…and this is a 
There is a gigantic pile of plastic garbage accumulating in the Pacific. It's concentrate by currents into one floating mass of bottle caps and detergent bottles and nylon debris, all slowly breaking apart into broken bits of polymer bobbing in the waves. It's not good for marine life.
One of the most vivid demonstrations of the effects is this series of photos of dead sea birds on remote Midway Island — all completely undisturbed and photographed as found. Finding decayed bird corpses reduced to bones and feathers isn't at all surprising, but some of these remains look more like the remains of some colorful cyborg, half biological and half industrial byproduct.
Recycle, and buy food that doesn't use plastic packaging. That stuff is a poison pill for the environment.
Environment
Comments
Posted by: Stefan
|
October 19, 2009 3:40 PM
You can get a little more background on the Pacific Garbage Patch from Brian Dunning's Skeptoid podcast and the transcript. It's from last December, but it was a pretty good critical analysis...
Posted by: skylyre
|
October 19, 2009 3:41 PM
If this is from the same show I saw, it was stomach turning. The show had a girl walking around the island and collecting all of the different plastic remains and categorizing them on the beach to show just how much of everything there was.
She also showed how the birds are actually, somehow, eating this stuff and it is being left in their remains, like the pics above.
Posted by: fl-zed
|
October 19, 2009 3:41 PM
Disturbing.
I can't wait for footage from the huge Pacific Garbage Patch,, I think someone was going to try to make a documentary about it... I hope that'll shake enough sense into the people who sneer at recycling and fail to realize that their daily life does have a bigger impact on the planet than what they think it does.
Posted by: Dahan
|
October 19, 2009 3:44 PM
I read somewhere that some scientists believe that some time in the near future, microorganisms may well evolve which are capable of using this broken down plastic as a food source. The idea being that it would make sense considering natural selection and the way potential resources tend to get used up. There's a huge potential energy source out there waiting for some organism.
It's at least an interesting idea.
Posted by: palaeodave
|
October 19, 2009 3:45 PM
It would be nice if some governments set their fishermen to netting out large amounts of plastic instead of overfishing our dwindling fish stocks. I know there's an enormous amount of plastic there and much of it too small for conventional nets but it would be something at least.
Posted by: DrAce | October 19, 2009 3:45 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't birds known for consuming rocks, and hard items for assisting in digestion?
Not suggesting, of course, that this is healthy... but finding debris like this may not actually be a sign that they are unhealthy, in of itself.
Posted by: whitebird | October 19, 2009 3:46 PM
Jeepers, #4...sounds like some potential havoc.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 19, 2009 3:49 PM
I really do know where any plastic I throw away (not that much, really) goes, none of it into the Pacific.
Recycling and all is good, but it's a bit much to suggest that the plastic going into landfills magically ends up in the Pacific Ocean.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: bobxxxx | October 19, 2009 3:50 PM
Recycle, and buy food that doesn't use plastic packaging.
It would also be nice if people didn't use our oceans for their own personal garbage can.
The world population will increase by more than two billion in the next 40 years. Most of those people will be raised by slobs. I don't see much hope for the future of this planet.
Posted by: idle.pip.verisignlabs.com
|
October 19, 2009 3:51 PM
Brian Dunning did a podcast, as well as a short video of this on Skeptoid.com. It's not an island, per se, but its certainly a problem... We should just "evolve" some bacteria to break down the plastic, the same way the nylon eating bacteria evolved...
Oh, thats right, "evilution" is false. We should just pray to the spam can to take care of it for us.
Posted by: Thanny
|
October 19, 2009 3:56 PM
There are already bacteria capable of breaking down plastic for energy. They're just not very good at it, which is why it takes so long for plastic to biodegrade (well, long on the scale of our lifetimes, but a geologic eye blink).
I recall reading a short article about a high school student who bred more efficient plastic-eating bacteria for his science fair project.
It's a viable option for dealing with plastic as a whole, but will accomplish little if we let the stuff get strewn all over the planet like this.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
October 19, 2009 4:02 PM
Oh, now you've done it...
(/Waits for Variety to report Bruckheimer's next project will be a remake of Hitchcock's The Birds... With cybernetics, pyrotechnics, and Megan Fox...)
Posted by: Doug Little | October 19, 2009 4:03 PM
@4 Ask and you shall receive.
Posted by: BillFromDover | October 19, 2009 4:04 PM
Eat plastic... shit what?
Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | October 19, 2009 4:05 PM
@ DrAce
In the case of Midway Island(s) and the albatross on them, the plastic is extremely harmful. Generally the most solid thing in their diet is the squid beaks of their ubiquitous prey. The plastic they swallow does not get easily digested and is not useful for breaking up other hard items in their diet (the *pelagic* molluscs, cnidarians, and crustaceans they eat are notoriously short on hard parts.)
Other birds, such as quail, do eat small bits of gravel and sand or pebbles to help physically break down other food items, but this is not true of albatrosses.
Posted by: Brock | October 19, 2009 4:06 PM
This made me sad like 8 years ago when I first heard about it :( I wish it wasn't so damn hard to buy food and electronics and other subsistence without plastic packaging.
(yes, I subsist partially on electronics and digital media)
Posted by: Doug Little | October 19, 2009 4:09 PM
Blasphemer, we will not have any graven images of inferior pork products here. Everyone knows that the one true god is bacon!Posted by: kopd
|
October 19, 2009 4:12 PM
@6
They swallow rocks and store them in their gizzard to assist in grinding seeds. Plastic won't help much with that, in general. At least, not the stuff in the pictures.
Posted by: The Chemist | October 19, 2009 4:18 PM
i gave up on water bottles and carry one of those steel canisters. I consider it an even better step for the environment than plastic ones because at least most of it is recyclable.
@Glenn D,
Plastic does not break down naturally. Let me repeat that: Plastic does not break down naturally- period. Not in a landfill, not in the oceans. Not in a thousand years.
The thousand year figure given for plastic degradation is due to mechanical force that grinds it into a dust. Unless it's incinerated or undergoes other chemical changes, it's very stable. Can you guarantee that your landfill will never become a body of water? Or are you content to make that guarantee in your lifetime?
Imagine what happens when widespread plastic dust is everywhere. Plastic clumps. Think about filter and bottom feeders. Think about biomagnification. We are setting humanity up for serious consequences down the road.
