Slashdot Mirror


Paint Dust Covers the Upper Layer of the World's Oceans

sciencehabit (1205606) writes Even when the sea looks clean, its surface can be flecked with tiny fragments of paint and fiberglass. That's the finding from a study that looked for plastic pollution in the uppermost millimeter of ocean. The microscopic fragments come from the decks and hulls of boats, and they could pose a threat to zooplankton, an important part of the marine food web.

141 comments

  1. slowly by polar+red · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're slowly poisoning ourselves. At one point, there will be NO turning back. Scientists have warned us enough!

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    1. Re: slowly by C0R1D4N · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or it is alarmism. Could threaten zooplankton doesn't mean it will or is likely to. Take every news story with some skepticism.

    2. Re: slowly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We'll have to see what the effect ends up being; but there is reason to be a bit concerned about marine paint. Hull fouling is a drag and people go to some lengths to avoid it. Hull paints formulated to slow fouling are quite common and work by being enthusiastically biocidal.

    3. Re: slowly by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or it is alarmism. Could threaten zooplankton doesn't mean it will or is likely to. Take every news story with some skepticism.

      The problem with alarmism is that it makes people skeptical about everything, even real problems. After people read so many stories about the worlds glaciers melting by 2030, and the giant continent sized island of trash in the Pacific, and then later find out that these are wild hyperbole, they stop taking anything seriously. People like Al Gore, that try to scare people into action by exaggerating problems, do a great disservice. We are all better off just telling the truth.

    4. Re:slowly by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      1. Dose makes the poison.
      2. Cleaning up is possible.
      3. "Warned us enough" makes it sound like there's some level of "sufficient" warning for "us". Who are we? What defines its sufficiency?

    5. Re: slowly by dywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      because the conclusions of Silent Spring are somehow invalid and pesticides are so safe you could just gobble them up willy nilly?

      some of the people decrying the human impact on the world may be alarmist or overreacting, but they are far less dangerous than those who try to say that there's no impact, nothing is wrong, and everything is/will be fine, so stop worrying.

      you can try to impugn one side by saying bias, and defend the other by again claiming bias, but that's irrelevent. the science says what it will, and if you follow the science, that's all that matters. in the case of evolution, global warming, or vaccines the science says "its real", "its happening" and "they work". end of story.

      in this new avenue of research the science doesnt say a whole lot yet. its only just started to ask the question, the question being, paraphrased, "is there potential harm here to plankton from particulates in the very top most layer?". there's already been questions asked about the micro-plastics we flush into the water daily (espcially the new fad of plastic microbeads in soaps) that can make it through water treatment plants into the rivers or lakes or oceans, and evidence found that they can buildup in and eventually block fish gills. so this is then related to that line of thinking, but is a new question itself. and it's a good question because plankton is one of the most important (if not THE most important) classes of life on Earth. its the very first link in the food chain for a majority of life on Earth. Further its also the primary producer of oxygen, both atmospheric and water-dissolved, which is fairly important too.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    6. Re: slowly by morcego · · Score: 1

      I do take it with skepticism. I can also do basic math.
      Unless something changes, things tend to continue moving on the same direction. If the amount of paint residue on the oceans is increasing steadily, it will continue to increase (again, if nothing changes).
      So yeah, there is cause for worry, maybe even alarm. Panic? No. Panic will be when we start seeing large scale effects of this.

      --
      morcego
    7. Re: slowly by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Like most things the truty is probably somewhere in the middle. Plastic and paint floating on the ocean is not good and will no doubt do some harm but it's not likely to end all life on the planet. Maybe some really big skimmers? Solar powered of course.

    8. Re: slowly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because the conclusions of Silent Spring are somehow invalid and pesticides are so safe you could just gobble them up willy nilly?

      ...

      No, because it's Luddite misanthropy.

      Aww, hell. Who am I kidding. Calling knee-jerk "environmentalism" Luddite misanthropy is too flattering and gives it too much intellectual heft. It's not that deep. It's simply "MAN == EVIL".

    9. Re: slowly by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Skepticism is the break of progress.

      Every one pointing out something is an 'alarmist' (I guess that is a swear word now in the US? Or a kind of defamation? Are you surprised that other languages/societies does not even have a word for that? There e.g. is no german word for "alarmist". If someone is pointing out something we think about it. We do not just say: 'oh, an alarmist'.

      Could threaten zooplankton doesn't mean it will or is likely to. Take every news story with some skepticism.
      It exactly means what is written there: take precaution and consider to stop pollution long long long before you are certain it is a thread.
      WTF: smoking is dangerous ... no need to smoke 10.000 packages to realize: Oh, I feel unhealthy.
      That was known when you smoked the first cigarette, not even talking about the package.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:slowly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got to be kidding me. This is brilliant. Raise the reflectivity of the water and decrease global warming. Woohoo! Paint the oceans! Make them shiny!

    11. Re: slowly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Could threaten zooplankton doesn't mean it will or is likely to.

