# Plastic pollution



## chris_gee (May 31, 2006)

There is a series of photos of the tens of thousands of albatross chicks reportedly dying each year at Midway Island after being feed plastic picked up as food by their parents. Bottle tops are common. Makes you wonder what else is being killed. Ho hum, yeah we know about pollution, but take a look at the dramatic pictures and see for yourself. current work


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

More on the source of the plastic here :Great Pacific Garbage Patch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have read elsewhere that there is NO WAY that man would ever be able to clean up the mess, as it covers too large an area, and that there is too much crap to pick up.


----------



## MoonSailer (Jun 1, 2007)

Plastic containers should be outlawed or at least a substanial deposit to ensure recycling. As a kid I made money collecting glass bottles for reuse. If all plastic containers had a 20 cent deposit almost every one would be recycled. All of those plastic water bottles floating around would instantly be converted from trash to treasure.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

I would research this a little more, these kinds of claims have been going on since the mid 80's. The Wildlife Diseases Research Center researched this back in the late 80's and disputed the claims saying that dehydration from lead based items was the leading cause and that human activity (vehicular trauma) at Midway Atoll represented additive mortality for pre-fledgling albatrosses.

I'm discussed by the crap in our waters as much as anyone but, with the history of embelishing, exploting and outright fabrications to further a agenda, one has to wonder about the credibility of the story.

Think in terms of the Linx, spotted owl and desert tortise, all of which have been proven to be based on a agenda ( with a side order of fabrication ) and not facts
</VARDEF>


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Good for you, Poop. Common sense doesn't appear often enough in these agenda driven times. Gullibility prevails.

Mark
~~~_/)~~~


----------



## Idpnd (Oct 10, 2009)

Yes I agree. We should just dump lots more plastic rubbish in the ocean to annoy the agenda conspiracists. And drive around in circles to see about that "global warming" nonsense as well.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Idpnd said:


> Yes I agree. We should just dump lots more plastic rubbish in the ocean to annoy the agenda conspiracists. And drive around in circles to see about that "global warming" nonsense as well.


And here we go  I guess we should just believe it because it's on the internet and because of the disclaimer

" _not a single piece of plastic in any of these photographs was moved, placed, manipulated, arranged, or altered in any way_. "

Did you know that with all the studies done on all the Albatross species on Midway atoll not one mentions plastic ingestion as a leading cause of death, they do mention Building lights, Airplane strikes, electric lines and even drowning in heavy rain and flooded nest, but not plastic

But that's not the point, the point is " research it " yourself and quit believing everything you read on the internet


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Just a observation; the story claims 10's of 1000's are killed each yr; look up the Albatross population on the atoll and ask yourself, could this be a exageration ???


----------



## Idpnd (Oct 10, 2009)

The Albatross seems to be in on the great Albatross conspiracy as well.. I just don't get the underlying motivation.. Would you care to elaborate?


----------



## SundancerKid (Dec 21, 2008)

chris_gee said:


> There is a series of photos of the tens of thousands of albatross chicks reportedly dying each year at Midway Island after being feed plastic picked up as food by their parents. Bottle tops are common. Makes you wonder what else is being killed. Ho hum, yeah we know about pollution, but take a look at the dramatic pictures and see for yourself. current work


...remembering of course that Chris Jordan claims himself to be an *artist* not a *scientist.* So allowing that he has not manipulated the photos as he claims, do we know he is interpreting the evidence correctly? For instance, could it be that the plastic is being used as nesting material rather than food?


----------



## SundancerKid (Dec 21, 2008)

poopdeckpappy said:


> Did you know that with all the studies done on all the Albatross species on Midway atoll not one mentions plastic ingestion as a leading cause of death, they do mention Building lights, Airplane strikes, electric lines and even drowning in heavy rain and flooded nest, but not plastic


And add longline fishing to that list. Albatrosses lay one egg per season with one parent minding the chick while the other spends countless hours foraging. Some of them end up getting caught on longlines and so never return. Eventually the other parent needs to leave the nest to feed... and so the chick also dies.

The RSPB: Save the albatross: The threats

Would be a shame to solve the wrong problem.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Also introduced predators, so pick your soapbox & bandwagon wisely


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

poopdeckpappy - No sense arguing, Ecology is the newest religion. It has it's zealots, it's belief system, it's branches and most scary it's currently trendy...


----------



## Coreyboy18 (Jun 2, 2008)

Ok, so let's talk about the agenda for a second then...to clean up our waters? Even if these things are being fabricated/exploited/whatever, it is to make our waters cleaner and to better the planet for future generations...so they can enjoy what we have. The fact is that there ARE thousands of animals ingesting these plastics and whatnot, the albatross is just one of them. So, while they may be exaggerating the facts (which isn't confirmed), this is one instance that I wouldn't really take a strong stance against it...IMPO.


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

Coreyboy18 said:


> Ok, so let's talk about the agenda for a second then...to clean up our waters? Even if these things are being fabricated/exploited/whatever, it is to make our waters cleaner and to better the planet for future generations...so they can enjoy what we have. The fact is that there ARE thousands of animals ingesting these plastics and whatnot, the albatross is just one of them. So, while they may be exaggerating the facts (which isn't confirmed), this is one instance that I wouldn't really take a strong stance against it...IMPO.