Posted by: James Sweet | October 19, 2009 4:18 PM
My plastic usage has experienced a sharp uptick recently because I have developed a seltzer habit. I swore off bottled water a few years ago -- but while in that case it just meant keeping a water bottle on hand for filtered tap water, the problem of getting a more environmentally friendly source of CARBONATED water is a bit trickier.
Most of the solutions are either really crappy or really expensive.. :) But I'm probably going to do something like this fairly soon... Better carbonation than modern "soda siphons" (which all yield insufficient carbonation due to a safety feature) and cheaper than getting a full-blown keg carbonation system.
Posted by: skeeto | October 19, 2009 4:25 PM
The premise here is a misnomer. Plastic you toss in the garbage isn't the plastic that ends up in the ocean. And, unfortunately, plastic recycling doesn't work yet either, so the best thing you can do is to throw it in the trash where it will be handled properly (a carefully managed landfill).
To throw a question out there: are the alternatives to plastic packaging really better for the environment than plastic? For example, glass bottles are heavier than plastic bottles; they take more energy to produce and move around, which is more pollution to the environment. I suspect plastic might still be the best we can do, which is why it's so widely used.
Here's some sure advice: buy products that don't use *excessive* plastic packaging, like the stuff that's impossible to open without hurting yourself.
Posted by: Fred The Hun | October 19, 2009 4:42 PM
Skeeto @ 21,
Really good question and hard to answer. I'm not sure about plastic being the better choice but it would help if more people were aware as to how complex the answer can be.
Best hopes for a smaller footprint for all of us.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=green-is-a-mirage
Posted by: MadScientist
|
October 19, 2009 4:46 PM
Birds die at sea all the time; finding bird feathers and bones along with plastic garbage only demonstrates that the currents which sweep up the plastic will also sweep up bird carcasses.
Just because you don't see something wrapped in plastic also does not mean that it wasn't packed and transported in large amounts of plastic.
Posted by: Doug Little | October 19, 2009 4:46 PM
Ha Ha Ha, you just reminded me of the second episode of the new season of Curb, that's some funny shit.Posted by: Sphere Coupler | October 19, 2009 4:50 PM
Oh, but god will protect us from ourselves...stupid fucking humans!
Posted by: Carlie
|
October 19, 2009 4:53 PM
I'll shill for One Small Step, which is a small woman-owned company that sells reusable food packaging (specifically for lunch, but multipurpose). I've bought things from them, and got not only some cool lunch things at a very good price, but had a handwritten note and a little extra set of bamboo sporks as a thanks for my first purchase.
For example, glass bottles are heavier than plastic bottles; they take more energy to produce and move around, which is more pollution to the environment.
True, but if you consider that if you hang onto your glass bottle and use it for a couple of years, that's a big differential. I guess it would depend on how many times the glass is reused, and the energy for washing has to also be thrown in.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
October 19, 2009 4:54 PM
No doubt, once the liberals in Washington have instituted their death panels and Republican concentration camps, they will recycle grandma's corpse into food and packaging to save the Earth for snail darters and spotted owls.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
October 19, 2009 4:56 PM
@James Sweet #20: I used to carbonate water over 30 years ago. All I used was a strong sealable container (with a safety blowout) and I'd go to the ice cream distribution center nearby and pick up 1Kg of frozen carbon dioxide. Smash the carbon dioxide into bits about the size of golf balls, throw it into the container with water, seal it and leave it for 24 hours to ensure that the CO2 had all melted away.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 19, 2009 4:59 PM
Of course it breaks down naturally, you idiot. That's part of the problem in the Pacific, it's breaking down to bite-sized chunks. I see that you're just preaching and attacking strawmen, rather than learning.
And, oh yeah, the remote chance that my landfill might become a body of water was really the issue. Try to keep up to speed, you dolt.
I wasn't saying that throwing away plastic is just fine, no matter how delusional your projections are.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: James Sweet | October 19, 2009 5:04 PM
@MadScientist: Interesting suggestion... How carbonated did it get? And how much control do you have over the carbonation? The cheapest/easiest solution is a soda siphon, e.g. the ones made by iSi, which run like $50 or so -- but they produce a fairly minor amount of fizz which can't really be called seltzer.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 19, 2009 5:04 PM
Just to add to my last post, for people brighter than "The Chemist," recent research has shown that plastics break down in oceans much faster than in most other environments. That's not a good thing, because many plastics happen to have toxic constituents in them.
Breaking down is thus not always a good thing. In fact, it's probably just as well that plastic will last a good long time in landfills, both because of the toxin problem, and because we don't need the greenhouse gases.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 19, 2009 5:14 PM
Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | October 19, 2009 5:15 PM
@ MadScientist #23
And what do you call it when they find plastic inside freshly killed seabirds? Or at nesting sites which are above sea level?
From pg. 100, Thomson & Hamer. 2000. "Stress in seabirds: causes, consequences and diagnostic value" Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 7: 91–110.
Posted by: watchful stone guardian
|
October 19, 2009 5:21 PM
I agree these are horrible photos and our plastic consumption is way out of control. Plastic is just not good for the environment.
I Googled for any other reference to this and came across this book chapter:
http://www.usask.ca/toxicology/jgiesy/pdf/publications/BC-060.pdf
They claim that the plastic ingestion has been increasing since the 1960s but doesn't appear to be causing serious mechanical problems for digestion. They claim that most of the plastic is broken down in about 2 years. However the added stress may result in other causes of death such as through disease. More subtle stresses may be caused by the compounds leeching out of the plastic and into the bird's body. What was interesting was all the other non-plastic "natural" items found such as pine cones and walnuts suggesting these birds may be adapted to having non-digestible/slowly digestible items in their gut. ("In his belly, you will find a new definition of pain and suffering as you are slowly digested over a thousand years." - JtH/C3PO SW-Ep6,RotJ)
The pictures are dramatic and one can easily jump to conclusions. Fortunately we have a scientific method to apply and to ask the question: What impact does the plastic have on the birds?
Posted by: Carlie
|
October 19, 2009 5:21 PM
Taphonomy - people actually study it!
Posted by: ZK | October 19, 2009 5:24 PM
On a very personal level I very much agree: don't moan about plastic, stop buying it!
That's pretty difficult to do but who knows, maybe consumer pressure could persuade milk suppliers to ditch nicely tessellating, and mostly shatter-proof Tetrapaks and plastic bottles, and revert to round glass bottles which are so easy to recycle. Etc.
However, there's more to the argument than that.
