Slashdot Mirror


Ninety-Nine Percent of the Ocean's Plastic Is Missing

sciencehabit writes Millions of tons. That's how much plastic should be floating in the world's oceans, given our ubiquitous use of the stuff. But a new study (abstract) finds that 99% of this plastic is missing. One disturbing possibility: Fish are eating it. If that's the case, "there is potential for this plastic to enter the global ocean food web," says Carlos Duarte, an oceanographer at the University of Western Australia, Crawley. "And we are part of this food web."

304 comments

  1. One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is that water, the ultimate solvent -- or perhaps bacteria -- are breaking down the plastics back into it's components, and the ocean (much like the oil from the BP spill) is taking care of itself.

    Naw, couldn't be. Go ahead and panic, hippies!

    1. Re: One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perfect!

    2. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is that water, the ultimate solvent -- or perhaps bacteria -- are breaking down the plastics back into it's components

      Of the two, I'd go with bacteria, given that the bottled water aisle of my grocery store strongly suggests that water is a little less ultimate than you imply.

    3. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to some of the stuff you can see here based on observations of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, plastic only degrades into tinier plastic pieces, right down to molecules. It's already in the food chain and has been for decades.

    4. Re:One non-disturbing theory by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no no no, couldnt be, we have to go with the scary version, we cant go using reasonable options, how will anyone get funding for research???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re: One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ocean "taking care of itself" after the BP spill eh? You need to watch this if that's really what you think: http://youtu.be/Efo-7W5wtxQ

    6. Re:One non-disturbing theory by raydobbs · · Score: 1

      This very well could be - we (you and I) basically came up with the same thought. With so little we know about the oceans of Earth, there could be a vast number of reasons the plastics we littered into the oceans have not turned up as pristine trash that lasts forever and ever. It could be fish, it could be other marine animals, it could be micro-organisms, it could also be some other unexplained process. Racing to panic about it being in the foot supply (without proof) is a little premature.

    7. Re:One non-disturbing theory by gbjbaanb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yeah, its almost certainly not the fish, it must be the micro-organisms.

      Now, if I can only think.. what eats the micro-organisms in the oceans?

      Of course its in the fucking food supply. You shit in the ocean, something eats it and we end up eating that. If we're lucky its only shit which is a naturally bio-degradable food source for plants. If we're unlucky, its the various poisons we dumped in there too, 'cos it was cheaper than processing them.

    8. Re: One non-disturbing theory by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      UV light doesn't crack the molecules?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Well, considering recently we had a submission on how scientists had discovered new colonies of bacteria living on (and off of) the pacific plastic dump, and how for the first time scientists were seeing this start to form a distinct evolutionary path isolated from the rest of the world, I'd say it's pretty much a given that it's the bacteria.

      However, once you get enough buildup of bacteria on the plastic, it would likely sink -- and there's plenty of water to sink into there.

      To play devil's advocate, I doubt you're picking up seawater from the grocery store and sitting it in the back window of your car in the sun all day. The ocean doesn't tend to be filtered, and isn't stored in a cool, dark place.

    10. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Most of it is stored in a cool dark place. You know, under all that other water.

    11. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Trillan · · Score: 1

      If water is that good at dissolving plastic we're all in a lot of trouble. As for a new, plastic-eating bacteria? That's nothing to be concerned about at all!

      Seriously, fish eating it terrible. But it is probably the least bad alternative, unless we're going to include "space aliens carefully harvesting it, while leaving sea life alone" on the list of theories.

      Hippie doesn't usually extend to "caring at all."

    12. Re:One non-disturbing theory by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Of the two, I'd go with bacteria, given that the bottled water aisle of my grocery store strongly suggests that water is a little less ultimate than you imply.

      The water in the ocean has much salt, however... Also. in the grocery store; the water is only on one side of the bottle, and there's not enough of it to make strong currents.

    13. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...given that the bottled water aisle of my grocery store strongly suggests that water is a little less ultimate than you imply.

      Funny you should mention that, because the reason most bottled water has an expiration date isn't that water goes bad, but because the plastics' volatile components in the bottle leach into the water (which is why everyone freaked out over BPE's awhile back).

      Another theory? stuff clings to the plastic and sinks it. Having lived on the Oregon coast, I found it rather rare that something would wash up on the shore which didn't carry barnacles, seaweed, algae, and other stuff that clung to it - all of it using the bit of flotsam as a miniature base of operations from which to spend one's lifespan. Eventually so much stuff clings to it that any buoyancy the plastic once had is negated by the weight of the lifeforms and suchlike clinging to it.

      Hell, even a sealed glass bottle eventually does this, as algae sticks to outside of it, which in turn attracts sand... the stuff dries like glue, BTW.

      One other reason I can think of, speaking of which - did they account for all the stuff that eventually washes up on shore somewhere? I suspect they had to have, but maybe they underestimated it?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    14. Re:One non-disturbing theory by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Water is typically considered to be theuniversal solvent rather than the 'ultimate' solvent. But the chemical reactions might take millennia. It's more likely that degradation is due to a combination of bacteria and perhaps UV light or other reactive chemical processes.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:One non-disturbing theory by msauve · · Score: 1

      Fish which aren't eaten, die or rot, which would release the plastic. Some amount would just be released in fish poo (or does it simply not get passed?). This article mentions the possibility that it sinks to the ocean floor in poo. All of that would end up back in the ocean.

      If it's in the food chain, much of it should get concentrated near the top. How many pounds of plastic in an average shark's belly to sequester "millions of tons" of plastic?

      There's also the fact that they may simply be looking in the wrong place. The article starts out "plastic should be floating in the worldâ(TM)s oceans..." But not all plastics float. The ubiquitous PET soda bottle has a density greater than salt water (1.3 vs 1.03), and they're trawling near the surface looking for it.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    16. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      The water in the ocean has much salt, however... Also. in the grocery store; the water is only on one side of the bottle, and there's not enough of it to make strong currents.

      Ah... but in the ocean, there IS.

    17. Re:One non-disturbing theory by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      and the ocean (much like the oil from the BP spill) is taking care of itself.

      Yeah, right? And how do we know that millions of gallons of crude oil and millions of tons of plastic aren't good for the ocean?

      Bam! Got you there, right? You don't hear that from your so-called "scientists", amirite? Probably, carbon dioxide plus plastic and crude oil are combining with gamma rays from space to make us healthier! And smarter! At least some of us, that is. But not Al Gore, who is fat.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do you know why those water bottles have expiration dates?

      It is because the plastic slowly leaks into the water, and that date is when current health regulations state that there would be too much plastic in the water for humans to safely consume it.

    19. Re:One non-disturbing theory by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Your bottled water neither contains high amounts of salt, nor is it exposed to fairly high levels of sunlight and UV radiation.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    20. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah.. Think about what plastics are made from. We wouldn't want oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, or (god forbid) CARBON getting into our food chain. I mean, that's the stuff life is made of. Wait, what are we talking about?

    21. Re: One non-disturbing theory by aliquis · · Score: 1

      UV light doesn't crack the molecules?

      If only we could get Jon Lech Johansen working on this!

    22. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, if bacteria can work out how to feed off humans even when the humans are full of antibiotics I can't see why they can't evolve just as quickly to exploit the plastic in the environment. The oceans are already full of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemoautotroph

    23. Re:One non-disturbing theory by aliquis · · Score: 1, Funny

      no no no, couldnt be, we have to go with the scary version, we cant go using reasonable options, how will anyone get funding for research???

      Possible answers:

      1) Aliens and their visits to planet earth is real and they are helping us clean up the oceans.

      2) The air-planes are spraying some chemical compound or organism which break down plastic / hydrocarbons.

      (3) All the plastic can be found in the Bermuda triangle.

      So on so on.)

    24. Re:One non-disturbing theory by aliquis · · Score: 2

      How someone made a chart comparing the amount of plastic in the ocean and the number of IE6 installs? Maybe there's some correlation there?

    25. Re:One non-disturbing theory by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is that water, the ultimate solvent -- or perhaps bacteria -- are breaking down the plastics back into it's components, and the ocean (much like the oil from the BP spill) is taking care of itself.

      Naw, couldn't be. Go ahead and panic, hippies!

      Yeah, and everyone know that broken down oil was completely harmless.

      Whatever components that plastic is breaking down into it likely contains a lot of molecules that aren't found in nature. When those molecules enter an organism there's no telling what the hell they're going to do.

      I don't understand this fantasy that some people cling to that we can dump endless streams of random crap into the environment and mother nature will just magically take care of it with no consequence. People would sure as hell notice if you started dumping garbage into a lake and screwing up a beach where people swim once a week, why do you think the things that actually live in the polluted water won't be affected?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    26. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Anyone with access to seawater and sunshine willing to test this?

    27. Re:One non-disturbing theory by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      The earth as a whole does a great job at 'processing' things.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    28. Re: One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geologists recently discovered a new class of rock formation called plastiglomerates which incorporate plastics. Maybe this is where some of it is ending up.

    29. Re:One non-disturbing theory by DeathElk · · Score: 1

      GREAT! That means we can fill the world with 99 times more useless plastic shit! And fuck entire ecosystems while we're at it! Jolly good.

    30. Re:One non-disturbing theory by kuzb · · Score: 1

      How much incredibly mineral and bacteria rich salt water do we bottle exactly?

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    31. Re:One non-disturbing theory by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I believe the GP meant to say water is the "universal solvent", meaning anything will dissolve in it given enough time. As to missing plastic, there is no beach on the planet where you can pick up a handful of sand that does not contain tiny particles of plastic, it's already in the food chain since plastic dust is everywhere. I understand that waste plastic is a huge problem for wildlife but once it has degraded into dust and dispersed it appears to be benign from an environmental POV.