You're missing the point that as soon as it becomes OK to exaggerate the issues of one topic then it becomes OK to do it for all issues. This issue can stand on the facts that waste plastic management is probably one of the most horrendous disasters of the modern age. Use the facts to educate the public, not exaggerate them to curry sympathy.

You know what happens when it becomes OK to exaggerate? It becomes OK to bend the truth and even lie.



> On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.
> 
> The real information: she found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk - and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.
> 
> ...


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

At the risk of feeding trolls, I'll help you with the Wikipedia article and the referenced sources;


> Impact on wildlife
> 
> The remnants of a Laysan Albatross chick which was fed plastic by its parents resulting in death (same pic as those pointed to in the original post)
> Some of these long-lasting plastics end up in the stomachs of marine birds and animals,[21] including sea turtles, and the Black-footed Albatross.[22] Besides the particles' danger to wildlife, the floating debris can absorb organic pollutants from seawater, including PCBs, DDT, and PAHs.[23] Aside from toxic effects,[24] when ingested, some of these are mistaken by the endocrine system as estradiol, causing hormone disruption in the affected animal.[22] These toxin-containing plastic pieces are also eaten by jellyfish, which are then eaten by larger fish. Many of these fish are then consumed by humans, resulting in their ingestion of toxic chemicals. [25] Marine plastics also facilitate the spread of invasive species that attach to floating plastic in one region and drift long distances to colonize other ecosystems.[14]


References: 
[14] ^ a b Ferris, David (May/June 2009), "Message in a Bottle", Sierra (San Francisco: Sierra Club), retrieved August 13, 2009
[21] ^ Moore, Charles (November 2003), Across the Pacific Ocean, plastics, plastics, everywhere, Natural History Magazine
[22] ^ a b Moore, Charles (2002-10-02), Great Pacific Garbage Patch, Santa Barbara News-Press
[23] ^ Rios, L.M.; Moore, C. and Jones, P.R. (2007), "Persistent organic pollutants carried by Synthetic polymers in the ocean environment", Marine Pollution Bulletin 54: 1230-1237, doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.03.022
[24] ^ Tanabe, S.; Watanabe, M., Minh, T.B., Kunisue, T., Nakanishi, S., Ono, H. and Tanaka, H. (2004), "PCDDs, PCDFs, and coplanar PCBs in albatross from the North Pacific and Southern Oceans: Levels, patterns, and toxicological implications", Environmental Science & Technology 38: 403-413, doi:10.1021/es034966x
[25] ^ Rogers, Paul. "'Pacific Garbage Patch' expedition finds plastic, plastic everywhere." The Contra Costa Times [Walnut Creek, CA] 1 Sept. 2009: n. pag. Web. 4 Oct. 2009. <Search Results - ContraCostaTimes.com ci_13258216?nclick_check=1>.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

And like Sundancer mentioned, fixing the problem where the source is at the top of the list and not the bottom.

Example; 

Most coastal water pollution ( around these parts ) comes from inland runoff sources and poorly maintained infrastructure, not the runoff from my deck or improperly maintained BMP's at the local boatyard, but yet they insist on imposing legislation to regulate those areas and do nothing up stream

Example;

Environmentalist have closed down most of the desert to OHV use, they sighted that the desert tortoise were/are being killed by reckless OHV user, they managed to close 95% of open desert, destroying a livelyhood and income for many that depend on this industry and yet the tortoise continues to die, why ?? because they went on a agenda and not facts, the tortise continued to die because of a upper respiratory tract disease and the raven, but yet they continue to use reckless offroad use to close off public land, why ?? because emotion is a easy tool to manipulate and inflame


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

eherlihy you couldn't have listed a less credible source of references


----------



## SundancerKid (Dec 21, 2008)

Coreyboy, you're right, there are plenty of good, strong reasons to want to clean up the oceans (and I for one would certainly support the aim). So why would anyone want to use an exaggerated reason?


----------



## chris_gee (May 31, 2006)

It was not my intention to review the research on this subject rather to draw attention to some dramatic photos illustrating the issue.

However since other research is said to exist on Midway it would be interesting to see the citations particularly justifying the claim made that most deaths are due to line strikes and being run over (on two atolls that are a nature reserve with a population of 60, and a total of two square miles?)

Perhaps the main recent research is the paper on albatrosses on Midway which is about to be published on levels of DDT, PCB and dioxin contamination, reported in Old Nemesis, DDT, Reaches Remote Midway Albatrosses - The New York Times

"One likely source of the dioxin-like compounds, Dr. Ludwig said, is the large amount of partly burned plastic ingested by albatrosses. The birds are notorious for swallowing floating plastic debris, and virtually all of the plastic items found in Midway albatrosses originated in trash dumped on the coast of Japan and other Pacific Rim countries, he said."

He estimated losses due to these contaminants at 3%. As there are reportedly 7000 black footed pairs and 200,000 pairs of Laysan albatrosses, if each pair has one egg that gives around 6000 lost from contamination. As the research terminated early for lack of funds it may well be that they did not establish a figure for loss from plastic digestion or look at causes of death. I couldn't say without reading the yet unpublished paper.

