Slashdot Mirror


Plastic Bag Found at the Bottom of World's Deepest Ocean Trench (nationalgeographic.com)

The Mariana Trench -- the deepest point in the ocean -- extends nearly 36,000 feet down in a remote part of the Pacific Ocean. But if you thought the trench could escape the global onslaught of plastics pollution, you would be wrong. From a report: A recent study revealed that a plastic bag, like the kind given away at grocery stores, is now the deepest known piece of plastic trash, found at a depth of 36,000 feet inside the Mariana Trench. Scientists found it by looking through the Deep-Sea Debris Database, a collection of photos and videos taken from 5,010 dives over the past 30 years that was recently made public.

96 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But if you thought the trench could escape the global onslaught of plastics pollution, you would be wrong.

    Why would I, or anyone, think that?

    1. Re:Why? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      "Why would I, or anyone, think that?"

      Remember that floating island of plastic garbage? Things that float are on surface. How on earth a bag got from the surface all the way down to the bottom of the ocean I can't even imagine... Cthulhu aliens must have pulled it down.

    2. Re: Why? by saloomy · · Score: 2

      That's what I was thinking. What stops a bag from falling? There is debris on the bottom of oceans, the depths should be irrelevant.

    3. Re: Why? by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would expect things to COLLECT in the deepest portions. As current moves things around, they will eventually tend to settle in the deepest portions as it's much much likely that currents will sweep debris up and out of these places.

    4. Re:Why? by chispito · · Score: 5, Funny

      But if you thought the trench could escape the global onslaught of plastics pollution, you would be wrong.

      Why would I, or anyone, think that?

      You wouldn't. But the story sounds more sensational if it's implied somebody would.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    5. Re: Why? by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Polyethelene is less dense than water so if it's clean and empty then it will float. However an item in the bag or even a bit of sand washed inside could easilly push it over the edge into sinking.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    6. Re:Why? by sirber · · Score: 2

      remember that some still think the Earth is flat so...

      --
      Be or ben't
    7. Re:Why? by Holi · · Score: 1

      I never understood why people thought this was funny, Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    8. Re: Why? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      This particular plastic bag is not a problem, because sitting on the bottom of the ocean means that it will eventually become petroleum once again.

      What we need to find is a way of making the rest of the floating plastic sink to abyssal depths.

    9. Re: Why? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This particular plastic bag is not a problem, because sitting on the bottom of the ocean means that it will eventually become petroleum once again.

      What we need to find is a way of making the rest of the floating plastic sink to abyssal depths.

      Submarines compact their trash (along with weights) and deliberately send it to the ocean depths.

    10. Re: Why? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's why if we required that plastic be denser than seawater, that would get rid of most of the problem - not because it would sink in the ocean, but because it would sink at the first place where it was dumped into water, in telltale accumulations. Currently, no one knows where all this plastic is being dumped.

    11. Re:Why? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      But if you thought the trench could escape the global onslaught of plastics pollution, you would be wrong.

      Why would I, or anyone, think that?

      You wouldn't. But the story sounds more sensational if it's implied somebody would.

      Ah ... it all makes sense now.

    12. Re:Why? by Subm · · Score: 2

      People will tell themselves whatever they can to help them sleep at night, knowing that they bought their comfort and convenience by polluting everyone else's world, to keep themselves from accepting responsibility and changing.

      You can consume less plastic. You can start now.

    13. Re:Why? by vux984 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I never understood why people thought this was funny, Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor."

      I mean, i don't think its the greatest joke ever told. But whether or not Chewbacca does or does not live on Endor is completely irrelevant. I mean you realize that right? To call that error out, to suggest THAT is the sticking point for you??? --- because what? If Chewbacca DID live on Endor then this argument would have somehow worked ?

      The fact the idiots hearing the argument were convinced by an utter nonsense argument was the joke.

      The fact that, no Chewbacca doesn't even live on Endor is an inside joke for star wars nerds on top of that; because anyone who only saw RotJ once back in the 80s and doesn't remember it scene by scene could well accept that premise that Chewbacca was from Endor too -- but it doesn't even matter whether its true or not; its just the icing on the cake.

