# Cargo ships source of plastic pollution



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

A new study looking at plastic pollution has concluded that most of it is coming from CARGO* ships, not land-based sources as has been commonly blamed.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/09/24/1909816116

Ships are illegally dumping plastic trash at sea, study suggests



> "It's a surprise in that it makes us rethink the source of the garbage in our oceans," said Robert Ronconi, a Halifax-based researcher, currently with the Canadian Wildlife Service, who co-authored the new study. "One of the common assumptions is that most of the garbage in the oceans is flowing out of rivers on land."


Also interesting (to me anyway) is the paper identifies plastic drink bottles as a major source of this pollution:



> During the last 3 decades, plastic drink bottles have shown the fastest growth rate of all debris types...


Recently there's been this big focus on getting rid of plastic straws. Seems to me this study shows that we'd do a lot more if we could get rid of all these single-use plastic drink bottles, most especially for water - what a waste.

*I made a mistake.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

What else is interesting is how cruise ships aren’t the boon thought to the local economy.
Compare someone visiting and staying in a local b&b, hotel or resort. They use local labor for maintenance, construction, services and transportation. They do all their eating and drinking on land keeping local restaurants and bars open doing business and offering work. 
A cruise ship comes with its own labor, services and infrastructure. 
What islanders need is jobs. Hospitality jobs are good paying as are construction and maintenance. Other than taxi drivers no one makes out much from the cruise ships. Maybe a lunch or a few drinks. Even tours are done in large groups so offer fewer jobs. Still, you see huge projects throughout the islands to provide berthing for these monsters. Money talks...bs walks. 
We see a cruise ship we leave. It changes an idyllic setting to the New York subway in winter.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

MikeOReilly said:


> A new study looking at plastic pollution has concluded that most of it is coming from *cruise liners*, not land-based sources as has been commonly blamed.


The foregoing is not correct. Both reports refer to "ships" not "cruise liners".

While I am no fan of cruise ships, my (much) better half is and, consequently, I have been aboard a number of the Celebrity liners and, during such cruises, spent a lot of time going through the ships vitals with a number of the officers and engineering staff while my wife did the Spa thing. As I have been critical of waste from "ships", and particularly plastic water bottles, I was particularly interested in how the ships managed waste.

Aboard Celebrity, and I am reasonably sure other cruise lines as well, I found that trash is sorted, plastic bottles, glass and cans separated out, shredded or crushed and bailed/bagged for shore side recycling or disposal. As we did two cruises "back-to-back" on one occasion, we remained aboard during a lay-over and I watched from our stateroom balcony as bails of shredded plastic, compacted cans, and bags of crushed glass were unloaded to trash haulers on the dockside below. The ship's officers, and particularly the ship's Captain/Commanding Officer--a lady by the way--were all very impressively concerned about the quality of their waste management. I suspect other cruise lines have similar protocols but doubt that commercial cargo vessels come even remotely close and there are far more of those a sea.

One needs lay blame where it is due and not generalize from the specific in the reports. (FWIW I think disposable plastic drink bottles should be entirely banned but that's another discussion.)

FWIW...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

So what do you propose to replace them with?


----------



## cherylchecheryl (Sep 3, 2019)

I do a lot of litter pickup, both land and along the shore. On land, cigarette filters are a huge problem. Along the shore, I find tons!! of balloons, with their attached strings--more than anything else.

I pick up very few plastic drinking straws on either land or shore. The few I find are typically still stuck in the lid.


----------



## Barquito (Dec 5, 2007)

chef2sail said:


> So what do you propose to replace them with?


Paper.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...g-developing-fully-recyclable-one/3948909002/


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

svHyLyte said:


> The foregoing is not correct. Both reports refer to "ships" not "cruise liners".


Yes, you are correct. My bad. I assume since most transport ships carry few crew, hence produce little garbage, the main source must be those ships that carry thousands of people. But you're right, it only refers to ships, so it could be either, neither or both.



chef2sail said:


> So what do you propose to replace them with?


What did we all do before these plastic bottles became the norm? Reusable glass was the norm when I grew up. Make the deposit large enough and most people will return them.

The growth of people carrying their own travel mugs is another example of how it could be done. A significant number of people use their own mugs for coffee. Why not extend that to all beverages. Obviously wouldn't work everywhere, but it is an example of how things can change.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

MikeOReilly said:


> A new study looking at plastic pollution has concluded that most of it is coming from cruise liners, not land-based sources as has been commonly blamed.
> 
> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/09/24/1909816116
> 
> ...


