Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Remote Pacific Island Is the Most Plastic-Contaminated Spot Yet Surveyed (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the great-pacific-garbage-patch dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Plastic is durable -- very, very durable -- which is why we like it. Since it started being mass-produced in the 1950s, annual production has increased 300-fold. Because plastic is so durable, when our kids grow up and we purge our toy chests, or even just when we finish a bottle of laundry detergent or shampoo, it doesn't actually go away. While we're recycling increasing amounts of plastic, a lot of it still ends up in the oceans. Floating garbage patches have brought some attention to the issue of our contamination of the seas. But it's not just the waters themselves that have ended up cluttered with plastic. A recent survey shows that a staggering amount of our stuff is coming ashore on the extremely remote Henderson Island. Henderson Island is a UNESCO World Heritage site in the Pitcairn Group of Islands in the South Pacific, roughly half way between New Zealand and Peru. According to UNESCO, Henderson is one of the best examples we have of an elevated coral atoll ecosystem. It was colonized by Polynesians between the 12th and 15th centuries but has been uninhabited by humans since then. It is of interest to evolutionary biologists because it has 10 plant species and four bird species that are only found there. Despite its uninhabited status and its extremely remote location, a recent survey of beach plastic on Henderson Island revealed that the island has the highest density of debris reported anywhere in the world: an estimated minimum of 37.7 million items weighing 17.6 tons. This represents the total amount of plastic that is produced in the world every 1.98 seconds. Further reading: Here And Now

81 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. It's not plastic that's the problem... by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Plastic has great utility (as long as it's safe), it's disposable plastic that's the problem. And much of it is just for convenience that's not necessarily all that convenient.

    As an example -- I've been drinking water from disposable plastic bottles for over a decade and just recently switched to refilling water at my local store. At 50 cents a gallon I pay less for higher quality water in a BPA-free container. I had thought that's too much of a hassle but with "double buffering" it's actually less hassle than the bottled water, it's cheaper, tastier, and supposedly healthier.

    1. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      just recently switched to refilling water at my local store. At 50 cents a gallon ...

      Could please you explain your rationale for doing this instead of just getting water from the faucet in your kitchen?

    2. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Most tap water is poisoned with fluoride.

    3. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most tap water is poisoned with fluoride.

      The water sold in the grocery store is usually filtered tap water. The filtering does not remove fluoride. In fact, there is no evidence that it removes anything other than money from your wallet.

    4. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      Proper reverse-osmosis filtration will remove fluoride but the resulting water is too soft and should be buffered salts/electrolytes

    5. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by msauve · · Score: 1

      "The water sold in the grocery store is usually filtered tap water."

      Only some of it. "Drinking" or "purified" water is usually as you say. "Spring" or "mineral" water is usually from a natural source (well). There's also distilled and/or RO water.

      I'm not sure what you mean by "usually," but I suspect sales of spring waters exceeds that of drinking water in locations with palatable municipal water. If the tap water is really bad, it's probably drinking water which sells the most, because it tends to be cheaper than spring water.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We have unimaginably good tasting well water here. Good enough that I sometimes ponder if bottling and selling it would be practical. Our well is the deepest on the highway we live on.

      A lot of 'natural' well water has a lot of fluoride in it. Fluoride in water is not something unnatural. It's just that some water doesn't have an adequate amount of fluoride to discourage tooth decay.

      In our case, we just brush with a fluoridated toothpaste ("Pepsodent", a paleo-brand of toothpaste that they sell at Walgreens for $1 a tube) to be sure.

    7. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Primary reason is taste: my tap water, clean though it is, does not taste good to me -- I do not wish to drink it except when I must. It is also very hard. Fluoride is another reason. Reverse osmosis used by the water station where I refill supposedly removes fluoride.

      But at any rate, taste alone is enough of a reason.

    8. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      But your teeth will be cavity free when archeologist discover your carcass.

    9. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is your town water contaminated? If so you have my sympathies. If not then why the hell would you bother buying the stuff at the supermarket when you can just fill up a glass (or a refillable water bottle if you're going out) at the tap? If you're really fussy you can even buy things called water filters that will (depending on the model) not only filter the water but chill it ready for consumption. There is precisely zero reason to waste money and resources buying it at the store.