Looking further I find that the nest count carried out this year gives 23955 pairs of black footed and 398182. of Laysan which is double the numbers reported in the earlier article, suggesting that losses due to contamination are around 12,000 pa. See Naturefinder: Plastic Debris and Albatross on Midway Atoll

Research in 93 94 95 found enteritis the most common pathology in chicks possibly related to dehydration with the rate increasing each year. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9533074?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

Earlier research on deaths showed dehydration as the major cause of death. "There was no evidence that ingested plastic caused mechanical lesions or mortality in 1987, but most of the chicks had considerably less plastic in them than chicks from earlier years." Causes of mortality of albatross chicks at Midway ...[J Wildl Dis. 1990] - PubMed Result. Three points suggest themselves. Has there been a change in the amount of plastic since 1987? Where toxicants such as PCBs tested for? What effects does having a digestive system full of chunks of plastic have on feeding and drinking when young chicks can neither regurgitate the stuff nor likely excrete it?

This paper suggests that both digestion of the plastic gives poisoning and the satiation effects causing dehydration and poorer condition are the processes involved. http://www.usask.ca/toxicology/jgiesy/pdf/publications/BC-060.pdf


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

Let's not get too emotional here! We are all sailors and likely have concern for the world we live in. I didn't read the article (sorry) but I can imagine that some articles on the Internet can have exaggerated claims which can disrupt the dissemination of good scientific information.
I assume the point is that there is good science that supports that humans are causing changes to the environment and YES we might have to change our behavior. Is that SO bad? I think the best thing we can do in North America is capitalize on an emerging market...Taking care of the earth for our future generations... Obviously if we don't care or want to change then there will be serious problems with 6-8 billion people consuming with out any regard for the condition of the oceans and the air.

I am not on ANY band wagon but am willing to think and change. Are you?


----------



## ericread (Feb 23, 2009)

krozet said:


> poopdeckpappy - No sense arguing, Ecology is the newest religion. It has it's zealots, it's belief system, it's branches and most scary it's currently trendy...


I would smile at that response if it weren't so scary. 
-Yep, them poor tobacco companies, always getting bashed as if cigarettes causes cancer. 
-Boy oh boy, those folks over at Love Canal sure are faking it. 
-My gosh, what's the problem? The dioxins are in the power transformers, not in the ground. 
-So what's wrong with a little DDT? It sure makes them apples look great!
-We can responsibly drill for oil off the coast of Santa Barbara. After all, who cares more for the environment than the oil companies?

Those crazy tree-hugging environmentalists. Always making up stories.

As the worlds fisheries become more depleted, and the areas of dead ocean get a bit larger, maybe it's time we start paying attention to the ecology of the planet.

But maybe I only feel this way because of my selfishness.... I've got kids.

Eric


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

ericread said:


> I would smile at that response if it weren't so scary.
> -Yep, them poor tobacco companies, always getting bashed as if cigarettes causes cancer.
> -Boy oh boy, those folks over at Love Canal sure are faking it.
> -My gosh, what's the problem? The dioxins are in the power transformers, not in the ground.
> ...


Um.... You're mixing up science and religion. No one disputes Cancer / DDT / Dioxins.

Science is seeking a balance between life and nature, understanding that there are things that work and that there are things that need to change. Using science is the reason that we know cigarettes cause cancer, that DDT was more dangerous than first thought...

Religion makes people run out and buy compact florescent light bulbs thinking they are better for the environment despite the fact they contain Mercury.
Religion makes people think that buying a Pirus is an environmental choice, not a marketing ploy. People don't wonder where all the toxic chemicals from the batteries go...
Religion makes people want to do something, anything... Fighting for the loss of forests is a great cause............ IN BRAZIL! In North American, forests have been GROWING over the last century due to responsible forest management. Yes the rain forests are shrinking at an alarming rate but chaining one's self to a logging truck in Washington state will do nothing for that.

I do not question the need to challenge tobacco companies, oil companies or any other person threatening the planet we all live on or other people. I absolutely agree that there needs to be a shift in thinking and action to clean up the issues we have caused.

What I do not agree with is blindly following what one person say is right without question, that is not only dangerous but stupid. Check you're facts, followup and always keep an open mind. If something doesn't make sense then question it.

What absolutely rubs me the wrong way is an argument that has to be embellished, bent or spun to get an emotional reaction from the masses. Far too often if someone doesn't have the proof and the facts to support their argument then they appeal to the emotional side of humanity.

Robert


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

GreatWhite said:


> I am not on ANY band wagon but am willing to think and change. Are you?


The key is to think and research then respond wisely, not to read and react emotionally thus irresponsibly


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

poopdeckpappy said:


> The key is to think and research then respond wisely, not to read and react emotionally thus irresponsibly


Exactly!


----------



## scottyt (Jul 19, 2008)

eherlihy said:


> Great Pacific Garbage Patch
> 
> I have read elsewhere that there is NO WAY that man would ever be able to clean up the mess, as it covers too large an area, and that there is too much crap to pick up.


lets see i think this "patch" is one big greenie wet dream to show how bad we are.

its so big we could never clean it up, but there is not a single pic any where, be it from a boat, plane, or satellite. you would think some one would go take pics just so they could show em.

as for the pics of the birds, i really think all those bottle caps would blow away. i mean half the bird rotted and blew away, why did the caps stay.


----------



## ericread (Feb 23, 2009)

Robert; You and I generall agree on the process. But I would rather err on the side of ecology. As was said earlier in this thread, (although I do not have scientific evidence) I would have to believe the Albatross lobby just doesn't have the influence of the companies that manufacture the plastics.