      Aside from that, most sausage skins in the western world are made from plastic, it's been that way for decades.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    32. Re:One non-disturbing theory by knightghost · · Score: 1

      There was an earlier story about how sand at beaches is actually a large (and growing) percentage plastic.

    33. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I assume you don't own a gun, right?

    34. Re: One non-disturbing theory by Tuidjy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am not buying the universal solvent theory, because even accounting for the salts in the water, it would take hundreds of years for most plastics to dissolve.

      The bacteria theory is more likely, because I remember reading something about bacteria living in trash dumps, and supposedly breaking down plastic. I do not remember a followup, but it's still more likely than the above. The problem is, this does not necessarily result in harmless components being the end result.

      Here's another theory that I consider more likely: algae and barnacles attach themselves to plastic objects, and eventually sink them out of sight. Not as perfectly conductive to happily singing "La-la-la" and dismissing all worries, but hey, if you wish, you can just come up with more comforting theories, like "Magical pink narwhals are spearing the floating plastic, and melting it in underwater volcanoes to build underwater cooling systems to fight global warming".

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    35. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no no no, couldnt be, we have to go with the scary version, we cant go using reasonable options, how will anyone get funding for research???

      I find this to be quite bizarre; this notion that all "scary" alternatives are somehow unreasonable and only non-scary alternatives qualify as reasonable.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    36. Re:One non-disturbing theory by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      We had a few regulars volunteer.

      Unfortunately, to a man, the cellar denizens burst into flames on the beach enroute to collect the water.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    37. Re:One non-disturbing theory by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Aside from that, most sausage skins in the western world are made from plastic, it's been that way for decades.

      Godmanit!

      Don't eat the chicken skin.

      Don't eat the french fried potaters.

      Now the sausage skin falls out of favor, too? Cheese and rice... it's beginning to look like I can either live fifty years like a medieval king, or 80 like a monk.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    38. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a lot of carcinogenic hydrocarbons, and some of them bioconcentrate. Your sarcasm is ill-informed.

    39. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      If we're talking plastic water bottles, I've seen them in streams after a couple years.
      They definitely start to fall apart a bit. The question is: Do they dissolve completely
      into something harmless or do they like sand just become very small easily digestible
      pieces and are they still dangerous once they are microscopic specs?

    40. Re: One non-disturbing theory by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      NOT THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE.

      Jeez, you're anonymous for a reason.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    41. Re:One non-disturbing theory by mea2214 · · Score: 1

      Soylent Green is People!

    42. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Possibly as they break down, they effectively have a larger surface area and the UV raining down gets to be that much more effective.

    43. Re:One non-disturbing theory by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Water is not the "ultimate" solvent. There are plenty of substances that do not dissolve in water - and plastic's one of them. What's happening is that sunlight and possibly wave action is breaking the plastic into microscopic particles, which are then being ingested by marine animals, just as larger pieces of plastic are. Nobody knows what effect this will have on the organisms themselves - or the organisms that prey on those organisms (which includes humans).

    44. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they can drain the ocean every time someone takes a shit in it... that's what they did with that holding pond...

    45. Re: One non-disturbing theory by WillKemp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A vast amount of this plastic is breaking up into tiny pieces, which then form a new class of plankton plastic plankton - and this plastic plankton is being eating by sea creatures along with the phytoplankton and zooplankton which make up their normal diet. Nobody knows what the effects of this will be.

    46. Re:One non-disturbing theory by aurizon · · Score: 1

      The term plastic covers many materials. The ones made from hydrocarbons - polyethylene, polypropylene etc are gradually attacked by bacteria. If they are very thin as in plastic bags they are short lived. it is a little lighter than water, so it floats and gets the cross links broken by UV light unless filled with something heacvy, clay, TiO2 etc and might sink.
      These are not long lived, nor are they hard, the scraping tongues with erode them, and a few cyles = gone.

      If you replace one or more Hydrogen with fluorine or chlorine you get items that are not metabolized by any complex organism, however bacteris can colonize them and they remove an atom at a time, so they eventually go away.
      https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=...

      These are all soft so the scraping of tiny teeth turns them into small particles and the bacteria get at them.

      One big problem with small particles is their lack of nutrition, so the small animal wastes energy to gnaw it and gets nothing back. Too many small particles and they starve to death via metabolic losses. People can starve on some foods that take more energy to digest then they yield.

      Recently microspheres for cosmetics have been released into the water and they get through filtration plants = starvation again for the small fly if there are too many.

      The rise of biodegradable layers has helps plastic go away sooner, if we made bags from starch film, if would be eaten in weeks in the sea

    47. Re:One non-disturbing theory by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can't speak to fresh water, but I grew up on the water in a marine environment. Nothing lasts very long, even plastic. I obviously can't say what happens to the little bits and I don't know what effect they have on the environment - but if you want to talk about the lifetime of the plastic bottles, I don't think it is very long. Even the heavily treated, thick, expensive decking material breaks down.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    48. Re:One non-disturbing theory by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Far more logical is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.... All that hard glass, basically broken bottles ground smooth, many many far finer fragments buried into the sand below. Plastic is a whole lot software than glass so it can get ground up much faster, add in brittling from UV exposure, the shorelines of the world, lots of sun and surf and we end up with a new kind of sand. The plastic that is caught in vegetation off the shore line is far more visible.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    49. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i suspect most of it is broken down by water, salt, and UV. i also suspect that fish end up consuming lots of the tiny pieces by accident. however, most of the plastic the fish consume gets shit out and sinks or goes on to be broken down some more by water, salt, UV, and bacteria.

      as an aside, the mention of the Great Garbage Patch makes me wonder how much sea-level rise is attributable to all the crap we are throwing into the ocean. perhaps the recent increase in CO2 in ocean water and temperature ocean water is a byproduct of the plastic in it. I've also seen articles, referenced here, that claim most of the ocean's plastic is trapped in arctic ice. perhaps that is also why the arctic ice is melting. what if all this plastic we dump into the oceans is the most significant contribution man makes to global warming?

    50. Re: One non-disturbing theory by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Plastic encrusted whale poop that will survive intact for centuries?

    51. Re:One non-disturbing theory by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      Solar/UV radiation on floating plastic degrades the polymers rather quickly.

      Then the other side of the equation is critters adhere to plastic and their weight eventually causes the plastic to sink. You see wood in the ocean just covered with masses of barnacles, which would sink a small piece of plastic quickly.

      Most plastics are also not very reactive in the quick digestion systems of fish, so I suspect that much of the small particles simply pass through quickly with no effect on the fish.

      A lot of bogus arguements are "floating around" out there.

    52. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To test that theory in your backyard, take some seawater with some sea bacteria in a bucket. Put plastic in it. Observe for a year or two. See if any of that plastic has gone. If not gone, repeat the experiment with fish.

      That should silence some critics. Also, the people who don't believe in man made effects of climate.

    53. Re:One non-disturbing theory by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      huhuhuh.. manners suck..
      http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc...

    54. Re:One non-disturbing theory by JimSadler · · Score: 2

      We don't have a clue as to what breaks down or how well it breaks down or the time involved. Tire rubber is one example. Rubber is shed in a dust like form as tires contact the road. Scientists were wondering about the build up of powdered rubber near major roads. It turns out that most if it vanishes and the conclusion was that bacteria were digesting the synthetic, tire rubber. Matter of fact i would think that pulverized, waste, plastic would be a good material as an admixture for road surfaces.

    55. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ostrich logic.

    56. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the reason that bottled water has an expiration date is that it is mandated to. Even if it were hermetically sealed in glass vials, it would be required to have an expiration date.

    57. Re:One non-disturbing theory by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      Actually, the reason that bottled water has an expiration date is that it is mandated to.

      Is there a source for that? I assumed the reason water (and everything else food/drug related) has an expiration date now was for legal liability. That way there's only a limited time you can get a company for injury for using an old product (even if it was something inert enough it wouldn't expire). They can just point to the packaging and say "Well, Your Honor. Look, the item was expired and the label says not to use it past the date. The defendant willfully ingested/used it nonetheless..."

    58. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There was a story in one of the HP Lovecraft magazines about shoggoths using the plastic to rebuild R'lyeh.

    59. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Artifakt · · Score: 2

      Everything's expiration date is also shorter than the time it takes the purple ink that shows the expiration date to fade unto unreadability. Coincidence?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    60. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plastic is broken down only with light to ever smaller pieces of plastic which eventually can be found inside cells. The plastic which is used in cosmetics and ends up to the oceans via sewage is already very granular.

    61. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got it backwards. The complaint is that all non-scary interpretations are considered unreasonable.

    62. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is the right time and place to say that everyone can do something. (i'm not related with project)

    63. Re:One non-disturbing theory by itzly · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that plastics can be split into 2 parts: the biologically active part that gets broken down by bacteria and other lifeforms, and the biologically inert part that just gets smaller over time. The biologically active parts will get modified into other chemicals, and ultimately turn into harmless substances. The inert bits will be harmless if the size is small enough to not cause physical damage.

    64. Re: One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we can assume the worst. Go ahead, feed plastic to your kids and let us know how it goes. Sadly, as already pointed out, plastics contain some rather nasty chemical that if they get into our bodies, will not do us any good at all. I think some of the sickness we see in the world today is plastics related.

      As for where it's all gone, well, the study can't be accurate for one, it's at best an estimation for two - and for three, it can't just disappear!
      I know sea bird are eating it, and I know it's changed the eco-system of our ocean surface as some organisms seem to cope better with it than others. So any good biologist should know exactly what this means - the food supply is changing, and means the bio-diversity will too.

