties as a barrier to UV light radiation.
ZnO is produced in a laboratory from zinc inorganic minerals. It's not natural but it is also not not natural.
Kaolinite is a clay and is sometimes used in sunscreen.
I would think, as a non-chemist, that many of the same minerals in a sunscreen found in a store are also in a mud or kaolinite based screen.
Ok. These pond differences are always interesting for me to learn.
Yeah, I think "crunchy" and "greenie" fall into the range of words that could be insulting or affectionately teasing depending on context and intonation.
I presume that this author comes under the heading of "expert catastrophiser". Reading it, I am very torn - I will be 80 in 2052, and therefore likely to be around, but vulnerable. What would be the anti-catastrophising response?
I presume that this author comes under the heading of "expert catastrophiser". Reading it, I am very torn - I will be 80 in 2052, and therefore likely to be around, but vulnerable. What would be the anti-catastrophising response?
The projected changes for the UK feel uncomfortable but even the changed climate is well within the bounds of human existence.
There are many other places that will be much worse affected.
Focus on mitigating the worst effects in the UK, learn to adapt to the new normal and focus on helping those parts of the world which will be facing much worse impacts without insulting them by suggesting the expected impacts here are anywhere close to the things they will have to deal with.
We still need to prepare - just carrying on as we are and making no adjustments will be exceptionally uncomfortable. Adapting sensibly could provide considerable amounts of employment, as well as reducing future emissions. There has to be something between obliviousness and panic, surely?
Well, joining Musk on Mars is a theoretical possibility, but being a planet away from him and his kind seems like a good idea.
We still need to prepare - just carrying on as we are and making no adjustments will be exceptionally uncomfortable. Adapting sensibly could provide considerable amounts of employment, as well as reducing future emissions. There has to be something between obliviousness and panic, surely?
Well, joining Musk on Mars is a theoretical possibility, but being a planet away from him and his kind seems like a good idea.
I did not mean to imply carrying on as we are. I meant mitigating and planning for the change as described by the best science. Doing nothing is exactly the wrong thing to do.
We need to clearly see the territory and calmly plan for the new normal.
The problem there is that the current political climate is so reactive that there is no space between total oblivion and blind panic.
This is where we need real government, but there is nowhere on earth where governments are able to even depart from the latest poll statistics by a millimetre.
I presume that this author comes under the heading of "expert catastrophiser". Reading it, I am very torn - I will be 80 in 2052, and therefore likely to be around, but vulnerable. What would be the anti-catastrophising response?
The projected changes for the UK feel uncomfortable but even the changed climate is well within the bounds of human existence.
There are many other places that will be much worse affected.
Focus on mitigating the worst effects in the UK, learn to adapt to the new normal and focus on helping those parts of the world which will be facing much worse impacts without insulting them by suggesting the expected impacts here are anywhere close to the things they will have to deal with.
Places liable to flooding due to climate change.
Okay, these aren’t big, populous or powerful places, but some are sovereign nations. Will asylum seeker status cover those who have simply used a boat to get off an island that no longer exists?
We still need to prepare - just carrying on as we are and making no adjustments will be exceptionally uncomfortable. Adapting sensibly could provide considerable amounts of employment, as well as reducing future emissions. There has to be something between obliviousness and panic, surely?
Well, joining Musk on Mars is a theoretical possibility, but being a planet away from him and his kind seems like a good idea.
I did not mean to imply carrying on as we are. I meant mitigating and planning for the change as described by the best science.
That's quite a significant change if you are talking about the UK. A large part of the problem is that people don't think of things like deferred infrastructure investment and maintenance as a form of 'debt', but consider something like this:
Okay, so that's fix sea defences or move tens of thousands of people in 20-30 years time (and no, the market will not provide at that point).
At the very least most European countries are faced with doing something about their housing stock, energy mix and transport (which is going to have to include a lot more public options in the future), and as above, the Mail cavils at even minor changes.
We still need to prepare - just carrying on as we are and making no adjustments will be exceptionally uncomfortable. Adapting sensibly could provide considerable amounts of employment, as well as reducing future emissions. There has to be something between obliviousness and panic, surely?
Well, joining Musk on Mars is a theoretical possibility, but being a planet away from him and his kind seems like a good idea.
I did not mean to imply carrying on as we are. I meant mitigating and planning for the change as described by the best science.
That's quite a significant change if you are talking about the UK. A large part of the problem is that people don't think of things like deferred infrastructure investment and maintenance as a form of 'debt', but consider something like this:
Okay, so that's fix sea defences or move tens of thousands of people in 20-30 years time (and no, the market will not provide at that point).