Perhaps I should give some hint as to my background and motivation: I am a computer programmer / statistician working for the refuse & recycling section of a local government (council) in England. I am not an environmental scientist, though I work with a few and have spent the last few years working in the industry. I can't pretend to be expert in this field, as some of my colleagues are. But I can listen and read as well as the next chap. So, apologies if I get stuff wrong, I'm not an expert, merely a chap repeating what he thinks he's understood from those who are qualified to understand.
It seems that there are some positive things to say about plastic packaging, and some difficulties in recycling it. As I understand it these are:
1. It takes less energy to make a plastic bag than a paper one. The same can be said for a plastic bottle vs. a glass one.
2. Plastics allow the use of inert atmosphere packaging, which in turn means less food wastage and therefore less transport as well as less landfill or compost (all of which generate atmosphere damaging gases).
3. Paper products that have been in contact with messy food stuffs are less recyclable than unsullied paper products. This isn't too much of a problem with small quantities of contamination, but if the contaminant ratio rose it would damage the market / product.
4. There are many different types of plastic, and it's not straight forward just to throw them all into one recycling bin and be done with it.
5. Transporting plastics from the doorstep or communal recycling bank is expensive per tonne since you are in effect shipping air. Of course there are compactors and even bottle piercing equipment, but these cost money too, money that isn't always available for political and/or economic reasons.
6. There's political resistance to sending plastics for recycling to countries such as China who are (were?) crying out for them and prepared to pay, and saves the boat going back empty. The resistance is about waste miles and working conditions in China.
7. Products made from particularly heterogeneous mixes of recycled plastics are extremely limited in their uses. We simply can't do as much with mixed plastics as we can with pure sources of plastic recyclate.
8. Technology for automating the sorting of plastics by type is coming along, but it's not fully developed yet and still doesn't produce as good a recyclate as source separation (i.e. the consumer pre-sorting it) or (expensive) hand sorting (i.e. a low paid worker in a picking shed standing next to a dusty, horrible picking line).
OK, so no answers, just stuff to think about.
I suppose the last point has to be: why don't we just stop dumping stuff into the ocean?
Cheers.
ZK
Posted by: Shawn | October 19, 2009 5:25 PM
Anybody know what the garbage patch looks like? When I first read about it, I thought one of the people said it looks, to the naked eye, like any other patch of ocean, but you'll occasionally see a bottle cap or something. Googling returns a bunch of pictures of indvidual pieces of garbage or so much garbage you could almost walk across it. The latter pictures often have a dude in a canoe, or skyscrapers in the background, so I'm assuming they're mislabelled.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 19, 2009 5:26 PM
only if the glass is incompetently handled. in germany, a large amount og glass is reused. not thrown away, not even recycled, but reused: you return glass bottles to the store. that way, the lifetime of the packaging is extended greatly, because only bottles that get damaged are thrown out, and those are recycled. A lot less new glass needs to be made that way.Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 19, 2009 5:32 PM
on a personal note, I have to admit to using far more plastic than I'm comfortable with. With the exception of refusing to accept grocery bags at the store* (for which I've been escorted out of the store on a few occasions on the suspicion that I was trying to steal stuff) and shopping at the farmers market whenever possible, it's almost impossible to avoid plastic in some form or another. and the lack of recycling facilities around here means that i don't recycle anything, either
*and even that only when i don't need trashbags. I've tried to make my household trashbag-free, but that would mean that I'd suddenly be responsible for taking out the trash and cleaning the bins(on top of the other household chores); as it is, those are the only chores my boyfriend performs without me needing to tell him so, so I don't feel motivated to take over those chores from him.
:-(
Posted by: kopd
|
October 19, 2009 5:34 PM
I've seen that done in a very limited fashion over here in the USA with soda. I was shocked, as I hadn't seen a glass soda bottle in about a decade. You just pick up a 6-pack at the store, bring back the empties. Unfortunately it's not an option where I now live.
Posted by: James Sweet | October 19, 2009 5:37 PM
Which is why everyone should drink less soda and more beer!
Posted by: Carlie
|
October 19, 2009 5:42 PM
For milk, smaller dairies often have glass containers now, too. I know in upstate New York Byrne Dairy sells glass bottle and reuses them.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 19, 2009 5:43 PM
Which is why everyone should drink less soda and more beer!
RAmen! :-)
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | October 19, 2009 5:45 PM
Shawn said:
The pictures you see obviously can't be verified to actually be pictures of the garbage patch, so take them all with a grain of salt. The best information we have (from people studying this intensely) is that the particles are nearly all too small to see without putting your face down at water level.
Posted by: Tom | October 19, 2009 6:01 PM
I wrote about this issue and a possible solution for it that could clean up the mess while being economical. To read it, please click here: A Wave of Destruction: Cleaning up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | October 19, 2009 6:22 PM
I will never understand humans, they shit in their own drinking water, for the most part from the planets perspective humans are a virus, If we don't change then we will die off and the religious will be happy...dead, but delusionaly happy.
Who the fucks bright idea was it to dump in the ocean? If individuals can't act responsibly then the Government must step in to guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...woe, maybe that should be life, liberty and the pursuit of survival. Oh yeah I forgot the Government is asleep and on major drugs.
Posted by: chris tackett | October 19, 2009 6:23 PM
Planet Green has the full series of pictures here: http://planetgreen.discovery.com/travel-outdoors/chris-jordan-midway-birds.html also on digg: http://digg.com/d317eGF
Posted by: Caine
|
October 19, 2009 6:24 PM
Carlie @ 26:
Thanks for the link, I ordered some stuff, and will most likely be ordering more.
Posted by: RickK | October 19, 2009 6:31 PM
To those who are suggesting a bacteria to eat this plastic, I believe plastic-eating bacteria was what triggered a collapse of human civilization in at least one science fiction novel.
To those asking about the garbage patch - there may or may not be a floating island of trash. Accounts vary.
What IS known is that plastic breaks down into tiny-to-microscopic particles.
What is also known is that skimming the water in many parts of the Pacific will yield more particulate plastic by weight than plankton or other biomass.
(shudder)
At the moment I'm reading "Lost on Planet China", and by the accounts in that book, there are 1.5 billion people who feel environmental destruction is a sign of positive economic growth.
I don't think there's any way to put the genie back in the bottle, other than forcing product manufacturers around the globe to directly bear the cost of recycling/reusing their own packaging. Alas, it would be unenforceable.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | October 19, 2009 6:40 PM
If I may add an anecdote here, this post reminds me of my trip to Cambodia. There was a whole bunch of trash just tossed on the side of the road by the local villager. I remember my visit to a restaurant. It would have been beautiful as it was on a pier outdoors and overlooking a lake. But When I look down there was trash all over the lake and the lotus flowers in blossom. I think the reason perhaps is the lack of environmental education.
