Bemotrizinol
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
186 points (99.5% liked)
Uplifting News
19186 readers
702 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh Bemotrizinol krimpatul.
Bemo-trizi-nol or Bemot-riz-eul?
That’s pretty awesome. Shame it won’t be in time for this summer.
We get brief summers in all the seasons now thanks to climate change
It’s the UV that is the issue not the heat. Unless climate change shifts the tilt of Earths axis, your likelihood or receiving the rays will be more or less the same per season.
You're right about the seasons remaining the same but climate change does have an effect on the clouds in the sky, meaning climate change does effect how much uv-light reaches the surface of our planet, despite the earth continuing to rotate around itself and the sun in the same way.
It also affects how little can escape back out.
It was more a joke about how we can go out in shorts a few weeks in every season now because of the extreme microclimate changes.
What about us shorts all year round folks? I guess I need to move RReaLLLY car south or a little more north
Of course I know him, he’s me, there’s literally dozens of us
Why not? The products already exist in Asia and Europe and they are now legal to be imported into the US. You could see them on shelves next week, today even if some companies had insider information on this coming into effect and timed it well.
Most products are specifically packaged for a given market. Especially with more regulated products, it's may be legal to import the product itself, but not in the packaging that is legal in other places. Plus there are language barriers, supply network differences, differences in store shelf standard sizes so bottles fit on shelves, etc. It likely will take time to design and produce the packaging, push the product to each stage of intermediate warehouses, and finally get it to stores.
That said and individual could import their own, but you'll have to pay for the shipping yourself and deal with any market differences in pricing and costs of currency conversion if your credit card doesn't do it for free.
Ever been to an Asian grocery store? They use the exact same packaging and slap a sticker over the nutritional label that complies with local laws. It’s perfectly legal and cheap.
That doesn't get it to you any faster or much cheaper than just individuals just paying a foreign company to ship it to them direct. You're adding another middleman importer that needs to make a profit while developing and paying people to apply the labels and deal with customs, shipping, warehousing, etc. They might be able to do it faster than the normal way, but it definitely would add significant cost. And if you're trying to get people to buy a new product, it's not good to start with a noncompetitive price. It makes people see it as unaffordable even after the price eventually stabilizes. First impressions are a big deal in product marketing.
The article even states they aren’t expected to hit shelves until the end of the year.
Is this one of the ones that don't kill fish?
My impression has been that research doesnt actually support the concerns about sunscreen harming reefs, and that it was like one paper, the conclusions from which haven't been supported by wider reaseach? I could totally be wrong, I don't remember details very well
Are we thinking of the same thing? Not sure if there's another aquatic life impact people are concerned about with UV filters used in sunscreen
This paper isn't free at the link but you can read the abstract, partially quoted below:
"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."
Also there's this: 11/19/21-MAUI COUNTY COUNCIL PASSES HISTORIC BILL PROHIBITING NON-MINERAL SUNSCREENS
Because I am specifically thinking it may have been a paper that researchers dont feel reflect the broader body of evidence, I'd probably consider a meta analysis or systematic review more meaningful thank just one paper, as that paper may be the one I'm thinking of that is regarded as not accurately portraying the risk
I might be entirely mixed up, I may try to go looking for what I'm thinking of. If I do I'll try to provide an update
Oxybenzone is toxic to people by the way, it's an endocrine disruptor. Which is bad.
As with all toxicological issues, the dose makes the poison
I have not read the research on oxybenzone specifically but "endocrine disruptor" tends to be a favorite claim for folks making unsubstantiated claims that some cosmetics ingredient is actually hazardous, and that need to be afraid of it
I don't know if theres a meaningful body of evidence to suggest that there are potential health problems caused by it, I would be curious to see if I can find a meta analysis on the subject, or at least systematic review so I can get a sense for the consensus, but I do find myself generally being skeptical of just about any claim that something used topically is a endocrine disruptor, since it feels it almost always turns up to be a distortion of facts when you go digging into the consensus presented by the research
No. Not all toxics are only toxic at heavy doses. Endocrine disruptors are cumulatively bad, just as glyphosate is, or cigarettes. Just because you don't die or get noticeably sick doesn't mean it doesn't cause damage.
Arsenic for instance. It's poison at any dose, replacing your calcium in your bones amongst many other things.