      I have to ask: do you just do random things in your life, rationalizing that it's okay just because the consequences are most likely not going to kill you once they become known? In my book, that's called playing Russian Roulette.

    12. Re: slowly by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You are completely right, except for: Al Gore dod not exaggerate anything!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re: slowly by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      because the conclusions of Silent Spring are somehow invalid and pesticides are so safe you could just gobble them up willy nilly?

      Don't be stupid. There's a profound difference between using something responsibly and being a complete moron. Drinking too much water can kill you. Mercury can kill you, but we put it in CFL fluorescent lamps. Many cleaning products are toxic. Do you have a hard time not drinking or eating them?

      Many of the conclusions in Silent Spring are questionable, at best I'm sure there is validity to some, or even much of it. But that's how you make a good lie, isn't it? I'd like to think that Rachel Carson had the best of intentions with this book. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      you can try to impugn one side by saying bias, and defend the other by again claiming bias, but that's irrelevent. the science says what it will, and if you follow the science, that's all that matters.

      Science doesn't say anything. It's our, as a race, interpretations of what we observe. It doesn't take sides or have opinions. If the observations are wrong, then most of the time the conclusions are also wrong.

      in the case of evolution, global warming, or vaccines the science says "its real", "its happening" and "they work". end of story.

      There is no "end of story". Yes vaccines work. But that doesn't mean we should stop. They can always work better, or be improved. Some vaccines have had terrible side effects in the past. We should keep working to improve them.

      Obviously AWG is occurring. But if it's "end of story" we should stop spending money on proving it further, shouldn't we? But it's a very complex problem, and all of the politics and money involved on both sides has clouded this issue almost beyond comprehension. As if it wasn't difficult enough without all the noise.

      Scientific theories are disproved, revised and improved upon all the time. That's the very nature of science. There is no "end of story". It's a journey, not a destination. How many scientific theories have lasted 500 years? 100 years? Or even 50 years?

    14. Re: slowly by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Nothing shy of a nearby gamma burst or the eventual day when the sun goes red-giant is likely to end all life on Earth.

      But there are a lot of things shy of that that can make life really uncomfortable for us, perhaps terminally so. It's happened 5 times before, to longer-lived species than us.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    15. Re: slowly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There e.g. is no german word for "alarmist". If someone is pointing out something we think about it. We do not just say: 'oh, an alarmist'.

      The temptation to Godwin this thread is almost overwhelming.

    16. Re: slowly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How many people would have been saved death or life of poor health from malaria versus how many would have been hurt or killed by DDT?

    17. Re: slowly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      because the conclusions of Silent Spring are somehow invalid and pesticides are so safe you could just gobble them up willy nilly?

      Yes, the conclusions of Silent Spring *are* invalid. Rachel Carson was a left-wing nut job. And DDT actually is safe to eat. Read how the inventor went around the country eating a teaspoon (or was it a tablespoon?) of it at each speech. Did it kill him? No. Did he get cancer? No. DDT is safe and eliminating it costs about 1 million human lives every year because we can't control the mosquitoes spreading disease.

    18. Re: slowly by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Like most things the [truth] is probably somewhere in the middle.

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/B...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    19. Re:slowly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure 97% of someone agrees.....

    20. Re: slowly by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      We'll have to see what the effect ends up being; but there is reason to be a bit concerned about marine paint. Hull fouling is a drag and people go to some lengths to avoid it. Hull paints formulated to slow fouling are quite common and work by being enthusiastically biocidal.

      Except the TFA didn't talk about biocidal hull paint except to note they didn't find it (the paint flecks are heavy and probably drop to the bottom).

      The other Important Bit is to note that this study was done in one area of Korea. We need a bit more research in other places to determine how widespread the issue is. I've seen 'third world' fishing boats that almost entirely paint (and a few scattered boards). Compared to say, American or European boats that are predominantly aluminum and there is a question of exactly how wide spread this issue is.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    21. Re: slowly by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Funny

      Compared to say, American or European boats that are predominantly aluminum

      So then we're creating a problem of Alzheimer's in the plankton.

      Perhaps that explains his devotion to the Chum Bucket and his continued attempts to get the crabby patty recipe?

    22. Re: slowly by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      This is a true fallacy when the conclusion is already drawn, such as media trying to present "both sides" of climate change as if the relevant sides where "yes, it's warming" and "no, it's cooling" -- while the actual discussion is more like "is the impact of effect X on K equal A or B=A+0.01*A, while taking the interaction with effect Y into account?", where the relevant sides of the discussion are those saying it's A and those saying it is 1.01*A.

      In this case (paint dust and zooplankton), I'm less sure if the effect is that well known, so presenting the argument between "it's important" and "it's less important" might be correct.

      So in conclusion, the journalists can usually present a "balance" and be factually correct, but then it has to be between two sides of a non-settled question.

    23. Re: slowly by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      You are completely right, except for: Al Gore dod not exaggerate anything!

