Plastic Micro-Particle Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in Pacific(news.nationalgeographic.com)
news.nationalgeographic.com
Plastic Micro-Particle Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in Pacific
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/ocean-plastic-patch-south-pacific-spd/
117 comments
As someone who has picked up literally tons of plastic trash off Pacific beaches with my bare hands, let me be the first to say that you have no idea what you are talking about. Charles has consistently been on the forefront of discovery in environmental concerns and has been proven right over and over again, and you want to berate him for exaggerating. He's not exaggerating, he's just ahead of the curve.
Also, please don't conflate estimates with eye witness accounts. If you want to dispute his claims, use data from actual expeditions.
> http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/jan/oceanic-%E2%...
This article is from 2011. If you RTFA above, you'd have noticed that things have gotten significantly worse in just 6 years. What's changed since then? Organized, industrial scale dumping from eastern pacific countries (Indonesia in particular).
Also, please don't conflate estimates with eye witness accounts. If you want to dispute his claims, use data from actual expeditions.
> http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/jan/oceanic-%E2%...
This article is from 2011. If you RTFA above, you'd have noticed that things have gotten significantly worse in just 6 years. What's changed since then? Organized, industrial scale dumping from eastern pacific countries (Indonesia in particular).
Garbage on beaches is by definition not garbage in the "patches." If you are picking up plastic with your bare hands, you're not picking up the microplastics which even Moore now describes as the problem with the garbage patches. At best you can say that plastic chunks you pick up are hopefully not going to end up as microplastic bits in the gyres.
"[for a week] plastic debris was floating everywhere: bottles, bottle caps, wrappers, fragments" -- Moore, 1998(?)
vs.
"It was and is a thin plastic soup, a soup lightly seasoned with plastic flakes, bulked out here and there with “dumplings”: buoys, net clumps, floats, crates, and other “macro debris.”" -- Moore 2011, in the slate article above
And regarding the "plastic soup", every eye witness account I've found except Moore's say it's visually just ocean water, and occasionally you find a chunk of junk. (e.g., https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-unworthy-a-pe...) Another research group cited in the Slate article decided to phrase it as "plastic smog" rather than soup.
When I've found videos or pictures claiming to be from the garbage patch, they're either of garbage-clogged harbors, or of an item or tangle of debris surrounded by clear blue waters, or as you describe, beaches with garbage. Do you have other pictures?
Where Moore has historically over-sensationalized his descriptions, I find I take his sensational descriptions with a grain of salt.
This isn't to say plastic in the oceans isn't a concern, or isn't something we should work really hard to avoid, just that sensational claims, along with sensational estimates need critical examination, rather than simple acceptance.
"Bigger than Mexico!" What does that even mean? An area the size of Mexico has detectable bits of plastic? What's the density threshold that defines the area? And they made this size estimate based on a single traversal? This suggests the size estimate is based more on the area of currents rather than measurement of the particulate density.
If you have better documentation of the area claim or densities than was given or linked from R-ing-TFA above, I'd love to see it. Something more along the lines of that 2011 study you glibly dismiss: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234157160_Plastic_p...
"[for a week] plastic debris was floating everywhere: bottles, bottle caps, wrappers, fragments" -- Moore, 1998(?)
vs.
"It was and is a thin plastic soup, a soup lightly seasoned with plastic flakes, bulked out here and there with “dumplings”: buoys, net clumps, floats, crates, and other “macro debris.”" -- Moore 2011, in the slate article above
And regarding the "plastic soup", every eye witness account I've found except Moore's say it's visually just ocean water, and occasionally you find a chunk of junk. (e.g., https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-unworthy-a-pe...) Another research group cited in the Slate article decided to phrase it as "plastic smog" rather than soup.
When I've found videos or pictures claiming to be from the garbage patch, they're either of garbage-clogged harbors, or of an item or tangle of debris surrounded by clear blue waters, or as you describe, beaches with garbage. Do you have other pictures?