At the very least most European countries are faced with doing something about their housing stock, energy mix and transport (which is going to have to include a lot more public options in the future), and as above, the Mail cavils at even minor changes.
Well at least it is worth trying. Giving up because of Farage and the Daily Mail seems like a counsel of despair.
We still need to prepare - just carrying on as we are and making no adjustments will be exceptionally uncomfortable. Adapting sensibly could provide considerable amounts of employment, as well as reducing future emissions. There has to be something between obliviousness and panic, surely?
Well, joining Musk on Mars is a theoretical possibility, but being a planet away from him and his kind seems like a good idea.
I did not mean to imply carrying on as we are. I meant mitigating and planning for the change as described by the best science.
That's quite a significant change if you are talking about the UK. A large part of the problem is that people don't think of things like deferred infrastructure investment and maintenance as a form of 'debt', but consider something like this:
Okay, so that's fix sea defences or move tens of thousands of people in 20-30 years time (and no, the market will not provide at that point).
At the very least most European countries are faced with doing something about their housing stock, energy mix and transport (which is going to have to include a lot more public options in the future), and as above, the Mail cavils at even minor changes.
Well at least it is worth trying. Giving up because of Farage and the Daily Mail seems like a counsel of despair.
It should be, but it involves quite a large step change, quite at odds with what most people think of when they use the phrase 'keep calm and carry on'.
tangent //
Curses! I checked out my "crunchy" friend's Facebook links and now my Facebook feed is full of stuff about chemical-free sunscreen for kids and photos of sunburnt toddlers.
//end tangent.
"Chemical free sunscreen" by definition doesn't exist.
For clarification - in the cosmetics industry there are two types of UV repelling agent, and one is referred to in-industry as "chemical sunscreen" because it works by absorbing UV rays via particular chemicals. The other type is physical sunscreen (sometimes called mineral sunscreen) which works by reflecting UV rays via minerals like zinc and titanium. However, it's not supposed to suggest that physical sunscreen is "chemical free" - I assume this is where misinformation has come from. There are legitimate tested sunscreens based on physical sunscreen (they're often more gentle on sensitive skin and are better for oily faces as the minerals absorb oil too) but they're not any more "natural" than the UV-absorbent type.
The problem there is that the current political climate is so reactive that there is no space between total oblivion and blind panic.
This is where we need real government, but there is nowhere on earth where governments are able to even depart from the latest poll statistics by a millimetre.
Another problem is that in a real emergency, "panic" generally isn't a good approach to the situation.
However, it's not supposed to suggest that physical sunscreen is "chemical free" - I assume this is where misinformation has come from. There are legitimate tested sunscreens based on physical sunscreen (they're often more gentle on sensitive skin and are better for oily faces as the minerals absorb oil too) but they're not any more "natural" than the UV-absorbent type.
I seem to remember that the reflective barrier style creams are the only ones you're allowed to wear in sensitive biological environments (diving around coral reefs etc.)
Cnihtlet #1 is the one likely to do that sort of thing, and she has the sensitive skin that means she wears the barrier cream (or better, UV-blocking clothing) anyway.
However, it's not supposed to suggest that physical sunscreen is "chemical free" - I assume this is where misinformation has come from. There are legitimate tested sunscreens based on physical sunscreen (they're often more gentle on sensitive skin and are better for oily faces as the minerals absorb oil too) but they're not any more "natural" than the UV-absorbent type.
I seem to remember that the reflective barrier style creams are the only ones you're allowed to wear in sensitive biological environments (diving around coral reefs etc.)
Cnihtlet #1 is the one likely to do that sort of thing, and she has the sensitive skin that means she wears the barrier cream (or better, UV-blocking clothing) anyway.
The study that resulted in "reef safe sunscreen" becoming a thing is controversial amongst cosmetic scientists - I'm not sure of the details but I believe it's claimed that the study used an unrealistic dose of chemical sunscreen compared to the amount actually released into the water from people's skin. UV-blocking clothing is better anyway, though.
Comments
Curses! I checked out my "crunchy" friend's Facebook links and now my Facebook feed is full of stuff about chemical-free sunscreen for kids and photos of sunburnt toddlers.
//end tangent.
"Chemical free sunscreen" by definition doesn't exist.
I think this is a view that it is important to acknowledge. It is human nature to want to do something.
The trouble is that there's a difference between science and myth and making policy based on flimsy evidence might easily mean you do the wrong thing or there are unintended consequences.