Posted by: Glenn J | October 19, 2009 6:47 PM
I show similar photos in my oceanography and geology classes. One thing I've done is to ban the bottled water in my classrooms (I haven't extended it to soda or schnapps yet).
Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | October 19, 2009 6:54 PM
The plastic *I* use either goes to recycling or goes into landfill. None of it ends up in the Pacific, and my local landfill stands a 0% chance of ever ending up under water. I therefore use and throw away plastic without any remorse.
Having travelled a bit, I know that the most likely sources for this plastic rubbish are boats and ships (people who travel on the ocean seem to think nothing of dumping all their rubbish straight into the sea) and from 3rd-world countries where people show far less responsibility for their rubbish than we westerners do.
All you have to do is travel across the estuary of the Chao Phraya or the Pearl River to see the monumental amount of plastic (and occasional bodies) being pumped into the ocean along the eastern side of the Pacific.
Posted by: Marcie Dietrich
|
October 19, 2009 6:54 PM
I read about this a few months ago. Disturbing.
I recycle as much as possible.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 19, 2009 6:56 PM
Over here, plastic waste is burnt in what amounts to power plants. Gets at least the energy out.
Also, here in France, there are no more plastic bags in supermarkets. You have to bring your own bag or buy one. I might run out of trash bags yet...
Posted by: Claire | October 19, 2009 7:08 PM
It's a shame that most of the food packaging that is supposed to be disposed of readily is made of plastic. When I was in the Grand Tetons this summer, they had biodegradable "plastic" made from plant materials. I wish that type of packaging was more readily available.
Also, avoid styrofoam. That stuff doesn't go away either.
Posted by: ryk
|
October 19, 2009 7:32 PM
I can't remember where, but I read something about the garbage patch previously. The account I read stated that it looked almost like a low-lying island made up mostly of bags and what not, but it was just a fairly shallow floating layer, and could not support weight (maybe a small bird or something?) and anyone attempting to step on it, would just sink into the water and be covered up by the debris.
I've also heard bad things about both plastic and glass recycling. The main one regarding glass is the cost of processing and transport, due to the weight of it. Also, glass is pretty damned cheap to make, with it being mostly just melted sand. I've heard a lot of 'recycled' glass ends up getting sold as aggregate for various mixes, daily cover for landfills, and fill for certain construction projects and such. Personally, I think the way to go with glass is back to the refundable/reusable bottles. I've seen this with soda bottles in other countries, and I believe it used to be done with milk bottles in our country (I can remember heavy 1 gallon plastic jugs from my childhood, but I don't think those exist anymore). Though, it would need some sort of legal mandate or tax incentive or something to get it started.
Also, with plastic recycling, I've heard that even well sorted plastic degrades with processing and heating and whatnot, so it is rarely reused for the same purpose, and is most often used to create insulation or textiles. (which is good use, but not quite recycling)
And, as far as decomposition of plastic, even if it is not digested/metabolized/whatever by microorganisms, don't most (all?) plastics degrade from UV exposure? - I don't know if this is a limited effect, or if it will break it down enough that the components can enter (non-harmfully) the biological cycle.
Posted by: speedweasel
|
October 19, 2009 8:02 PM
It's times like this that I'm glad my drink of choice can pass for sparkling water.
http://www.martinmillersgin.com/uk.html
The tonic does tend to fluoresce in sunlight thought, which gives the game away somewhat.
Posted by: User Loser | October 19, 2009 8:43 PM
Imagine what's evolving out there in the Pacific... There was a sci-fi story I read once where they bred up a bug that ate oil and they realized after it got loose that it might be a problem...Funny thing is that soon enough oil gets tight the plastic we are throwing away now is going to be a valuable resource. I think it was on Wired that they are already mining old garbage dumps for metals.
Posted by: amphiox
|
October 19, 2009 8:47 PM
300 million years from now, Cephalopod paleontologists will note a thin, strangely colored strata, and find that it consists of fine-grained carbonaceous globules in a staggering array of colors, as many colors as they have chromatophores to show them.
Perhaps they will speculate about the impact of a great plastic asteroid, and wonder why the fossils of a certain tail-less, bipedal vertebrate with a strangely enlarged cranium are found only below the colored layer, and not above.
Posted by: llewelly | October 19, 2009 8:49 PM
ok, I use cheap commodity plastic water bottles. Why? They're cheap (a good one can be had for
Posted by: amphiox
|
October 19, 2009 8:54 PM
A comment on #4:
As we all know, evolution is a combination of chance and necessity, subject to contingency. The ability of microbes to take advantage of the plastic smorgasborg humans are providing for them is going to depend on whether or not the necessary genetic variation is already present, or else they will have to wait for the necessary mutations to occur.
There are some potential parallels that we can see in the fossil record. There may have been a significant lag between the widespread appearance of some tough to digest natural polymers, like cellulose and lignin, and the advent of organisms capable of digesting them quickly. It is possible, for example, that the spread of trees in the Carboniferous resulted in an unusually high atmospheric oxygen level, as all the carbon got sequestered into lignin that microorganisms of the time had trouble breaking down, also incidentally producing a lot of the coal deposits we exploit today.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
October 19, 2009 8:56 PM
@llewelly #60: They're cheap (a good one can be had for
That's weird. You didn't even say "Candle Jack".
Posted by: Russell | October 19, 2009 10:00 PM
I wonder if there are any paper engineers out there figuring out how to make degradable, paper bags that stay waterproof for a week of use? That, really, is the advantage of the plastic bag over the paper bag, and why everyone put a plastic bag in their trash bin. The plastic bag "works." The paper bag turns to mush when someone tosses a half-filled coke into it.
Posted by: raven
|
October 19, 2009 10:03 PM
It is possible to convert plastics (hydrocarbons) into other hydrocarbons (oil) by partial pyrolysis. There are plants on the WC that do this. IIRC, the mass conversion is quite high, 100 lbs of plastic to 100 lbs of crude oil. The feedstock can be a heterogenous mixture of waste plastic.
What I don't know is the cost effectiveness of it. They claim it is economical but if it was, seems like everyone would be doing it. .
Posted by: j-brisby
|
October 19, 2009 10:08 PM
Um...I call bullshit on this one.