Where Moore has historically over-sensationalized his descriptions, I find I take his sensational descriptions with a grain of salt.
This isn't to say plastic in the oceans isn't a concern, or isn't something we should work really hard to avoid, just that sensational claims, along with sensational estimates need critical examination, rather than simple acceptance.
"Bigger than Mexico!" What does that even mean? An area the size of Mexico has detectable bits of plastic? What's the density threshold that defines the area? And they made this size estimate based on a single traversal? This suggests the size estimate is based more on the area of currents rather than measurement of the particulate density.
If you have better documentation of the area claim or densities than was given or linked from R-ing-TFA above, I'd love to see it. Something more along the lines of that 2011 study you glibly dismiss: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234157160_Plastic_p...
Why does the density matter since any plastic in the ocean will eventually get broken down to smaller pieces by the salt water?
The density is the amount of plastic in an area or volume of water, rather than the density of a particular piece of plastic.
It's the difference between 1 bottle cap worth of plastic in kilometers of open ocean and kilograms of plastic in a few square meters.
It lets you quantify the problem, and actually measure the severity, knowing where it is a problem and if it gets worse over time.
It's the difference between 1 bottle cap worth of plastic in kilometers of open ocean and kilograms of plastic in a few square meters.
It lets you quantify the problem, and actually measure the severity, knowing where it is a problem and if it gets worse over time.
A quite good documentary has been made on the effects of plastics, and specifically micro plastics that proliferate the world's oceans. Called "A Plastic Ocean"- https://www.plasticoceans.org/a-plastic-ocean/
After seeing this, I now always think twice about single-use plastics like water bottles and grocery bags.
After seeing this, I now always think twice about single-use plastics like water bottles and grocery bags.
Both water bottles and grocery bags are recyclable. While the grocery store I go to the most removed the grocery bag recycling bins they used to have, I believe they are still accepted at the Target stores around town, along with other types of recyclables. You may have easy options for recycling where you can drop stuff off as part of normal shopping trips.
Where I live, the trash company is the same as the recycling company, so it's very likely the recycle (at least some portion of it) ends up in the trash. Better to just avoid the plastics, which is actually pretty impossible for some items.
I think a single company for both is pretty common. It is true where I live, too.
However, I seriously doubt they throw recycling into trash. There are a lot of people who would see this and among them I bet one or two would care enough to snap a picture which I suspect would make the company lose municipal contracts in a flash (and get slapped with a hefty fine).
I do not think they care that much about the environment, but with the current attention to the recycling issues throwing recycling into trash seems just very bad business -- high risk, very high cost.
However, I seriously doubt they throw recycling into trash. There are a lot of people who would see this and among them I bet one or two would care enough to snap a picture which I suspect would make the company lose municipal contracts in a flash (and get slapped with a hefty fine).
I do not think they care that much about the environment, but with the current attention to the recycling issues throwing recycling into trash seems just very bad business -- high risk, very high cost.
> the trash company is the same as the recycling company, so it's very likely the recycle (at least some portion of it) ends up in the trash
No that doesn't make sense. If they didn't care about recycling why would they make people sort their trash in the first place?
No that doesn't make sense. If they didn't care about recycling why would they make people sort their trash in the first place?
"If they didn't care about recycling why would they make people sort their trash in the first place?"
At least in EU, companies can get generous grants for recycling, but there's little oversight, so often "recycling" part is only on paper or small part of total waste. Few years ago there was scandal in Lithuania, because thrash companies put different containers for plastics, glass, organics etc. but everything was collected by the same truck and mixed in the same trunk.
At least in EU, companies can get generous grants for recycling, but there's little oversight, so often "recycling" part is only on paper or small part of total waste. Few years ago there was scandal in Lithuania, because thrash companies put different containers for plastics, glass, organics etc. but everything was collected by the same truck and mixed in the same trunk.
Alternately they presort everything like my old city did. Same trucks would pick up both cans.
Does anyone have any follow-up on this article from 2011 titled "Marine microbes digest plastic" [1]? Seems like some kind of bacteria can consume our discarded hydrocarbons.