PoopDeckPappy provided this example:

Most coastal water pollution ( around these parts ) comes from inland runoff sources and poorly maintained infrastructure, not the runoff from my deck or improperly maintained BMP's at the local boatyard, but yet they insist on imposing legislation to regulate those areas and do nothing up stream.

So why is it we would rather complain that we must be responsible for our actions than work to make the responsible parties up stream account for their actions? What happened to doing the "right" thing? Have we become so cynical that when we see others raping nature, we decide we should join in on the fun? 

When did "doing the tight thing" become a sucker's bet?

Eric


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

scottyt said:


> lets see i think this "patch" is one big greenie wet dream to show how bad we are.
> 
> its so big we could never clean it up, but there is not a single pic any where, be it from a boat, plane, or satellite. you would think some one would go tak. e pics just so they could show em.
> 
> as for the pics of the birds, i really think all those bottle caps would blow away. i mean half the bird rotted and blew away, why did the caps stay.


You got to be kidding right? If you are trying to be sarcastic you can put a /sarcasm after 
a joke or sarcastic remark...if you are not joking then I pity your ignorance (on second thought maybe ignorance is bliss for you...not the rest of us though.)

Marine Debris Program - Funding Opportunities

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that human's incredible lust for plastic is having an effect on the ocean. Imagine 6 billion people and all their plastic, about 10 % of which ends up in the ocean. Have you ever been to a third world country? If so you know the garbage is littered every where and then eventually gets flushed into the ocean. Americans aren't much better and the volume of consumption is staggering. Did you drink from a plastic water bottle recently?


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Chris Gee, read up on Midway atolls and the current eco tourism business going on, on this so called natural reserve.

A San Fransico based company will gladly fly you to this atoll for a 7 days stay @ 5 grand a head, it's only a 4 hr flight from Hawaii by turbo-prop Gulfstream, but you have to be a wealthy enviro activist to qualify.

And that population of 60 ?? It's more like a LLC that employs 60 and maybe more

Now, take all that info, add to it the references eherlihy had posted earlier ( all based in the SF area ) and you begin to doubt the ligitimacy of their agenda, is it to fight a good cause or is it to support a high dollar enviro retreat. much like the Nature Conservency did with Palmyra Atoll


----------



## scottyt (Jul 19, 2008)

GreatWhite said:


> You got to be kidding right? If you are trying to be sarcastic you can put a /sarcasm after
> a joke or sarcastic remark...if you are not joking then I pity your ignorance (on second thought maybe ignorance is bliss for you...not the rest of us though.)


nope no sarcasm at all. sure we use a lot of plastic, probably too much. do we throw it away stupidly, probably.

we also do stupid things with our normal trash, we stick it in land fills. but oh no we cant have it stink so we seal it up, so now it cant rot.

sure there is plastic in the ocean, sure some floats, some sinks. do we really think that the ocean grinds it up, then keeps it all suspended in a big mass.

i wish i could find it, i read an article about the grye. the article was about some one who put in gps monitored floats to track the currents at the grye. about half stayed there the other half went other places. given that all along the person who did this with the purpose of showing that the gyre exists but he proved to himself other wise. the author said if his trend is normal, then the trash would dissipate not build.

and just because noaa says it exists, does not mean it does, just look at what they say about rouge waves. they thought every few years, but its much more often than they thought ten years ago

the proof is in the pudding, show me picks, show me a net that was dragged filled with debris show me something more than speculation and papers from people with agendas


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

scottyt said:


> nope no sarcasm at all. sure we use a lot of plastic, probably too much. do we throw it away stupidly, probably.
> 
> we also do stupid things with our normal trash, we stick it in land fills. but oh no we cant have it stink so we seal it up, so now it cant rot.
> 
> ...


If we could drag a net through it to see it then we could clean it up.


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

Scotty, maybe you are right...but it just makes sense to me that with the shear volume of plastic it would end up in huge quantities in the ocean. I don't understand what the agenda of noaa might be..they just said there was nothing we could do except reduce our use of plastic.


----------



## scottyt (Jul 19, 2008)

i dont believe that noaa it self has an agenda, but i do believe that some people go to work there because it makes them feel good. the ones i am talking about are the ones with agendas. then they get to levels that get to decide which other programs or groups get funding and it becomes a political. 

face it noaa attracts "green" minded people so thats how it will be steered


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

I find it a shame that being 'green' has such a negative connotation for you. I do understand that extremes (on any side of an argument or discussion) create a reaction. I do see a lot of bad science or overstated arguments that might have got your back up

...I just hope that people can stay open minded...There shouldn't be a problem trying take care of the oceans...even if it is a green thing


----------



## JiffyLube (Jan 25, 2008)

If we could put man on the moon, then we can surely send out purseiners to net a new catch for recycling...Plastic.

People can make all the laws and rules they want about dealing with trash in the U.S., and in time it probably will become law...but not in the rest of the world. There are vast areas of the world that couldn't give a hoot about plastic in the ocean, because they're just trying to find their next meal, or job, or place to lay their heads at night. Since China has been the worlds biggest manufacturer of almost everything these last eight or more years, and the leading polluter of the world, I think the pressure should be put on them...but the environmentalist no better than to get them to change. The reason they won't try and hold China's feet to the fire is, China will tell them to go pound sand...but not the U.S. Not only does the U.S. do more to improve the environment than just about any responsible government on this planet, it also tries to teach, educate, and help more countries with their environmental problems than any other country in the world.