    10. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Proper reverse-osmosis filtration will remove fluoride but the resulting water is too soft and should be buffered salts/electrolytes

      The "bring-your-own-bottle" machines at the grocery store do not use reverse osmosis. They use cheap activated charcoal filters, which do not remove fluoride even when they are changed regularly, which usually aren't. The input is tap water, and the output is, well, basically tap water.

    11. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The "bring-your-own-bottle" machines at the grocery store do not use reverse osmosis.

      My local hippie co-op has machines for filtered, RO, and DI water.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by sheramil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Plastic has great utility (as long as it's safe), it's disposable plastic that's the problem.

      Disposable plastic isn't the problem. It's partly dumbshits who think plastic should be disposable, and other dumbshits who treat it like it is.

      Having worked in the plastics industry.. it's weird how plastic is incredibly durable, unless you need it to be, in which case it degrades and breaks down almost immediately.. although that could be observation bias.

    13. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >" It's just that some water doesn't have an adequate amount of fluoride to discourage tooth decay."

      There is no need for it in water anymore in first-world countries. Almost every common toothpaste and dental rinse has way more than enough to prevent tooth decay. I can't imagine drinking it is necessary or has been for decades now.

    14. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      lets change that around a little to something else you probably also blindly believe:

      there is no need for vaccinations anymore in first-world countries. i can't imagine vaccinations being necessary or having been for decades now.

      **

      fluoride in drinking water, at the right levels, is a huge boost for dental health.. especially among children and teens, and especially among the poor. it is ridiculously inexpensive to do at the municipal water supply. there is no reason not to do it.

    15. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by labnet · · Score: 1

      RO water is not good for your long term as essential minerals like calcium are removed which can mess with your bones and gut.

      --
      46137
    16. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The filtering does not remove fluoride. In fact, there is no evidence that it removes anything other than money from your wallet.

      Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Bill? Children's ice cream!

      You know when fluoridation began?...1946. 1946, Bill. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

      I first became aware of it, Bill, during the physical act of love... Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I — I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Bill. Women, er, women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Bill...but I do deny them my essence.

    17. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by dbIII · · Score: 4, Interesting
      From the totally correct but doesn't matter department.

      The "bring-your-own-bottle" machines at the grocery store do not use reverse osmosis. They use cheap activated charcoal filters, which do not remove fluoride even when they are changed regularly

      The fluoride doesn't matter (which is why the obsession was used to make a character look ridiculous in "Dr Strangelove") so the charcoal is enough to get rid of annoyances. I've been to places where people live off artesian water with a bit of fluoride and they don't get poisoned by it and die young (good teeth too, but maybe that's diet instead of fluoride).
      Seriously guys, unless you live somewhere like Flint with lead compounds in the water boiling is enough (though reverse osmosis is great for camping).

      The bottled water craze keeps reminding me that Evian is naive spelled backwards.

    18. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most tap water is poisoned with fluoride.

      Poisoned? You do know that every single substance, including water itself, is potentially lethal if ingested in excess?

      That's the thing really. It's the dosage that makes something either healthy or unhealthy. The world health organization recommends a level of fluoride of 0,5 mg to 1.0 mg per litre because fluoride has proven benefits for dental health at low doses..

      Now then, let's look at the numbers:

      Referring to a common salt of fluoride, sodium fluoride (NaF), the lethal dose for most adult humans is estimated at 5 to 10 g (which is equivalent to 32 to 64 mg/kg elemental fluoride/kg body weight).[1][2][3] Ingestion of fluoride can produce gastrointestinal discomfort at doses at least 15 to 20 times lower (0.2–0.3 mg/kg or 10 to 15 mg for a 50 kg person) than lethal doses.

      So to even get to the lower bound of gastrointestinal discomfort, someone would have to think anywhere from 10-30 litres of water, and to get to the lethal dose the number goes up to 30-60 litres. At that quantity you're in life danger even if you're drinking fluoride free water because of water intoxication.

      There are understandable reasons for not drinking tap water in certain areas (taste, purity, etc). but fluoride is not one of them. The tap water here in Finland ranks among the best in the world and bottled water consumption is low compared to most western nations, yet do we see cases of people dropping because of the added fluoride? No.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    19. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      In fact, there is no evidence that it removes anything

      And yet it tastes completely different which can be 100% identified in a double blind study.