Where does it say cruise liners in the article? I only saw references to shipping. Did I miss it?

Edited: Oops, I see svHyLyte already pointed that out


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Where does it say cruise liners in the article? I only saw references to shipping. Did I miss it?


Uhmm&#8230; Post #7?


----------



## jeremiahblatz3 (Jul 3, 2018)

To be clear, the conclusion of the article is that a large proportion of the plastic pollution on one island in the south-central Atlantic is from shipping, mostly plastic bottles that came from China. It makes no statements about worldwide pollution sources, except to reiterate that 80% probably comes from the land, and most of the rest is fishing nets.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

The commentary in the news article says researchers suspect “cargo ships.” So I was wrong to conclude it was cruise ships. I wonder if the title of this thread can be changed. I’ll ask…

And yes, the paper and the news item does not let fishers or land-based sources off the hook either. The research simply suggests that, due to the age of much of the garbage, that it could not have come from either in this case.


----------



## Scandium (Mar 27, 2018)

MikeOReilly said:


> Recently there's been this big focus on getting rid of plastic straws. Seems to me this study shows that *we'd do a lot more if we could get rid of all these single-use plastic drink* bottles, most especially for water - what a waste.


Why one or the other? We could just do both..


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Scandium said:


> Why one or the other? We could just do both..


Sure &#8230; lets do both. Just saying that getting rid of plastic bottles would do a lot more.


----------



## Scandium (Mar 27, 2018)

MikeOReilly said:


> Sure &#8230; lets do both. Just saying that getting rid of plastic bottles would do a lot more.


And we are. I see plenty of push for people to use reusable bottles. It's just easier to get rid off straws, as they serve no useful purpose; it's perfectly possible to drink without one. Not using a straw has no impact on one's drink intake. (for healthy adults)

Getting and carrying around water without disposable water is a bit more work (not much IMO, but in some cases it is. And people are lazy..)


----------



## mbianka (Sep 19, 2014)

Now they do the study! You mean we did not really need to ban straws for our drinks! That's the last time I'll listen to a sixteen year old girl with an environmental agenda! 
https://reason.com/2018/07/18/dont-ban-straws/


----------



## Scandium (Mar 27, 2018)

mbianka said:


> Now they do the study! You mean we did not really need to ban straws for our drinks! That's the last time I'll listen to a sixteen year old girl with an environmental agenda!
> https://reason.com/2018/07/18/dont-ban-straws/


Complaining about "agenda" while citing Reason magazine?? ROFL! With strict sourcing from the National Institute of FYGM..


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

mbianka said:


> Now they do the study! You mean we did not really need to ban straws for our drinks! That's the last time I'll listen to a sixteen year old girl with an environmental agenda!
> https://reason.com/2018/07/18/dont-ban-straws/


I'm quite sure this straw ban is more of a feel-good action rather than actually anything substantive. It's like virtually all the actions we've taken: change light bulbs, recycleing, etc. They don't really address the real environmental issue, which is that we are using too much.

Don't get me wrong. Doing something is better than doing nothing. But I think environmentalists have done the greatest disservice by pretending that if we just turn down the thermostat (or turn it up in hot places), if we toss our paper and tins into a blue box, or now if we do away with plastic straws, that we are somehow going to solve our environmental problems. We're not. But much like security at airports, it's grand theatre, and it makes people feel like they've done their part.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Barquito said:


> Paper.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...g-developing-fully-recyclable-one/3948909002/


Paper as in cutting trees?

I agree with you BTW

Worked for a company trying to developer a compostable bottle. Single use bottles will never be replaced by paper do to durability. Also there is a plastic coating in paper beverage cups.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Just and FYI plastic straws are a large problem not to be made light of.

https://www.plasticpollutioncoaliti...raws-and-how-each-of-us-can-make-a-difference

500 million per day thrown away&#55357;&#56896;&#55357;&#56896;&#55357;&#56896;&#55357;&#56896;&#55357;&#56896;&#55357;&#56896;&#55357;&#56896;

Just a small example. I run 26 restaurants, Average Gross 1.5 million per year. 3500 customers per day. Open 250 days per year. I just ran a straw usage report for one of them.

88 cases at 10,000 straws per case x one average restaurant.

Going to paper compostable straws is a strong contribution to the issue of plastic in the landfill. Every little bit counts.


