Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the In-his-plastic-house-at-R'lyeh-dead-Cthulhu-waits-dreaming dept.

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."

35 of 304 comments (clear)

  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: 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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?
    7. 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!
    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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...
    11. 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.
    12. 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.

    13. 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.
    14. Re: One non-disturbing theory by gtall · · Score: 5, Funny

      prepackaged fish sticks?

    15. 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.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    16. 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...

  2. 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: 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.”

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

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

    tic.

  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. The only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned by netsavior · · Score: 3, Funny

    "It wanted plastic"
    George Carlin

  11. 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.

  12. 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
  13. 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!
  14. 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 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)