      Yeah sure it may not remove some thing that people specifically freak out about for no reason whatsoever but saying that "there is no evidence that it removes anything" is plainly false.

    20. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Boiling the water? I have been drinking tap water all my life and I am ok. My great-aunt becaÃe 115 and she drank tap water.

      If your water is undrinkable without boiling it, you have serious problems if you live in a first world country.Â

      I live in Belgium and drank tap water all over Europe. Never an issue.

      Crazy how marketing works. People buying water they can get basically for free.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    21. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "Evian is naive spelled backwards."

      Brilliant...saving that one for future discussions...tyvm.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    22. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Here in Las Vegas, if I drink water from the tap I end up doubled over in pain. And can't work or eat or really do much of anything. Therefor I drink bottled water I buy for $2 for 24 bottles. And it tastes good. Also arrowhead does the same thing so I think that's the only semi filtered water you must be talking about.

    23. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Googled answer...

      About 55 percent of bottled water in the United States is spring water, including Crystal Geyser and Arrowhead. The other 45 percent comes from the municipal water supply, meaning that companies, including Aquafina and Dasani, simply treat tap water—the same stuff that comes out of your faucet at home—and bottle it up.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    24. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      lets change that around a little to something else you probably also blindly believe:

      there is no need for vaccinations anymore in first-world countries. i can't imagine vaccinations being necessary or having been for decades now.

      **

      fluoride in drinking water, at the right levels, is a huge boost for dental health.. especially among children and teens, and especially among the poor. it is ridiculously inexpensive to do at the municipal water supply. there is no reason not to do it.

      Dental decay isn't contagious.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    25. Re:It's not plastic that's the problem... by hey! · · Score: 1

      An under-sink filter will remove all of the organic-related taste.

      RO is overkill; humans evolved to drink natural water sources with trace minerals in them, so unless you have a specific problem like arsenic contamination or exteremely hard water RO is not doing yourself any favors. Water with moderate mineral content is usually perceived as tasting better than completely pure water.

      As for fluoride, it's one of the most common minerals in the Earth's crust and found as a trace mineral in most surface water. The level of fluoride added to US water brings the concentration up to 0.7ppm, which is higher than most (but not all) natural sources in the US, but well within the range found naturally across the world.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That site definitely isn't propaganda, not one bit, no sir.

    27. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by ThePawArmy · · Score: 1

      Well there is nothing propa about that site.

    28. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Boiling just concentrates the lead in the water.

    29. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Boiling the water? I have been drinking tap water all my life and I am ok

      Of course, but untreated water is sometimes a different story.

    30. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Hence the "unless" above.

    31. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by Gornkleschnitzer · · Score: 1

      And yet, males who drink flouridated water continue to reproduce as normal. I fail to see how this claim is anything but self-debunking.

    32. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Reproduce as normal would be to have 10 kids per family. That was the norm before fluoridation, anyway.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    33. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by Gornkleschnitzer · · Score: 1

      Reasons for not having ten children:
      1. Desire to focus on careers or other life plans.
      2. Children are expensive to raise.
      3. Wanting to live in a quiet house.
      None of these common, valid reasons are related to water flouridation. Until you can conclusively prove that the average family's birth rate spontaneously dropped to its present average at the moment that flouridation began, your argument will remain invalid.

    34. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by Gornkleschnitzer · · Score: 1

      One needs only look at heavily overpopulated areas to appreciate the personal space offered by less population density. If water flouridation does indeed reduce reproduction - either psychologically or physically - I would be willing to make the argument that it is a good thing.

      We are not a primitive species that exists only for its own reproduction. There are many ways to benefit the rest of society without producing your own offspring. A person who is barely surviving on their current level of income absolutely should not try to shoulder the further expense of raising a child. And for some who suffer from severe headaches or other medical conditions, dealing with young children would only worsen their problems. Additionally, people who are exceptionally stupid and/or abusive would be doing society a favor by not breeding.

      Selfishness implies hurting or inconveniencing others for one's own benefit. Having children is a choice that is up to an individual, and not having them cannot be considered selfish.

      Since you seem determined to stress the importance of having nearly half a dozen offspring, perhaps you can tell us how many children you've raised so far.

    35. Re: It's not plastic that's the problem... by Gornkleschnitzer · · Score: 1

      Sorry; nearly a dozen offspring, my mistake. Numbers are good things to check.