Are we really to believe that these birds have decayed to the point where the plastic in their stomachs becomes visible...while simultaneously remaining so undisturbed that even their feathers are still in situ? Doesn't the wind ever blow on Midway? Doesn't the tide ever come in? Don't buy it. Obviously fake.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 19, 2009 10:13 PM
You've never been to a real beach, I see.
Dead birds in that state are fairly common.
Posted by: j-brisby
|
October 19, 2009 10:23 PM
You got me, Bill Donohue, I've never been to a beach. And you never verified those photos, and that's somehow my fault.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 19, 2009 10:35 PM
You're the one claiming the photos are obviously fake. I've seen a lot of dead birds on beaches; that's what they look like.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | October 19, 2009 10:37 PM
The lack of basic scientific IQ on this thread is more than a bit disturbing. Discarded plastic is killing a large number of apex marine animals today, particularly sea turtles and albatross.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | October 19, 2009 10:42 PM
Thanks Phil for posting this. It is appreciated. The level of "denial" among some of the posters here is not encouraging and sounds a lot like the squawks of global warming denialists ("it's not happening, and even if it is, it's not our fault, and even if it is our fault, it will actually be good !!"). I expect more from Pharyngula commenters. Step your game up.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | October 19, 2009 10:51 PM
Plastic in the marine environment is analogous to the use of lead in fishing sinkers in the freshwater environment. In the 1990s, scientists at the Tufts Univ. School of Veterinary Medicine in Boston, Mass. assembled a comprehensive necropsy database of loons which died from having ingested lead fishing sinkers, often attached to fish that anglers had caught or used as bait. They estimated that ingestion of lead sinkers was one of the principal sources of mortality in old, sexually mature common loons in northern New England. This evidence caused the Maine Audubon Society to begin a long campaign to ban the use and sale of lead fishing sinkers in Maine, which was enacted into law several years ago. Having seen many X-ray photographs of dead, adult loons with split shot sinkers in their esophagus, it became apparent to me, as a news reporter, that the problem was real and something needed to be done. The same applies to the dumping of all types and forms of plastic in the marine environment. If you think plastic is not harmful, try swallowing a plastic bottle cap.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | October 19, 2009 10:58 PM
Source from Tufts University on my comment above:
http://www.tufts.edu/vet/loons/
THX.
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 19, 2009 11:10 PM
"1. It takes less energy to make a plastic bag than a paper one. The same can be said for a plastic bottle vs. a glass one."
Who cares. There should be NO paper or plastic bags offered in supermarkets. Bring your own fucking reusable cloth SACK!
This country is insane.
Posted by: SteadyEddy | October 19, 2009 11:11 PM
#65.... From June 1996- July 1997, I worked on Midway as an Environmental Engineer (cleaning it up under a Navy contract to turn it over to the Fish and Wildlife Service as a National Wildlife Refuge). I have 35mm photos from back then very similar to these in this recent blog. The "ghost crabs" are the main scavenger at work- and that's why the bones aren't all splayed about. In fact, as sad as it was, we used to collect the plastic debris from the skeletons to keep it from reaching back into the ocean. I still have a collection of Gooney bird half-digested McDonalds happy meal figures as well as a plastic army man collection. You could find a lighter in almost every stomach. Most are quite faded out or etched by what I assume is stomach acid.
From what I understood, learning from the Fish and Wildlife personel on Midway, the adults feed on squid and flying fish eggs (which glob onto anything floating in the water), historically pumice or wood. The adults regurgitate their found food into their starving chicks mouths (the adults have the strong enough regurgitation muscles to expel the squid, stones, and plastic debris). The chicks don't have those regurgitation muscles developed enough to expel the plastic pieces and therefore stop begging for food/liquid from the parents. They basically feel full and end up dying of dehydration. Very sad.
If you have the means, I would highly recommend visiting Midway Island National Wildlife Refuge. It will give you a glimpse of how remote and yet attached the world has become.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | October 19, 2009 11:19 PM
I remember a person in my German class who said he'd never let the replacement of plasitic bags happen because it's his privilage to have them. :(
Posted by: Rorschach | October 19, 2009 11:28 PM
My favourite is when you bring a green bag, and they still try to put the meat/dairy/whatever in a separate plastic bag.Drives me insane.
Posted by: Davey | October 19, 2009 11:38 PM
>>Recycle, and buy food that doesn't use plastic packaging.
Yeah, right. And travel, and drive cars that don't use gasoline.
Simple - just like that. Never mind that that's what our whole society is based on.
Posted by: cmflyer | October 19, 2009 11:41 PM
Here's the "rest of the story" about glass from the SciAm article.
Posted by: The Chemist | October 20, 2009 12:38 AM
@Glen D,
Let's see where do I start?
I think, first of all, you assumed an amazing level of bad faith on my part. Nothing I said is untrue. In fact, the link to the article only deals with polystyrene, and as the article itself states- polystryrene remnants sink where water temperature is likely too cold for such an interaction. Meanwhile, the plastic used for bottles and plastic bags is emphatically NOT polystyrene. Also, excuuuuuse me for not being up to date on a recent finding presented at an ACS conference in August this year (which I did not attend because I'm an undergraduate and am not working in a research group) in a field I'm not particularly interested in at the moment. I'm sorry that I'm not omniscient, and that I generally agreed with a conventional scientific hypothesis on the issue (which your article describes). That hardly makes me a- what did you call me? Dolt? Idiot? Meanwhile, that conventional view may still hold true and was hardly devastated by the one experiment.
Finally, all of this is somewhat moot anyway, since you were talking about landfills, I was talking mainly about plastics in landfills, and pointing out that there is no way to ensure the stability of landfill geology such that it will never flood, at least over a thousand years.
I also asked, and I think this is where you assumed I was taking a jab at you, if you were content to let this be a problem 1000 years from now. That's not an altogether crazy notion, though I don't ascribe to it myself. Some people think that by then we will have found a solution to dealing with most forms of pollutants. Once again I disagree, but I was simply trying to find out if that's what you believed.
Yeesh, I stuck my pinky in and got my head bitten off.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 20, 2009 12:52 AM
which is why i generally just tell them to stuff everything back into the cart without putting it in my bags. Especially since whatever they tell the kids about bagging during training seems to prevent them from being able to fit all the groceries into my bags(tip: the milk doesn't need its own bag. neither does the fruit)Posted by: hannah's dad | October 20, 2009 1:00 AM
Pardon me for not reading all of the above but I think this has not been mentioned and is at least partly relevant.