      I was going to respond, but it's too easy a target.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    24. Re: slowly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea what "silent spring" is... I assume a publication of some kind from context... but you are being hypocritical.

      because the conclusions of Silent Spring are somehow invalid and pesticides are so safe you could just gobble them up willy nilly?

      vaccines.."they work". end of story"

      First of all, effectiveness isn't the debate looming over vaccines. It is safety. Just because XYZ-pharmacorp who stands to gain from it says "all vaccines are safe, we make them all the same way and we tested the first one pretty good", doesn't mean it's true. Even if it's a little true, that doesn't mean it's 100% true. And just because one vaccine is safe, and others are made a similar way, does not mean ALL vaccines are automagically safe.

      The majority of the debate over vaccines, IMHO, is the amount of hubris over it being safe, like people are just supposed to stick something in their body and take the word of people who clearly demonstrate ignorance of facts like the method of production being different, ingredient substitions, etc. They just blindly assume that it was all accounted for, but none of the studies actually show that (on the rare instances that any are actually done).

      ALL evidence for new vaccines is collected by the pharma co who plans to make money off of it. Studies done by impartial parties or governments aren't done until decades later. The problem is, proponents of vaccines claim "it's been proven", when it truely hasn't. It was a different vaccine, under different circumstances.

      Saying "vaccines are safe". Is like saying "drugs are safe". Not all drugs are safe, and even when they are, not for all human beings equally. Not all drugs interact with the human body the same way. You can't broadly prove anything like that. It is the very essence of hubris.

    25. Re: slowly by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      DDT was never totally banned, just the indiscriminate use of it. From the relevant Wikipedia article:

      A worldwide ban on its agricultural use was later formalised under the Stockholm Convention, but its limited use in disease vector control continues to this day ...

    26. Re: slowly by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      The "old white haired ghost in the sky" never told anyone to destroy the earth and everything in it.
      Ezekiel 34:19
      Psalm 24:1

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    27. Re: slowly by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The entire planet has been dusted with plastic, even the Antarctic interior, we've known this for 40yrs. If there's any "alarmism" here it's not coming from the researchers. Back in Issac Newtons day only peasants ate the oysters that carpeted the shores of the UK. We've spent 250yrs raping the ocean in very obvious ways and are paying the price in collapsed fisheries and expensive mercury laden seafood, plastic dust has yet to be shown to have a significant impact on marine life but OTOH there has been little research on what is a major environmental change to the surface of the planet, those two simple facts make it a very worthy subject of research in my book.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    28. Re: slowly by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Even a gamma burst won't hurt those microbes living miles deep in the Earth. Sterilization through lots of heat seems like the only thing that'll end life on and in the Earth.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    29. Re: slowly by dryeo · · Score: 1

      because the conclusions of Silent Spring are somehow invalid and pesticides are so safe you could just gobble them up willy nilly?

      Yes, the conclusions of Silent Spring *are* invalid. Rachel Carson was a left-wing nut job. And DDT actually is safe to eat. Read how the inventor went around the country eating a teaspoon (or was it a tablespoon?) of it at each speech. Did it kill him? No. Did he get cancer? No. DDT is safe and eliminating it costs about 1 million human lives every year because we can't control the mosquitoes spreading disease.

      Where the fuck does this mis-information come from? The only legal use of DDT is for controlling disease vectors, eg killing mosquitoes. Of course it doesn't work very well anymore as due to indiscriminate use allowed the mosquitoes to build up tolerance to DDT.
      And George Burns proved that smoking is harmless, smoked cigars and lived till a 101.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    30. Re: slowly by dywolf · · Score: 1

      plankton is a mix of types of life. all microscopic. some is animal in type (super micro crustaceans), but a lot of it more akin to plant or bacteria, and as such it takes its energy directly from the sun. that's one reason its mainly found in the upper layers of the ocean.

      and its the reason this line is questioning is important. we know that water clarity can impact the amount of plankton biomass (as well as other submarine ecosystems such as coral reefs). this question is basically heading towards finding hte point at which harm can be done to the plankton. does it start witht he very smallest particles in the very very uppermost top 1mm of the ocean? or does it require more than that?

      but if it does affect the plankton, that most definitely IS a Very Bad Thing (tm).
      We already have science showing decreasing plankton biomass, though there hasnt yet been much alarm about it.
      But if the plankton does go away, yes that actually is an End of (nearly) All Life scenario. All O2 breathing life anyway.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    31. Re: slowly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh please.
      if you didn't understand what he meant by his references to the Big 3 Controversies, you're a fucking idiot.

    32. Re: slowly by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Which is why we are working on creating a tractor beam that can get the Moon to crash into the Earth at a reasonable velocity, to get those microbes deep in the crust! Death to those motherfuckers!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    33. Re: slowly by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Not good enough, there will be big chunks of rock with viable microbes inside. Easy way would be to use the tractor beam to crash into Jupiter. more effective but harder, crash into the Sun.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    34. Re:slowly by flyneye · · Score: 1

      In the meantime, actually dumping paint onto the surface of water, does some pretty amazing things; https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    35. Re: slowly by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The "old white haired ghost in the sky" never told anyone to destroy the earth and everything in it.