----------



## mbianka (Sep 19, 2014)

MikeOReilly said:


> I'm quite sure this straw ban is more of a feel-good action rather than actually anything substantive. It's like virtually all the actions we've taken: change light bulbs, recycleing, etc. They don't really address the real environmental issue, which is that we are using too much.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. Doing something is better than doing nothing. But I think environmentalists have done the greatest disservice by pretending that if we just turn down the thermostat (or turn it up in hot places), if we toss our paper and tins into a blue box, or now if we do away with plastic straws, that we are somehow going to solve our environmental problems. We're not. But much like security at airports, it's grand theatre, and it makes people feel like they've done their part.


Yep. I never use straws at home or on board and rarely when eating out. Never seen any floating in the local waters either. Waters are pretty clean these days at least in my area. In general things have gotten much better. Though there are some countries that still need to clean up their act. Looking at you China and apparently some of those Cargo ships. Still there are things that we can do without blanket bans. For example I reuse any plastic bags at least once. I also use a grocery delivery service when I'm home. Saves me time, money and I don't need to make a trip to the supermarket. One less car on the road. Plus they take any extra plastic bags I have and they reuse them who knows how many times.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

We grew up with paper straws and no plastic water bottles - never even knew we were missing anything.

I was in Bar Harbor this summer and they had water bottles which they called paper but were really a plant based type of plastic that is claimed to degrade and disappear once disposed of.

It seems that certain cruise ships are worse than others.

https://www.mdislander.com/maine-news/cruise-ship-company-pleads-guilty-to-illegal-dumping-charges
June 13, 2019 
One of the cruise ship companies whose ships regularly visit Bar Harbor was ordered in federal court last week to pay a $20-million criminal penalty after dumping contaminated waste in the ocean and intentionally covering up those actions.

Princess Cruise Lines and its parent company Carnival Corp. were ordered to pay the penalty after admitting to violations of probation in a 2017 case, in which Carnival had already paid $40 million. Carnival Cruise Lines will also be subject to three more years of probation and enhanced supervision.

The cruise ship company was convicted and sentenced in April 2017, after pleading guilty to felony charges stemming from its deliberate dumping of oil-contaminated waste from the vessel Caribbean Princess off the coast of England in 2013, and intentional acts to cover it up.

The company admitted to six probation violations since 2017, including dumping gray water into Alaska's Glacier Bay National Park, dumping plastic waste in Bahamian waters, and falsifying records ahead of court-ordered audits.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

It looks like people slid without a thought into a life style which harms the environment. This destructive way of living was facilitated by industry and business we deal with day to day. They likely did what was most profitable.

Then consciousness of the issue began to change things... but this was in advance of solutions. Recycling began for plastics... but not 100% and so the problem mushrooms. Now industry and science is looking for and in some cases providing solutions. Paper straws can certainly replace plastic. We have stainless steel straws for the grand kids. Many products made from plastic can, are and will be made from sustainable materials. But will it be fast enough and extensive enough... this is a world wide problem.

Groceries are just beginning evolving into more sustainable packaging. In suspect in a few years single use plastics for packaging will be a thing of the past. So there is some hope... or light at the end of the tunnel. And now almost everyone is aware of the problem. Sure some idiots are in denial and too many still profit from destroying the environment. That has to change... And this includes shutting down or severely limiting the environmentally harmful practices of some entire industries.

I think most sailors get it. They do try to leave a clean wake and are perhaps more keenly aware of pollution around them.

The question in my mind is if the momentum of wrong headed behaviors is be too great for our environmental reforms to save the planet and keep it habitable by humans and other living things. Are we doing enough? How can we tell?


----------



## PhilCarlson (Dec 14, 2013)

MikeOReilly said:


> Doing something is better than doing nothing.


Well no, not really.

When you consider that 'feel good actions' like replacing plastic straws and bags with paper in the aggregate are more destructive than the status quo. Both require more energy (hydrocarbons expended) to produce, so we are trading some (x) environmental pollution for some more (x+) atmospheric pollution, in effect saying "it's better in the air than in the ocean." Suggesting this is better than nothing because it raises awareness is not unlike buring tires to raise awareness. It's irrational and counter-productive.

I'm all for calculated, productive solutions. But these knee-jerk, feel good impositions move the ball backwards.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Going back to the original article and the research...

And locating where that island is... Ive never heard of it and I bet few have even heard of the group of islands!

So its got me wondering what they mean by plastic being dumped off ships? Really, could some goose on watch drinking his favourite water off the bottom of the Horn and The Cape and tosses it into the sea really add up to 174 new plastic bottles washing up over 10 weeks in this forsaken remote pin ***** of an island?

