Slashdot Mirror
73 Percent of Fish In the Northwestern Atlantic Have Microplastics In Their Guts
According to a new study published today in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science, microplastics have been found in the stomachs of nearly three out of every four mesopelagic fish caught in the Northwest Atlantic. "These findings are worrying, as the affected fish could spread microplastics throughout the ocean," reports Phys.Org. "The fish are also prey for fish eaten by humans, meaning that microplastics could indirectly contaminate our food supply through the transfer of associated microplastic toxins." From the report: Microplastics are small plastic fragments that have accumulated in the marine environment following decades of pollution. These fragments can cause significant issues for marine organisms that ingest them, including inflammation, reduced feeding and weight-loss. Microplastic contamination may also spread from organism to organism when prey is eaten by predators. Since the fragments can bind to chemical pollutants, these associated toxins could accumulate in predator species. Mesopelagic fish serve as a food source for a large variety of marine animals, including tuna, swordfish, dolphins, seals and sea birds. Typically living at depths of 200-1,000 meters, these fish swim to the surface at night to feed then return to deeper waters during the day.
The researchers caught mesopelagic fish at varying depths, then examined their stomachs for microplastics back in the lab. They used a specialized air filter so as not to introduce airborne plastic fibers from the lab environment. The team found a wide array of microplastics in the fish stomachs -- with a whopping 73% of the fish having ingested the pollutants.
The researchers caught mesopelagic fish at varying depths, then examined their stomachs for microplastics back in the lab. They used a specialized air filter so as not to introduce airborne plastic fibers from the lab environment. The team found a wide array of microplastics in the fish stomachs -- with a whopping 73% of the fish having ingested the pollutants.
And what percentage have grit in their guts? Or sand in their guts? Or bits of coral in their guts?
I can see where you're heading with this, but you haven't established anything special about microplastics in the food chain, vs other grit in the food chain. There's just nothing special about one class of inert crap, vs any other class of inert crap.
Do these microplastics affect the fish's health and / or significantly impact their lifespan? If not then is there some other reason to be concerned?
Well, the problem is with science itself. Or rather with the way science is covered in the media. The media wants answers, but the first step in science is finding good questions. You can't answer a question like that until you know the phenomenon exists, but people want to jump straight to what it means.
If there were one thing I wish the educational system instilled in people, it would be the capacity of being concerned without necessarily being alarmed. People come out with basically two easy options to fall back on: alarmism and denialism.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
LDPE is like a sponge and it absorbs lots of other crap as it floats around for years in the ocean. Crap that you don't want in a fish's belly, but even uncontaminated PE can be problematic for a fish.
Saying PE is basically harmless is an over simplification and really only applies to normal uses of the material. There are exceptional cases where it can cause harm. It's the business of researchers to look at exceptional cases and see how our assumptions match up to reality.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
This is a lot like the "we found Fukushima radiation in the ocean off the US coast" story - where the amount of cesium was unimaginably small - three ATOMS of the stuff per cubic meter...
Radiation is a naturally occurring emission that is all around us, which is why the Fukushima thing is absurd.
On the other hand plastics are not, and they are something we have been using on this earth for a very short time period and yet are not part of the food cycle. Comparing the two is silly.
depends on which species your talking about doesn't it?
Here's cod
https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/p...
and you're really gonna sit there and tell me that bluefin tuna catches are the same size since 1980. now that's some bullshit.
fishing is anything but a healthy trade, it's freaking dangerous and overfishing is a well-documented problem.
Absolute statements are never true