Here in South Australia many plastic containers [and glass and aluminium for that matter] have a point of sale additional cost of 10 cents placed on them.
This is redeemable when the containers are returned to local recycling centres.
It works.
The scheme is successful in reducing the amount of plastic in landfill, employing recyclers, giving charity groups [who often do the collecting]some revenue and perhaps most importantly declaring to the public that the container cost should be considered part of the unit cost of the product.
The scheme has been in for yonks and despite some companies being unhappy with it it has received solid public support.
Posted by: Alex Deam | October 20, 2009 1:10 AM
Who is Phil?
Posted by: Beth Terry, aka Fake Plastic Fish | October 20, 2009 1:31 AM
How much plastic did I throw away today? Um... none.
How much plastic did I recycle today? Same answer... none.
How much plastic did I buy today? None again.
Ever since reading about the problem of plastic in the ocean over two years ago, I have been working very hard to eliminate all unnecessary plastic from my life and help others do the same via my blog, Fake Plastic Fish (http://www.fakeplasticfish.com).
It's not as difficult as it might seem, but reducing our plastic consumption does require planning ahead. Bringing our own utensils, water bottles, and other containers with us. Shopping from the bulk bins at the natural foods stores. And actually giving up some of the convenience foods many of us in our fast-paced culture have come to rely on.
But I can tell you the rewards outweigh the hassles. Not eating and drinking out of plastic that can leach chemicals into our food and bodies? Awesome. Not getting caught up on the treadmill of mass consumption? A major relief, actually.
PZ, I've long admired your efforts to combat the fallacies of religion. Thank you so much for also sharing with your readers Chris Jordan's heartbreaking photos of dead albatrosses. A similar photo two years ago was what started me on my own journey in plastics activism.
Would you also be willing to share with your readers ways to cut down on unnecessary plastic in their lives? It's important to shed light on the problems, but without practical solutions, many people feel only despair and powerlessness.
By the way, Greta Christina shared your post with me today. I love when several of my interests intersect. It there were only a way to add karaoke to this, it would be perfect. :-)
Beth Terry
http://www.fakeplasticfish.com
Posted by: Douglas Watts | October 20, 2009 1:46 AM
Did I say Phil? Of course I meant to say Paul.
I do love how concrete discussions about how .. umm ... plastic trash ... is making sea turtles go extinct quickly devolves on a thread like this into incredibly boring and mundane discussions of supermarket pet peeves. Party for your right to fight.
Posted by: Beth Terry, aka Fake Plastic Fish | October 20, 2009 1:55 AM
@James Sweet I purchased a Soda Stream home soda maker to satisfy my seltzer cravings. The CO2 canisters are sent back to the company for refilling when empty. I purchased the Penguin because it comes with glass carafes instead of plastic bottles. http://www.sodastreamusa.com/catalog/2?gclid=CI6ogb_0yp0CFQgtawodIm6Vsg
@skeeto Better than plastic OR glass is cutting our consumption and reducing the amount of stuff we buy in the first place. But besides the issue of weight, please also consider that all plastics contain chemical additives that affect the properties of the plastics. And all additives can leach from plastics. We know some of them are harmful -- phthalates, BPA, etc. But there are many more we don't know about because packaging manufacturers are not required to reveal the ingredients in the plastic. Glass is inert. I'd rather eat out of glass.
@CalGeorge "There should be NO paper or plastic bags offered in supermarkets. Bring your own fucking reusable cloth SACK!" Amen!
@Davey "Simple - just like that. Never mind that that's what our whole society is based on." No it's not easy, but it can be done. I have. Check out this list of plastic-free alternatives: http://fakeplasticfish.com/list/
Posted by: ryk
|
October 20, 2009 1:58 AM
here's a decent vid of a TED talk on this issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7K-nq0xkWY
at around 2:45-3:00 there are some graphics showing the paths of plastics released from California and Japan.
A few states in the U.S. have 'bottle laws' - where you pay an extra nickle or dime or so per bottle/can (I think it's just carbonated beverages in CA, but I'm not certain) when you buy the item, and then get that same amount for every bottle/can you return to recycling centers. Some people return their own, but the vast majority is returned by homeless people (may be stereotyping here, not sure on the actual classifications and what not) who collect them out of trash bins and stuff. I grew up in a state that did not have this law, but had relatives living in a nearby state that did have this law, and as a kid I used to gather up cans and bottles and return them. *shrugs* I didn't make much, but I would usually spend the weekend wandering around woodlots and empty lots anyways, so all I really needed to do was take a bag with me and pick up the cans/bottles I found, and I would end up with more money then I knew what to do with at the time (probably about $10-$40(I was a kid))
I know it would never happen in our atmosphere, especially with the rampant amount of anti-environmentalism sentiment out there, but I think a similar model would be a great way to address packaging issues, by setting up a surcharge for these items (though, quite a bit steeper then a nickle or dime per item), but it would have to be a heavy enough charge that it would be a serious incentive for people to avoid these items (and, let's face it, for someone spending over $20 in groceries, saving $0.05 for bringing your own bags hardly matters), as well as possibly funding clean-up efforts or some sort of beneficial research for environmental issues.
I'm probably missing something really important (aside from the fact that something like this would never happen :( ), but I think this could be applied to all aspects of excess packaging. Include a heavy 'clean up' or 'environmental' or 'remediation' (or whatever, I'm sure someone can come up with some good sounding name) fee. This would encourage more manufacturers to minimize packaging, and return to using renewable/recyclable/biodegradable (hopefully all three) packaging. Personally, I really like the aesthetics of plain, unbleached recycled paper/cardboard packaging, but I guess I am rather alone on that issue. :(
Posted by: perturbed | October 20, 2009 2:09 AM
Fabricated.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | October 20, 2009 2:56 AM
Maine and Massachusetts passed bottle deposit laws in the early 1970s, as have about 10 other states.
Not sure what is keeping the other states from getting on board.
???
Posted by: Buddhacious
|
October 20, 2009 3:27 AM
Hmm, I wonder what sort of ecopsychosociopolitical changes would be necessary in order to truly "recycle" and not buy plastic?
How to shrink the giant plastic monster swallowing the sea life in the Pacific... Just a scientific question? It is that, but much more.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | October 20, 2009 4:09 AM
Gyeong Hwa Pak @ 75 said;
I remember a person in my German class who said he'd never let the replacement of plasitic bags happen because it's his privilage to have them. :(
I just hope you kicked him in the balls and told him it's your privilege to do so.