I don't think so..

It sounds more like wilful dumping of huge amounts of plastic waste on purpose. The who voyages garbage is ejected somewhere a long way away.

Thats just criminal.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

MikeOReilly said:


> Doing something is better than doing nothing. .


I would, kinda, generally agree with you.... until Bill Gates and Harvard University decided they want to spray TONS of sulphur into the atmosphere to block the sun!
Yes, seriously!

I don't protest, but I would be on the first plane to wherever Bill Gates want to do this and wave my flag.

How dare these people unilaterally decide these things?

Its sheer insanity!

"Bill Gates funds scheme to spray artificial 'planet-cooling' sulfur particles into atmosphere.
A large balloon hovering at 80,000 feet over Fort Sumner, New Mexico, will release the sulfates into the atmosphere within the next year."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...es-dust-stratosphere-stop-global-warming.html
https://www.naturalnews.com/036583_geoengineering_Bill_Gates_global_warming.html


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> ...So its got me wondering what they mean by plastic being dumped off ships? Really, could some goose on watch drinking his favourite water off the bottom of the Horn and The Cape and tosses it into the sea really add up to 174 new plastic bottles washing up over 10 weeks in this forsaken remote pin ***** of an island?
> 
> I don't think so..
> 
> ...


I agree, which is why I initially (and wrongly) jumped to the cruise ship conclusion. It makes no sense to me that this pollution could be coming from random plastic bottles tossed off of cargo vessels. Most of these vessels operate with crews less than a few dozen. I know the traffic is heavy, but the numbers don't seem to add up.

My sense is that the source has to be much larger, and probably more concentrated. This sounds like intentional mass dumping to me.



MarkofSeaLife said:


> I would, kinda, generally agree with you.... until Bill Gates and Harvard University decided they want to spray TONS of sulphur into the atmosphere to block the sun!
> Yes, seriously!


Yup&#8230; insanity.

As I said, I'm no fan of theatrics. But as a pragmatist, I understand that sometimes doing something easy, if fairly meaningless, is important as part of an overall strategy. That's how I view most of the actions we in developed countries have done so far. One can be cynical (as I often am), or it can be seen as a necessary step to get people moving.

But let me be clear, if the science shows an action to be counter-productive, then I would not support the action, even if it is good theatre.


----------



## Scandium (Mar 27, 2018)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> I would, kinda, generally agree with you.... until Bill Gates and Harvard University decided they want to spray TONS of sulphur into the atmosphere to block the sun!
> Yes, seriously!
> 
> I don't protest, but I would be on the first plane to wherever Bill Gates want to do this and wave my flag.
> ...


You are aware that natural news is a rabid anti-science, quack-promoting site? It refers to Gates as "vaccine enthusiast", and "so-called global warming"  And at the end their source is Infowars! :laugh 
Daily mail is... yeah.

The actual article simple states that Gates has give a few million to researching (feasibility of) the idea.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

Whenever anyone cites Infowars I just start backing away slowly, and try not to make eye contact.


----------



## Scandium (Mar 27, 2018)

PhilCarlson said:


> Well no, not really.
> 
> When you consider that 'feel good actions' like replacing plastic straws and bags with paper in the aggregate are more destructive than the status quo. Both require more energy (hydrocarbons expended) to produce, so we are trading some (x) environmental pollution for some more (x+) atmospheric pollution, in effect saying "it's better in the air than in the ocean."


Well how do you define more destructive? Energy required can, and increasingly is, coming from renewable sources. Using trees is sustainable as new ones are planted. Digging up oil is not, and plastic ends up in the ocean where it will likely never be removed. "recycling" is just codeword for sending to asia where it is dumped..

At least the issue that it takes more energy is something that can be mitigated. Finite oil and near-unlimited life of plastic in the environment is not.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

PhilCarlson said:


> Well no, not really.
> 
> When you consider that 'feel good actions' like replacing plastic straws and bags with paper in the aggregate are more destructive than the status quo. Both require more energy (hydrocarbons expended) to produce, so we are trading some (x) environmental pollution for some more (x+) atmospheric pollution, in effect saying "it's better in the air than in the ocean." Suggesting this is better than nothing because it raises awareness is not unlike buring tires to raise awareness. It's irrational and counter-productive.
> 
> I'm all for calculated, productive solutions. But these knee-jerk, feel good impositions move the ball backwards.