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110328/full/news.2011.191.h...
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110328/full/news.2011.191.h...
This is very very bad idea because this bacteria can also consume the not discarded plastics (unless this only happens under certain controlled conditions).
in the article i cited, these bacteria were discovered to be out there in the ocean consuming plastic. so the genie is already out of bottle, so to speak. i'm curious if any negative externalities have been found due to their activity, or more optimistically, do they really metabolise the hydrocarbons into something non-toxic that other life forms can use?
The genie may be out of the bottle, but maybe if we cut off its food supply before it gets on land...
VICE has a good documentary on what this actually looks like: https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/garbage-island/563b9c912a...
Before I watched this I (like most people) assumed the Pacific Garbage Patch was a solid mass one could stand on. The fact that it's more like confetti makes the idea of cleaning it seem that much more difficult.
> This page is using an unminified build of React.
> The React build on this page appears to be unminified. This makes its size larger, and causes React to run slower.
ಠ_ಠ
> The React build on this page appears to be unminified. This makes its size larger, and causes React to run slower.
ಠ_ಠ
They ask that you report technical issues to @ViceTech on Twitter:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/page/vice-about
https://www.vice.com/en_us/page/vice-about
This news seems to pop up every few months ever since it was first reported on about 10 years ago.
Actually, per Wikipedia, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch has been known about since 1988
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch
This needs a solar powered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization plant to eat the whole thing.
A massive ocean-going Mr. Trash Wheel.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/baltimore-insider-blog/...
http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/baltimore-insider-blog/...
There is also "The Ocean Cleanup" project [1] which is worth checking out if you haven't already. It's a pretty cool project which is under active development and in the prototype phase.
[1] https://www.theoceancleanup.com/
[1] https://www.theoceancleanup.com/
That has AVAM written all over it. I accidentally left off the googley-eyes in my hastily scrawled recommendation.
> The wheel has removed 331 tons of trash since it was installed in May, according to the initiative.
Nice
> The wheel has removed 331 tons of trash since it was installed in May, according to the initiative.
Nice
More of a garbage nebula.
So what is the behaviour of this stuff? How does it come together to form "patches"? If it really agglomerates naturally into (admittedly, very big) clusters this actually sounds kind of like good news, as it seems more viable to come up with a way to clean it.
But I'm curious what the mechanism is. Static electricity? Sounds too distant and "wet" for that to be possible. But why else would it cluster?
But I'm curious what the mechanism is. Static electricity? Sounds too distant and "wet" for that to be possible. But why else would it cluster?
Ah, neat! Thank you :)
Always good to keep in mind that this plastic will be consumed by bacteria. Sunlight and wave motion break apart the plastic into smaller and smaller pieces until bacteria completely consumes it.
Even so, we really need a solution to keep plastic out of the oceans for a plethora of reasons. One of the most alarming ones being the largest consumer of plastic in the ocean is the same bacteria which can cause flesh eating disease.
Even so, we really need a solution to keep plastic out of the oceans for a plethora of reasons. One of the most alarming ones being the largest consumer of plastic in the ocean is the same bacteria which can cause flesh eating disease.
It's also consumed by fish, which in turn means by humans. So we should fix it even if only out of narrow self interest.
> Always good to keep in mind that this plastic will be consumed by bacteria. Sunlight and wave motion break apart the plastic into smaller and smaller pieces until bacteria completely consumes it.
That's all just speculation. Recent discoveries suggest some bacteria may be able to (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/bacteria-evolving-eat-...), but there hasn't been any demonstrated at-scale digestion of plastic by them.
That's all just speculation. Recent discoveries suggest some bacteria may be able to (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/bacteria-evolving-eat-...), but there hasn't been any demonstrated at-scale digestion of plastic by them.
I wish stories like this had some photos.