    14. Re: Why? by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hawaii is has a gift of sorts, an active volcano. Why are we not throwing are non-recyclables and e-waste into the volcano? Next eruption, the lava will consume and break it down to it's basic elements anyways. Since it's going to be throwing tons of pollution into the atmosphere anyways, might as well take advantage of natures incinerator.

      And yes, I'm being very serious. Perhaps it's more of a safety issue even in periods of relative inactivity?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    15. Re: Why? by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      Yes we do, dirty filty people who don't know what a litter bin is, let alone what recycling is. The amount of plastic that I am personally responsible for not being disposed of properly in my entire life is probably about 100g if that.

    16. Re:Why? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Humans are very prone to magical thinking about even the most practical matters. For example, a small but meaningful fraction of the world population thinks that their fossil CO2 emissions magically don't contribute to climate change.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    17. Re: Why? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Not a terrible idea. Safety issues could be taken care of with an unmanned delivery system. There are already geothermal plants near volcanoes.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    18. Re:Why? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can consume less plastic. You can start now.

      I started back in 2012, when my city, San Jose CA, banned single-use plastic bags.

      Hawaii bans bags statewide.

      Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda ban bags.

      China doesn't ban bags, but they cannot be free. Shops have to charge extra for them, which greatly decreases their use.

    19. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not a terrible idea. Safety issues could be taken care of with an unmanned delivery system. There are already geothermal plants near volcanoes.

      A whole new market! The volcano waste disposal trebuchet.

    20. Re: Why? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Once Waterlogged it becomes heavier then water. Because it is more the air bubbles in the plastic in it that makes it float, the plastic itself is heavier then water.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    21. Re: Why? by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While the volcano is busy breaking down the plastic to elements, it'll still release a lot of those half-broken molecules as debris and ash, many of which will float on the air over to populated areas. In Hawaii, those areas are also the places that bring in that lovely tourist revenue.

      You're essentially suggesting we use a volcano as an incinerator, without bothering to put any filtration or scrubbers on the exhaust. Granted, the heavy stuff will be completely destroyed... but the lighter stuff will be just as bad as any other incineration. It might be possible to capture the released gas and try to filter it, but I suspect the higher heat of the volcano will make building such a structure rather difficult.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    22. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is an example of a style of humor known as non sequitur

      This is also a logical fallacy in which an deduction doesn't actually follow from the premises. It happens a lot in arguments of law.

      So, the whole Chewbaca defense thing is a demonstration of the non sequitur fallacy in the style of non sequitur humor.

    23. Re: Why? by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      An animal could have ingested it then died, sinking to the bottom and bringing the bag with it.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    24. Re: Why? by tinkerton · · Score: 2

      Interesting thought. I would have said me too, but since I've been told that washing a fleece causes a lot of microplastics to end up in the environment and so does scouring powder I started to think what else I was overlooking. At least I don't have artificial grass.

    25. Re: Why? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 2
      I think it would be better; although much more expensive to implement, to drop waste into an active subduction zone. Doing so would pull the waste down into the mantle, not only effectively breaking it down, but also trapping everything at the same time. This would be ideal for certain types of nuclear waste as well. Not the partially used rods and pellets of nuclear fuel mind you. If we ever smarten up and finally start building thorium reactors, the rods and pellets from uranium fission plants can easily be fully consumed in a thorium molten salts reactor. I read somewhere that used fuel rods or pellets are barely used up in terms of reactivity when they are removed from use. (which is why they get sequestered in cooling ponds for so long)

      Along the same lines other, things we can't recycle today might well be recyclable in the near future. For the numerous rare earths used in electronics particularly, I can easily believe that a process can be developed that is more cost efficient as a source of rare earths than mining for new supplies. Viewed as ore, most electronics are actually richer sources of rare earths than the native ores they came from. In that light, any disposal method that leaves the elements inside basically irretrievable would short sighted,

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    26. Re: Why? by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      African or European?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    27. Re:Why? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Remember that floating island of plastic garbage?

      You can't remember what doesn't exist.

