Slashdot Mirror
ROVs Discover Deep Sea Trash
An anonymous reader writes "Deep beneath the ocean's waves, strange creatures such as rockfish and gorgonian coral thrive in the icy depths. Yet there's something else you'll find if you go searching beneath the sea: trash, and lots of it. Researchers have discovered that our trash is accumulating in the deep sea, particularly in Monterey Canyon off of the coast of California. Scientists knew that trash was affecting shallower depths--about 1,000 feet beneath the water. Yet they were unsure whether the effects extended to the truly deep parts of the ocean that reached up to 13,000 feet. They decided that there was only one way to find out: look for themselves."
The great thing about deep-sea trash is that it decomposes extremely slowly compared to stuff at shallower temperatures, so it'll be around for a while...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It would have been interesting if the researchers could have figured out how old the trash was--i.e. what make/model of shoe, any identifying marks on the tires, etc. But the major thesis is clear enough: disposable consumerism has victims and unintended (or ignored) consequences.
First, the trash doesn't seem to "accumulate" on the sea floor, but appears to get buried over time, removing it from the ecosystem. Furthermore, they haven't actually shown significant negative effects.
Of course, it's good to recycle more and people shouldn't discard trash in the ocean, but people should also be truthful and unbiased in the presentation of their research.
Definetely. The supply of lots of deep see trash, combined with the demand to kill all humans, will make the slowly evolving deep see monsters use it to build weapons of mass destruction to get rid of us. ;-p
We're trashing up the ocean.. It's going to be there a long time.
Thats not news.. Or even suprising..
We're trashing up the air and land pretty fast too. And most of THAT will be there for a long time too.
Is there anyone who honestly didn't know this?
...because they did address the points you made in the source article.
First, the trash doesn't seem to "accumulate" on the sea floor, but appears to get buried over time, removing it from the ecosystem.
They specifically admitted this in the article. The specific quote reads : "A lot of it gets buried by underwater landslides and sediment movement. Some of it may also be carried into deeper water, farther down the canyon."
Furthermore, they haven't actually shown significant negative effects.
Which the study also admitted. They even pointed out that the rubbish was sometimes benefited the marine life. The specific quote reads : "Other effects on marine life were more subtle. For example, debris in muddy-bottom areas was often used as shelter by seafloor animals, or as a hard surface on which animals anchored themselves. Although such associations seem to benefit the individual animals involved, they also reflect the fact that marine debris is creating changes in the existing natural biological communities."
I think that it is unfair for you to accuse these researchers of telling lies and being biased.
If the government sinks a whole ship, it's "creating an artificial reef" ---- but if I throw an old shoe into the water, I am "polluting the environment"?
You're missing the point. They use the term "accumulate" even though they themselves observe that it gets buried. Hence, the term "accumulate" doesn't actually apply.
Again, they state these facts, but then put a negative spin on it.
I did not accuse them of "telling lies", I accused them of bias. They (presumably) state accurate facts, but then interpret or present them using a particular bias. That is, the facts in their own article suggest that their interpretation is biased.
...is that 'the emotive word 'trash' is actually not what these items become when they reach the bottom of the sea.
Much of the sea bed is featureless grey plain. Occasionally, you get a rock or some other item which blossoms with life. An old shipwreck houses a multitude of organisms - they even sink them specially to create 'artificial reefs'. The Titanic is home to iron-eating microbes...
Here is a shoe performing a useful function - a refuge for a fish, until the other life-forms down there digest it. Why knock it?
Stuff that sinks, sinks.
Quite what were they expecting? Rubbish like tyres and ropes (i.e. stuff that sinks), which are disposed of in/around water will end up at the bottom of the water. Is this shocking?
Sea animals might become trapped in it. Not news. Sea animals might use it. Not news.
Quite what is the point? To make those of us who DON'T realise what millions of tons of junk does when you throw it in an ocean think bad of themselves?