From the story: "The pieces of plastic are not necessarily floating bottles, bags, and buoys, but teeny-tiny pieces of plastic resembling confetti...These microplastic particles may not be visible floating on the surface, but in this case, they were detected after collecting water samples..."
So, photos probably wouldn't help much.
So, photos probably wouldn't help much.
A density graph of the Pacific Ocean showing plastic particulate count measured at various points, with the gaps filled in using gradients, would be stellar here.
But the article would lose all clickbaitiness.
Not good when the website that hosts it relied on page view and ads to make a profit !
EDIT : National geographic isn't an offender for clickbait.
Not good when the website that hosts it relied on page view and ads to make a profit !
EDIT : National geographic isn't an offender for clickbait.
There's nothing to see. The plastic tends to be very small. This is partly because of the source (acrylic fibres from clothing; microbreads from cosmetics) and because the UV in sunlight, and the waves, break up larger bits of plastic.
For the other patches:
> 200,000 pieces per square kilometer in the North Atlantic garbage patch.
> 4 particles per cubic meter in the Great Pacific garbage patch.
This is more than the amount of food in some places, and it's a real problem and needs to be fixed. But it's not something you can see.
For the other patches:
> 200,000 pieces per square kilometer in the North Atlantic garbage patch.
> 4 particles per cubic meter in the Great Pacific garbage patch.
This is more than the amount of food in some places, and it's a real problem and needs to be fixed. But it's not something you can see.
If it had photos, it would look just like the rest of the ocean.
[deleted]
If we selfishly look up the food chain, how does this affect fish we eat? What are the human health impacts of eating fish that ate micro-particles of plastic?
The plastic absorbs various pollutants. Fish eat the microplastic, and thus the pollutant. Bigger fish eat small fish, and we eat those bigger fish.
I think the answer is to put the money you'd spend eating fish toward solutions for this so that fish is safer to eat again, until that's true.
[deleted]
This is not a problem. Microorganisms are already evolving to metabolize plastic:
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-plastic-munching-bacteria-c...
The real problems start when microorganisms that can metabolize plastic become so ubiquitous that plastic will rot over time.
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-plastic-munching-bacteria-c...
The real problems start when microorganisms that can metabolize plastic become so ubiquitous that plastic will rot over time.
> microorganisms that can metabolize plastic
Subject of a Doomwatch episode in 1970: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0564476/?ref_=ttep_ep1
Subject of a Doomwatch episode in 1970: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0564476/?ref_=ttep_ep1
Good. Humans are clearly not responsible enough to safely manage a non-biodegradable material. Like antibiotics, we slung it all over the place inappropriately, and now it is going away.
[deleted]
It always blows my mind that we can still "discover" something as large as Mexico on our planet that nobody previously knew about.
Because it's not really something as big as Mexico. As stated in the article, these "plastic patches" aren't a big visible dump of plastic in the ocean. If you seem through it, you wouldn't know it was different from the rest of the ocean. It's basically a large area of the ocean with a significant concentration of microscopic plastic higher than the rest of the ocean.
You will find plenty of pieces that are several inches wide, along with large numbers in the cm size range. https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/garbage-island/563b9c912a...
Further, it's not about people. Fish gills for example are designed to filter a lot of water so fish do encounter a lot of plastic.
Further, it's not about people. Fish gills for example are designed to filter a lot of water so fish do encounter a lot of plastic.
The video you posted is over an hour long. Is there a timestamp with the content relevant to having large pieces of plastic?
Watch the first five minutes ish.
Well, it may not be very dense, but... It's still big, right?
Yes but it's not like you would notice it unless you filter the water.
It's bad but if you would be sailing through that patch you wouldn't notice a damn thing.
If you are a fish on the other hand you would probably not like it very much.
It's bad but if you would be sailing through that patch you wouldn't notice a damn thing.
If you are a fish on the other hand you would probably not like it very much.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Plastic Plastic Everywhere, but not a drop to drink... I still won't be drinking ocean water any time soon.
Do you think there will be de-plastic-zation plants like de-salinization plants in the future? ( will we ever run out of plastic? )
Also mentioned in the article: 91% of plastic is not recycled.