If you're an environmentalist you need to take the fight to places like China, India, Pakistan, Africa, Indonesia, Mexico, and lets not forget Japan where they eat everything that moves...they still fish for whales when no one is looking.


----------



## SundancerKid (Dec 21, 2008)

chris_gee thanks for the articles. I don't claim any expertise in this area so can't give references to articles about fishing and albatross deaths but can only point you back to the RSPB and similar organisations who claim it is so. As a respected wildlife conservation organisation, I can only assume that they have researched the literature and/or commissioned their own studies.


----------



## tager (Nov 21, 2008)

Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.


----------



## chris_gee (May 31, 2006)

I don't have an agenda. I am not a rabid greenie. I don't claim expertise in environmental issues. However I do think we have a responsibility to future generations even at any particular time knowledge is incomplete.
OK run off causes problems so does cows farting as far as methane and global warming goes. Big deal. Try to fix em both.
Ok poopdeckpappy tourists go to Midway and boost the population is that a major point? How many? I invited you to review the research or at least cite it so a discussion could have some evidential base. Not saying it will be conclusive as little science is, but pooh pooh ain't either.
I didn't in fact know but there is quite extensive research into the issues. At least, it suggests a big ? or wtf.
As sailors it seems reasonable to me to be mindful of environmental issues. I make no apology for drawing this to the attention of others just as it has been drawn to my attention.


----------



## scottyt (Jul 19, 2008)

great white, i have no problem being green, its when the green freaks show up i have a problem. i know a sailor who sold off his out board because it uses gas, he installed oars on a 27 foot bristol  . he refuses to use bottom paint and when what is there wears off he wont use more, he says he will dive daily to scrub if he needs to. he does not want to fix his soft decks because he will need epoxy which comes from oil. when his sails die he wants either cotton or hemp sails. he is a green freak, but at least he lives by what he say. and i like him he is a nice guy

now the lady who tried to tell me off because i used plastic bags at the store, but then got in to a chevy truck are the ones that need swimming lessions with lead boots. 

i was once told that people who dont car pool should be forced to pay 10 per gallon of gas, and the extra money used to pay for public transportation.

i heard a lady at a whole food store say that the world needs to adopt chinas one child law until the world has 50 % less population for green house gas reasons. same lady then said that the electricity should be shut off at 9 pm so no one uses lights. another lead boot contestant


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Guys, (and trolls),

I have no agenda here. I didn't say if plastic is good, or bad, and I'm not askin' you to do or change anything. What I _am_ saying, however, is that the Pacific Gyre exists! (I think that I know how Galileo and Columbus felt.) Wikipedia, and several other articles, cite the impact on birds, animals, and eventually, humans.

If you follow the link that I posted earlier, you will learn why it does not show up on sattelite or areal photos. I'll save that tidbit for you to read about.

Because there seems to be some bias against them "SF Area" environmentalists, here are a couple of other references:
New Hampshire Union Leader - this is about the most right leaning newspaper that I can think of.

The Marietta, Ohio, Times

The Irish Times - yes, from Ireland; the country.

Scientific American

Thank you to krozet for pointing out the contradiction of encouraging people to buy a Prius, or CFL for "ecological" reasons. Those who do are trading one poison for another...


----------



## thekeip (Aug 8, 2007)

Midway, 2009.
Pic courtesy Chris Jordan...more at chris jordan photography
howard Keiper
Berkeley


----------



## thekeip (Aug 8, 2007)

Sorry, didn't realize the photos were duplicates.
hk


----------



## DCClancy (Oct 19, 2009)

*Plastic*

I am VERY upset at our political system that does lip service to our problems . Plastic is used everwhere and we seem to do nothing about it ! If we really wanted to do something .... OUTLAW all plastic ..PERIOD. Glass is a great alternate WE are killing ourselves and all living things with the use of this stuff. Plastic never disappers , only breaks down , to microscopic parts. NOTHING in the ocean is considered organic , ALL fish have this product in thier system. OUTLAW the stuff Black & White thinking YES but if we don't do something real soon ........????


----------



## peptobysmol (Apr 30, 2009)

DCClancy said:


> I am VERY upset at our political system that does lip service to our problems . Plastic is used everwhere and we seem to do nothing about it ! If we really wanted to do something .... OUTLAW all plastic ..PERIOD. Glass is a great alternate WE are killing ourselves and all living things with the use of this stuff. Plastic never disappers , only breaks down , to microscopic parts. NOTHING in the ocean is considered organic , ALL fish have this product in thier system. OUTLAW the stuff Black & White thinking YES but if we don't do something real soon ........????


Pick ONE or pick them ALL!