  2. Re:It must not matter much by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    The island has 17 tons of trash, which is about one truckload, and an area of 37 sq km. That actually doesn't sound like much trash. And that is the worst. Everywhere else has even less.

  3. Re:It must not matter much by Ogive17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, it doesn't matter to me so I'll just dump my trash in your front yard. If it matters to you, you'll clean it up!

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  4. Re: It must not matter much by Bartles · · Score: 1

    I was thinking along the same lines. I guess we're supposed to remember that it has the "most"!

  5. It's not the US that is polluting like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look at the containers and material in the photos. They are almost all from fishing or costal areas, and likely from South America.

    Many 3rd world countries just through their trash in the streets and have no concept of public cleanliness. If the trash was coming from the US, you'd see it on our shores as well, but you don't.

    Go look (google) photos of 3rd world country streets, homes and neighborhoods. They just don't have a sanitation system, nor seem to care to create one. Maybe we could export our sanitation tech to India, Ghana, etc...

    1. Re:It's not the US that is polluting like this... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      It's one of the mysteries that the H1B geniuses discover in America, "how to avoid cesspools;" for them, it's magic. Think, "Donald Trump Comes to America", only shorter and darker.

    2. Re:It's not the US that is polluting like this... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      sanitation tech

      The limitations of sanitation in these countries has nothing at all to do with technology.

  6. Mind-boggling by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "... an estimated minimum of 37.7 million items weighing 17.6 tons. This represents the total amount of plastic that is produced in the world every 1.98 seconds".

    If that's true, then it's a staggering and sobering statistic. In nice round numbers, call it 8 tons per second. That's over 690,000 tons of plastic produced per day! Given that plastic is largely made from a non-renewable resource, and that it takes a huge amount of energy to produce, and that much of it is used frivolously... Talk about fouling our own nest! As a species we are remarkably good at choosing short term gain that causes long term pain. Sadness...

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Mind-boggling by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Not only is plastic not made from a renewable resource, it stores the resource it is made from in a stable inert form.

      Two hundred years from now people will be strip mining and capturing all the plastic that we've littered the planet with, to recover and reuse it. They will curse the people who promoted high-temperature incinerators.

      The lore for the future people will be: "In the dark age after the incinerators were build, humans actually BURNED the plastic, so we do not have it as a resource anymore."

    2. Re:Mind-boggling by Kohath · · Score: 1

      So you're suggesting we should buy Dow Chemical stock?

    3. Re:Mind-boggling by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Hell, I bet it will take less than 200 years. As soon as a small inexpensive solar powered rover can collect plastic at a profit we'll see little beach comber bots. I give it 20 years unless some 7th grader hasn't already invented one.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:Mind-boggling by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Two hundred years from now people will be strip mining and capturing all the plastic that we've littered the planet with, to recover and reuse it.

      It's very energy intensive to break it down so your suggestion is unlikely while we still have easily accessible gas, oil and coal.
      Of course the exception is the stuff that can be reused in it's current form like PET, where grinding it up and not a lot of heat plus pressure can make something useful.

    5. Re:Mind-boggling by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      It's very energy intensive right now.

  7. Re:So where are the asteroid mining fans? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Here you have much richer deposits of hydrocarbons right here

    You don't mine asteroids for hydrocarbons. You mine them for siderophile metals.

  8. Re:Islam - Religion of Pieces. Piece over here, th by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Aside from submitting your thesis to the Ig Nobel committee; the math supports your claim. If only John Nash could present the award to you, that would be epic.

  9. Re:It must not matter much by quenda · · Score: 4, Informative

    And that is the worst.

    Not even close! Try looking at the source of most of the trash : Asia.

    This Chinese beach had 362 tonnes of garbage :

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

  10. Re:So where are the asteroid mining fans? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    3D Printing with an extruder to make spools.

  11. Re:Been hearing about these things for decades... by LesFerg · · Score: 1

    It was a "survey", they didn't go there or take pictures. They phoned up all the inhabitants and asked then to give a number on a scale of 10, for how much plastic-free area they could see on the beach.
    As there were no inhabitants willing to participate in the phone survey, there was no evidence of plastic-free beach found by the survey.
    Conclusive proof!

    --
    If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
  12. Re:It must not matter much by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    But then again, tourists bring money to the island.