How many readers have disposed of a plastic container today?
How many readers have disposed of a plastic container today?
Most plastic bottle and bags will never be recycled. Avoid it like the plague.
Even if you think you are recycling it, it might be going to the landfill anyway. Only a few plastics, also aluminium and cardboard, are profitably recyclable. In some areas all the rest just goes to the landfill.
And they said it was a myth just like the Bermuda Triangle...
This is a misleading title regularly used by the media. TLDR: This area has a higher concentration of micro-particles. It is not visible to the naked eye.
What would a less misleading headline be? "High concentration of plastic found in ocean area bigger than Mexico"?
It seems like this is still a pretty significant phenomenon, even if it's not visible to the naked eye.
It seems like this is still a pretty significant phenomenon, even if it's not visible to the naked eye.
Agreed. But that doesn't justify making it sound like there's a Mexico garbage barge out there.
Is the methane in the atmosphere visible to the naked eye? Guess it's not significant.
If the average reader imagines a dense raft of plastic bags and water bottles the size of Mexico, it's a bad headline.
I don't consider myself stupid, yet that's exactly what I imagined when I read the headline.
I don't consider myself stupid, yet that's exactly what I imagined when I read the headline.
imo it's worse that it's particles instead of complete plastic objects.
The tiny particles are near-impossible to clean, hard to identify (without testing), and are arguably more dangerous to the wildlife.
The tiny particles are near-impossible to clean, hard to identify (without testing), and are arguably more dangerous to the wildlife.
The problem is that this sort of article gets "spun" into a much worse one. Complete with the infamous "floating garbage so bad you can't see water underneath it" photo. People immediately conjure up images of a floating garbage island that is larger than Mexico. Not to mention how catchy and self-gratifying it is to share such a spun article on social media where the conveniently "picked" photo happens to be the floating-garbage one. This is why we can't have nice things and reasonable discussions on nuanced topics.
"A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes"
"A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes"
It is a very serious problem, and it needs to be fixed.
For the two situations - loads of large trash floating at the surface or 4 particles per cubic metre suspended at all depths - you get very different solutions.
Look how popular that solar-powered ocean plastic scoop thing is, and how useless it is.
For the two situations - loads of large trash floating at the surface or 4 particles per cubic metre suspended at all depths - you get very different solutions.
Look how popular that solar-powered ocean plastic scoop thing is, and how useless it is.
I imagine a fleet of self-replicating wave glider / baleen barges that slowly, relentlessly ply the oceans, gathering the bulk materials to make their offspring.
"Wave Glider Plastic Micro-Particle Cleanup Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in Pacific (2031)"
Thanks for this. Based on the headline I assumed there was a massive floating landfill-"like island. Im assuming many others did as well.
Did you consider how high you imagined the "landfill-like island"? Is it reasonable to imagine a landfill is 10 miles high? 1 mile? 1 meter? 1 millimeter?
Perhaps your expectations are so skewed by clickbait that you didn't recognize that it's closer to an accurate description than being clickbait.
Perhaps your expectations are so skewed by clickbait that you didn't recognize that it's closer to an accurate description than being clickbait.
This is a strangely toxic response.
"Micro-particles" might also be misleading. The article spells it out:
The pieces of plastic are not necessarily floating bottles, bags, and buoys, but teeny-tiny pieces of plastic resembling confetti, making them almost impossible to clean up.
The pieces of plastic are not necessarily floating bottles, bags, and buoys, but teeny-tiny pieces of plastic resembling confetti, making them almost impossible to clean up.
You're right - this is misleading; because it's worse!
Micro-particles are much worse than a complete piece of plastic floating around, it means that's it's broken down to the point where smaller organisms (Such as - I don't know, those that create oxygen for us to breathe). These organisms are highly susceptible to these plastics and it is incredibly toxic to them. They create way more oxygen then most people are aware of.