    28. Re: Why? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Volcanoes aren't good at this stuff. They're not sucking stuff in down deep where they can be incinerated with high efficiency. Lava is essentially rock. Well rock with lots of gas actually, but it's still rock. So it's dense. If you drop a bunch of trash into lava it will be on the surface of the lava, because most of it is less dense than the lava. Gollum, as it turns out, isn't going to sink into the lava.

      As it burns, it creates a crust of partially burnt garbage on top of a crust of now cooler lava. Not much more efficient than a normal incinerator. After that, because of all the gas in the lava, and pressure from below, that partially burnt garbage is likely to be tossed about, spewed out, and toxic ash carried away and blown about by the toxic gas escaping from the volcano.

    29. Re:Why? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well, at least it was an *American* bag!

    30. Re:Why? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      "You can't remember what doesn't exist."

      You are going to call me out on the garbage island (which yes, is just a higher concentration of plastic particulates that can't be seen by the naked eye...) but you are going to let the Cthulhu aliens go unchallenged.

      It can mean only one thing ... yaji'u ash-shudhdhadh

    31. Re: Why? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Nope, you need to go down to the southern hemisphere where hurricanes go backwards and the volcanoes suck molten lava back into the Earth. That's where you send all the trash.

      Or there is this really deep trench I've been hearing about...

    32. Re:Why? by Armonk · · Score: 1

      so THAT's were I left it...

    33. Re:Why? by Armonk · · Score: 1

      Well, at least it was an *American* bag!

      are you sure? if it was green with a yellow flower on it, then I am pretty sure it is a european bag. On the other hand if it had a picture of Trump then it is clearly an american bag :-)

    34. Re:Why? by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      Humans are very prone to magical thinking about even the most practical matters. For example, a small but meaningful fraction of the world population thinks that their fossil CO2 emissions magically don't contribute to climate change.

      Excepting the 46.4% of the American electorate who thinks it's a Chinese hoax because their dear leader said so.

    35. Re: Why? by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      Microplastics shedding from clothing during washing is an interesting issue. However this is not a plastic bag at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, or the floating plastic garbage island in the middle of the Pacific. This are directly caused by dirty filthy people disposing of rubbish by just randomly throwing it away when they no longer need it.

      As regards microplastic shedding from clothes, the bulk of my clothing is natural fibres to start with. I also expect to find washing machines come with appropriate filters in the near future. Unfortunately the sort of aftermarket inline filters you can currently get don't work for me as being in europe my washing machine is in my kitchen and without a kitchen refit there is not the space to fit one in unfortunately.

    36. Re:Why? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If this is the problem you have with the Chewbacca defense, it worked.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    37. Re: Why? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Polyethelene is less dense than water so if it's clean and empty then it will float. However an item in the bag or even a bit of sand washed inside could easilly push it over the edge into sinking.

      Look, that sea cucumber paid 5p for that carrier bag from Tesco, he'll be dammed if he has to spend another 5p for a new one when he goes back.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    38. Re:Why? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The fact that, no Chewbacca doesn't even live on Endor is an inside joke for star wars nerds on top of that; because anyone who only saw RotJ once back in the 80s and doesn't remember it scene by scene could well accept that premise that Chewbacca was from Endor too -- but it doesn't even matter whether its true or not; its just the icing on the cake.

      To be a true Star Wars nerd you would understand that originally the Wookies were meant to live on Endor but Lucas liked them so much he created the character Chewbacca to be in all 3 films and the Ewoks to fill the role of the original Wookies, hence the names are similar.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    39. Re: Why? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      This would be ideal for certain types of nuclear waste as well. Not the partially used rods and pellets of nuclear fuel mind you. If we ever smarten up and finally start building thorium reactors, the rods and pellets from uranium fission plants can easily be fully consumed in a thorium molten salts reactor. I read somewhere that used fuel rods or pellets are barely used up in terms of reactivity when they are removed from use. (which is why they get sequestered in cooling ponds for so long)

      The residual radioactivity is mostly from fission products and not the original fuel so presumably the fuel would be reprocessed chemically to separate the majority of the remaining fuel from the minority of the fission products and the dangerous fission products would be impaled into the crust entering the seduction zone with something like a steel and concrete dart.