      I don't like suggestions by people that it's "cleaning itself up" - and have you any idea how much of our "recycling" ends up on land-fills? it's more about a game of smoke and mirrors so we can tell our children that we really tried to make a difference - when the truth is, that even to the detriment of our lives - so long as it makes a profit, we'll do it.

    65. Re:One non-disturbing theory by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      depends what you dump in there. Heavy metals don't get processed to anything else and tend to be poisonous to most organisms. Some plastics are so stable they only get processed after many decades.

      And all that said, the Earth doesn't care about you or I, so we have to be a little more sensible about doing a dump. Eventually there's no places left that you haven't shat on and you end up having to sit in it.

    66. Re:One non-disturbing theory by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Another theory? stuff clings to the plastic and sinks it.

      Yeah, and depending on ocean currents there are probably a few areas at the bottom of the ocean with hundred of meters thick of plastics where nobody has yet looked.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    67. Re:One non-disturbing theory by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Why would fish eat plastic? The water dissolve and bacteria theory -- while dubious -- still sounds more plausible.

    68. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed!
      Ever bought water in a glass bottle?. Ohh look an expiration date.

    69. Re: One non-disturbing theory by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well.. it just needs the solvents to be in the stomach of whatever is eating it.

      but then you're left with some chemicals anyways.

      and I don't know, but sinking them into bottom sediments doesn't really seem _that_ bad. friggin arsenic geysirs can have it...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    70. Re: One non-disturbing theory by gtall · · Score: 5, Funny

      prepackaged fish sticks?

    71. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Or perhaps the stuff wasn't there in the first place.

    72. Re: One non-disturbing theory by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not lied so much as made use of computer models that bear no relation whatsoever to reality. There's a lot of it about in environmental "science".

    73. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Salgat · · Score: 1

      You have to remember that the surface area to volume ratio of tiny plastic particulate is magnitudes greater than a water bottle, which completely changes the rate at which bacteria can reach and metabolize the plastic.

    74. Re:One non-disturbing theory by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that, because the reason most bottled water has an expiration date isn't that water goes bad, but because the plastics' volatile components in the bottle leach into the water (which is why everyone freaked out over BPE's awhile back).

      That, and the fact that the water seeps through the plastic. I work for a company that makes sensors which are permanently submerged for years at a time. The cheap type of plastic used for things like drink bottles (PET) allows water to get through very slowly. It's fine for a drink bottle, you would never notice it, but for our products the humidity inside the case goes up and water drops start to form on the PCBs, shorting them out.

      Drink bottles would eventually be empty if you left them on the shelf long enough. The sell-by date ensures that if the government comes along and checks that a 2L bottle does really contain at least 2L of liquid at the point of sale the tiny bit extra they put in won't have seeped out through the plastic and into the atmosphere.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    75. Re:One non-disturbing theory by coofercat · · Score: 1

      One place I worked had some branded water bottles made up for some event or other. Some of them didn't get used and got put in a cupboard for a year or two. When we found them, just about all of them had sort of "over inflated" a bit (and were past their use-by date). Given they were in the office, it seems unlikely they got heated to such an extent that the contents would have expanded that much purely due to temperature. I'm not qualified, but I'd imagine they'd begun to degrade, releasing a bit of gas into the water and reducing the structural integrity of the bottle allowing the "over inflated" look.Needless to say, no one was keen to try drinking any of the water ;-)

    76. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > can't speak to fresh water
      > grew up on the water

      You must have had a cruel childhood, what with all the silent treatment.

    77. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another theory - the sun melts off a lot of the outer surface where it vaporises into the atmosphere, also bottles once they lose a lot of their mass would be able to take on enough water to offset the buoyancy of the plastic and then sink.

    78. Re:One non-disturbing theory by azav · · Score: 1

      into its* components

              it's = it is

      Learn this.

      Sooo, you mean that the oil blobs from the Exxon Valdez spill from almost 30 years ago that still exist under rocks in Valdez Alaska don't exist any more?

      But also like the PCBs in the Hudson river that became embedded within the river bottom bringing the extreme toxicity in range of whatever might dredge it up? And that cost multi millions to remove from the riverbed? http://www.epa.gov/hudson/

      Why you assume that bacteria will break down everything is beyond me. And what will the bacteria break this plastic down into? Its precursor, perhaps? Crude oil? Petroleum?

      Your ignorance is speaking, sir. You are way outside of your discipline of competence.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    79. Re: One non-disturbing theory by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are only two effects.

      In Modus A, the plastic breaks down in aggressive digestion, potentially poisoning the fish in the short term. This may not inflict major harm due to small amounts entering the fish's diet over time. Then again, it may kill the fish, and provide food to a larger fish or bacteria, which disperse the toxin. The toxins will be less stable by nature--if they're reactive, they're unstable--and will eventually break down to stable, harmless compounds.

      In Modus B, the plastic doesn't break down at any significant speed. Monomers and extremely tiny particles get passed through the food chain, ground up smaller and smaller, but cause no real harm. The plastic could cause physical obstruction, at worst, but only at high concentration.

      Modus B is actually worse, but only marginally. It's the wholly-non-toxic mode.

    80. Re: One non-disturbing theory by azav · · Score: 1

      There is a point to what you say, but we tried that in the Hudson river.

      http://www.epa.gov/hudson/

      However when something like that plastic falls down a hugely greater distance, like the bottom of much of the ocean, it will compress, but also, does it stay there, or will it be moved/migrate at all? Remember that NYC used to haul loads of garbage out to sea and just dump it. No idea if that still happens or not.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    81. Re:One non-disturbing theory by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

      Aside from that, most sausage skins in the western world are made from plastic, it's been that way for decades.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      Plastic casings are not commonly used any more due to health hazards.

      And when they WERE used, it would have only been in the kind of sausage that you peel - not in those where you eat it casing and all.

    82. Re: One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brainwashed idiot.

    83. Re: One non-disturbing theory by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      If the particles can get through cell walls they mights interfere with cell processes without being reactive, seems less likely than with the catalytic metal nanoparticles we are pumping the environment full with ... but I wouldn't rule it out.

    84. Re:One non-disturbing theory by skoony · · Score: 0

      there usually not even expiration dates. most say best if used by stated date. milk for example has an expiration date as it will spoil stored in its container. other food stuffs will go stale or loose there taste thus best used by dating.that doesn't mean they have gone bad though.some things such as canned goods can have shelf life of years. even tens of years. when in the Marine Corp in the mid seventies we were issued c-rations made during the Korean War. mostly things are dated because of potential liability issues. eating a can of ten year old peaches could cause immense amounts of mental pain and anguish.

    85. Re:One non-disturbing theory by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      What if the aliens aren't being altruistic and helping us clean the oceans? What if instead they are stealing the plastic from our planet for their own use? Poor aliens wasted all their plastic and now have to take ours!

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    86. Re:One non-disturbing theory by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Heavy metals also tend to be dense and not very soluble. If dumped into the ocean near a subduction zone, they would get recycled into the mantle at some point. I'm not so concerned with shit being buried in molten rock.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    87. Re:One non-disturbing theory by knobsturner_me · · Score: 0

      The other point is that humans eat LOTS of plastic every year already. Increasing this by a few % would make no difference to us. In addition since even with all that plastic eating, humans are living longer and healthier seems to suggest that perhaps plastic's inert qualities will not affect fish either.

    88. Re:One non-disturbing theory by skoony · · Score: 0

      it is interesting to note they have found significant amounts of plastic in arctic ice where there shouldn't be that much. it is also interesting to note that the saw lubricant/anti-freeze contains plastic.

    89. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both bottles and decking materials have a specific use, so they stop being useful if they can't fulfil their role. However, that doesn't mean the bottle magically disintegrates. It has to go somewhere. Unless you are talking about thief^H^H^H^H^Hmagicians, they make things actually disappear.

    90. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately earth doesn't care that much if one or more of its species die processing things...

    91. Re: One non-disturbing theory by skoony · · Score: 0

      besides being pure propaganda the real reason you find oil just under the surface is because there is oil there to begin with. that is why the oil companies drilled in the gulf. there was oil surfacing in various spots along the coast line. when investigated they discovered the largest reserves were under the water. magnitudes of order of exxon valdez's of oil leaks into the environment every year. thats how most of the worlds proven oil reserves were found. not by oil rigs leaking.

    92. Re: One non-disturbing theory by skoony · · Score: 0

      plastiglomerates a form of volcanic rock. found at or near active flows. they find a lot of aluminum also. now you know what became of all those pictures of water bottles and beer cans melting in the lava.

    93. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water is water. It ain't acid.

    94. Re:One non-disturbing theory by pipingguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I can't speak to fresh water..."

      Yes you can, but it cannot speak to you...

    95. Re:One non-disturbing theory by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Like I said, I can't speculate on what happens to the microscopic bits, just that the bottles don't remain bottles after a relatively short time in the sun. Back in the old days, we'd find just the black bases of the old 2-liter bottles that were made of two kinds of plastic. You'd almost never find the clear parts. I think this strongly implies that the clear part (PET plastic) does not hold up well in the sun and salt water, or there was some other condition that happened to wash the black bits up in my back yard but not the clear bits.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    96. Re:One non-disturbing theory by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. Think about what plastics are made from. We wouldn't want oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, or (god forbid) CARBON getting into our food chain. I mean, that's the stuff life is made of. Wait, what are we talking about?

      Yeah, nothing unsafe has ever been made from those elements. Hint: You only need two from your list to make cyanide.

    97. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UV rays and Salt water can be pretty aggressive to anything. Plastic not withstanding.

    98. Re:One non-disturbing theory by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Why, you're perfectly correct! The arrangement of the atoms doesn't matter one bit, just the constituent elements. Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) is perfectly safe to eat!
      Oh wait no it isn't. Even though it's just hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    99. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GUESS THEY FORGOT THOSE PLASTIC GARBAGE PILES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DEAD SPOTS OF THE OCEAN-THE NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN'S ONE TAKES UP THE SPACE OF TexasX2 not to mention the tons of plastic crap that washes up on Midway Island and US park rangers have to pick up-maybe they should read National Geographic.