ban cars they are responsible for MV fatalaties and of course greenhouse gases
ban heating oil - DUH!
ban aircraft - they emitting gases at very high altitudes = bad
Tractors are destroying the Great plains and we are selfishly turning land to food production destroying the habitats of countless indigenous species - ban them
Obama's healthcare plan is solved by the banning of plastics- u can't get ANY surgery without it now. so ban all hospitals.
ban smoking its bad for ur health and haven't you seen all the cigarette butts everywhere?
ban alcohol its reponsible for liver failure
ban sex it is responsible for STD's

lets all live in huts and eternally sing verses of kumbayah


----------



## scottyt (Jul 19, 2008)

eherlihy said:


> The Marietta, Ohio, Times
> 
> Scientific American


okay, there is a simple obvious lie in one of the two above article. the marietta times article says the guy on the boat just finished a race, when he went out to see the patch. in the second article same boat is a research boat. which is true... is it a privately owned boat that somebody races or is it a research vessel

the Irish times thing is a comment opinion, not an article. i could write a opinion that the sky is green. does not make it true

i just spent about 20 mins on the union leader web site, they seem pretty middle of the road. not right leaning or really left leaning. they have articles and comments that go both ways, i do see slightly more left leaning stuff, but they have right leaning comments


----------



## scottyt (Jul 19, 2008)

DCClancy said:


> Plastic is used everwhere and we seem to do nothing about it ! If we really wanted to do something .... OUTLAW all plastic ..PERIOD. Glass is a great alternate WE are killing ourselves and all living things with the use of this stuff. Plastic never disappers , only breaks down , to microscopic parts. NOTHING in the ocean is considered organic , ALL fish have this product in thier system. OUTLAW the stuff Black & White thinking YES but if we don't do something real soon ........????


that would make life real hard. then when you tried to make every tv out of metal it would use lots of energy to make all that metal. okay now lets look at cars, how many cows would we need to bred to make leather for seats and dash boards, sense we cant use plastic. next clothing, go look up how much water is used to grow cotton. well at least making glass does not use tons of energy... oh wait yes it does


----------



## vega1860 (Dec 18, 2006)

citation34 said:


> Common sense doesn't appear often enough in these agenda driven times. Gullibility prevails.
> 
> Mark
> ~~~_/)~~~


All too true.

However, the Pacific Garbage Patch or "Gyre" is all too real. I commented on it in my video log while crossing the Pacific in 2007

Much more from the crew of "Junk"


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Despite hailing from the SF Bay area, I'm poles apart from your run of the mill wood nymphs and the various and sundry tree huggers. However, when I raced to <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com







<ST1Hawaii </ST1</st1:State>last year I was shocked to see the amount of floating plastic crap. Saw the usual small stuff, plastic bags, lighters, bottle tops etc, but we also encountered the unusual such as a hard hat being kept afloat by the headband and sporting a mini reef underneath and a 5 gallon jerry jug. Mind you, this stuff was more than 700NM off the coast. We used a towed generator (Duo-Gen, pretty cool unit) and that would collect shards of net and plastic bags which would jam the impeller. And this was on the North American side of the high. When the boat was delivered back and crossed the high north of <ST1Oahu</ST1, they encountered much more junk. The Duo-Gen would get jammed daily. They were fouled by hundred foot section of net and suffered a steering gear failure when they snagged a long line fishing leader and hook that worked their way around the rudder shaft (and it was a skeg hung rudder!) Yes, the folks on the western side of the Pacific need to clean up their act. It ought to be illegal for fishing boats to abandon their nets. But that doesn't absolve us from doing our part. As yachtsmen, we should take pollution seriously and be shining examples to our dirt dwelling brethren. Remember, their garbage dump is our playground!


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

Vega1860 thank you for your first hand account of the Plastic in the ocean. I related to the flat earth comment when faced with the deniers who claim there is no appreciable amount of plastic in the ocean...

Regarding whether governments should outlaw plastic I think that what you have done with the creation of a video is the likely the best course of action...that is to work within your own area of influence. if you work in education make change there...etc.


----------



## DCClancy (Oct 19, 2009)

*Plastic*

YouTube - The Great Pacific Garbage Patch - Good Morning America Please watch
There is a problem ! Only the plastic industry will refrute this . Maybe we can't stop production , we could keep it on LAND ?


----------



## scottyt (Jul 19, 2008)

okay i watched the video

i have never said there is not any plastic out there. there is plastic out there, and yes we need to stop more from going out there. but i doubt there is near as much as they say, 3.5 million tonnes. 

to give you an idea of how much that is

that is over 58,000 m1 tanks at 60 tonnes each
that is 875,000... 83 27 foot hunters like mine
that is 843 million gallons of water in weight

i would love to see the math they used


----------



## DCClancy (Oct 19, 2009)

*?? What Can WE DO ??*

I feel that we ( all of us ) need to be talking to our political entites and get them to be serving humans as a whole . NOT vested interestes that are making money from plastics . Just because they are cheep to produce dosn't justify thier use . Water bottles , plates , packaging of all sorts are not doing US any good .

I am on the edge of believing that it could be to late to do anything , the hudge multi nationals that produce most of this sort of pollution , will not do anything that stands in the way of profits.

If we want to enjoy OUR oceans then we all need to get a grip. ATLANTIC & PACIFIC ALL the OCEANS


----------



## YARDPRO (Aug 3, 2009)

LOL...

the left continually tries to make us think that we are on the verge of a planetary meltdown if we don't do whatever they THINK is correct....



I distinctly remember being scared to death as a kid in the 70's because all the leading scientists were SURE that all the pollution was going to cause the next ice age from the crap in the pollution not letting sunlight pass through the atmosphere.....

i also remember that we all were pushed to use plastic bags over paper because trees had to be cut down to make paper bags....HUMMMM maybe NOT such a good idea.....

all of us are aware the for hundreds of years the worlds top scientists swore the earth was flat, or that the earth was the center of the universe.......

