From plastics to sunscreen: The battle to clean our oceans

On March 18, 1967, the supertanker SS Torrey Canyon struck a reef off the coast of Cornwall, United Kingdom, spilling 100,000 tonnes of crude oil into the English Channel.
Beaches in southern England, the French region of Brittany, and Guernsey in the Channel Islands were submerged in thick sludge.
More than 15,000 seabirds were killed, and the spill caused innumerable long-term damages to the marine environment.
The Torrey Canyon disaster was the first major oil spill in European waters. It marked a turning point in the way people interacted with oceans, revealing how vulnerable marine ecosystems are to human-induced threats.
To mark World Oceans Day on June 8, Euronews Tech Talks talked to two ocean experts to better comprehend the state of our oceans and the high and low-tech innovations that can help protect them.
Over the past four decades, global plastic production has more than quadrupled, yet recycling has failed to keep pace, with rates remaining below 10 per cent.
Simon Bernard is the CEO and co-founder of Plastic Odyssey, a project dedicated to tackling ocean plastic pollution.
Bernard and a group of researchers embarked on a tour around the world aboard a research vessel to explore the best solutions for reducing plastic pollution.
"The idea of a research vessel is to be a scientific platform to study, do research, and development... The vessel acts as a laboratory, so for example, the aft is dedicated to recycling with various machines used to recycle plastic, test different solutions and technologies, and train local entrepreneurs," Bernard explained to Euronews.
Plastic Odyssey has been sailing for two and a half years. During the journey, the crew stops for three weeks in locations affected by plastic pollution, meets the locals, institutions, and entrepreneurs to learn about their solutions, and helps support them.
"That's quite shocking to realise that there is no pristine environment anymore, because plastic pollution has impacted all the places," said Bernard.
Throughout the Plastic Odyssey's journey, Bernard has met many people tackling plastic pollution and has been impressed by the cleverness of the simplest solutions.
"We've visited maybe 150 factories and initiatives, and what's most interesting to us is the ingenuity and the use of low-tech solutions," he said.
"We met a guy in Lebanon who made the equivalent of a food delivery app but for waste connection... and I'm thinking about Silvio in Colombia who was building houses out of plastic waste," Bernard said.
While plastic pollution is a visible threat to marine ecosystems, oceans are also damaged by hazards that are much harder to detect, like chemical pollutants.
Researcher Anneliese Hodge from the University of Plymouth is studying these complex pollutants, and one of her most recent studies focuses on sunscreen.
The most harmful components of sunscreen are its UV filters designed to block, absorb, or reflect the sun's ultraviolet rays.
"A recent estimation has suggested that approximately 10 million tonnes of UV filters are produced annually for the global market, of which an estimated 6,000 to 14,000 tonnes are released into coral reef zones alone annually," Hodge told Euronews. "So this is quite a widespread issue," she continued.
Hodge explained that UV filters in sunscreen can affect marine ecosystems at a molecular, cellular, individual, and community level. For instance, sunscreen can damage the DNA of marine organisms and cause coral bleaching.
Despite the need for further research into this topic, Hodge highlighted several potential solutions to reduce the threats sunscreen poses to marine environments.
Among them is the encapsulation of UV filters in biodegradable capsules that activate only upon contact with the skin.
In addition, Hodge cited the possibility of reducing UV filters and instead using Sun Protection Factor (SPF) boosters, specialised ingredients that could replace UV filters.
She also pointed to the introduction of some regulations to make corporations reduce the UV filters or ban the use of certain products.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

AFP

10 hours ago

• AFP

Video does not show astronaut exposing 'fake' life in space

"Former Astronaut Karen Nyberg Shows How NASA Fakes Space Flights.." a June 16, 2025 post on X claimed. ideo of a woman in front of a space station-like backdrop watching a chip bag float away from her, side-by-side with the same footage being filmed in front of a green screen. A person in a green body suit is manipulating the bag. garnered thousands of interactions in posts on X, Threads, Instagram and Facebook. The clip in posts making similar claims about Nyberg in French, Spanish and Italian. Image Screenshot of an X post taken June 17, 2025 Nyberg is a retired NASA astronaut who completed two spaceflights during her career, including a 166-day stay on the ISS in 2013 (archived here). But she is not the woman in the green screen video. Comments on the post on X included links to previous debunks from USA Today and PolitiFact who named the woman in the video as Paige Windle. e clip, a person off-camera is heard calling the woman Paige. Windle is the founder of a lifestyle management company and the wife of David Weiss, known online as "Flat Earth Dave," the host of "The Flat Earth Podcast." Contacted by AFP, Weiss confirmed Windle is the one on-camera. "This video never dies. It keeps coming back," Weiss said in a June 17 email. The video was originally posted on Weiss's YouTube channel as part of a series titled "Globebusters," but made no mention of Nyberg (archived here). ook that clip and presented it as Karen Nyberg and it went viral a bunch of times and now it has started again," he said. He said he has repeatedly addressed the false use of the video, sharing with AFP the cover image of a YouTube video he posted in response to the false viral claims (archived here). Image Screenshot of a YouTube video thumbnail sent to AFP by David Weiss on June 16, 2025 Life in microgravity Astronauts onboard the ISS experience microgravity, causing them and objects to float (archived here). At the altitude of the ISS, gravity is 90 percent of the total gravity one feels on Earth, but an absence of air resistance causes all objects in the ISS to fall at the same rate, producing a weightless appearance. The ISS stays afloat because it moves at a speed that matches the curve of the Earth, causing it to "fall around" the planet while staying at roughly the same altitude. The moon's orbit works in a similar way. NASA uses the ISS in part to study how extended time periods in microgravity and impact the human body as it prepares for future long-term missions in On her website, Nyberg features a video she recorded on the ISS where she worked on a quilt (archived here). Unlike in the video filmed in front of the green screen, Nyberg's hair and necklace float throughout the clip due to the microgravity conditions. AFP reached out to Nyberg's representative for comment, but a response was not forthcoming. AFP has previously debunked claims that ISS astronauts faked a video from the station.