    100. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I lived for many years in the desert, and I can attest it's much the same -- nothing lasts very long, not even durable plastic. If the sun doesn't get it, the alkaline soil will.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    101. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Seems to me the issues with the shrimp and such should be fairly easy to replicate in the laboratory -- find yourself some normal shrimp, impound some of the suspect seawater (no, you don't get to make your own), release your normal shrimp (and whatever shrimp eat) into it, and examine their descendants. Has anyone bothered to do this?

      Cuz otherwise I wonder to what degree the observed defects have always been there, but perhaps until the spill subjected the area to intense scrutiny, harvesters may have ignored them to avoid reducing their catch.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    102. Re: One non-disturbing theory by spkay31 · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's impossible, those studies were conducted by the finest educational institutions with Federal research grant funding! There's no way that such work could be flawed in any way to help continue funding Al Gore's private 777.

    103. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Godzilla is born from plastics in the ocean that formed new bacteria that evolved into GODZILLA!!!!

    104. Re: One non-disturbing theory by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      Whales beaching themselves because they are too ill to continue and don't want to be shark food?

    105. Re:One non-disturbing theory by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 0

      The words,"Oh, no, I messed up," when said sincerely, can be very effective. The Christian lifestyle *ALWAYS* starts with humility.

    106. Re: One non-disturbing theory by sandertje · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting a whole range of options. First on modus A: a lot of toxins are not reactive outside a cellular environment. Proteins in cells are highly efficient catalysts, and normally unreactive compounds can become highly reactive inside that environment. A good example of this is botulinum toxin. In itself it is not really very reactive, but it is extremely toxic (several ng are enough to kill a human).

      Modus B can - and most likely will - be dangerous as well. There are many toxins that are in low doses subclinical, but do not exit the body. After repeated exposure, the dose inside the body will slowly rise to clinical levels. An example of this is mercury. Plastics, by virtue of being highly hydrophobic, will most likely consist of many of these toxins.

    107. Re: One non-disturbing theory by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Something being reactive within cell environments means other critters, bacteria, etc. will eat it and denature it over time. If it's reactive, it can be depleted.

      Mercury is a chemical element. It's a metal, highly conductive, and exerts the electrostatic force on every damn thing.

      Modus B is unlikely, by the way, because plastics burn. Silicone, on the other hand....

    108. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water is a great solvent, add in UV (ionizing energy) and enzymes from the natural flora and fauna.... there is a good chance it's breaking down. It's the difference between a newspaper abandoned outside and one thrown into a landfill. In a year or so outside it will decompose; in a landfill, it's preserved until it's dug back up.

    109. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't contribute to degrading the scientific meaning of the word "theory."

      GP was positing a 'hypothesis.' And a rather shitty one at that.

    110. Re:One non-disturbing theory by fuzzy2k · · Score: 1

      Is that water, the ultimate solvent -- or perhaps bacteria -- are breaking down the plastics back into it's components, and the ocean (much like the oil from the BP spill) is taking care of itself. Naw, couldn't be. Go ahead and panic, hippies!

      Thanks. I will hit submit, and then run around my place screaming incoherently.. I guess, about "the haters" and stuff...

      --
      --- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
    111. Re: One non-disturbing theory by fuzzy2k · · Score: 1

      - snip - I remember reading something about bacteria living in trash dumps, and supposedly breaking down plastic.

      As I recall, there was an article on the /.'s a while back touting a Yale university that had a crew in the Amazon rain forests and found a mold or something that was feeding on plastic. Might have required an anaerobic environment, but I do not recall all the details. The googles took me to this: http://www.psfk.com/2012/03/pl...

      --
      --- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
    112. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Polo · · Score: 1

      I think this might be possible. I don't really know, but if you've ever "cycled" an aquarium, it's pretty interesting and makes me think it's plausible.

      If you put fish in an aquarium full of fresh water, they will generate ammonia and eventually die (unless they are very hardy fish).

      So to "cycle" the aquarium, you can put drops of ammonia in the aquarium each day. Over time, bacteria that metabolize ammonia will enter the aquarium water and colonize it. These bacteria will remove the ammonia, producing nitrites (which are also toxic to fish, but less so than ammonia).

      If you continue cycling the aquarium, more bacteria colonize the water, ones which metabolize the nitrites into nitrates.

      Fish are usually ok with nitrates, so at this point, you can introduce the fish to the aquarium, and they will survive because the system will naturally remove the ammonia and subsequent nitrites.

      Optionally, you can add plants to the aquarium and they can utilize the nitrates and remove them. Remember nitrates? From fertilizer?

      Long story short... I'll bet the ocean can do amazing things like this. Don't know for sure, but it's plausible.

    113. Re:One non-disturbing theory by teknosapien · · Score: 1

      Nope its all been dissolved by the multitude of oil spills though out the years

      --
      no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
    114. Re: One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. It's been found, at sea, that sunlight works as a catalyst to increase the rate plastic breaks down.

    115. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plastic is not magic. It's just polymers. Take the common polyethylene. That's just -CH2- repeated. When you claim it breaks down in molecules not found in nature, how do you think PE is broken down? When a C-C bond breaks, you just get shorter chains. The new ends may pick up a stray OH from water to form an alcohol, which is pretty natural. PP is pretty much the same. It's the intentional purity which makes it safer than the unrefined oil exampes you give.

    116. Re: One non-disturbing theory by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The bacteria theory is more likely, because I remember reading something about bacteria living in trash dumps, and supposedly breaking down plastic.

      There was a particular bacterium - I forget the name - which was found in the waste water treatment plant of a nylon-manufacturing plant in the mid-1970s ; due to it's unusual living circumastances it had developed the ability to metabolise the 6-carbon molecules which are the components of nylon, but specifically NOT to metabolise the nylon itself.

      Which is a quite remarkable bit of biology - IIRC it came about as the result of an off-by-one reading of the bases in a particular bit of DNA (checking the wikipedia article, there's alternative interpretations of this, but it's years since I read the original papers ; the details of how the mutation came about don't bother me). But it's not going to clean the oceans of our wastes.

      I'm not aware of any other reports of "plastic eating bacteria," in particular any bacteria that can actually digest nylon-type plastics (as opposed to the monomers from which they're formed) , or indeed any other classes of plastic, such as the poly-alkene family.

      Plastics formulations have changed considerably in the last few decades. The common use of materials such as plant-based celluloses as fillers in many plastic products is changing both the economics of production of "plastic", and is also changing the way those products break down in the environment. Where in the past you'd have centimetre-scale blocks of solid polymer, now you'll find that the grains of bacteria-edible cellulose will get eaten by environmental bacteria within a few years of going out into the environment (basically, getting wet), leading to the disintegration of the bulk body into much smaller particles. They still weigh the same (less, of course, the biodegradable filler), but they're decidedly less noticeable. Which is a cosmetic improvement. But it is a cosmetic improvement, only.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    117. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      vanishes? hell no it doesn't, ever run your hand under the fender or body of your car? hell even anywhere near the bottom along the sides after driving for any extended period of time?

      that black filth is the rubber you speak of.. it gets washed down drains when people wash their cars...

    118. Re:One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "tone" of your comment, makes you sound like a red-neck - is that better than a hippy?

      Whatever the reason, it's a BAD thing that so much plastic "lands" into our ocean's, whether the ocean takes care of itself or not ...

      Let the hippies panic, let everyone panic ... then maybe we'll learn to clean up after ourselves!?!?

    119. Re:One non-disturbing theory by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Water is not that impressive a solvent, Try N,N-dimethylformamide or THF.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  2. It's sinking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's the most obvious answer. Fish do not eat plastic, and even if they did, they couldn't digest it.

    1. Re:It's sinking. by drpimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fish actually DO eat plastic and yes they cannot digest it. Ask any fisherman who fishes artificial lures. Sinking is still a contributing possibility as well.

      --
      -- Brought to you by Carl's JR
    2. Re:It's sinking. by 0p7imu5_P2im3 · · Score: 1

      Actually, It could really be sinking. It could be a(n) (un)fortunate side effect of the dispersants used to disrupt the BP oil spill in 2010. Plastics are made of oil, after all.

      --
      Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
    3. Re:It's sinking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect you mean plastics are made from oil.

    4. Re:It's sinking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I suspect you are a douche bag.

    5. Re:It's sinking. by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Nah, dispersants don't dissolve plastic - otherwise your dishwashing detergent would dissolve the plastic bottle it comes in.

    6. Re:It's sinking. by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      dispersants don't cause massive flesh burns either... so the detergent in your bottle isn't the same as the stuff they pumped out for the BP oil spill.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

  3. Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    isn't it just depositing itself to the bottom and creating new form of plastic rocks?

    1. Re:Wait... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      isn't it just depositing itself to the bottom and creating new form of plastic rocks?

      They just don't make Horta like they used to

  4. Where's the article? by AnOnyxMouseCoward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait. Isn't Slashdot supposed to link me to articles? I know no one RTFA, but if there isn't any link at all and just a blurb, what's the point?

    1. Re:Where's the article? by Ynot_82 · · Score: 5, Informative

      fish ate it

    2. Re:Where's the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2014/06/ninety-nine-percent-oceans-plastic-missing

    3. Re:Where's the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait. Isn't Slashdot supposed to link me to articles? I know no one RTFA, but if there isn't any link at all and just a blurb, what's the point?

      http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2023960161_apxscioceanplastic.html

    4. Re:Where's the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      plastiglomerates

      http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2014/06/rocks-made-plastic-found-hawaiian-beach

      Scientists say a new type of rock cobbled together from plastic, volcanic rock, beach sand, seashells, and corals has begun forming on the shores of Hawaii.