Micro-particles are much worse than a complete piece of plastic floating around, it means that's it's broken down to the point where smaller organisms (Such as - I don't know, those that create oxygen for us to breathe). These organisms are highly susceptible to these plastics and it is incredibly toxic to them. They create way more oxygen then most people are aware of.
Those microorganisms are the grass and bugs of the ocean, the entire food chain depends on them.
What happens when krill eats microorganisms that ate plastic? What happens to the blue whales that eat the krill, or the yellowfin tuna that eat the schooling fish that eat these microorganisms?
Remember DDT? This could be so much worse.
What happens when krill eats microorganisms that ate plastic? What happens to the blue whales that eat the krill, or the yellowfin tuna that eat the schooling fish that eat these microorganisms?
Remember DDT? This could be so much worse.
It's better than calling it an island which I would definitely assume means "visible".
The patch is not easily visible, because it consists of tiny pieces almost invisible to the naked eye.[7] Most of its contents are suspended beneath the surface of the ocean,[8] and the relatively low density of the plastic debris is, according to one scientific study, 5.1 kilograms per square kilometer of ocean area (5.1 mg/m2).[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch
Maybe the headline should have been "Plastic Garbage Patch Bigger Than Mexico, and far less dense than the air above Mexico, Found..."
And, most of the world's plastic is not recycled. It will stay that way for eons unless bacteria spread which break it down.
http://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/publi...
http://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/publi...
There’s nothing misleading about the headline, as your TL;DR negates nothing in the headline nor the article. Making a bunch of assumptions, which later turn out to be wrong, does not make the headline misleading. If you’d like to argue that there is, in fact, no garbage patch at all, fine. But just because you assumed that you could see it, when in fact you can’t, doesn’t mean the headline is wrong.
> There’s nothing misleading about the headline
According to the NOAA (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/garbagepatch.html) "The name "Pacific Garbage Patch" has led many to believe that this area is a large and continuous patch of easily visible marine debris items such as bottles and other litter—akin to a literal island of trash that should be visible with satellite or aerial photographs. This is not the case.".
Looks like the very definition of "misleading".
According to the NOAA (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/garbagepatch.html) "The name "Pacific Garbage Patch" has led many to believe that this area is a large and continuous patch of easily visible marine debris items such as bottles and other litter—akin to a literal island of trash that should be visible with satellite or aerial photographs. This is not the case.".
Looks like the very definition of "misleading".
I think this is a case of insufficient nomenclature. Do we have more appropriate wording that doesn't negate it's usefulness in correctness by being too lengthy?
"Plastic particles patch" would be more accurate but it doesn't sound as bad.
It also somewhat loses in impact because it's not immediately obvious that it's because of sea pollution, which "garbage" does a good job of conveying. You get there through some (admittedly short) reasoning, but that's probably what they were trying to avoid.
Plastic pollution patch, then? But it's true that "garbage" does a very good job of conveying the desired (misleading) image.
I'm not sure that simply because it's not visible to the naked eye that doesn't mean it's not garbage.
I am confused. What is misleading in the title? Just because it's invisible doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
[deleted]
Is this really the kind of thing we need to argue semantics about? We're doomed as a society if this is the top voted comment.
OK, we put 'micro-particle' in the title above.
I am always amazed about how surprised people are that materials that are specifically engineered to decompose as slowly as possible are in fact doing just that.
Could it be that the surprise is actually at the fact of the materials being dumped into the ocean rather than contained in landfills and the like?
So how _does_ the plastic get into the ocean? Clearly litter washes into rivers during storms and thus ends up in the ocean, but that seems like it must be a relatively insignificant source. Are there countries who are dumping barges full of trash out at sea? Which ones?
Victoria BC actually pipes all sewage right out to sea currently. So anything w/ micro plastic beads gets sent right into the ocean. This is also the case with the storm drainage system, so anything left on the road also right into the ocean.
Source? That's crazy if true. I assumed only poor 3rd world countries still did stupid stuff like that.
https://thetyee.ca/News/2015/01/26/Victoria-Raw-Sewage-Dumpi...