France 24

19 hours ago

• France 24

More microplastics in glass bottles than plastic: study

Researchers have detected thee tiny, mostly invisible pieces of plastic throughout the world, from in the air we breathe to the food we eat, as well as riddled throughout human bodies. There is still no direct evidence that this preponderance of plastic is harmful to human health, but a burgeoning field of research is aiming to measure its spread. Guillaume Duflos, research director at French food safety agency ANSES, told AFP the team sought to "investigate the quantity of microplastics in different types of drinks sold in France and examine the impact different containers can have". The researchers found an average of around 100 microplastic particles per litre in glass bottles of soft drinks, lemonade, iced tea and beer. That was five to 50 times higher than the rate detected in plastic bottles or metal cans. "We expected the opposite result," PhD student Iseline Chaib, who conducted the research, told AFP. "We then noticed that in the glass, the particles emerging from the samples were the same shape, colour and polymer composition -- so therefore the same plastic -- as the paint on the outside of the caps that seal the glass bottles," she said. The paint on the caps also had "tiny scratches, invisible to the naked eye, probably due to friction between the caps when there were stored," the agency said in a statement. This could then "release particles onto the surface of the caps", it added. Wine fine For water, both flat and sparkling, the amount of microplastic was relatively low in all cases, ranging from 4.5 particles per litre in glass bottles to 1.6 particles in plastic. Wine also contained few microplastics -- even glass bottles with caps. Duflos said the reason for this discrepancy "remains to be explained". Soft drinks however contained around 30 microplastics per litre, lemonade 40 and beer around 60. Because there is no reference level for a potentially toxic amount of microplastics, it was not possible to say whether these figures represent a health risk, ANSES said. But drink manufacturers could easily reduce the amount of microplastics shed by bottle caps, it added. The agency tested a cleaning method involving blowing the caps with air, then rinsing them with water and alcohol, which reduced contamination by 60 percent. The study released by ANSES was published online in the Journal of Food Composition and Analysis last month.

France 24

2 days ago

• France 24

Trump 'Golden Dome' plan tricky and expensive: experts

Trump announced plans for the space-based system last month, saying it would eventually cost around $175 billion and would be operational by the end of his term in 2029. The planned defence shield's name is a nod to Israel's Iron Dome that has intercepted thousands of short-range rockets since 2011. But the US defence system would intercept much bigger intercontinental threats. The plan comes after a 2022 Department of defence study pointed to advances by China and Russia. Beijing is closing the gap with Washington when it comes to ballistic and hypersonic missile technology, while Moscow is modernising its intercontinental-range missile systems and developing advanced precision strike missiles, it said. Trump has claimed the "Golden Dome" will be "capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world". But analysts are sceptical. "I'm not holding my breath," said Thomas Withington, an associate fellow at the RUSI defence think tank. "The challenges are so significant at this stage that they may simply be unrealistic to surround in the timeframes that the Trump administration envisages." 'Poster child for waste' Thomas Roberts, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the "Golden Dome" plan was based on being able to detect when a long-range missile was fired. A missile's so-called "boost phase" -- which produces a heat blast that lasts one to two minutes and can be observed from space -- is the best time to deploy defences, he said. "If you had an enormous constellation of interceptors in orbit at all times, they could be readily de-orbited -- or systematically removed from orbit -- to strike an intercontinental ballistic missile," he said. But Todd Harrison, from the American Enterprise Institute, said this would require a massive number of satellites. "It takes about 950 interceptors spread out in orbit around the Earth to ensure that at least one is always in range to intercept a missile during its boost phase," he said. But that means that if an adversary launches a salvo of ten missiles, some 9,500 interceptors would be needed to ensure at least ten are within range. "Given that China has about 350 intercontinental ballistic missiles and Russia has 306 -- not including their sub-launched ballistic missiles -- scaling a space-based interceptor system to meet the threat quickly becomes impractical." The non-partisan US Congressional Budget Office estimates that, just to stop "one or two intercontinental ballistic missiles", the United States would need a constellation of satellites costing between $161 billion to $542 billion. The US military could spend billions of dollars on research only for the next administration to nix the project, Harrison warned. "Golden Dome could become the poster child for waste and inefficiency in defence," he said. The plan also calls for developing satellites able to fire lasers at missiles to avoid too much debris on impact. But a European defence contractor said on condition of anonymity that such lasers are "still beyond what even the Americans are capable of doing". "It's just an excellent way to give the US (defence) industry substantial funding so they can increase their technological lead without necessarily aiming for actual operational deployment," the contractor said. 'Global arms race'? Trump's plan is reminiscent of President Ronald Reagan ambition for a Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s, which also sought to place interceptor satellites in space. China and Russia, which both have nuclear weapons, have slammed the latest plan as "deeply destabilising". Nuclear-armed North Korea has called the plan a "very dangerous" threat. Julia Cournoyer, research associate at Chatham House, said the plan was risky as adversaries would likely see it "as an attempt to undermine the logic of nuclear deterrence". "If Washington is perceived to be developing a shield that could one day neutralise a retaliatory nuclear strike, it risks triggering a dangerous global arms race," which would exacerbate rather than reduce risk. Withington said Trump might be hoping to use the plan as leverage for talks with China and Russia. "It may be that the Trump administration is hoping that this would bring both countries to some kind of negotiating table to talk about a reduction of nuclear warhead sizes or to revitalise the arms control agenda," he said.