Slashdot Mirror

Most of the plastic in the ocean comes from a handful of rivers. Put the giant trap in the mouths of those rivers, and you'll catch a lot more.

This is actually what most scientists who study the issue suggest. The boom idea in the open ocean has been tried and found seriously lacking for almost 30 years at this point.

Prevention or collection near shore is much more cost effective with a lot fewer of the negative impacts on sea life. The mid ocean gyres will dissipate on their own if the source of more plastics is reduced or eliminated.

This revived idea has been criticized since the kid first proposed it 5 years ago and he does not seemed to have learned anything and is much more concerned with promoting himself than actually having a real impact on the problem.

http://www.deepseanews.com/201...
http://www.deepseanews.com/201...
http://www.deepseanews.com/201...

And actual research on where the best place to make an impact is:

http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

Most of the plastic in the ocean comes from a handful of rivers. Put the giant trap in the mouths of those rivers, and you'll catch a lot more.

This is actually what most scientists who study the issue suggest. The boom idea in the open ocean has been tried and found seriously lacking for almost 30 years at this point.

Prevention or collection near shore is much more cost effective with a lot fewer of the negative impacts on sea life. The mid ocean gyres will dissipate on their own if the source of more plastics is reduced or eliminated.

This revived idea has been criticized since the kid first proposed it 5 years ago and he does not seemed to have learned anything and is much more concerned with promoting himself than actually having a real impact on the problem.

http://www.deepseanews.com/201...
http://www.deepseanews.com/201...
http://www.deepseanews.com/201...

And actual research on where the best place to make an impact is:

http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

Most of the plastic in the ocean comes from a handful of rivers. Put the giant trap in the mouths of those rivers, and you'll catch a lot more.

This is actually what most scientists who study the issue suggest. The boom idea in the open ocean has been tried and found seriously lacking for almost 30 years at this point.

Prevention or collection near shore is much more cost effective with a lot fewer of the negative impacts on sea life. The mid ocean gyres will dissipate on their own if the source of more plastics is reduced or eliminated.

This revived idea has been criticized since the kid first proposed it 5 years ago and he does not seemed to have learned anything and is much more concerned with promoting himself than actually having a real impact on the problem.

http://www.deepseanews.com/201...
http://www.deepseanews.com/201...
http://www.deepseanews.com/201...

And actual research on where the best place to make an impact is:

http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

http://deepseanews.com/2013/02... Nuff said, karma's a bitch.

Maybe cute, but not friendly in a way I like from other species.

Here's a nice analysis:
http://deepseanews.com/2014/01/triton-not-dive-or-dive-not-there-is-no-triton/

Basically, it would take processing 24 gallons of water per minute with 100% efficiency (unlikely) to provide a human with enough oxygen. No way can this work as described.

However it might possibly be a start. When humans breath they don't use all the oxygen in the air up. so one could reprocess that air (as rebreathers do) and then supplement that using this device to make a better rebreather.

An artificial gill system for a human would have to be huge, and you'd have to move at a pretty good clip, too. There just isn't enough oxygen per cc to keep a human alive. This guy worked some numbers. http://deepseanews.com/2014/01/triton-not-dive-or-dive-not-there-is-no-triton/

I'm a huge fan of Drs. Tyson and Kaku, as mentioned elsewhere. I'd suggest looking at some of the newer popularizers for your own younglings. People like Richard Wiseman, Bad Astronomy's Phil Plait, the colorful crew at Deep Sea News, and probably any number of other blogs linked from the above.

Get the little nibblers interested from the start! We can use all the scientists (or at least science-literate) that we can get.

And here is a blog article explaining that horrible thing, though I don't believe it's a worm cluster.

I'll reply to both of your posts in this one.

science is studying the climate and attempting to make some predictions. Thus far they've been wrong.

That's right, some predictions are wrong. Such as the one about the Arctic being ice free by 2100, now it might be ice free by 2030. The second largest loss of ice in the Arctic during the summer since records have been kept happened in 2008, only the 2007 summer beat it.

The ones who are practicing good principals have not yet decided what's going on with our climate, and whether or not there is a problem that we can fix.

I agree more research needs to be done but I don't want to wait to do something until it's too late. And I don't think doing something will mean harming the economy, instead I believe greening the economy will improve it.

Sorry I forgot to answer your question about the WMDs. The fact is that nearly everyone believed Iraq had WMDs.

Nearly everyone but some said Saddam it not have WMDs Their voice was drowned out though, and not just by government, but by the media as well. The Bush admin even called the chief UN Weapons inspector Scott Ritter a traitor when he said Iraq did not have WMDs. Disagreements are one thing but to call someone a traitor because he knows differently?

Falcon