And, to be honest, on the sea-floor it's more likely to be buried than it is to decay. That's probably a good thing for the life down there. In a few million years it'll be rock again.
Are these "scientists" genuinely astonished that they discovered this rather than the alternative (which is presumably that there's no rubbish down there at all?). I was taught that dense stuff sinks back in primary school.
When a ship is deliberately sunk to create a reef ALL the volatiles and potentially toxic substances are removed. Basically all you are left with is iron and a few other metals which are enviromentally benign and are oxidised back to the minerals they came from in a few hundred years.. A shoe however is full of glues, polymers and other man made substances which could take literally millenia to decompose and poison the enviroment in the meantime.
One man's deep sea trash is another man's deep sea treasure.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
The water is already polluted with the urine and feces of the ocean's denizens.
See "Tidal Pools: Nature's Putrid Sewers - Horrifying Planet - Ep. 3 " - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwz37vF-BI4
down there should be loads of fun for researchers.
Yeah, we did that
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
That Gorgonian Coral did not look too thrilled to have a plastic bag wrapped around it.
People should be truthful and unbiased in their analysis of facts.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
It seemed that most of the debris was creating opportunities for life. Each piece of junk or garbage that they showed was being used as a shelter or fish, soft corals, and what have you, where otherwise there would be no life at all. I'm not in favor of coating the sea floor with tires or shipping containers, but even an old shoe has become a home for a fish. The video states that this is an interruption in the natural environment and implies that this is a negative, but it certainly looks like a positive.
How is a fish haven, where nothing but mud would normally be, a bad thing?
The same coral isn't going to be happy being knocked over by a shark, or having rocks tumble on top of it. All of those happen regularly.
You can't make arguments for environmental protection without actually quantifying impact. Showing a few pictures of creatures in distress and then arguing for action is manipulative and dishonest.
The Distance from Vancouver to Monterey, CA; 1047 Miles.
So...if you have a High Tech Submersible and you try REALLY Hard...You might find something every mile or so.
This is the same bunch who did the "Why Buying Tomatoes in the Winter is BAD!" exhibit at the Aquarium.
Get over it, unless you want to kill EVERY single human on the west coast of the United States and Canada, sometimes a coke can will show up in the sacred ocean.
What?
They couldn't find a single golf ball (out of hundreds of thousands) that were probably pitched off of a cruise ship or yacht?
"manipulative and dishonest" You've just discovered the only tools available to the modern environmental movement.
victims
Apparently nobody told the sealife that they shouldn't be making homes in trash. You say old shoe. Rockfish says fish house.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The same coral isn't going to be happy being knocked over by a shark, or having rocks tumble on top of it. All of those happen regularly.
You can't make arguments for environmental protection without actually quantifying impact. Showing a few pictures of creatures in distress and then arguing for action is manipulative and dishonest.
The coral is presumably still "being knocked over by a shark, or having rocks tumble on top of it". The garbage is an additional, unnatural environmental stress added on top of natural environmental stresses.
I AM NOT AN OCEANOGRAPHER, but I bet the plastic bags outnumber the frickin' sharks at that depth.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Wait till they get to the East Coast, New York area had barges steaming out to sea to dump the trash for decades.
Whilst I was indulging my hobby of picking up other people's trash along Grizzly Peak Boulevard, (Go Bears!) I found an oubliette with a mummified fence lizard, still posed with his tail against the bottom as he rested one last time while trying to claw his way out.
One.
-hoboroadie
Sharks with frickin' lasers can vaporize the bags! Lets get that patent in!
Why is this news? People have been throwing thrash into the oceans since people existed. FTA
victims
Apparently nobody told the sealife that they shouldn't be making homes in trash. You say old shoe. Rockfish says fish house.
LOL.
I RTFA'd looking for photos and videos and was going to skip the comments, but I had to let you know that about a minute into the video Pandora started playing "Message In a Bottle".