I have no knowledge of neuro-divergence or any associated medicine so cannot comment on whether there are any similarities there.
On this, I am not a sociologist so this is only my impression, but there are various groups who are passionate about environmental issues. There are some on the extreme left, but those have in recent decades been on the decline (in the UK and I think in Europe generally) as there are not many who want to live in communes.
It has become much more fashionable to be on the Far-Right and eco-fascists are absolutely real.
The former generally are trying to create small microcosms of a better world, the latter are gleefully planning how to exploit the inevitable collapse of society.
In terms from North America, the left are hippies and peaceniks living in intentional communes, the right are preppers.
There are overlap between these groups and regional variations.
A good coating of mud might fit the bill, although I admit there could be other issues arising from that.
Mud is made up of chemicals.
Eventually she took me to the doctor, who told her off for letting me get so sunburned and prescribed calamine lotion.
I am not sure this is correct, there is evidence in published science of a chemical interaction between and through the skin and a mudpack.
Presumably people using it as a sunscreen are using it for it's physical properties as a barrier to UV light radiation.
ZnO is produced in a laboratory from zinc inorganic minerals. It's not natural but it is also not not natural.
Kaolinite is a clay and is sometimes used in sunscreen.
I would think, as a non-chemist, that many of the same minerals in a sunscreen found in a store are also in a mud or kaolinite based screen.
Yeah, I think "crunchy" and "greenie" fall into the range of words that could be insulting or affectionately teasing depending on context and intonation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/may/26/heatwaves-britain-2052-sleep-hot-houses-water-climate
Keep calm and carry on.
The projected changes for the UK feel uncomfortable but even the changed climate is well within the bounds of human existence.
There are many other places that will be much worse affected.
Focus on mitigating the worst effects in the UK, learn to adapt to the new normal and focus on helping those parts of the world which will be facing much worse impacts without insulting them by suggesting the expected impacts here are anywhere close to the things they will have to deal with.
Well, joining Musk on Mars is a theoretical possibility, but being a planet away from him and his kind seems like a good idea.
I did not mean to imply carrying on as we are. I meant mitigating and planning for the change as described by the best science. Doing nothing is exactly the wrong thing to do.
We need to clearly see the territory and calmly plan for the new normal.
This is where we need real government, but there is nowhere on earth where governments are able to even depart from the latest poll statistics by a millimetre.
Places liable to flooding due to climate change.
Okay, these aren’t big, populous or powerful places, but some are sovereign nations. Will asylum seeker status cover those who have simply used a boat to get off an island that no longer exists?
That's quite a significant change if you are talking about the UK. A large part of the problem is that people don't think of things like deferred infrastructure investment and maintenance as a form of 'debt', but consider something like this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2p0epyll2o
Okay, so that's fix sea defences or move tens of thousands of people in 20-30 years time (and no, the market will not provide at that point).
At the very least most European countries are faced with doing something about their housing stock, energy mix and transport (which is going to have to include a lot more public options in the future), and as above, the Mail cavils at even minor changes.
Well at least it is worth trying. Giving up because of Farage and the Daily Mail seems like a counsel of despair.
It should be, but it involves quite a large step change, quite at odds with what most people think of when they use the phrase 'keep calm and carry on'.
For clarification - in the cosmetics industry there are two types of UV repelling agent, and one is referred to in-industry as "chemical sunscreen" because it works by absorbing UV rays via particular chemicals. The other type is physical sunscreen (sometimes called mineral sunscreen) which works by reflecting UV rays via minerals like zinc and titanium. However, it's not supposed to suggest that physical sunscreen is "chemical free" - I assume this is where misinformation has come from. There are legitimate tested sunscreens based on physical sunscreen (they're often more gentle on sensitive skin and are better for oily faces as the minerals absorb oil too) but they're not any more "natural" than the UV-absorbent type.
Another problem is that in a real emergency, "panic" generally isn't a good approach to the situation.
I seem to remember that the reflective barrier style creams are the only ones you're allowed to wear in sensitive biological environments (diving around coral reefs etc.)
Cnihtlet #1 is the one likely to do that sort of thing, and she has the sensitive skin that means she wears the barrier cream (or better, UV-blocking clothing) anyway.
The study that resulted in "reef safe sunscreen" becoming a thing is controversial amongst cosmetic scientists - I'm not sure of the details but I believe it's claimed that the study used an unrealistic dose of chemical sunscreen compared to the amount actually released into the water from people's skin. UV-blocking clothing is better anyway, though.