There's one for you. People here actively protest against building a tertiary system for tax reasons and because they think they don't need it (there's actually a lot of people who even think that it's less environmentally friendly to have it dealt with on land). It's been an on going debate for over 30 years.
These people also see themselves as "green".
There's one for you. People here actively protest against building a tertiary system for tax reasons and because they think they don't need it (there's actually a lot of people who even think that it's less environmentally friendly to have it dealt with on land). It's been an on going debate for over 30 years.
These people also see themselves as "green".
(What other people said, plus)
When you wash clothing that contains artificial fibres you dump a load into the water system, and depending where you live some will end up in the sea. All those acrylic fleeces and blankets shed thousands of particles each wash.
Some cosmetics contain plastic microbeads, and when you use those and wash them off you dump the microbeads into the water system.
When you wash clothing that contains artificial fibres you dump a load into the water system, and depending where you live some will end up in the sea. All those acrylic fleeces and blankets shed thousands of particles each wash.
Some cosmetics contain plastic microbeads, and when you use those and wash them off you dump the microbeads into the water system.
There is a lot of macroscale dumping of garbage - and the plastic stuff just accumulates over a time, until sunlight and wave action break it down.
However, a lot of this plastic _starts_ as micro-plastic particles: microbeads from cosmetics and polyester fibres from clothes (water from washing machines is full of this) - these are in household waste water and often end up in the ocean.
However, a lot of this plastic _starts_ as micro-plastic particles: microbeads from cosmetics and polyester fibres from clothes (water from washing machines is full of this) - these are in household waste water and often end up in the ocean.
Probably mostly from clothes and possibly from ropes, but I'm just guessing that plastic microbeads haven't been around that long. It seems as such a fantastically stupid idea.
read the comment again.
material is engineered to last, not decompose. in the sea Or land.
yet people use it every day. and when those news show up they show shock at a perfectly predictable outcome. then proceed to continue to use said product.
material is engineered to last, not decompose. in the sea Or land.
yet people use it every day. and when those news show up they show shock at a perfectly predictable outcome. then proceed to continue to use said product.
All pollution crises are "perfectly predictable"? Can you tell us when and where the next major nuclear disaster will happen?
reading comprehension fail again.
plastic is designed to not decompose. people use plastic. people get shocked that it didn't decompose. people forget about shock one second later and pop another nespresso capsule in the nasty coffee machine.
plastic is designed to not decompose. people use plastic. people get shocked that it didn't decompose. people forget about shock one second later and pop another nespresso capsule in the nasty coffee machine.
Yes, and all those silly folks who get upset about reactor meltdowns, surprised that radiation is harmful over and over again, are hilarious. That's totally the dynamic on display here.
And how is that surprising? It even has a name: Tragedy of the commons.
If someone dumped their trash on your lawn, you wouldn't be surprised or emotional in the least? Just sighing and saying "Tragedy of the commons..." doesn't seem like the best attitude for a social animal to have
If the patch is bigger than Mexico, then why doesn't the article provide a picture? A Google Earth link? Color me suspicious - and I used to trust National Geographic
His original account:
"as I gazed from the deck at the surface of what ought to have been a pristine ocean, I was confronted, as far as the eye could see, with the sight of plastic.
It seemed unbelievable, but I never found a clear spot. In the week it took to cross the subtropical high, no matter what time of day I looked, plastic debris was floating everywhere: bottles, bottle caps, wrappers, fragments."
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/172720/trash-revis...
This contrasts with other estimates of one to two bottle caps worth of plastic per 50 Olympic swimming pools worth of water.
A decade later he backed off those claims, emphasizing the micro particles.
amp.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_next_20/2016/09/the_great_pacific_garbage_patch_was_the_myth_we_needed_to_save_our_oceans.html
Other scientists say it is troubling, but exaggerated, and not getting worse in spite of increased production and use of plastic:
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/jan/oceanic-“gar...