The most effective bio friendly straws are made from corn starch not paper and are compostable. They break down in days not thousands of years,

What troubles me are the nay sayers who believe we should do nothing at all, because by itself it isn't effective. To me, every bit helps in the end run.

There is no one big over arching solution. There are many small contributions though. Beware of some who says that while you are not affecting much....we shouldn't do it.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

We have lots of people in Canada, including some high profile politicians, who argue that Canada's contribution to the global problem is so small that we need not worry about our nasty habits. The strategy is apparently to show high population developing countries how they should live while we continue in our wasteful ways.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> The most effective bio friendly straws are made from corn starch not paper and are compostable. They break down in days not thousands of years,
> 
> What troubles me are the nay sayers who believe we should do nothing at all, because by itself it isn't effective. To me, every bit helps in the end run.
> 
> There is no one big over arching solution. There are many small contributions though. Beware of some who says that while you are not affecting much....we shouldn't do it.


Too often these do-nothing arguments are spoken in terms of allowing the perfect become the enemy of the good. As I said, I think doing something is better than doing nothing. But only if the _something_ is actually an improvement, and does not actually do more harm.

There are examples of so-called environmental actions which feel right, but actually make things worse. A de facto ban on new nuclear power station is one glaring one. Yet nuclear power, by any measure you care to consider, is the cleanest, safest form of bulk electricity we have.

Here in Canada, and perhaps other places, the it is now virtually impossible to build new oil pipelines due to environmental concerns. Yet once again, moving petroleum products by pipeline is far safer, and less environmentally damaging, than the alternatives of train or truck.

I don't know if this straw ban is another example - I haven't looked at the research. I do know that a lot of actions like recycling, changing lightbulbs, or turning down the thermostat are more feel-good actions than actual beneficial changes. The main problem is, they make people feel good, so everyone can go on their merry way over-consuming the planet's resources.

The core environmental problem we face, from ocean pollution to green house warming, is that our civilization is consuming too much. The real solution is for those of us in the developed world to reduce our consumption rates. We have to embrace the notion of "enough."

But we can't do that because we've created an insane economy that demands that we all keep consuming more, More, MORE! So instead, we move deck chairs on the Titanic. It makes most people feel good, so the dance can go on &#8230; at least for a little while longer.

Sorry &#8230; this turned into a bit of rant. Carry on.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> The most effective bio friendly straws are made from corn starch not paper and are compostable. They break down in days not thousands of years,
> 
> What troubles me are the nay sayers who believe we should do nothing at all, because by itself it isn't effective. To me, every bit helps in the end run.
> 
> There is no one big over arching solution. There are many small contributions though. Beware of some who says that while you are not affecting much....we shouldn't do it.


Too often these do-nothing arguments are spoken in terms of allowing the perfect become the enemy of the good. As I said, think doing something is better than doing nothing. But only if the _something_ is actually an improvement, and does not actually do more harm.

There are examples of so-called environmental actions which feel right, but actually make things worse. A de facto ban on new nuclear power station is one glaring one. Yet nuclear power, by any measure you care to consider, is the cleanest, safest form of bulk electricity we have.

Here in Canada, and perhaps other places, the it is now virtually impossible to build new oil pipelines due to environmental concerns. Yet once again, moving petroleum products by pipeline is far safer, and less environmentally damaging, than the alternatives of train or truck.

There are other examples, but you get the point. Sometimes so-called environmental actions feel good, but actually do more harm in the end.

The real problem I see with a lot of actions like recycling, changing lightbulbs, or turning down the thermostat is that it's closer to moving deck chairs on the Titanic. It makes people feel good, so they can go on their merry way over-consuming the planet's resources.

The core environmental problem we face, from ocean pollution to green house warming, is that our civilization is consuming too much. The real solution is for those of us in the developed world to reduce our consumption rates. We have to embrace the notion of "enough."

But we can't do that because we've created an insane economy that demands that we all keep consuming more, More, MORE! So instead, we move deck chairs on the Titanic. It makes most people feel good, so the dance can go on &#8230; at least for a little while longer.

Sorry &#8230; this turned into a bit of rant. Carry on.


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

chef2sail said:


> So what do you propose to replace them with?


tap water. Bottled water not only creates plastic pollution, but transporting it wastes energy and creates air pollution at the same time. Filling a bottle (glass, metal, even re-using a plastic one) from the tap avoids much of the waste and expense.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

There doesn't seem to be much uproar over canned soda and beer. Would it make more sense to sell water in cans also?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

paulinnanaimo said:


> There doesn't seem to be much uproar over canned soda and beer. Would it make more sense to sell water in cans also?