    There are no tourists. The island is uninhabited. The trash comes from the ocean, and is washed onto the beaches by the waves.

  13. Re:It must not matter much by Kohath · · Score: 1

    What's the point then?

  14. hydrocarbons by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder if very many people realizes that plastics are made of hydrocarbons, not unlike fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. And with the right furnace plastics will burn and produce energy quite nicely. If anyone can put together some automated way to collect lots of ocean trash in one spot, we can shovel it into an incinerator and push some steam turbines along. (yeah, collecting it all is the hard part. technical hurdle but not impossible)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:hydrocarbons by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I think the Japanese are already doing that. Hot enough and you only have NOx to worry about instead of some of the really nasty stuff you get in a normal plastic fire.
      There's a few "co-generation" incinerators around the world, some a few decades old now.

    2. Re:hydrocarbons by avandesande · · Score: 1

      It's almost as much regulatory paperwork to open an incinerator in the USA as a nuclear power plant. That's why we dump most of our trash.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:hydrocarbons by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      It's a real shame too. There are some really foul dumps in my town (San Jose) that could be resolved with a properly engineers incinerator. We have a lot of soil contamination because of the crap we have buried over the years and the geology here. Much of that could have been avoided. A lot of the regulations are because older incinerators release a lot of dioxins when they burn modern garbage (which is mostly plastic). Obviously it's stupid to use 19th century technology against 21st century materials, but our regulatory systems always lag behind the state of the art.
      In the end the design is about chemistry, different techniques to control temperature and cooling rate and the gasses present can be used to control the reactions that take place. It's something that I think a second year chemistry student could sketch out roughly, but a regulator seems to be unable to grasp.
      Part of the consequence of having anti-science politics.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:hydrocarbons by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Plastics aren't made of hydrocarbons as much as they are a byproduct of processing oil for petrol. And therein lies the problem, a lot of this stuff doesn't burn well, and when it burns it doesn't bode well for the surrounding air.

      The technical problems are more to do with scrubbing and treating the offgasses after burning. After all if it burnt cleanly it wouldn't be sold for cents in the dollar as a byproduct, but rather it would end up in the more valuable fuel mix.

    5. Re:hydrocarbons by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      If you have a monomer like ethylene, which is a hydrocarbon, you can link it into a polymer like polyethylene, which is still a hydrocarbon although a high weight one. Conceptually the same thing with styrene into polystyren..

      Polyethylene (include LDPE, MDPE and HDPE), polystyrene, and other high molecular weight hydrocarbons are not going to burn in a simple way like methane or gasoline might. But you'll find that under the right pressure and temperature they will decompose and react correctly. In some situations a catalyst can improve the reactions so you can gain some control over what by products you produce.

      Scrubbing is definitely not necessary, and can only add cost in terms of disposal and replacing the reagents used for scrubbing. It is far better to have control over your reactions so the vast majority of reactions produce safe or useful chemistry.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  15. Re:It must not matter much by Kohath · · Score: 1

    So *frowny face* and then declare myself righteous because I'm frowny?

  16. Re: Been hearing about these things for decades... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Photos and a video for the lazy comin' right up.

  17. Title is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This title is not politically correct. It should say: Remote Pacific Island Is the Most Plastic-Enriched Spot Yet Surveyed

  18. Re:It must not matter much by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wait a minute, I thought the gates protected us from them...? You don't want decent folks threatened by golf carts and stuff, right?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  19. Re:It must not matter much by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Glad I read this before posting. I had googled "weight of an18 wheeler"...it came back with 80,000lbs.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  20. Re:It must not matter much by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Get off my lawn maggot!

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  21. Re:It must not matter much by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Go there and clean it up? Heck, I'd be willing to invest in a consortium to mine the place and create a structural plastic factory for seasteading homes!

    Take that plastic and build a City!

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  22. Re:Been hearing about these things for decades... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    You clearly stopped reading after the second sentence. Any other idiocy you'd like to try?

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  23. Re:It must not matter much by Kohath · · Score: 1

    recognize the evils that you've been doing

    I'm not a religious environmentalist, so my use of plastic isn't sinful. Go ahead and worship as you wish, but leave me out of it.

  24. Re:So, sue the plastic mfrs by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    I love how everybody likes to shout "sue the manufacturers" for other people's stupidity. And yet we wonder why the world is turning to shit.