Posted by: DLC
|
October 20, 2009 4:18 AM
I'm showing my age a bit, but . . . once upon a time soft drinks used to come in glass bottles or aluminum cans, both of which are indefinitely recyclable. Once upon a time milk used to come in glass bottles as well. I also note that the "footprint" statement for glass bottles seems complicated, but when you consider other similar products, it probably isn't any much different. However, being something of a realist, I have to say that we're not going to do away with plastics anytime soon. Aside from limited purchase of products packed in plastics,what's really needed is proper disposal of what can't be recycled, and proper recycling of that which can. The documentary I saw on the trans-pacific gyre plastic heap noted that a great deal of the plastics came from plastic water bottles and other containers dumped carelessly out of car windows and out of the hands of careless campers. You'd get a $500.00 fine for that here if you were caught.
So, why not organize a cleanup operation? Sure, it's a massive problem and it would require a massive effort, but I think at least a start could be made on it.
possibly convert some fishing trawlers to cleanup or even pay fishermen to do it off-season. Just because it's a huge mess doesn't mean you couldn't make at least a dent in it, in a decade or two. Especially if people stop carelessly disposing of plastic products.
Posted by: SpriteSuzi
|
October 20, 2009 4:25 AM
Definitely NOT fabricated! I lived on Midway for a year (34 years ago when it was still a US Navy base) and even then, it was disgusting how much plastic trash ended up on our beaches. I don't remember seeing any chicks dead from being fed plastic, but those photos look exactly like others I saw that had died for various other reasons.
The Atoll is in the middle of the Pacific Gyre. Currents flow north past Japan, east across the northern Pacific, south along the west coast of North America, and back west towards Japan just above the equator. Toss your soda bottle into the surf in California, and it may well end up on one of the Hawaiian Islands (Midway is near the western end of the archipelago.) We found lots of clearly identifiable garbage from the West Coast. From the other side of the gyre, we collected glass fishing-net-floats (we just called them fish balls!) from the Japanese fishing fleets. So yes, all that plastic very easily gets from land out there to the middle of the Pacific.
I know Wikipedia isn't always the best resource, but this article does have some interesting info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch. Apparently, they estimate only 20% of the garbage in the Patch is from ships!
Posted by: Kitty
|
October 20, 2009 5:20 AM
perturbed
As PZ said above "Have you ever been to a beach?"
This can be seen on any depositing beach, whether Pacific or Atlantic coasts. Here in Wales debris is brought in by the Gulf Stream and sand-hoppers strip the meat from carcasses before the next tide leaving bones, feathers and inedible stomach contents behind - though I've not seen any as bad as this.
Landfill is not infallible as a place to lock away plastics as it needs to be properly managed, which costs money and is open to abuse unless strictly regulated. Plastics are light in weight and unless properly buried can blow into local water courses and then find their way to the sea. This was demonstrated by students at Swansea University some years ago.
On a litter pick for the Marine Conservation Society I kept a note of how many languages I could identify on the plastic waste I was bagging. I gave up at 15 and couldn't identify a further 5 (Korean? Vietnamese?). Just last week I bagged medical waste (Spanish), cleaning fluid bottles (French), motor oil container (USA), shampoo bottle (Greek) and kept 2 lobster tags to record (Canada).
Ship's waste used to be so bad we could identify what passengers had been offered for breakfast on the Swansea to Cork ferry by walking the high tide line. Grapefruit halves (biodegradable), juice (cartons), bacon, eggs, black pudding and sausages (plastic packaging), toast (plastic bags), marmalade (small plastic and foil pots) and coffee (foil packs and tins).
The ferry stopped running in 2006 but is due to start again in March 2010 - I'll be watching the beach closely and returning any waste to the new operator's head office.
Makes me want to SCREAM!
Posted by: MadScientist
|
October 20, 2009 6:45 AM
@James Sweet #30: I weighed up enough CO2 to bring the container to 3 bar gauge when it's all vaporized and near room temperature and threw in a little more. I kept the liquid at about 2/3 of the container. It stung my nose and made great sarsaparilla. You can adjust the amount dissolved by using an adjustable pressure relief valve (they're nice and cheap and easy to get these days). The amount dissolved also depends on temperature, but I always relied on the solid CO2 cooling things down. At 3 bar gauge you want to make sure the container holds well; it can do an awful lot of damage if it ruptures (car tires are typically inflated to about 2 bar gauge, draught beer lines only to ~2/3 bar gauge or 10 psi gauge).
Posted by: Jag | October 20, 2009 9:27 AM
Very sad.
I'm wondering if we will get to see adaptive evolution in action.
The only birds that probably survive are the ones that do not feed the plastic to their young.
Will this trait be passed to the next generation ?
Posted by: DrAce | October 20, 2009 9:44 AM
@15, and 18 Moderately Unbalanced Squid, and Kopd,
Thanks for your replies. I'm a chemist - not a biologist... but felt that this could have been one of those stories which wasn't nearly as bad as was being made out.
I'd personally argue that ridged plastic lids etc would make excellent digestive aids - arguably better than rocks, in that they'd gradually wear down and be excreted in chunks - but it seems that this is not something the albatross mentioned does.
Like I said... not a biologist :)
I appreciate your respectful responses to a skeptical comment by me.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 20, 2009 10:33 AM
DrAce: I'm no biologist, either. I have studied biology some. I understand the skepticism, but I do not agree that the plastic would make a better digestive aid than small stones. If you want to break a hard seed open, would you crush it between two rock, or two plastic bottle caps? Also, if it did break into small chunks, those could have sharp edges that would be bad for the digestive tract. And there's the possibility of toxins leaching out of the plastic and into the birds system. Now, does that mean that it's impossible? No. There could be a bird that gets lucky enough to find just the right pieces of plastic that would help it grind seeds without posing any harm, but it won't be the bottle caps and such that are prevalent in those photos. My understanding is that in general the plastic just ends up taking up space and reducing the bird's digestive efficiency, with the potential for those other harmful effects I mentioned. I hope that helps.
Posted by: AJS | October 20, 2009 11:19 AM
@ Russell, #63
And what the FUCK is someone doing tossing a half-filled coke in the trash? The liquid goes in the toilet (it helps clean the trap) and the empty bottle or can goes in the recycling.Posted by: la tricoteuse
|
October 20, 2009 11:47 AM
Seriously, maybe I'm out of touch with American habits and mentality, having lived exclusively in Europe for nearly four years, but that seems like a no-brainer to me.