At first blush, it might be better. But a full life-cycle analysis would be required. Tin and aluminum seems easier to recycle than plastic, but plastic is a lot lighter to transport. Both require significant extraction and refining costs.

When I was studying to become an certified environmental assessor in Canada I recall one of our case studies was to look at the shift from paper bags to plastic bags. This is dating me, but there was a big uproar against paper, so everyone switched to plastic. But the analysis I examined suggested paper was probably better overall.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

paulk said:


> tap water. Bottled water not only creates plastic pollution, but transporting it wastes energy and creates air pollution at the same time. Filling a bottle (glass, metal, even re-using a plastic one) from the tap avoids much of the waste and expense.


Tap water.......no way

Tap water from Flint Michigan
Tap water from Love Canal
Tap water from Three Mile Island
Tap water from rusted pipes in major city systems
Tap water from Bacteria infested wells in Cozemel
Tap water from the bowels of a cruise ship
Tap water from your boats water tanks which you shock yearly

Sorry I will drink my 2liters of water from a spring, I prefer not to glow in the dark from the inside out


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

chef2sail said:


> Tap water.......no way
> 
> Tap water from Flint Michigan
> Tap water from Love Canal
> ...


Really? https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/sc-bottled-water-health-0127-20160127-story.html

One salient point in the article:

A report by the NRDC... - the latest large-scale study performed - tested more than 1,000 bottles from 103 brands of water by three independent labs. They found that about one-third of the bottles contained significant contamination with levels of chemical or bacterial contaminants exceeding those allowed under a state or industry standard or guideline ...

A pretty label and a high price don't necessarily mean much.

Another news item pointed out how a major bottled water firm in Florida is actually pumping so much water that it is impacting the aquifer - causing salt water ingress. So much for purity.

It is quite simple. Find a good water source and refill your bottles.


----------



## Solandri (Sep 7, 2012)

chef2sail said:


> The most effective bio friendly straws are made from corn starch not paper and are compostable. They break down in days not thousands of years,


Plants:

Pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, H2O out of the ground, and use energy in sunlight to combine to form simple sugars - C6H12O6.
Combining two simple sugars forms a complex sugar (sucrose) - C12H22O11.
Combining multiple simple sugars together forms starch (C6H10O5)n
Combining hundreds or thousands of simple sugars together forms cellulose (wood). It is also (C6H10O5)n

So there's nothing fundamentally different between paper (wood), starch, and sugar. The longer chains are just more difficult for biological organisms to break apart into individual sugar units. Everything can process sugars (which contains the energy that originated from the sunlight). Most animals can process starches. Only a few bacteria (which live in the gut of termites and herbivores) have figured out how to process cellulose.

So on the face of it, it would seem that using starches are superior to using wood (paper). However...



> What troubles me are the nay sayers who believe we should do nothing at all, because by itself it isn't effective. To me, every bit helps in the end run.


Unfortunately, too many people assume what the solution is based on ideological assumptions and rules of thumb, rather than actually thinking about the problem to determine what the best solution might be.

We have a buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere because we're digging up coal and pumping out oil from underground and burning it. These are actually the remnants of ancient plants - using energy they captured from sunlight millions of years ago, they pulled CO2 out of the atmosphere and converted it into sugars and cellulose, then were buried underground. Until we dug them up, and burned them to release the carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2.

So to reverse the process, we need to be removing CO2 from the atmosphere, and burying it underground. Unfortunately, CO2 sits very low on the chemical potential energy scale - you have to pump a bunch of energy into it to turn it into something else. Fortunately there's a natural organism which does this - plants. Anything which photosynthesizes removes CO2 from the atmosphere, and uses the energy in sunlight to convert it into sugars, starches, and cellulose. All we need to do then is to bury the resulting sugars, starches, and cellulose underground to begin to counteract all the coal and oil we've dug up.

That means we need to _stop_ composting and recycling paper and wood products. These things should be going into landfills. Likewise, plastic (which is made from oil) is zero-sum if it is also sent into landfills. The oil which was pumped out from underground and turned into plastic, is simply buried underground again. There's no need to recycle it if it isn't cost-effective. All recycling does is obviate the need pump up more oil to form more new plastic. But that need can be diminished by switching away from plastic products, and towards plant-based products. To compensate for the increased number of trees that need to be cut down, we need to be replanting more trees.