  25. Re:It must not matter much by Kohath · · Score: 1

    And, despite the phonies posting here, no one cares very much about litter on a beach people never go to. If they cared, they'd find a way to donate to a group to go there and clean it up (for some reason that transcends rational thinking). But they don't. Gotta show the flag and pretend though.

  26. Re:It must not matter much by Kohath · · Score: 1

    No golf carts. It's couples and families with small children. They appreciate the lack of vehicle traffic driving past their home. I like the fact that the delivery guy leaves packages at the front door and they don't get stolen. Plus there are parking spaces available inside while every parking space outside is full for several blocks.

    Keeping spiteful douchebags like Ogive17 from dumping stuff here is a bonus.

  27. room for a Tom Hanks Joke ?? by Brigadier · · Score: 1

    I dunno I totally see a Family guy spin off on Cast Away ..

    Scene #1: man washes up on deserted island, broken, dehydrated and forgotten

    Scene n+1: man relaxes on hammock woven from canned soda pack rings gorging on canned tuna while he watches Gilligan's island on his reclaimed note S7. camara widens to distance shot showing miles of beach strewn with garbage and a 20 foot pile of fully charged and slightly charred note S7's

  28. Re:It must not matter much by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

    The nice thing about gates is that when I toss the trash over the top, the gate/fence prevents the wind from blowing it away!

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  29. Re:Handily Difficult to Check by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    The pacific ocean is the true world ocean. Look at this showing the general ocean currents in the pacific. Notice how there are streams that pass by all land masses and particularly major ones pass by the most developed trade-based coastal nations. If you've ever had any education in physics with differential equations for modeling fluid movements then you can see the understand the implications of all those feed-back loops. Easter island and Henderson island (the one this article is about) are at the right side of the south pacific gyre, and are the very obvious sink where items accumulate from the entire pacific region. Also, notice this which explains that the atlantic is less than half the size of pacific.

  30. Re:Handily Difficult to Check by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    The pacific ocean is the true world ocean of today. Look at this showing the general ocean currents in the pacific. Notice how there are streams that pass by all land masses and particularly the most developed trade-based coastal nations. If you have ever had physics using differential equations to model fluid movements then you can easily understand the implications of all the feed-back loops. Easter island and Henderson island (the one this story is about) are the clear sinks in the right side of the south pacific gyre. Also, notice this which explains that the atlantic is less than half the size of pacific - that is why there is more trash in the pacific.

  31. Re:It must not matter much by Kohath · · Score: 1

    The landscaping crew will have a few extra minutes of work to do cleaning that up.

  32. No, not the 1950s by MercTech · · Score: 1

    A typical gross conceptual error as to time frame. Synthetic plastics became ubiquitous in the 1930s. Plastics from natural sources were made in the 19th century. The first patent on a synthetic plastic, Bakalite, was issued in 1906.

    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/bakelite.html

    --
    NRRPT/RCT
  33. Re:It must not matter much by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

    I'm the spiteful douchebag even though you're the one who felt the need to post something to the tune of "who gives a fuck, it's far away from me" ?

    All I did was point out how silly your comment was.

    I actually live in a neighborhood similar to yours, except we don't have the pretentious gate keeping people out. Other than at Halloween, why would people want to randomly come here anyway?

    Oh, and my packages don't get stolen from my front porch. In fact, our garage door has been left open by accident a couple times and neighbors have closed it for us, without even stealing anything! I know, right!

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  34. Re:It must not matter much by Kohath · · Score: 1

    I'm the spiteful douchebag even though you're the one who felt the need to post something to the tune of "who gives a fuck, it's far away from me" ?

    It's far away from everyone. Maybe you should literally answer the question: who does give a fuck? Lots of people pretending to care, but no one has anything to offer beyond meaningless sentiment. And you specifically decided to be mean for some reason -- which is just more meaningless sentiment, but it's the kind that makes life worse for everyone.

    A place no one ever goes is messy. So...?

    All I did was point out how silly your comment was.

    Because pretense and meaningless sentiment about a "problem" that hurts no one is less silly?

    Other than at Halloween, why would people want to randomly come here anyway?

    I don't know about there. The answers for here are: to park cars, to steal delivery packages, to steal stuff out of parked cars, to solicit, to see when people aren't home so they know when they can safely break in.