      The discovery adds to the debate about whether humanity’s heavy hand in natural processes warrants the formal declaration of a new epoch of Earth history, the Anthropocene, says paleontologist Jan Zalasiewicz of the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom, who was not involved in the study. Plastics in general are so pervasive that they’ve been documented in a number of surprising places, including ingested in wildlife and on the sea floor. The mass of plastic produced since 1950 is close to 6 billion metric tons, enough to bundle the entire planet in plastic wrap. Combine plastic’s abundance with its persistence in the environment, and there’s a good chance it’ll get into the fossil record, Zalasiewicz says. “Plastics, including plastiglomerates, would be one of the key markers by which people could recognize the beginning of the Anthropocene.”

    5. Re:Where's the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You meant to make that Funny, not Informative.

    6. Re:Where's the article? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Don't be so sure.

    7. Re:Where's the article? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except these conglomerates were formed by beach humans burning wood and trash and plastic and having the latter melt into the rock. Unless the fish (or other aquatic denizens) are starting fires somewhere, it's not likely to be a general mechanism.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Where's the article? by daremonai · · Score: 1
      Fish discover fire!

      Admittedly, they face a few more logistical problems than bears ever did.

    9. Re:Where's the article? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Why? Nobody reads them anyway.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    10. Re:Where's the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And still nobody at /. has figured out how to make posting a link to a summary a required step in form validation.

    11. Re:Where's the article? by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Here's one: Plastic plankton.

    12. Re:Where's the article? by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Nanobots.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    13. Re:Where's the article? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      It is a required step.

    14. Re:Where's the article? by notonthegrid · · Score: 1

      Maybe the study has published results based on data collected using an
      aperatus that had a hole in it, and the plastic they were collecting leaked
      out, instead of being counted.

    15. Re:Where's the article? by nephilimsd · · Score: 1

      And this is considered informative.

  5. ...another possibility... by raydobbs · · Score: 0

    ...is that there is a complex ecosystem of micro-organisms that are breaking down the plastic into lesser components that we aren't looking for? I mean, there is a LOT about the ocean we don't yet understand. I mean, we know more about our solar system than we know about the entirety of the ocean ecosystem. That's not to say that the plastic BELONGS there or that we shouldn't be trying to reduce our uses for plastics - just that perhaps we aren't finding them in their entirety because there is some natural processes at work beyond fish consumption.

    1. Re:...another possibility... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      on the other hand....

      IF this is actually what is happening, wouldnt it be smart to deposit the plastic in the oceans rather than the landfills where the bacteria or whatever is not breaking it down??? hell the ocean may be working as a giant recycling center! obviously real research is needed either way if most plastic is "missing"

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:...another possibility... by m00sh · · Score: 0

      ...is that there is a complex ecosystem of micro-organisms that are breaking down the plastic into lesser components that we aren't looking for? I mean, there is a LOT about the ocean we don't yet understand. I mean, we know more about our solar system than we know about the entirety of the ocean ecosystem. That's not to say that the plastic BELONGS there or that we shouldn't be trying to reduce our uses for plastics - just that perhaps we aren't finding them in their entirety because there is some natural processes at work beyond fish consumption.

      Or Aquaman got tired of all the plastic and ordered a clean-up.

      Hey, as long as we are talking about imaginary creatures, ...

    3. Re:...another possibility... by raydobbs · · Score: 1

      I am not saying this IS what is happening - I am saying that this is a possible scenario - like the article is proposing a possible scenario (hence the very concrete words 'possibly', 'maybe' and 'perhaps' being used. Oh, forgot the word 'IF' - the biggy).

      This entire article is short on facts, very big on supposition.

    4. Re:...another possibility... by raydobbs · · Score: 1

      EXACTLY! Research - where is it going? Perhaps chain that along with "What ACTUALLY happens to stuff in the ocean - like dead animals, waste, petrochemicals, natural (but toxic) items introduced into the ecosystem, etc?"

  6. Another disturbing theory by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Plastic has lots of energy (try burning it) and thus could be a food source in and of itself. Thus there could be a bacteria that is eating it. Where this is disturbing is that we like to put useful plastic things into the water such as fibreglass boats. Could there be a bacteria evolving that will start corroding our plastics?

    Also the fish that eat it may now have a gut bacteria that will break it down.

    Whatever the truth turns out to be I suspect it will be fascinating!

    1. Re:Another disturbing theory by Krishnoid · · Score: 0

      Whatever the truth turns out to be I suspect it will be fascinating!

      Or terrifying. Or both!

    2. Re:Another disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be some bit of poetic justice I suppose.

    3. Re:Another disturbing theory by mpe · · Score: 1

      Plastic has lots of energy (try burning it) and thus could be a food source in and of itself. Thus there could be a bacteria that is eating it.

      There isn't one thing called "plastic" anyway. Some types are even intended to be "bio-degradable".

      Also the fish that eat it may now have a gut bacteria that will break it down.

      Plenty of animals eat all sorts of things that they cannot digest at all. Apparently beta glucose polysaccarides are ment to be good for humans to eat. Even in quanities beyond the ability of gut bacteria to handle. Quite a few plants even rely on their seeds passing through the gut of an animal.

    4. Re:Another disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plastic has lots of energy (try burning it) and thus could be a food source in and of itself. Thus there could be a bacteria that is eating it. Where this is disturbing is that we like to put useful plastic things into the water such as fibreglass boats. Could there be a bacteria evolving that will start corroding our plastics? Also the fish that eat it may now have a gut bacteria that will break it down. Whatever the truth turns out to be I suspect it will be fascinating!

      With any luck, this process will consume C02 and we can put this global warming nonsense to bed by dumping trash in the ocean again.

    5. Re:Another disturbing theory by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      I suspect that if a bacteria managed to create an enzyme or whatnot that could break down one kind of plastic that it might not be too many mutations away from similar types of plastic. And if bacteria could figure out one they could probably figure out them all.

    6. Re:Another disturbing theory by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      of course it is a food source, this is why the most dire of predictions about certain catastrophic oil spills didn't happen (yes, they were very bad anyway). there are bacteria that eat petroleum, there are bacteria that can eat petroleum products. of course, this could still be a food chain problem if larger organisms consume the bacteria and are poisoned or otherwise sickened or malnourished.

      also, maybe the amount of plastic in land fills vs. ocean is underestimated.

    7. Re:Another disturbing theory by chuckinator · · Score: 1

      Fiberglass isn't plastic. It's glass fibers.

    8. Re:Another disturbing theory by kesuki · · Score: 1

      plastic can be made of corn and sugar. that does not make 'plastic' a viable food. however we have been requiring biodegradable plastics for decades now, they don't degrade in landfills but they do in the wild. also recycling has been vastly improved and that means less plastic in landfills and in the wild. scientists thought they'd see more plastic but people have suggested this is based on the amount of plastic produced, without even considering possible reasons like more recycling. also some pretty bright people have figured out where in the ocean to place nets that capture all the floating garbage, without having to use ships to 'drag' all across the ocean. perhaps that information is old, perhaps someone has been harvesting ocean plastic to recycle it.

    9. Re:Another disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      metabolism generally releases CO2, whether aerobic or anaerobic

    10. Re:Another disturbing theory by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      It's glass fibers in a plastic matrix. Polyester plastic is a common matrix material for fiberglass, but others can be used as well. Without the plastic, the glass fibers would not hold together other than woven mats that would then basically be a glass fiber textile.

    11. Re:Another disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The resin involved in composite construction, including fibreglass, is a plastic.

    12. Re:Another disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Embedded in....... Wait for it..... Polyester resin, ta-dah!!

    13. Re:Another disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the whole point of bio degradable is that they degrade in a landfill.
      The bacterial eco system of a landfill is very good at it.

    14. Re:Another disturbing theory by Reziac · · Score: 1

      All very good thoughts, even without invoking plastic-stealing aliens or aquatic goats. As to the recycling aspect, seems to me that would be more cost-effective than trawling landfills, since the ocean's inhabitants would have already done most of the relatively-expensive work of separating out food waste, biodegradables, and the like.

      As to the expected ginormous quantity, one wonders if this is just a ghost of the fashionably extreme predictions of a few decades ago, which would have had the entire planet cheek-by-jowl in starving humans buried in waste.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    15. Re:Another disturbing theory by kesuki · · Score: 1

      no landfills are very dry. to avoid contaminating local water they tend to have a 500 year plastic liner, and what little moisture is there from the garbage itself. i know they put off methane but that is largely from organics not plastics.
      sorry i was lazy that day here is a link http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/biodegradable.htm

  7. Good news, everyone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It turns out all those warnings about littering and polluting were just so much alarmist bullshit!

    1. Re:Good news, everyone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It turns out all those warnings about littering and polluting were just so much alarmist bullshit!

      What of their dire warnings haven't been alarmist recently?

  8. Sorry guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was me, I'll put it back.

    I didn't think anyone would care :-/

    1. Re:Sorry guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evil genius.... Think of the carbon sequestration this would account for.....

  9. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I put my hands up!
    They're playin' my song!
    The plastic's gone away!
    I'm bobbin' my head like a fish.
    This plastics a lovely dish.

    I put my hands up!
    They're playing my song!
    There's plastic coming out of the sink!
    Wondering in my head...where the hell is the link?!

    captcha: Miley

  10. Article Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Where is the link to the article?

  11. Fish ARE eating it, this is already known + seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The tiny plastic beads and broken down bits end up in fish flesh, this has been established.

    http://www.fastcoexist.com/3020951/these-big-eyed-fish-are-vacuuming-up-our-plastic-pollution-at-night
    Plenty of information on this out there. 19% of all fish caught in a single survey in Hawaii had plastic in the bellies.