Recycling is like having perfect defense in a basketball game. It can prevent you from falling further behind. But if you're already losing the game (already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere), then it just locks you into your losing position. You need to be taking _active measures_ to try to pull ahead so you're no longer losing. This means pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere and somehow burying it, is more important than recycling. So paper needs to go in the trash, not the recycling bin.



chef2sail said:


> Worked for a company trying to developer a compostable bottle. Single use bottles will never be replaced by paper do to durability. Also there is a plastic coating in paper beverage cups.


It's a wax coating, not plastic. Wax is better that plastic in that bacteria can process it and break it down. (As opposed to plastics, whose hydrocarbon chains are so long that pretty much the only thing that breaks them is UV light - that's why plastics left in the sun gradually turn brittle.) Natural oil seeps in the Gulf of Mexico release as much oil into the water every year as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They're just not an ecological disaster because the oil is spread out and diluted, rather than concentrated like in an oil spill, so the bacteria have plenty of space and time to digest it.

Metal containers like soup cans, aluminum beverage cans, and refillable metal water bottles have a plastic coating. Otherwise the metal would dissolve in the water (corrode) and the cans would leak.

Plastic water bottles don't have to be single use. I reuse mine about 10-20 times before throwing them away. You just have to drink from them without touching them with your lips. It's only when bacteria from your mouth get transferred to the bottle, that they start to multiply and it begins to smell bad.



Sal Paradise said:


> We grew up with paper straws and no plastic water bottles - never even knew we were missing anything.
> 
> I was in Bar Harbor this summer and they had water bottles which they called paper but were really a plant based type of plastic that is claimed to degrade and disappear once disposed of.
> 
> It seems that certain cruise ships are worse than others.


The numbers just don't add up for what the article is claiming. An estimated 8 million tons of plastic waste goes into the oceans each year. There were an estimated 28.5 million cruise ship passengers in 2018. If they were the majority source of the plastic, that would mean over 140 kg of plastic dumped into the ocean per passenger.

This article says a cruise ship takes on about 700 tons of supplies for 6300 people, which is only 111 kg of total supplies per passenger and crew. The vast majority of this is consumables (food and drinks), so there simply isn't enough plastic aboard a cruise ship for them to throw away to constitute the majority of the plastics in the ocean.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704486504575097423296506784

As someone else posted, this study merely found that the bulk of the plastic bottles on one island were from passing cargo ships. The bulk of the plastic in the oceans comes from trash in rivers in Asia.
https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution#mismanaged-plastic-waste


----------



## peikenberry (Apr 26, 2000)

I read that article and despite their assumption that the bottles come from ships they offer no data to actually establish that. They are making a lot of assumptions. It is a well known established fact that container ships often lose containers at sea. Frequently these containers break open and spill their cargo. A significant example is the yellow rubber duckies case https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/w...000-rubber-duckies-lost-at-sea-teach-us-about This happened in 1992 and yellow rubber ducks are still floating onto beaches all over the world. So those plastic bottles could have come from lost containers. There is a lot of available data on this, but they did not cite this.

Regardless, plastic flotsam is a huge problem in all the oceans. Back in the 70's laws were put in place that required ships to keep their trash and dispose of it ashore at proper facilities. Most passenger ships do this. Most modern ships, especially cruise ships have huge holding tanks for sewage and that is disposed of at the dock by connecting to the local sewage treatment system. Since most cargo ships are foreign flagged it is hard to know if they are complying with environmental laws unless they call at the US or other country that requires enforcement of the environmental regulations (such as the EU)

PS: A lot of our trash gets shipped to China. Could be a source of this trash.

And I agree, we need to do away with single use plastic bottles. Not only the ocean, landfills are full of them.


----------



## lho (Jun 14, 2003)

MikeOReilly said:


> A new study looking at plastic pollution has concluded that most of it is coming from CARGO* ships, not land-based sources as has been commonly blamed.
> 
> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/09/24/1909816116
> 
> ...


You won't see that reported on CNN or MSNBC.

George Carlin on the environment - 1992
"The Earth Has Been Around 22,500 TIMES Longer Than Us"
"Earth: 4,500,000,000 years"
"People: 200,000 years"
"The Planet is Fine, The People are ****ed"


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

peikenberry said:


> And I agree, we need to do away with single use plastic bottles. Not only the ocean, landfills are full of them.