      No, but he did give dominion over most of it to man, and he doesn't seem to have actually given him a directive to protect it. Instead, he's been promised an accounting day which will consist of a holy war between people who have already died.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:slowly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck sake you people and your religion. Science didn't warn us, Scientists CAUSED this...

    37. Re: slowly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry, bullshit. we have overrun our planet. we are consuming at a rate faster than natural replenishment and restoration. we are introducing artificial manmade chemicals that the environment cannot remove. we're fucking ourselves and the planet will enforce its rules upon us. have fun with that.

    38. Re: slowly by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Being enthusiastically biocidal is better than unwittingly transporting mussels and other vermin from one coastline to another.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    39. Re: slowly by Sciath · · Score: 1

      You're obviously insane. There have been countless "scientific" studies that contradict your assertions. It's only been since the use of DDT was largely outlawed or banned that the American and Bald Eagles have recovered from near extinction. An article as part of a Duke University course provides a brief summary of the adverse effects of DDT. http://people.chem.duke.edu/~j... There is such a thing as extreme skepticism of which you are a good example. Reminds me of the flat earth philosophy.

      --
      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
  2. Great Pacific Garbage Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do you remember your amazement when hearing about the pacific garbage patch? And then how you felt when you actually looked it up?

  3. Sherwin-Williams Conspiracy by timrod · · Score: 5, Funny

    This makes Sherwin-Williams and their "Cover the Earth" logo look a lot less like a paint seller/manufacturer and a lot more like some kind of Bond villain.

    1. Re:Sherwin-Williams Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn it! You beat me to it!

    2. Re:Sherwin-Williams Conspiracy by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Thank you, man. Literally busted out laughing when I read that.

    3. Re:Sherwin-Williams Conspiracy by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 2

      Literally busted out laughing...

      I'm just gonna leave this here

    4. Re:Sherwin-Williams Conspiracy by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'll just leave this here

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Some sort of protective coating... by TWX · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe there's some sort of protective coating that we could put on the ocean surface to prevent this from happening...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Some sort of protective coating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps oil?

  5. rap it! by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    It wouldn't be a threat to zoo-plankton if there weren't so fucking many people who need so fucking many boats.

    1. Re:rap it! by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      People who need boats made of artificial fiberglass or have to paint them, you mean. Native tribes and colonial explorers used wooden ships and had more naturally derived products in the sealing.

  6. Perpetrator Identified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a gander at the Sherwin-Williams logo: https://www.google.com/search?q=sherwin-williams+logo

    Hint for the lazy: slogan reads "Cover the Earth (in paint)"

  7. Math by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On average, a liter of water from the microlayer contained 195 particles—this concentration is 10 to 100 times higher than microplastic particles in water collected by other methods.

    One litre of water is 1,000,000 cubic millimetres. Given a depth of 1 mm that would cover 1 square meter. So therefore 195 particles per square meter. They don't go into how big these particles are. The issue is that these particle float and therefore would be concentrated in the upper 1 millimetre of water. They have not shown it is a problem.

    1. Re:Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 litre == 1000 "milli-liters"

    2. Re: Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem really is one of metrics. The finer one can measure something, the more one can carry ob about it. The 'arsenic in our drinkibg water' hysteria tha was spun up (surprise, surprise) shortly after Dubya became president is an example.

      "We can measure this. And use it as an issue."

    3. Re:Math by HaeMaker · · Score: 3, Informative

      1 litre == 1,000,000 CUBIC MILLIMETRES. Just as jklovanc said.

    4. Re:Math by Talderas · · Score: 0

      The homeopaths would leave you to believe that this is a MAJOR issue and the ENTIRE PUBLIC'S HEALTH and SAFETY is at RISK.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    5. Re:Math by killkillkill · · Score: 2

      So... 195,000,000 particles per square kilometer in our 361 million square kilometers of ocean. That is over 70 quadrillion paint particles polluting our oceans. We are all clearly doomed!

    6. Re:Math by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

      Yet, we should measure this every year to see if the number is increasing.

    7. Re:Math by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      The homeopaths would lead you to believe that this is roughly 10^98 times too concentrated to work. Oh, and that it would make you immune to paint.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    8. Re:Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zomg! We'd better make it a stronger concentration immediately! If you remove some, thus diluting it, the homeopathic effect will be even worse!!

      Maybe they think it's making the tiny planktons immune to paint!

    9. Re:Math by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      1 "milli-liters" = 1 cubic centimetre (cc) = 1000 cubic millimetres

    10. Re:Math by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      They have not shown it is a problem.

      Perhaps not but its certainly worth following up on a previously unknown phenomenon that may or may not affect the global food supply. Your math showing an apparently small concentration doesn't take into account the biology of any creature living in the ocean. You haven't shown there isn't a problem.