  12. Fucking Oceanographers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bring on the Australian philosophers...

  13. Explains McDonalds Fish Sandwich Tasting Like Plas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    tic.

  14. Why so cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe someone is actually breaking down the stuff... or it's ending up at the bottom of the ocean (too deep for us to find). Either way... :)

    1. Re:Why so cynical? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Why so cynical?

      Well, there's a thick cloud cover outside and the western economic recession is going on. Makes one sad and disappointed.

  15. Re:MOD PARENT REDUNDANT by raydobbs · · Score: 1

    ...or I started to write it when Slashdot showed no submissions on the page, but when I hit post on it - there were already a post or two (story of every Slashdot page ever)?

  16. meh by waddgodd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Whoever thinks that plastic isn't already part of the global food web hasn't eaten at a McDonalds recently

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
    1. Re:meh by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it. The latest happy meal toys taste great!

    2. Re:meh by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Whoever thinks that plastic isn't already part of the global food web hasn't eaten at a McDonalds recently

      Didn't they move from Styrofoam to paper/cardboard years ago? MMMMM.. Salty greasy cardboard....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  17. That's horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was planning to start my empire on one of them massive floating plastic islands next year. Guess I'll have to wait.

  18. I always think it's sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When a science fiction concept turns into something pretty much like reality. It was Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's novel "The Mote in God's Eye" that predicted animals would evolve to live off the castoffs of an industrialized society. And that may well be the case now! I mean plastic is derived from hydrocarbons that were derived from decayed plant material to begin with. A lot of what we humans eat is derived in part from decayed plant material, so it's quite possibly not even something to worry about. Heck maybe fish (or some plastic eating single celled organism that will adapt to above water level oxygen and destroy modern society) are just cleaning up the oceans for us!

    1. Re:I always think it's sweet by Fishchip · · Score: 1

      Moties are way cooler than fish though.

    2. Re:I always think it's sweet by spitzak · · Score: 1

      I don't think that was "The Mote in God's Eye". It was a theme in several of the Known Earth stories from Niven (I think Pournelle did not contribute much to those). There was a bacteria that ate the superconductor used on Ring World and destroyed it for instance.

  19. I burned it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been scooping it up from the oceans and burning it. It's worth buying a ship to collect the stuff if you've got a few mega tonnes of bauxite to refine.

  20. Re:Fish ARE eating it, this is already known + see by Ichijo · · Score: 2

    The article doesn't say the fish flesh has plastic bits in it.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  21. Plastic is biodegradable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eco nuts will disagree, but not too many years ago a high school student did a science project and showed that with the right bacteria plastic shopping bags could biodegrade in a matter of weeks. The key was getting the right bacteria in quantity. He started with plain old dirt from his yard. IIRC it was slashdot that reported the story. If a high school student can do it from back yard dirt, certainly trillions of gallons of water have enough bacteria to degrade plastic as well. We are not drowning in eco waste. Nor are the oceans going to be bubbling away anytime soon.

    1. Re:Plastic is biodegradable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But.... Obama!

  22. Nice job Samzenpus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's TFA?

    1. Re:Nice job Samzenpus. by Fishchip · · Score: 1

      We don't need an FA, we just need a paragraph and ominous wording!

    2. Re:Nice job Samzenpus. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Fish ate it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  23. Re:Why I am what I am by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

    You're not a veggie. You're either a vegetarian or a vegan.

    Unless you meant a vegetable, in which case you should fit right in with most of the Slashdot crowd.

  24. assume it's dark by slew · · Score: 1, Informative

    When you don't have an answer for the whereabouts of 90+% of the stuff your scientific theory calls for, call it dark and get some grant money to find it...

    1. Re:assume it's dark by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Well . . . it looks like you solved it then. On the one hand, we have matter that is missing, in the oceans. And on the other hand, we have the cosmos, where there seems to be too much matter. So obviously Occam's Lady-Shave indicates that the plastic in the oceans is being converted into the dark matter in outer space!

      Furthermore, since there is much more dark matter than the lost plastic on our planet . . . there must be other planets with intelligent life producing plastic that get's lost in their oceans! The equations should show us how many planets with intelligent plastic producing life are out there.

      Maybe.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:assume it's dark by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Ahhh... That doesn't matter!

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:assume it's dark by geekoid · · Score: 0

      Youre an idiot who ahs no clue what science is, do you? It's called dark matter because we can measure it's effect but don't know what it is.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:assume it's dark by Megane · · Score: 1

      Sure, let's call it "dark plastic". I think it's gone to the same place as the universe's missing dark matter.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re:assume it's dark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youre an idiot who ahs no clue what science is, do you? It's called dark matter because we can measure it's effect but don't know what it is.

      whoosh ;^)

      Perhaps you are a humorless scientist who has no clue about how the 99% puzzle about what scientists do, do you?

      It's called humorless because we can measure the effect, but don't know how anyone could fail to see it?

      On the other hand, although scientists claim to be able to measure the effect of dark matter, they don't actually know where it is either. Most agree that the bulk of it cannot be made up of any compact object (e.g., unobservable planet-sized to 25x sun-sized objects), but is likely WIMPs or MACHOs. And people wonder why the 99% find this stuff bemusing...

  25. UV light by Revek · · Score: 1

    Degrades plastic slowly over time. Most plastic will float in water.

  26. Re:Fish ARE eating it, this is already known + see by queazocotal · · Score: 5, Informative

    It getting into guts is a different problem.
    Plastic microbeads are _excellent_ at absorbing many pollutants onto their surfaces.
    When this is eaten in quantity, this can be a really efficient way for those pollutants to get into the fish - and hence into the food-chain.

  27. Likely Partial Answer: UV by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

    If it floats in water, it is going to get hit by perpetual exposure to UV radiation.

    The same way sailors get sun burnt very quickly. UV gets reflected by water, enlarging the exposure. UV tears apart molecular bonds, which is why, for example, the ozone layer is so important.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    1. Re:Likely Partial Answer: UV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Kinda

      While it depends on the specific plastic, in general UV doesn't break molecular bonds it tends to steal electrons from double and triple bonds. These radicals are very unfavorable and so are very reactive. Thus cause the molecule to bond with the first possible leaving group which in a polymer like plastic is most often another molecule of the plastic. This cross links make the plastic stiffer and more brittle leading to the plastic fragmenting. Which seems like a good thing because it leads to the breaking up of the plastic. However since the crosslink bond is often very strong and difficult to break, UV exposure makes plastic even harder recycle or for it to be used by micro organisms.

    2. Re:Likely Partial Answer: UV by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Except it isn't just about floating, it's about the plastic at different depths. Not all plastic floats on the surface of the water.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  28. begging the question... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    Millions of tons. That's how much plastic should be floating in the world's oceans...

    Um, no, it shouldn't be in the ocean at all... maybe there have been vast over estimates of how much was there to begin with. After all, nobody should be putting it there on purpose.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:begging the question... by Tailhook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      maybe there have been vast over estimates of how much was there to begin with

      Bingo. The problem probably isn't hippies underestimating the ability of the oceans to consume plastic. The problem is probably just hippies wildly overestimating the quantity of plastic escaping trash collection/recycling systems.

      But this simple hypothesis won't be welcome among hippies because it fails to comport with the contaminated planet narrative, so it won't be considered or analyzed, and Obama help anyone among the researchers that dares to suggest it. Instead, theories about contamination of the food web will be indulged and, based on zero actual evidence, the fear mongering has now commenced.

      We call this process `science.'

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:begging the question... by PRMan · · Score: 0

      The same science that only accepts "old" ice instead of any ice in global warming calculations. Then, they can make graphs "clearly showing" that all the ice is gone when in fact there is more ice in the arctic circle than in 2 decades.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:begging the question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except the part where you're making stuff up. Maybe over the last 4 years the volume is up but it is still down significantly over the last 20 years.

      Please educate yourself lest you actually believe that global warming calculations have been overestimates instead of underestimates.

    4. Re:begging the question... by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm going to call myself a wise skeptic. Someone else provided the missing link to the original story which points out that the plastic volume is derived from a 40+ year old estimate of how much plastic washes into the ocean (0.1%.) This estimate, doubtless taken as an article of faith in the published work, is from a time prior to widespread recycling, the EPA (and its analogs in other industrialized nations) having teeth, bioplastics that are designed to degrade, improved waste management, billions spent on public awareness, sponsored programs such as Adopt-a-Highway and other environmental measures. They disregarded all of that, took the 0.1% figure from a obsolete study, multiplied it by the quantity of plastic being manufactured today ran with the figure.

      This stuff is so transparent it's laughable. It deserves ridicule. Instead it's blessed with the benefit of the doubt because the worst case fits the narrative to which you've been trained to adhere.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    5. Re:begging the question... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Man that's a good retribution.

      It's more ice, up slightly from the all time low of last year.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  29. Article Link Here. by sehlat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the "Science" magazine page:

    http://news.sciencemag.org/env...

    and here's the referenced paper:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...

    1. Re:Article Link Here. by k6mfw · · Score: 3, Informative

      thanks for posting link, I actually RTFA. An interesting mention was,
      "What’s more, both Davison and Law say there are a number of other potential places the plastic could be ending up. It could be washing ashore, and a lot of it could be degrading into pieces too small to be detected. Another possibility is that organisms sticking to and growing on the plastic are dragging the junk beneath the ocean’s surface, either suspending it in the water column or sinking it all the way to the sea floor. Microbes may even be eating the stuff."