I have done away with them. Almost. I won't touch a plastic bottle if I can help it. On the road (Kerouac reference!) I find plenty of drinks in aluminum cans or glass. I never touch bottled water unless I can't get good tap water. In the few instances I drink out of a plastic bottle I wash it and reuse it several times and then recycle it. I put it in a recycle bin - I hope it actually gets recycled but I am beginning to doubt.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Sal Paradise said:


> I have done away with them. Almost. I won't touch a plastic bottle if I can help it. On the road (Kerouac reference!) I find plenty of drinks in aluminum cans or glass. I never touch bottled water unless I can't get good tap water. In the few instances I drink out of a plastic bottle I wash it and reuse it several times and then recycle it. I put it in a recycle bin - I hope it actually gets recycled but I am beginning to doubt.


I'm no saint when it comes to buying plastic bottles. I buy, and toss or recycle, the damned things when I have little choice. Aluminum, which might be better (hard to know without a full life-cycle analysis) usually contains sugary drinks, which I'm rarely interested in - except beer, of course .

Talking about reusing though, I just recently had to replace my stainless steel travel mug. I've had it for at least a decade, and have repaired it numerous times. I was finally forced to admit defeat and confine it to the recycle bin.

I just hope the new one I bought (for $30!) will last as long.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

What’s so disappointing is the extraordinary low incidence of plastic actually being recycled even when you separate your trash. Was told by my trash man that since China no longer accepts our trash they bring it to the regional dump where it just sits. They’ve been doing that for quite 
From what I understand paper and glass are currently more likely to actually be recycled than plastic.
The microscopic particles of plastic that result when it’s not recycled are now in every life form including us. This is true even if you use no plastic. 
Today used a lot of Saran Wrap. Haven’t found anything better to use when varnishing. Similarly haven’t found anything nearly as good as aluminum foil when doing woodworking.
People talk about not using plastic but if you do stuff- building things, refinishing stuff, doing just about any sport you end up using plastic. 
Those fancy lines on your boat, the coatings, all the packaging of your parts and many of the parts are plastic. Given its being ubiquitous some better way to manage its lifecycle needs to evolve.


----------



## WhatTheKell (Oct 17, 2019)

Significance

Many oceanic islands suffer high levels of stranded debris, particularly those near subtropical gyres where floating debris accumulates. During the last 3 decades, plastic drink bottles have shown the fastest growth rate of all debris types on remote Inaccessible Island. During the 1980s, most bottles drifted to the island from South America, carried 3,000 km by the west wind drift. Currently, 75% of bottles are from Asia, with most from China. The recent manufacture dates indicate that few bottles could have drifted from Asia, and presumably are dumped from ships, in contravention of International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships regulations. Our results question the widely held assumption that most plastic debris at sea comes from land-based sources.

Above quote comes from the source article. 
I call BullS**t! 

"Presumably dumped from ships" is based on date of mfg. Why couldn't a bottle mfg in China be dumped into a river elsewhere in Asia or in S America? Also, 2yrs seems like plenty of time for a bottle to be carried almost anywhere. (a 1 kt current could carry a bottle about 18000 miles in 2 yrs)


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

WhatTheKell said:


> Significance
> 
> Many oceanic islands suffer high levels of stranded debris, particularly those near subtropical gyres where floating debris accumulates. During the last 3 decades, plastic drink bottles have shown the fastest growth rate of all debris types on remote Inaccessible Island. During the 1980s, most bottles drifted to the island from South America, carried 3,000 km by the west wind drift. Currently, 75% of bottles are from Asia, with most from China. The recent manufacture dates indicate that few bottles could have drifted from Asia, and presumably are dumped from ships, in contravention of International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships regulations. Our results question the widely held assumption that most plastic debris at sea comes from land-based sources.
> 
> ...


Based on what data or science do you call "BullS**t!"? You don't think these researchers would not have considered this simple factors? Perhaps&#8230; but it's pretty unlikely.

I think a more credible criticism is that this finding is hard to generalize beyond the specific of the island studied.


----------



## dadio917 (Apr 4, 2011)

coming back from HI in August we passed close to the plastic vortex. For about three days it was amazing and sad to watch all the plastic, bits small and large, go by. mostly it was pieces of things that had broken up of all colors, sizes and shapes. a few plastics bottles but those were not dominant.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Just came across this news item. It expands on that floating boom thing that is apparently our there scooping up all this plastics. Except this one is aimed at the rivers.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/interceptor-plastic-pollution-1.5337721


----------