    11. Re:Math by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      You haven't shown there isn't a problem.

      Proving a negative is almost impossible. For example, prove that you are not a serial killer.

    12. Re:Math by hey! · · Score: 2

      So... 195,000,000 particles per square kilometer in our 361 million square kilometers of ocean. That is over 70 quadrillion paint particles polluting our oceans. We are all clearly doomed!

      It depends on whether the particles are accumulating faster than they are leaving the system. If the figures we're talking about represent an equilibrium that will continue indefinitely into the future, surely we are not doomed. But if the concentration of particles is increasing and people need to do something about this before it becomes a problem, we might be.

      Eventually something's going to get our species. Either changes in the Sun will make the Earth uninhabitable to anything recognizably human, or we'll do ourselves in before then.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Math by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      If I were a serial killer I would not want others to know about it.
      They would put me in prison or kill me, an undesirable outcome.

      You clearly either know or suspect.
      You are part of "others".
      You are capable or telling others.

      I should silence you.
      Killing you would be a very effective way to silence you.

      If I were a serial killer I would be capable of causing your death
      I am not a serial killer, or you would be dead.
      QED.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    14. Re:Math by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If I were a serial killer I would be capable of causing your death

      [citation needed]

      I am not a serial killer, or you would be dead.
      QED.

      The ability to do a thing does not equal having done the thing.

      QED, you do not have a valid argument

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Math by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      You clearly either know or suspect.

      I neither know or suspect. I am just making an accusation and challenging you to prove it false.

      If I were a serial killer I would be capable of causing your death

      You have no idea who I am or where I live. Maybe you are only capable of killing children under the age of five?

      I am not a serial killer, or you would be dead.

      The other explanations for my continues existence are as follows;
      1. You don't know who I am.
      2. You don't have the financial resources to come to me and kill me.
      3. You don't have the capability of killing someone who can defend themselves.
      4. The attempt would uncover your actions.
      To put it slightly differently "You have been arrested by the police and are accused of being a child killer. Prove that you have never killed a child".

    16. Re:Math by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Nor do they tell us the ratio to non-plastic junk floating in that same water, especially naturally occuring junk. Not every particle floating in the oceans is of human origin; I'd hazard most are the result of atmospheric dust.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    17. Re:Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 litre == 1,000,000 MICRO LITRES!!! Gp AC is absolutely correct!!!

    18. Re:Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you all can see how easy the metric system is. Here is a discussion where everybody is correct. Bring the popcorn!

  8. Least green logo ever by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    Driving by a S-W a few months ago I wondered if that was the least "green" logo in use today, perhaps ever.

    Nominations, anyone?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Least green logo ever by timrod · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I noticed Halliburton doesn't have a corporate logo, so I started drawing them one that might be less green. The logo is Dick Cheney in a Hummer H-2 running over small woodland creatures while dumping unused barrels of Agent Orange out of the Hummer's trunk and lighting the rainforest on fire with a flamethrower.

      Now if only I had any actual artistic talent and this didn't look like a giant blob of orange highlighter.

    2. Re:Least green logo ever by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The logo is Dick Cheney in a Hummer H-2 running over small woodland creatures while dumping unused barrels of Agent Orange out of the Hummer's trunk and lighting the rainforest on fire with a flamethrower.

      That is so fucking totally unfair. Agent Orange is a Monsanto product.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Least green logo ever by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Blackwater has a bad rep, but their logos don't look too bad. Since I've had a lot of plumbing issues recently, I think of Blackwater in the plumbing sense - sewage.

    4. Re:Least green logo ever by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      I live in a neighborhood that is totally republican. I named the local groundhog Cheney. It's difficult for the neighbors because when a raven flies by they want to say something but can't find the words.

    5. Re:Least green logo ever by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      You're pretty much accurately depicted Bruce Bohmke there.

  9. Obvious solution by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

    Fish from helicopters. There, problem solved.

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  10. Balancing skepticism by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's important not to accept any input as pure fact on its face. It's equally important to accept facts that are verified, even if inconvenient. Far too often, "healthy skepticism" is another way to say "inconvenient so LA LA LA LA LA (fingers in ears)".

    Fact is that micro pollutants are just now entering the threshold of human understanding - and it's a bigger problem than just about anybody guessed.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Balancing skepticism by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      just because we are just finding out about them, when shipping has been happening for centuries kind of tells me that its not a bigger problem than anyone guessed as it hasnt shown to be a problem

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Balancing skepticism by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      You know wha an 'integral' is in math?
      The current AGW situation is not driven by the current output of CO2.
      It is driven by the output during the previous 150 years. Sure, we are on peak output, but ten years of what we put out right mow is far away from what we did the last hundred years.
      Nevertheless the problem is right now.
      Exactly the same as with the article we talk about.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Balancing skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hulls were primarily wooden until how long ago?