    40. Re: Why? by doccus · · Score: 1

      I think it would be better; although much more expensive to implement, to drop waste into an active subduction zone. Doing so would pull the waste down into the mantle, not only effectively breaking it down, but also trapping everything at the same time. This would be ideal for certain types of nuclear waste as well. Not the partially used rods and pellets of nuclear fuel mind you. If we ever smarten up and finally start building thorium reactors, the rods and pellets from uranium fission plants can easily be fully consumed in a thorium molten salts reactor. I read somewhere that used fuel rods or pellets are barely used up in terms of reactivity when they are removed from use. (which is why they get sequestered in cooling ponds for so long)

      Along the same lines other, things we can't recycle today might well be recyclable in the near future. For the numerous rare earths used in electronics particularly, I can easily believe that a process can be developed that is more cost efficient as a source of rare earths than mining for new supplies. Viewed as ore, most electronics are actually richer sources of rare earths than the native ores they came from. In that light, any disposal method that leaves the elements inside basically irretrievable would short sighted,

      Boy I wish I had points right now. This one deserves lots. Best comment I have read in a while!

    41. Re:Why? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      life has a tendency to go to places it could not before so much for carbon based

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. Gravity works! by dlleigh · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's the important takeaway here. Even at crushing depths and pressures, gravity will still pull a plastic bag all the way to the bottom.

    1. Re:Gravity works! by guruevi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think at those depths, buoyancy and currents has much more forces on the bag than gravity. Even above water a plastic bag is quickly overtaken by those.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Gravity works! by dlleigh · · Score: 1

      Gravity finds a way.

    3. Re:Gravity works! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Buoyancy is a consequence of gravity applied to fluids.

  3. Did you pick it up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Probably like most people they commented about it but left it there for someone else to deal with.

    1. Re:Did you pick it up? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Probably like most people they commented about it but left it there for someone else to deal with.

      Nope, no more than the actress who played Gloria gave the starving kid her sandwich.

      (I kid ... maybe she gave the kid her sandwich. I really don't know ...)

  4. that should make by mandark1967 · · Score: 3, Funny

    taking samples much easier since paper bags would get waterlogged and tear.

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  5. How long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Will it take to fill the trench?

    1. Re:How long? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, given the dimensions of the trench, and the average mass of a grocery bag is around 9 grams, and the density of LDPE is around 0.94 g/cc, it would take about 1.87 * 10^22 bags to fill the trench to the surface of the ocean.or about 2.4 trillion bags per person on the face of the Earth.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:How long? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      ...which is about 3.7 billion years of plastic bag consumption at present-day rates, if we deliver each one to the trench, and if you assume no biodegradation which does become a factor on such a timescale (especially if a plastic-eating bacteria were to escape the lab).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:How long? by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Challenge accepted. But make it Paperclips instead. I know a guy.

    4. Re:How long? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Since the trench is at the edge of tectonic plates, the bags at the bottom are likely to be sucked into the Earth mantle, and thus be recycled. Not a bad thing after all.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    5. Re:How long? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      We just need to discard them faster, then!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  6. Gravity is only a theory ! by DrYak · · Score: 2

    But gravity, it's only a theory !

    Teach the controversy!

    #IntelligentFalling

    ---

    (Sorry couldn't resist to make the joke)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Gravity is only a theory ! by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 2

      Jokes aside and by being a bit pedantic, I would say that one thing is the empirical reality of everything on Earth falling downwards and a completely different story is the theoretical approaches trying to explain said phenomenon. If you use the word "gravity" to refer to the phenomenon itself, nobody in their right mind should deny their existence. On the other hand, if you refer to one of the theories trying to explain why that phenomenon exists, some people might think that it is wrong. Again, nobody in their right mind should ever interpret a critic to a theory as a denial of the underlying phenomenon, much less when dealing with something whose existence is so evident.