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  30. The only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned by netsavior · · Score: 3, Funny

    "It wanted plastic"
    George Carlin

  31. Dustin was right by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    And here's to you Mrs. Robinson...

  32. this phrase strangely seem appropriate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Jedem das Seine"

  33. Fish also eat sand by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Fish also eat sand and lots of other things. It passes through them. You are the same way. Not everything you eat is nutritious or digested. You poop, right!?!

    Or perhaps it settles to the bottom of the sea and future scientists will call it the plastacine boundary which occurred just at the time of the great extinction number nine, number nine, number nine...

    1. Re:Fish also eat sand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      west virginia lol.

  34. scientific study. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Disturbingly 99% of data missing from scientific study. Where could all of it have gone?

    1. Re:scientific study. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The fishes ate their homework....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  35. Solved! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Somebody stole it and made it into jillions of AOL disks

    1. Re:Solved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the AOLians. I newd it be dem Aolians.

    2. Re:Solved! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      We'll, after I got a hold of their disks, they did become flying saucers.

    3. Re:Solved! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      They must have been AOLian Harpies.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  36. Kraken are eating our dark plastic? by mveloso · · Score: 2

    Oceanographers are at a loss to explain the lack of plastic floating in our oceans. "Where the fuck did it go?" asked Omar Roberts, head of oceanography at the Skips Institute. "We've thrown shit-tons of plastic into the ocean. Where is it?"

    Omar, though, has a theory. "The Kraken ate it. We're feeding the fucking Kraken. Jeeeesus!"

    1. Re:Kraken are eating our dark plastic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If fish eat the plastic, then they pass it through their digestive system in a day or so, beaking it down slightly. So the plastic pieces get progressively smaller. In any case, plastic in fish guts isn't a problem for humans because fish caught/harvested for human food are filletted. If you're silly enough to eat fish "nuggets" or fish "balls", then you're probably eating a whole fish, minced thoroughly in an industrial blender, and it *might* contain very small (harmless) foreign particles. But a nice clean fillet or cutlet is almost certainly free of plastic bits and safe to eat.

  37. Or even... by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 1

    marine animals are ingesting it with or instead of their food. If so, is it possible some species will evolve to digest plastic and metabolize it? Will that make those creatures toxic to humans?

    1. Re:Or even... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A fish the evolves to get it's energy from plastic. Wow, that would be kinds cool. Plus we could duplicated it on a larger scale and get energy from plastic efficiently.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  38. Likely Partial Answer: UV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....which is why, for example, the ozone layer is so important.

    Ozone layer depletion is leading to premature deterioration of my precious plastics!

  39. Stupid title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ninety-nine percent of the ocean's plastic is missing" Who writes the titles to these articles? You'd think that the great god Neptune had been the victim of a plastic burglary!

    1. Re:Stupid title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. They stole most of his credit cards...

    2. Re:Stupid title by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Sure.

      But to be fair,

      Target's the only place he could find Archer Farms Lobster and Cheese Bites.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  40. Food web? by Sperbels · · Score: 1

    It's not really a food "web". It's more like a series of tubes, you see...

  41. Null hypothesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The original estimate was wrong.

    Of course, this doesn't fit with the Enviro-Disaster meme that every new piece of information should headline with 'It's worse than we thought!'.

  42. From the same guys who... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ..can't find a god damn plane.

  43. Captain Planet Explains by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    In this educational video.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  44. not a link but... by s.petry · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hypothetical stuff causes hypothetical problems. Wow, I would have never thunk it! Let the paranoia.. er fun begin!

    Before you claim troll show me where in the non-existent TFA (yes, I read this one) they come up with: 1) Their estimated "millions of tons". 2) How many "millions" are they claiming. 3) Why the only possible explanation is that fish are eating it (so now it's in your food). Nope, I'm not going to wait. They use a 1970 study that showed .1% of plastic washes into the ocean. This was the same time that we had TV commercials with American Indian's crying on TV because people on average were dumping their shit everywhere. We also had everyone pumping out CFCs for everything in a can.

    I agree that "The Great Pacific Garbage Dump" is a huge problem, and know that the same problems exist in every ocean. Fantastic theories (or fantasy depending on your perspective) requires evidence, and there is none to back TFA. None of this addresses the real problems causing dumping (like greed and a lack of enforced regulation, or wars).

    The last paragraph of TFA says it all. "We really don’t know what this plastic is doing.” So the point of the article telling people fish are eating the plastic is what exactly?

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:not a link but... by skoony · · Score: 0

      "The Great Pacific Garbage Dump" is this the one people have been trying to locate using google earth? no one seems to have found it yet.

  45. slashdot covered one answer last month--- by wherrera · · Score: 1

    It's becoming plastiglomerate! See: http://www.geosociety.org/gsat...

  46. Speculation? Can't we wait for facts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before throwing out all of this FUD, can't we wait for the research to tell us what's going on, before OMG IT'S IN THE FOOD SUPPLY!

  47. So, in other words, plastic is biodegradeable! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    That's good, right?

    1. Re:So, in other words, plastic is biodegradeable! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If fish are eating it, it's in the food supply and not degraded.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  48. You know by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

    the amount of plastic in the ocean numbers have always been riddle by flaws. I don't me out of bounds from error bars, I mean flaws. Everything from the 'garbage Island, to report of large amount of underwater plastic no one can seem to find.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:You know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're full of shit, the plastic is there and you can see it IF you are right up on it. You cannot see it with satellites.

    2. Re:You know by Threni · · Score: 1

      > I don't me out of bounds from error bars, I mean flaws.

      Very poetic.

  49. I know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the underwater plastic gnomes.

    Step one get plastic.
    Step two . . .
    Step three Profit!

  50. plastic food source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally i have figured out Godzilla's food source.

  51. Re:The only reason the earth allowed us to be spaw by jxander · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the new paradigm. The Earth plus plastic

    Honestly, while I always agreed with the premise, it seems to have taken much less time than I would have thought.

    --
    This signature is false.
  52. Re:Explains McDonalds Fish Sandwich Tasting Like P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, go eat some tofu, hippie, and leave those of us who like McDonalds alone, mmmkay?

  53. I wouldn't get too excited about this either way by tyme · · Score: 1

    First, if fish (or other marine animals) were eating the plastic (and there is a lot of evidence that they are) then they would also be starving to death (as they can't digest the plastic, and it fills up their digestive systems). When they die, the plastic would be returned to the ocean, and we would see it in our assays. So I don't think that the plastic getting eaten is the obvious solution.

    Second, as anyone who has gotten sunburned while swimming knows, water doesn't block ultraviolet light very effectively, so plastic floating near the top of the water column would be exposed to a lot of UV. Plastic breaks down pretty quickly when exposed to UV, so we may just be seeing the natural destruction of the plastic by sunlight (and, I suppose, that plastic that has been partially broken down by exposure to UV might be more easily consumed by bacteria, but that's pure speculation).

    Third, maybe we aren't measuring the amount of plastic in the ocean correctly. If the plastic is being consumed, or is sinking to the ocean floor, then we might easily be missing it. Also, the plastic might well not be evenly distributed across the ocean: it may be collecting in specific places due to winds and ocean currents. If we are not collecting samples evenly over the entire ocean, then we could be missing some high concentration areas.

    I doubt that this means we can all breath a sigh of relief and decide that dumping plastic in the oceans is no big deal. I also doubt that this means that plastic is a much bigger problem than we thought (how could it be a bigger problem then we thought? People have been screaming about it like it was a sign of the end-times!). It is interesting, however, and I would like to know why our measurements don't match our expectations.

    --
    just a ghost in the machine.
  54. Re:Explains McDonalds Fish Sandwich Tasting Like P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting fact: I have never eaten a McDonald's fish sandwich. Can someone less biased chime in on the taste?

    Honestly it's hard to tell the difference between beef, chicken, or whatever at most places because all you taste is fried flour and salt.

  55. It's the Sun, son. by Gnostic+Teflon · · Score: 1

    Despite the Chicken Littles' fears, all 'plastics' that I'm aware of are degradable and do in fact degrade in natural settings if given adequate time. Not long times, either. The so-called long-lived fluorocarbon plastics (those in the "Teflon" family) are used for weather-resistant coatings for materials exposed to the outdoors, and most are expected to not last longer than ten years. Solar radiation is a major factor. The energies imparted to plastic molecules via the sun tend to break the chemical bonds of complex compounds down to successively simpler compounds, which make for foodstuffs for microorganisms and gases that find their way to the atmosphere. This has been talked about by materials scientists for decades. The greater public is just generally unaware, as usual. Those that are heavier than water tend to sink, and that's another matter.

  56. Rocks by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Plastic clumps together with other minerals and forms rocks.

    http://news.sciencemag.org/ear...

  57. Avoid calamari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, so if fish have already eaten it and it has not yet entered the food chain, we just have to avoid eating calamari and other non-fish oceanic creatures, and we'll be fine.

  58. Plastic is not _only_ plastic by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    To most of you guys "plastic is plastic", that's all to it

    But the truth is plastic is _more_ than mere plastic --- it is a combination of many types of chemicals, all mixed together to achieve the characteristics of the plastic that it needs to have

    To see it another way, a plastic is like a steak. It is definitely _not_ only a piece of beef, but also the sauce (which itself is made of the starchy gravy - which can be broken up to other more basic components, - the flavoring [salt, sugar, spices, and so on]), plus the added chemicals, such as the aromatics (which is largely benzene group) that were formed when that beef was put over the fire

    Same thing with plastics - it is not only the acrylic resins, but we also need to account for additives such as the plasticizers, color, elastomers, and so on, plus other chemicals that were produced as a by-product of the mixing of all those chemicals over a "heated process"

    When we can eat steaks, the different bacteria inside our guts dissolve different ingredients from the steak that we have eaten

    Bacteria are not like human beings - they do not have other bacteria in their guts !