    4. Re:Balancing skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have the numbers, but the amount of ships has probably increased a lot in the last 100 years alone. Also it seems likely that the paint used today is different from Columbus' days; maybe it's worse, maybe it's better in regards to pollution. Shipping's long history doesn't tell whether this paint dust is a big problem or not.

    5. Re: Balancing skepticism by C0R1D4N · · Score: 2

      Wooden hulls were painted as well.

    6. Re:Balancing skepticism by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      just because we are just finding out about them, when shipping has been happening for centuries kind of tells me that its not a bigger problem than anyone guessed as it hasnt shown to be a problem

      No, no it does not. You can make that assumption, but it is not in any way supported by the given evidence. That we're finding out about it now only means that we've found out about it now; it tells us nothing about the scope. A whole new family of plastics was just invented by accident. You don't think we've been looking for new plastics? And it's not like it was some strange new combination of things, it was leaving out an ingredient. The truth is that we miss things all the time which look obvious in hindsight, either because of coincidence or because we finally became able to detect them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re: Balancing skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that far back in history, no.

    8. Re:Balancing skepticism by mopower70 · · Score: 2

      Fact is that micro pollutants are just now entering the threshold of human understanding - and it's a bigger problem than just about anybody guessed.

      Fact is, that's a logically inconsistent statement. If it's just now entering the threshold of human understanding, than there can't possibly be enough evidence to call it a "bigger problem than just about anybody guessed". Unless, of course, nobody thought it was a problem at all - in which case they wouldn't be called pollutants, but unicorn dust or leprechaun farticles.

    9. Re: Balancing skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most wooden hulls were clad in copper, and/or painted in tar/bitumen.

      Paint technology has always been challenged by the marine environment. But not any more. And now, low and behold, there is paint appearing in the water column.

    10. Re:Balancing skepticism by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Fact is that micro pollutants are just now entering the threshold of human understanding

      Or perhaps micro pollutants are just now entering the threshold of human measurement, and the News is reporting it because it's a new thing. (Hence the name.)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    11. Re:Balancing skepticism by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Around 100-150 years ago.

    12. Re:Balancing skepticism by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In your rush to correct people you failed to account for the meaning of "human understanding". It doesn't mean that just one human understands. The above sentence makes it clear that someone may well have guessed, but that the general assumption has been that there was no problem.

      Someone always gets it. Unfortunately, they are usually ignored until it's too late.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re: Balancing skepticism by Reziac · · Score: 1

      More often they were tarred or varnished. And historical paints were made from equally 'natural' materials, eg. linseed oil and white lead. Which generally are more ablative than modern paints.

      My next question is... if the ultimate upshot is a ban on ocean shipping, cui bono?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  11. Yes by tomxor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If your food ends up with components of the paint in it that turn out to be mildly carcinogenic... there's this thing called the food chain.

    There is also a problem with plastics entering the food chain in a similar way.

  12. Looking at the positive side of this by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Presumably, this paint and fibreglass has higher reflectivity, thus reducing climate change?

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Looking at the positive side of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Potentially less heat transferred to the water which could potentially yield less ocean water evaporation which potentially could lead to less naturally occurring potable water?

    2. Re:Looking at the positive side of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably, this paint and fibreglass has higher reflectivity, thus reducing climate change?

      I don't know. They didn't say what color the paint was.

    3. Re:Looking at the positive side of this by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      Only the horribly racist, oppressive, and imperialist white paint.

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    4. Re:Looking at the positive side of this by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The total area covered is a minuscule percentage of what was formerly uncovered.

      Personally, I don't buy it, because plankton isn't a thing, it's a class of things. Because we are talking about particles, the danger isn't to plankton. The danger is to plankton feeders. Individual plankton which die because they come in contact with a paint particle are going to fall out of the mix and become food for something lower down instead of something feeding near the surface. Not all of them are going to be vulnerable to them to begin with, and might well attach to them harmlessly — and be consumed by something which is feeding near the surface. Either way, the problem is not the effect on the plankton, but that the paint particles will enter the food chain via the plankton. The idea that the plankton will be meaningfully affected by particles which they grossly outnumber is a silly one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Looking at the positive side of this by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I find it more likely that some microorganism will find a way to extract energy from the particles, if it's not already doing so. Which may produce the GP's possible state of equilibrium.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:Looking at the positive side of this by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I find it more likely that some microorganism will find a way to extract energy from the particles, if it's not already doing so.

      That's not a good thing. Paints are overwhelmingly still colored with things we don't want in the food chain. We really don't want plankton to metabolize these particles. We want them to stay as intact as possible for as long as possible, ideally until they somehow end up on the ocean floor or in a cleanup project somewhere — but anywhere that won't put them into the food chain or drinking water would be fantastic.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Why would there be fish in helicopters? by tomxor · · Score: 1

    Also it doesn't seem like a long term solution. These helicopters would need to be carefully and sustainably fished.

    1. Re:Why would there be fish in helicopters? by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      Not the free range ones, they breed like bunnies!

