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."
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!
That's the most obvious answer. Fish do not eat plastic, and even if they did, they couldn't digest it.
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?
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!
Where is the link to the article?
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.
tic.
...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)?
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
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!
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
The article doesn't say the fish flesh has plastic bits in it.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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...
Degrades plastic slowly over time. Most plastic will float in water.
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.
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
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.
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.
Here's the "Science" magazine page:
http://news.sciencemag.org/env...
and here's the referenced paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
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?"
"It wanted plastic"
George Carlin
And here's to you Mrs. Robinson...
Table-ized A.I.
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...
Disturbingly 99% of data missing from scientific study. Where could all of it have gone?
Somebody stole it and made it into jillions of AOL disks
Table-ized A.I.
They just don't make Horta like they used to
Table-ized A.I.
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!"
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?
It's not really a food "web". It's more like a series of tubes, you see...
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!'.
..can't find a god damn plane.
In this educational video.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
We don't need an FA, we just need a paragraph and ominous wording!
It's becoming plastiglomerate! See: http://www.geosociety.org/gsat...
That's good, right?
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
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.
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.
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
http://news.sciencemag.org/env...
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.
Plastic clumps together with other minerals and forms rocks.
http://news.sciencemag.org/ear...
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 !
Fish ate it.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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."
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.
http://goo.gl/1GY2fq .. Very quick, very dirty, and I like mine with jusssst a twist of lemon.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
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.
Why so cynical?
Well, there's a thick cloud cover outside and the western economic recession is going on. Makes one sad and disappointed.
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.
end up eating shit. What could be more appropriate?
They left a message: "So long, and thanks for all the plastic"
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Or maybe the entire premise that there is millions of tons of plastic in the ocean was bullsh*t fearmongering.
how far you want to set the bar, 200, 300 years? that's irrelevant if you get the point...
" 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.
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.