That said, we still use plastic trash bags because even squidgy bits of old food can make a paper bag mushy, and we live in an apartment, so we have to carry our trash and recycling down four flights of stairs and outside to the dumpster and recycling containers. Using paper, or no bag at all, would make that an enormously messy undertaking.
I'd also managed somehow to completely forget that US supermarkets have baggers. In Italian supermarkets you bag your own stuff, and if you want them to give you plastic bags you have to pay for them. I've observed the same in France and England, and I suppose I'd just begun to assume that a similar practice would begin to catch on in the States as well.
Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | October 20, 2009 11:51 AM
Thanks, DrAce :o)
We get used to the kinds of birds and animals we see every day, which tend to be terrestrial species, and it's really easy to imagine the oceanic species are similar - but very few of the principles we derive from daily observation of terrestrial animal behavior apply in a straightforward manner to marine animals. I don't study albatrosses professionally, but I work with some people who do. And I never get tired of watching them fly. ;o)
I hope my comment at #33 gives some context to the problem without exaggeration.
If anyone's interested in learning more, there are educational materials at http://www.oikonos.org/projects/oceanstewardship.htm I think there may be a way to ask NOAA to send albatross boluses to student classrooms as part of an educational activity... so if you have school-age kids, that might be a great way to get them interested (it's a lot like the owl pellet dissections I imagine many of us did in school.)
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 20, 2009 12:24 PM
I think you're a self-righteous ignorant prick. Much that you said is untrue, you lying git. I showed that it was, and you just lie some more.
Dickhead, you said that plastic doesn't break down naturally in the environment, and you stated it in absolutist terms:
Not that it was even slightly relevant to what I had written, or true, nor are you being honest now.
Look, moron, it didn't have anything to do with what I had written, which was that the plastic I throw away doesn't end up in the Pacific Ocean. Your idiotic "facts" were a strawman from the start, then they were wrong, you a-hole.
I'm sorry that you act like a self-righteous jerk with outdated facts, when they didn't even address the rather simple issue I had been discussing. If you're going to be a holier-than-thou a-hole, at least get your facts right, buffoon.
Being the tard that you are, you try to get around your lack of knowledge, self-righteous strawman attacks, and to ignore the most relevant fact, which is that the plastic at issue happens to be breaking down, increasing the environmental risk. You come across as not only an ignorant jackass, but unteachable.
Which, as I pointed out, is fucking irrelevant. I could have pointed out that it's extremely unlikely that much plastic would ever be liberated from layers and layers of fill-dirt even if water covered the landfill, like any half-competent person would know, and that it is extremely unlikely that most landfills will end up covered in water. Even more unlikely is that much of any plastic in a landfill would end up in the Pacific. But apparently you can't think anyway, fuckwit, so you bring up these mindless irrelevancies yet again, as if your idiocies mattered, even to your strawman "objection."
Do you really think that the thousands of landfills currently operating are actually likely to become covered in water in a thousand years (especially those far from coasts, as mine is), and are thereby likely to give up considerable amounts of plastics? If not, your "objection" would be irrelevant even if that were relevant to what I had written, which it wasn't in the first place.
Fucktard, you're such a disingenuous and stupid cretin. I pointed out already that I wasn't defending throwing away plastic, but you're too damn stupid not to even repeat your fucking stupidity. I really shouldn't even be wasting any intelligence on such a driveling fool. But I am, and I originally wrote:
Then I wrote in response to your idiocies:
But your reading comprehension is approximately that of a chimp, while your self-righteousness appears to equal Dembski's. So you didn't and don't actually respond to what I wrote, rather to your delusional fantasies about someone you wanted to attack for no good reason whatsoever.
That's a fucking stupid question when all I was pointing out is that none of the plastic I discard ends up in the Pacific Ocean. As an a-hole you have to repeat your irrelevant attack, as if it were somehow justified.
You were a lackwit who didn't bother to deal with anything I wrote, while attacking a strawman. And you were called on it, at which point you felt the need to reinforce the fact that you don't know what I wrote and you don't care, and that you just continue to gibber on in your self-righteous ignorance.
And now I really am through with you in this thread, as you're too dumb not to even repeat your idiotic rant.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: DrAce | October 20, 2009 2:36 PM
@#97 Kpod,
As MUS has pointed out in his #33 post, it's not nearly that clear. The leaching of 'toxins' from the plastic is unlikely to really be that big an issue... in animals like this. They are an issue in animals like us - who are exposed to them constantly, and can live long enough to suffer from the carcinogenic properties of them.
Also, many of these 'toxins' are reproductively active... although that's not the issue we're dealing with here.
My concern was that this was a tug at the heart strings, but in reality wasn't actually the cause of death for these birds. It's shocking to see that much plastic inside a bird, but my limited knowledge (which I confess was wrong) indicated that birds needed inert solid material to aid in digestion.
There is actually nothing above to suggest that the plastic was actually responsible for their deaths - although I agree it's likely). I'm happy to have been established as wrong.
And WRT the plastic as a digestive aid - the surfaces of a ridged coke bottle top are really quite effective at wearing things down. Perhaps not all seed coatings, but certainly softer materials are effectively broken up by this sort of abrasive surface.
Posted by: The Chemist | October 20, 2009 3:05 PM
"Fucktard, you're such a disingenuous and stupid cretin."
I really had to stop reading here. Watch carefully as slowly step my self-righteous ass back from someone who clearly needs to be on anti-psychotics.
Posted by: Sili
|
October 20, 2009 9:58 PM
I've thrown out a little today. But it's wrapped up well and goes to get burnt for heat and power.
I'll admit it took me a while, but by now I do put most of it aside and hand it in for recycling (I hope).
At least we have a pretty decent bottle return system here in Denmark. Unfortunately it resisted cans for a long time (and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that plastic bottles took a while to get accepted too). Unfortunately it's national only, so there's no incentive to return cans bought in Germany. Some people to hand those over for recycling too, but I think it's a minority. It helps when one has paid about €0.15 for the thing.
Posted by: Canada Guy | October 29, 2009 1:02 PM
We all know disposable water bottles are wasteful and bad for the environment, yet their production is growing rapidly everywhere. Just 20 years ago the market for plastic water bottles was practically nonexistent, but today we produce billions of these completely unnecessary products. There can be only one sane response, plastic water bottles must be banned!
http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/10/water-bottle-manifesto.html