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  14. Not even a part per billion. by Himmy32 · · Score: 0

    ~200 particles vs ~3*10^25 molecules of water in liter seems pretty small. Especially since these plastics aren't very reactive. Seems pretty small scale of a problem.

    1. Re:Not even a part per billion. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Not once the media gets hold of it. Prepare for sensationalism acceleration.

    2. Re:Not even a part per billion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your maths calculation is wrong and misleading.

      Your mistake was to treat the particles as atoms, or molecules. But they aren't. The particles themselves are probably ug or mg of material, which would contain at least 10^10 molecules themselves.

  15. Re:Holy shit by dywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    remember how kids eating chips of lead based paint ended up with physiological damage because of the chemials dissolving and entering their tissues?

    same concept.
    just smaller chips.
    and a much larger affected biomass.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  16. If you look for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you look for it you will find it. These stories of people who purposely search out the most bizarre always claim to be correct. I believe these narrow minded, sanctomonious liars are a dime a dozen and /. is their haven.

  17. Fiberglass Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    that stuff is the Worst.
    I work in a big German Yacht building business, so i've got some experience with that stuff.
    Avoid that shit at all costs. If you get in on your skin it will itch and sting you.
    If you try to wash it of you might have some temporary relief, but put some clothes on or lay down in your bed and it will sting terribly.
    If you're new to the stuff, it sometimes will last for more than a day.
    I know people who got so used to it, the sometimes don't even wear the safety overals. These guys are seriously hardcore.
    I myself, always wear all the protection i can.
    Add to that the health hazzards of Epoxy Resin ,Resin , Topcoat, Gelcoat and other stuff and you've got yourself a great workplace. yehaw

    Just Avoid it. Seriously.

  18. Yawn heard 'round the GOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every republican / right leaning human in the world looked at those pictures and said, "Well, thank God it's not in my back yard, or near my vacation house. Oops - better go check the baby seal steaks on the grill - don't want to burn them!"

  19. Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world is a filthy place, indeed. I never thought of it before, but how many shoes have you worn thin in your life? A lot, I bet. Well, all that rubber you leave behind on roads and sidewalks gets washed into the ecosystem when it rains. Oh, and let's not forget about tire rubber! That stuff is everywhere!

    Not only that, but clothing leaves bits of plastic all over your house and human skin cells float in the atmosphere and get inhaled when you breathe.

    It's a dirty, dirty world.

  20. Sherwin Williams Has it Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/Sherwin_Williams.svg/150px-Sherwin_Williams.svg.png

  21. Re:Holy shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    remember how kids eating chips of lead based paint ended up with physiological damage

    Corellation, causation, etc, etc. Perhaps people who eat paint chips do so due to pre-existing physiological damage.

  22. 97%, so FU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If 'the science' said it, it must be true. Leonardo would probably double check anyways.

  23. Re:Holy shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Already figured out and no. When Lead was legislated out of paint, the resulting damage lessened greatly.

    Kids gonna kid, and still eat paint chips.

  24. Re: so are Alkyd bad or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wiki: Because the major components of an alkyd coating, i.e. fatty acids and triglyceride oils, are derived from low cost renewable resources, this has kept the cost of alkyd coatings very low despite ever increasing cost of petroleum, which is the predominant raw material source of most other coatings such as vinyls, acrylics, epoxies, and polyurethanes. Typical sources of drying oils for alkyd coatings are: linseed, tung, sunflower oil, safflower oil, walnut oil, soybean oil, fish oil, corn oil, DCO. (made by dehydrating castor oil, which creates a semi drying, conjugated, oil/fatty acid), and tall oil (resinous oil by-product from pulp and paper manufacturing). Non drying/ plasticizer resins are made from castor, palm, coconut oils and cardura (a synthetic fatty, versatic acid). Dehydrated castor oil was at one time the only oil allowed to be used in resin manufacture in India, no edible oils were allowed to be used.

  25. FEEEEEED ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The irony in this post is delectable!

    1. Re:FEEEEEED ME by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      Especially because, in actuality, Slashdot says my karma is excellent. The sig is a lie.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  26. scientific theories that have lasted 500 years? by Layzej · · Score: 2

    Scientific theories are disproved... How many scientific theories have lasted 500 years? 100 years? Or even 50 years?

    The three cases in question (evolution, global warming, and vaccines) have all been around for more than 100 years. The practice of science (or natural philosophy) is not 500 years old, so it is unlikely that any of her findings are older. Even so, none of the three examples will be overturned after 500 years. It is implausible that we will eventually find out that vaccines actually don't work, or that evolution isn't really happening, etc. We have observed all of these.

    1. Re:scientific theories that have lasted 500 years? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      The three cases in question (evolution, global warming, and vaccines) have all been around for more than 100 years. The practice of science (or natural philosophy) is not 500 years old,

      Humans have been observing and recording those observations in order to make sense of the universe since before we even had a concept of what the universe was.