there is a huge problem now with scientists fabricating, or manipulating their results. It has been in several magazines.. 

most scientists that study environmental issues are left minded, of course their results will be skewed... and with popular support, there is no one to scrutinize their findings.

I am always skeptical of EVERYTHING i hear or read... no matter what side it comes from.. they BOTH skew their results....I believe that all those that blindly buy in, or buy in because it aligns with THEIR beliefs, are weak minded.

everyone should just use common sense...

we had a huge controversy here about scuttled ships for reef forming. 

the environmental knee jerkers proclaimed all the environmental damage it would cause... hogwash... is has improved the environment where they sank.. MUCHO marine life has moved in.....

my degree is in biology... so i have some sound background for my opinions... 

always be skeptical of what others profess, and know that thier version is most likely not 100% true..


----------



## DCClancy (Oct 19, 2009)

*I'm the problem !*

Yes I AGREE with YARDPRO........ my personal belief is that the best thing i can do for the enviroment is when I die and get buried ! Otherwise I am part of the problem . Wooden/steel/ferrocement boats are (?) better for the enviroment , because the disintergrate or rot . I left the coast of British Columbia for the interior to live, partley because of the pollution 20 yrs ago. Now I'm going back 'cuse its just as bad here and I really do love the Ocean . OH WELL.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

YARDPRO said:


> LOL...
> 
> the left continually tries to make us think that we are on the verge of a planetary meltdown if we don't do whatever they THINK is correct....
> 
> ...


Good post Yardpro; My younger brother was involved with the Yukon and I think Oriskany.

Someone awhile back made a comment about the Offshore rigs off Santa Barbra and a sarcastic remark about the oil companies concerns on the environment.

Since you brought up artificial reefs, I thought I would invite that person to reserch those same rigs. What the enviros claim to be a environmental disaster in the making is one of the healthest marine sunctuaries around, but the local enviros still insist they be removed because it ruins their " veiwshed" of the Pacific.

I'm not anti green nor anti environment, I'm quite the opposite, I am anti environmentalist though, because, number one, I have yet to come across any organization that puts the environment ahead of the corporate perks & retreats and number two, they're geared for a reactionary responce based on bullsh*t science

Give me a single organization with a single goal in mind that will actually make a difference and I'm there, until then, I'll police myself and those around me


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

Poopydeck...regarding the notion of an environmentalist...

_"An environmentalist is a person who may advocate the sustainable management of resources and stewardship of the natural environment through changes in public policy or individual behavior."_

I assume you would support people being stewards of our natural environment? is it just the public policy you are concerned about?

I have yet to meet someone who is ok with the using (abuse) of all available resources until there's nothing left?

Maybe politics have got in the way of having a group out there that you trust..maybe you can start one that isn't biased...if so let us know...

I am not aligned with any group but I have two small boys. if they realize one day that the previous generation acted ignorantly and selfishly at least I can say I did MY best to make a difference. I try to make a difference in the areas I have influence. I try to be opened minded and think on my own.

I have worked to earn an engineering degree and now work to apply scientific knowledge to make a difference. I try to save money (through energy conservation) for the organizations I work for as well as our dependence on a non-renewable fossil fuels. I try to think about actions and behavior and the effect those actions and behaviors have on the environment...

What do you suggest we do...stick our heads in the sand?

When we see images of birds that have likely consumed plastic...yes it is ok to ask if this makes sense and what might be the motivation for distributing the images but realistically I would suggest it is limiting to denigrate and label the motivation of the poster as left leaning or biased.

Why can't a person be concerned about the place we live, the atmosphere, the water and the effects of human behavior on our natural resources. We are potentially an intelligent species why not take advantage of this and make a difference... This is not about right or left, black or white


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

Coreyboy18 said:


> Ok, so let's talk about the agenda for a second then...to clean up our waters? Even if these things are being fabricated/exploited/whatever, it is to make our waters cleaner and to better the planet for future generations...so they can enjoy what we have. The fact is that there ARE thousands of animals ingesting these plastics and whatnot, the albatross is just one of them. So, while they may be exaggerating the facts (which isn't confirmed), this is one instance that I wouldn't really take a strong stance against it...IMPO.


Ahh yes, the ends justifying the means, I know I learned something about that in high school civics ...


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

Is plastic in the ocean a problem ?

Yes. And I think we should do something about it.

Is plastic in the ocean a problem to animals ?

Yes, but not nearly to the extent that animal huggers claim.

Plastic is not toxic, that's one of the reasons it is so useful, and it is really a very small threat to life on this planet. Plastic is also basically inert, and complaining about plastic is kind of like complaining about rocks or dirt. Do animals get plastic in their eye and go blind ? Do small organisms get bits of plastic in their digestive systems and die ? It happens. And they also get flecks of rock and dirt in their digestive systems and die too, and get sand in their eyes and go blind, and all kinds of other terrible things. Plastic is like dirt in that way, it has about the same effect on life as dirt does. They say plastic will be around for 1000 years (or whatever), and that is true, and so will most rocks, in fact, rocks last longer. Plastic in sunlight degrades and breaks up into little tiny pieces of plastic, which is one complaint that you hear from environmentalists, because plastic doesn't actually ever go away, it just gets smaller. Wow, sounds kind of like what happens to rocks when they get weathered and turn into dirt. Plastic in landfills, you see the commercials all the time, well, who cares ? It is in a landfill, so what. Why does it bother you that its there, because it is "man made" ?