      Rather than "gravity is just a theory", I would say that the word "gravity" might be used to refer to one of the theories which try to explain the aforementioned reality. Personally, I prefer to use "gravity" for the phenomenon and "theory X about..." for whatever theory. It seems much less confusing in this way.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  7. Larn sumpin ever day by AlanObject · · Score: 1

    My personal edification proceeded in the following increments:

    1. There is a data base of undersea debris.

    2. We have submersibles that can operate and take photos at 36,000' down. And for 30 years?

    What I didn't learn is that there are artifacts down there. And regardless of the buoyancy/density of plastic material and how it changes under descent it would make sense it could be dragged down by something it was containing. I am sure you can find human made items down there from hundreds of year ago.

    1. Re:Larn sumpin ever day by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      We can find a plastic bag but not a crashed airplane?

    2. Re:Larn sumpin ever day by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      We weren't looking for a particular bag.

    3. Re:Larn sumpin ever day by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I know. I just thinking this can replace the old "We can send a man to space..." line.

    4. Re:Larn sumpin ever day by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Maybe the bag was from a crashed airplane! Conspiracy theorists: GO!

    5. Re: Larn sumpin ever day by Armonk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I keep finding crashed planes underwater, just not the one in particular I want.

      It's hard to go shopped on the second hand market these days... did any of the planes have plastic bags in them? Maybe some towels?

    6. Re:Larn sumpin ever day by Armonk · · Score: 1

      Maybe the bag was from a crashed airplane! Conspiracy theorists: GO!

      Ok.... Let's see.... The airplane was removed by the aliens allied with the illuminati so that we would not guess that the bag was from a secret illuminati aircraft. All this is just a cover up to hide the fact that the aircraft was a disguised weather ballon similar to the one from roswell. And that is a cover up to hide the fact that the illuminati is trying to make everybody think that the price of plastic bags should go up in order for them to secretly earn extra cash by selling more expensive plastic bags with pictures of aliens on them in a shop in Roswell, New Mexico :-) Or so I've heard... ;-)

  8. Hope by Tablizer · · Score: 3

    I've been looking all over for my Zune receipt. Is it in that bag?

    1. Re:Hope by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I've been looking all over for my Zune receipt. Is it in that bag?

      No, but we found your Zune next to it on the sea floor and it worked fine when we tried it.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  9. Age of Plastic by foxalopex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder how long some of this plastic will survive? It's going to be weird when millions of years from now, our layer in the geologic records is marked by plastics, chemicals and a mass extinction.

    1. Re:Age of Plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      won't be any different than the age when grocery stores handed out bags made of iridium.

    2. Re:Age of Plastic by Armonk · · Score: 1

      Really long in this case. There is no sunlight to break it down. Only a volcanic or a chemical reaction could do the deed at the depth, and the sparse marine life if it's unlucky.

      well size DOES matter

  10. Relevance by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Whose life hinges on this exactly?

    At what point does this not matter? If it were a hypothetical trench at the bottom of the world's deepest ocean? Or if it were on an exoplanet ?

    You can find trash everywhere, but in some places you can't even find traces of significance.

    1. Re:Relevance by Wulf2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Finding plastic bags in the underwater trenches of an exoplanet would actually be fairly remarkable on a number of fronts.

    2. Re:Relevance by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Ha ... well, I think what you're saying here is that scientists would be interested in this and they could probably milk some steep grant money out of it.

      But on your death bed are you going to look back and say, "Ah ! I know whether exoplanets have trash in their underwater trenches! It was all worth it!"

      If not, then ... well, there's a good chance objectivity is categorically devoid of meaning. And even if it wasn't (which is incoherent), I don't think this discovery would make a life changing difference for me. I'd move along.

  11. Which grocery store? by magusxxx · · Score: 2, Funny

    Because their delivery service is AWESOME!

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  12. Brand shaming by ahziem · · Score: 1

    Which story's logo was on that bag?

    1. Re:Brand shaming by Megane · · Score: 1

      I remember seeing the picture a week or two ago (the usual delay for Slashdot) and the image of the bag was too washed out and blurry to see anything. Usually only big stores bother to customize them, so chances are it came from the THANK YOU corporation.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:Brand shaming by skoskav · · Score: 1

      Found an article with the purported bag: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...

      I wouldn't immediately have recognized it as a plastic bag. Looks more like a Zune receipt.