    Most often a type of bacterium may be able to digest a type of ingredient within a type of plastic, and that is all to it, which means, the other chemicals inside the plastic are still left intact, not dissolved, not digested, not broken down

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Plastic is not _only_ plastic by kimvette · · Score: 0, Troll

      > plus the added chemicals, such as the aromatics (which is largely benzene group) that were formed when that beef was put over the fire

      I eat steak rare (just walk it by the fire please!), you insensitive clod! Putting fire to it more than a few seconds ruins it. >_

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:Plastic is not _only_ plastic by itzly · · Score: 1

      Most often a type of bacterium may be able to digest a type of ingredient within a type of plastic, and that is all to it, which means, the other chemicals inside the plastic are still left intact, not dissolved, not digested, not broken down

      So when the bacterium dies, and breaks open to release these chemicals, other bacteria will digest them. Doesn't sound like a problem.

    3. Re:Plastic is not _only_ plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOLWUT?

    4. Re:Plastic is not _only_ plastic by St.Creed · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... a plastic is like a steak. It is definitely _not_ only a piece of beef, but also the sauce (which itself is made of the starchy gravy - which can be broken up to other more basic components, - the flavoring [salt, sugar, spices, and so on]), plus the added chemicals, such as the aromatics (which is largely benzene group) that were formed when that beef was put over the fire

      What are you *doing* to that poor steak??? With that much shit tacked onto it, you might as well eat fishsticks.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  59. kaiju by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats my guess.

  60. Not going to be ... it IS... by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    Would a square mile of seawater with no scraps of floating plastic harbor more life than a square mile of seawater with a 10' layer of plastic debris? While it does not seem .. ahh .. traditional, maybe that would be a silver lining. Doesn't make sense to use a plastic utensil for 10 minutes and then relegate it to 100 year of status as trash... The world is not that big ... Plus... not every experience with plastic is bad. Put it another way.. We have huge volumes of Non Biodegradable plastic crap in the ocean... What can we do to make it a positive? Its already happened.

    --
    Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
  61. Its all getting swept into the abyss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or the abysses of the worlds oceans, and there it shall remain and likely be compressed into who-knows-what which will be mined by future life forms for some sort of useful purpose. Lets all listen to "Send your love" by sting and pat ourselves on the back for the great job we're doing.

  62. Larry Niven predicted this TEOTWAWKI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sci-Fi author Larry Niven predicted this in his book "Ringworld." He imagined that trash dumps full of room-temperature super conductors would breed bacteria capable of breaking down the room temperature super conductor. From the time the civilization on the ringworld noticed their trash dumps were surprisingly empty, until their civilization ended was such a short time period that archeologists can find almost no records of that time.

    When bacteria start eating plastics like week-old-hamburger-meat, we're screwed. Maybe we can delay the inevitable by keeping our plastics dry.

    ARGH!! My SHTF gun is a Glock! I'm screwed!

  63. One non-disturbing theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found some pertinent information here:

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/how-long-does-it-take-for-plastics-to-biodegrade.htm

    Now, what are we talking about? The non biodegradable ones (Carbon-Carbon) or the ones with polypeptide bonds?

    What about the bisphenol A found in these regions? Would you really want to consume that? Let's feed it to that idiot who pointed out that it's just Carbon, and we ought to be safe consuming it.

    We should have invented eco-friendly plastics the first time, or we owned the harm we have caused.

  64. what I really find disguisting... by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 0

    is that less than 100 years ago oceans were absolutely pristine... and now we know the dangers of our actions and yet the legislators and politics which should be our public servants and represent the global voice of the people are ignoring the situation and taking only weak and localized actions. Where are we heading? Waiting for a random natural bacterial mutation to solve all our problems? Is it still a matter of 'faith' with humans? 'Someone' / ' something' will take care of it... We should change radically remove all our current ruling class and do the best we can with our only Planet, cease this totally insane tribal 'economy' driven society and do only what's best to live in a balance with the environment. We are little men that can only build a fleet of massive solar powered cleaning boats if someone move some paper and numbers in a computer to allocate 'xxx' billions in some bank account. This is so insane.....

    1. Re:what I really find disguisting... by PPH · · Score: 1

      less than 100 years ago oceans were absolutely pristine

      100 years ago, sailors looked forward to tying up in the Hudson River. Because it was so polluted, the water would kill all the parasites (shipworms) that would otherwise burrow into wood hulled boats.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:what I really find disguisting... by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 1

      how far you want to set the bar, 200, 300 years? that's irrelevant if you get the point...

  65. Flight MH370 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The plastic went to the same place as Flight MH370 - the bottom - where it got covered up by fish poop.

  66. so the 88% is 99% free by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

    https://news.yahoo.com/88-perc...

    I'm confused by these reports. What are the real facts?

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    1. Re:so the 88% is 99% free by spitzak · · Score: 1

      You are confused because two percentages measuring different things are not equal?

      88% of the ocean contains plastic debris. The density of this 88% is low enough that this other paper thinks it is only 1% of the plastic that should be in the ocean.

      There now, that was not that hard, was it?

  67. Re:Explains McDonalds Fish Sandwich Tasting Like P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    toc.

  68. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Animals eat it, die, and sink. Vast plastic reserves at the bottom of the ocean.

  69. Bear Grylls finds it and uses it to survive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no way! Bear Grylls uses this to survive on islands for tv shows!

  70. Behold, a Bold and Delicious Future! by Scot+Seese · · Score: 1

    http://goo.gl/1GY2fq .. Very quick, very dirty, and I like mine with jusssst a twist of lemon.

    --
    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
  71. Disturbing Possibily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One disturbing possibility: Fish are eating it. If that's the case, "there is potential for this plastic to enter the global ocean food web," says Carlos Duarte, an oceanographer at the University of Western Australia, Crawley. "And we are part of this food web."

    Another disturbing possibility is that Aliens have introduced genetically engineered elastic polymer life forms into the oceans. They're eating the plastic and when they fully mature they'll attack major metropolitan cities!

  72. Are you kidding me?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're humans. We're not part of the ecosystem. That sounds like liberal nonsense. Nothing we do can possibly go wrong.

  73. Most likely solution by mtthwbrnd · · Score: 1

    Stuff gets stuck to the plastic (bird shit, I don't know, something) and it sinks. Anyway, the ocean is massive so it doesn't really matter. We should dump all of our waste out there and let nature take care of it for us there is *loads* of room in the Ocean.

  74. Re:Explains McDonalds Fish Sandwich Tasting Like P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting fact: I have never eaten a McDonald's fish sandwich. Can someone less biased chime in on the taste?

    It's a typical professionally-designed Mickey Dee's product with nicely balanced flavors. Maybe it's not everyone's cup of tea, but there's nothing terribly wrong about it. Give it a shot and taste it some day. Great with cola and fries.

  75. BPA isn't in grocery store water bottles by sirwired · · Score: 1

    FYI, BPA is not present the the PETE plastic used in water and soda bottles. It WAS present in polycarbonate bottles (rigid clear bottles) such as those used in reusable 5-gallon bottles, and other rigid clear bottles.

  76. That explains it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That explains the direction into which culture in general seems to be going. We are what we eat.

    Not to say that American influence has anything to do with it, oh not, not at all.

  77. Dump shit into the environment, by fredrated · · Score: 1

    end up eating shit. What could be more appropriate?

    1. Re:Dump shit into the environment, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      end up eating shit. What could be more appropriate?

      Of course we've been using literal "shit" as fertilizer for centuries and eating food grown with it (some people call that organic and most appropriate).
      You mean we are dumping *non-biodegradable-garbage* into the environment and end up eating garbage. I hate to break it to you, but that's what generally happens in a biosphere

  78. They left a message by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    They left a message: "So long, and thanks for all the plastic"

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  79. Occam's Razor possibility by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Or maybe the entire premise that there is millions of tons of plastic in the ocean was bullsh*t fearmongering.

  80. no wonder by skoony · · Score: 0

    so thats why no one can locate that giant island of plastic floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean using google earth. or,are they estimating using one of the governments extremely accurate accounting logarithms.

  81. If cats eat it, why can't we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I'm not serious about eating it. But...if my cats are any indication, LOTS of animals are eating the stuff. I have one that thinks it should be his main course for every meal. ...And yes, that means that I've had to cat-proof my house by hiding and disposing of all plastic.

  82. Its the Plastic Cycle by carbonates · · Score: 1

    " or for all we know they’re puking [the plastic] or pooping it out, and there’s no long-term damage. We don’t know.” If this is the case, then the plastic is eventually going to buried under sediments, and at some point will either be subducted where it will convert to various metamorphic rock, or become molten and mix with water and magma and be erupted as igneous rock, or perhaps it will undergo catagenesis and be converted back to petroleum and natural gas, from whence it came.

  83. Bacteria in bacteria? by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
    And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
    .

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:Bacteria in bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Burma Shave

  84. Fish DO EAT the plastics!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There has been stories reported where fish are dying for no apparent reason and are found to have pieces of plastic lodged inside of them that they had ate. This 99% claim of plastic gone missing that is in the sea does not even seem like a very valid or thorough study...

  85. Wrong. The plastic is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fools and horses.... It's obvious if you would just ask former Congressman Dennis Kucinich from Ohio, the missing plastic has been stolen by aliens. They fly into the oceans and steal it! Then they eat it. It was in the Washington Post last week. Don't you read?

  86. yah know....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ......maybe it's not "missing". Maybe the people that claimed all this plastic was there were LYING ALL ALONG? YA THINK?????

    JEEZ.

  87. BS I don't believe it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello it's all in the giant Pacific Coast Garbage Patch! Look it up be informed.