      The move towards a rational understanding of nature began at least since the Archaic period in Greece (650 â" 480 BCE) with the Pre-Socratic philosophers. The philosopher Thales of Miletus (7th and 6th centuries BCE), dubbed "the Father of Science" for refusing to accept various supernatural, religious or mythological explanations for natural phenomena, proclaimed that every event had a natural cause.

      Provided we don't destroy ourselves or our civilization, and baring global catastrophes, I'm guessing that what we believe now will seem pretty damn primitive in another 2500 years.

      Even so, none of the three examples will be overturned after 500 years. It is implausible that we will eventually find out that vaccines actually don't work

      No, but the ones we use today will seem pretty primitive in another 100 years.

      or that evolution isn't really happening, etc. We have observed all of these.

      I would like to think that evolution will not be disproved. From what we can observe at the moment it certainly makes the most sense. But who knows what the future will bring. We've certainly been way off on our observations in the past. It wouldn't be the first time that a theory that was well accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community has been discarded either.

      That was my entire point. Opinions change as new data presents itself. You should never simply stop looking. Sometimes the world can surprise you.

    2. Re:scientific theories that have lasted 500 years? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      An example of science that hasn't changed much is the observation (shadows and geometry) by one of those Greeks that the Earth is a sphere of around 25,000 miles in circumference. We've refined it but the basic science has stood up quite well.
      Probably some of our current science will be the same, refined but basically right.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  27. You think that's bad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think that's bad think about all the rubber particles in our environment from tires wearing down from use on roads. They all get washed into our water ways. I think if you pick any highly used substance you could do some research and find it in the ocean in abundance, especially if it floats.

  28. Will sunlight break down the chemicals? by Marrow · · Score: 1

    The upper millimeter of the ocean is a very sunny place to be.

  29. another record by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 0

    Thanks capitalism, infinite growth in a closed system ideas.... and all the 'screw this planet we going to enjoy endless singing in the rings of heaven when we die anyways' bandwagon... we are in a damn closed system, we should start to LIMIT things... think 10 times over before we embrace some crazy 'lets move 1 billions containers full of replicable goods trough the globe because we can'.... (and because the 1% just get wealthier ).... fuck all this.... we are playing Russian roulette with our heads everyday.... .. fucking sad human race...

    1. Re:another record by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      In other words, stop buying shit made in China. If enough people do that then even the 1% will listen. Even in the US, it is still easy to find shit made here - you just have to look. And most of the the time the price is about the same and the quality is better.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    2. Re:another record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree totally. As a first step, we should limit how much you get to post on Slashdot. Then maybe we can start working on the exorbitant amount of oxygen you waste. You aren't the only person on this planet that has to breathe!

    3. Re:another record by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      we are in a damn closed system, we should start to LIMIT things

      This is why I am damned tired of hearing the "we must have nuclear because we otherwise can't produce enough base load to produce all our disposable garbage wal-mart shit" argument. We're engaging in too much economic activity, and the argument that we must not only sustain but increase it is not laughable but terrifying.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  30. Get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just a display of a phenomenon that has enabled many scams at the EPA. As time passes, we are able to build better and better instruments, which in-turn enable us to detect smaller and smaller amounts of things. When you couple that with the statistical studies that show that nearly everything has a statistical chance to contribute to the shortening of your life, you get: hyperbolic headlines, activist mantras, and regulatory overreach

    The oceans are filled with (and coated with) LOTS of nasty stuff (think of all the critters and people who've died at sea, all the critters that poop there, all the ships and planes that have sunk, plus all the volcanic vents, etc. If you get the right instruments and look for the right stuff, you can write a screaming headline to scare a whole boatload of soccermoms into supporting bans on dihydrogenmonoxide...

  31. As a deep-sea mariner... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Caveat: I spend 6-10 months a year out beyond the continental shelf in a "haze gray and underway" vessel.

    TL;TA;DREA (Too Long; Too Asinine; Didn't Read Entire Article) "16 KM" of the coast of Korea is still within the "Bob and Betty Bayliner" area, and localized pollution. International waters, but still localized. Sure, they are describing a floating pollution, but it is incredibly minor compared to the sheer amount of trash in that area - plastic water bottles, shopping bags, etc. I've been in Pusan/Busan Harbor after the rains, and there are rafts of plastic bottles floating close to the shoreline that have been washed down from the land. Fishermen around the world still aren't paying attention to international maritime law - which pretty much states "don't throw any trash overboard" - and you can pretty much spot the routes that the cruise ships/ferriers take by looking for the styrofoam cups (about one every mile) chucked over the side by lazy passengers. And the "big boys" out here are incredibly clean compared to Joe-Shmoe-Fisherman. But it's the "Bob and Betty Bayliner" types who are the dirtiest.

  32. I blame the Ancient Mariner by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Day after day, day after day,
    We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
    As idle as a painted ship
    Upon a painted ocean.

  33. James Ballard by LienRag · · Score: 1

    Reading James Ballard's "The Burning World" I found the scientific premise difficult to believe.
    But apparently it's not that ludicrous...