  13. mod parent up by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Its already a natural landfill. Let's just continue that, it can probably hold all of our plastic waste.

    If I had mod points right now I'd give that an "insightful". Oceanic trenches ARE the planet's landfill, sucking the seabottom debris under the mantle, to be melted and perhaps eventually released via volcanism.

    (They'd be a GREAT place to dispose of radioactive waste if one could be sure it wouldn't get loose before being sucked under.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:mod parent up by Whorhay · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't remember who thought it up but that is actually one of the safest possible ways to dispose of a lot of nuclear waste. The plan was to mix the waste in with glass, temper and mold it into a big torpedo looking thing and drop it from a surface ship into the ocean sediment at a subduction zone. Such an object would bury its self deep in the sediments which should prevent it from posing a radiation risk to anything alive in the vicinity. Over the eons it would end up encased in sedimentary rock, and then eventually melted into the mantle. By the time it might resurface it should be so diluted and decayed as to pose no discernible risk to any people that might be left around. We don't do it apparently because of international treaties which generally ban disposing of nuclear waste in the oceans.

  14. Re:Paper. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like... whatever happened to the paper bags we used to get out groceries in? You know, environmentally friendly, renewable, cheap, QUICKLY biodegradable, strong, reusable paper bags.

    Those paper bags are still there, in every supermarket. You just have to ask for them.

  15. Carlin's paradigm proven by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    The Earth + Plastic is now scientifically proven. When does George Carlin get his posthumous Nobel Prize?

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  16. Re:Paper. by jwhyche · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not at the supermarkets where I live. Plastic or carry it yourself. I bring my own cloth reusable bags.

    I really hate how this world has gone plastic crazy, plastic bags and bottles. I would much rather us return to paper bags and glass bottles. To me drinks just taste better out of glass bottles. An glass is infinity recycle. An even if glass gets in the environment it is not as big a deal as plastic. Glass will eventually get broken down into is components, sand, much more quickly than plastic.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  17. Re:Paper. by Megane · · Score: 1

    Because we had to think of the trees! When did you ever see a beautiful plastic bush? Nobody wants to save those! Also, it costs less for a stack of more bags, which saves even more money by not needing to bring more bags to the register as often.

    I prefer cloth bags for grocery shopping anyhow, because I would rather not have the temptation to save a bunch of crappy little plastic bags. Those things just love to rip once you try to use them for anything serious.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  18. You just tell me how ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    the poor, hard working octopus dad is going to get supper home to the kids without a plastic bag? You use them so why should these critters not do as well? :-)

  19. Obligatory xkcd quotes! by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 2

    There are a few of them, here and there in the what-if section, and two also in the main section, and also there, if you hover with the mouse. I wouldn't be surpised if others appear, however: it is such a deep argument, after all.

  20. Hey! That was my lunch! by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Accidentally dropped it overboard. Had a 6 pack of diet Coke (plastic bottles) and a styrofoam pod of humpback whale sushi.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  21. Great by DanWaggoner8288 · · Score: 1

    Now if we could just convince all the lawyers and politicians to get down there we'd be on our way to a better world.

  22. Fake News? by cstacy · · Score: 1

    The video in the linked article, on the National Geographic web site, does NOT show a plastic bag. It shows a diver collecting 2L plastic soda bottles, but no plastic bag. (Except for the very large sample collection bag that he brought.)

    The diver appears to be using conventional SCUBA gear. Can you even dive in the Mariana Trench that way? He's in a regular wet suit, bare handed, etc. I thought that going deeper than about 200 feet required more sophisticated gear. And I thought you could only go about 2,000 feet down with that special gear. This cannot possibly be a video of someone diving 38,000 feet down. I always thought you needed to be in a super-high-pressure submarine to go down there.

  23. Re:Paper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Glass will eventually get broken down into is components, sand, much more quickly than plastic.

    I don't think that's accurate. I haven't checked, but I know it's common to find very very old glass buried places and in wonderful condition. On the other hand, I've seen plastic bags of trash almost completely disappear from rot and other stuff tearing it apart.

    Totally agree otherwise.

  24. Re:Paper. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Like... whatever happened to the paper bags we used to get out groceries in? You know, environmentally friendly, renewable, cheap, QUICKLY biodegradable, strong, reusable paper bags.

    Those paper bags are still there, in every supermarket. You just have to ask for them.

    Paper bags are almost exclusively an American thing and aren't as environmentally friendly as you think because they are rarely made from recycled materials and often end up in landfills.

    They're also terrible as carrier bags because they lack handles and have the arse fall out of them when wet (it rains a lot here in the UK). I'm a one trip kind of guy, that means I carry everything from the checkout to my car in one go, I presently do that with 2 large reusable bags.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  25. Re:Paper. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Our bags have handles and compost down just fine in landfills.

    And yes, I remember rain.

  26. Re:Paper. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Our bags have handles and compost down just fine in landfills.

    And yes, I remember rain.

    And the trees cut down to make new ones? I highly doubt they're from 100% sustainable sources.

    The other problem with paper bags is that they aren't reusable. Here in the UK they've introduced a bag charge which has cut down on plastic waste significantly. Like I said, I have large reusable bags that I've had since I moved to the UK over 2 years ago. These two bags have literally saved me from using hundreds of bags (each weekly shop using 3-5 normal carrier bags, over 104 weeks, that's 312-520 bags). These reusable bags cost me the princely sum of £3 (50p each) and most stores will replace when broken for free.

    We really do use that many bags. Now do you see why paper isn't really any better, the problem isn't the material, the problem is the wastage due to lack of re-use.

    Now I'm no eco-mentalist, but it is a trivial issue to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. Hell, I'm saving money by not buying stuff that just gets thrown out.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  27. Why I do not use plastic bags. by Agripa · · Score: 1

    I do not like using plastic bags but not because of environmental concerns with their disposal; I prefer paper bags because I hate trees.

  28. Panicking without Taking Responsibility by Doctrinsograce · · Score: 1

    When I was young lad, as a part of Tikkun Olam, when we would stop alongside the road or after leaving a camping site, our parents required us to police the area in order to remove (1) all evidence of our having been there; and (2) a majority of evidence by the occupation of others. Even today I police my yard, street, local parks, etc. -- even as an old man. Given that ecology minded folks seem to think that the problem is with a government, corporation, or anyone else; I should not be surprised if we find cigarette butts and bear cans on Pluto. Furthermore, my wife and I are foodies. We produce 1/4 the amount of trash that our neighbors (with the same number of people in the home) do. Personal responsibility will clean a world -- not bigger government or increased tax dollars. I begin to wonder if common sense has become a modern superpower.

  29. Re:Paper. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    The paper bag may not be reusable once you have filled it with trash, but because they are made from trees, the usage is sustainable. Here in the US when we cut down a tree, we grow new ones to replace it. I know that in the UK after the trees were logged off, you just left the hills bare (I have hiked across it). That's why since you converted the Drax power plant in Yorkshire from coal to wood, you have had to burn American firewood in it, thereby allowing you to classify the plant as a sustainable operation, notwithstanding the fleet of diesel-burning container ships it takes to bring that wood to your shores.

  30. Re:Paper. by jwhyche · · Score: 2

    On the other hand, I've seen plastic bags of trash almost completely disappear from rot and other stuff tearing it apart.

    Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean its gone. Plastic molecules don't degrade so easy. They are finding molecules of plastic in soil bacteria. The longevity of some of the most dense plastics is measured in thousands of years. Glass exposed to the environment will eventually get broken down. Even glass on beaches will eventually be taken care of over time.

    Some plastics are also poisonous, pure glass isn't.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  31. Re:Paper. by jwhyche · · Score: 2

    I just read an article where some glass in the right conditions can last a million years. That condition being a landfill. That is actually pretty cool. I had no ideal that glass could last that long before breaking down.

    But those where perfectly stable conditions. I still think that glass in the environment will break down a lot faster.

    On another note. Does anyone else feel that in the future we will be mining our current landfills for valuable resources? So much shit we have tossed into landfills, steel, glass, gold, and other precious metals. Maybe in a few hundred years there will be a gold rush to the local dump.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.