See, that's really what this is all about. It isn't that plastic is toxic, that it is especially dangerous, that it bothers anybody by being in landfills, or even that it harms trees when your Walmart smiley face bag ends up in the tree branches after a wind storm. What this is about is that its ugly, and "not natural", and "man made", so it must be stopped. It really is a kind of religion.

I don't like plastic being all over the place either, but I don't make up all kinds of weird reasons for it or go searching for victims - I don't like it because it is ugly and I don't like seeing plastic bags in the fences and shrubs.

The only real characteristic that makes plastic any different from dirt is that it floats, so if you are going to argue against plastic I think you have to focus on that single point when you are creating your boogey man. You have to convince rational people that the fact that plastic floats makes it more of a danger than dirt, that floating plastic in the ocean kills more animals than mud or other inert materials for the simple fact that it floats in the water. You might be able to make an argument of it, but I'd like to see the actual evidence.

Evidence of wildlife being harmed by plastics absolutely has been faked before ...

To prove how much of a religion this is you can usually tell someone that you throw glass overboard when you are out in the middle of the ocean and see how they react to it. Glass is actually beneficial to the ocean, it gives small creatures a place to live, is absolutely inert, eventually turns back into sand which is what it is made out of, etc, so there is absolutely not one single reason in this world for not throwing it overboard. Yet people react strongly to the thought of it, why ? Because it is made by man, it isn't natural, it is litter, you're doing something you shouldn't, there must be something wrong with it. It is religion, it has its own dogma like any other religion, and its churches ...


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

GreatWhite said:


> Poopydeck...regarding the notion of an environmentalist...
> 
> _"An environmentalist is a person who may advocate the sustainable management of resources and stewardship of the natural environment through changes in public policy or individual behavior."_


The mission statement doesn't match the reality; reality is, policy changes are based on known bad science & behavior changes are forced based on that known bad science



> I assume you would support people being stewards of our natural environment?


when combined with common sence ? yes



> is it just the public policy you are concerned about?


there is no public in their policy



> I have yet to meet someone who is ok with the using (abuse) of all available resources until there's nothing left?


nor have I but, I have yet to meet someone that has a reasonable solution other than throwing 1% of 100's of 1000's and in some cases millions of dollars at the ( fill in the blank ) problem



> Maybe politics have got in the way of having a group out there that you trust..


this is true



> maybe you can start one that isn't biased...if so let us know


...

It consists of me, my wife ,my adult kids and granddaugther



> I try to be opened minded and think on my own.


Ditto



> What do you suggest we do...stick our heads in the sand?


Never implied that



> I would suggest it is limiting to denigrate and label the motivation of the poster as left leaning or biased.


That wasn't my intent, my intent was to suggest more research into it as it does ( to me ) seem to have a ulterior motive



> Why can't a person be concerned about the place we live, the atmosphere, the water and the effects of human behavior on our natural resources.


Why can't a person be concerned enough to research the issue and act accordingly instead of reacting with emotions and a check book because it makes them feel like they've done something and/or makes them feel good



> We are potentially an intelligent species why not take advantage of this and make a difference... This is not about right or left, black or white


They can't take advantage of the intelligent species, just the lemmings


----------



## DCClancy (Oct 19, 2009)

*Bias or BS*

If you get the chance watch the movie "Thank You for Smoking" It's a great flick about vested interest. Stick your head in the sand and believe what you want! Watch the movie , In my mind (opinion ) plastics are the same.


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

unfortunately the aesthetic issue is not the only issue:
_
If you thought that the aesthetic issues and the impact on marine life were the only problems associated with the plastic waste that winds up in the ocean, think again. When plastics are exposed to the rain, sun and other environmental conditions they begin to decompose. Polystyrene, for example, starts decomposing within a year. Sounds good, right? Not so much. A recent study from Nihon University in Japan found that the potentially toxic chemicals BPA and PS oligomer are released into the water as plastic decomposes.

The lead research, Katsuhiko Saldo, says that about 150,000 tons of plastic debris wind up on the shores of Japan each year. Now add to that all of the other shores as well as the Texas-sized Great Pacific Garbage Patch found between California and Hawaii that's largely made up of plastic waste.

The chemicals in question spell trouble because they're hormone disruptors and can have a big impact on reproductive systems. Even low-level BPA exposure could have adverse health effects according to some studies. And while when sea animals eat plastics, the trash won't decompose inside their bellies, some of the same toxic substances could be absorbed, resulting in adverse side effects. _

Funding for Saido's research came from Nihon University.
The American Chemical Society is a nonprofit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. With more than 154,000 members, ACS is the world's largest scientific society and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

GreatWhite said:


> _The chemicals in question spell trouble because they're hormone disruptors and *can have* a big impact on reproductive systems. Even low-level BPA exposure *could have* adverse health effects according to some studies. And while when sea animals eat plastics, the trash won't decompose inside their bellies, some of the same toxic substances *could be* absorbed, resulting in adverse side effects. _


Can have, could have, could be, are these science words or political words ?

Look, if the stuff is out there, we should be able to test for it. The text itself says that it doesn't happen inside of an animal that might eat a piece of trash, so the problem must be that its leeching into the water, that must be what they are saying. Well lets go out and get a cup of water from the ocean and send it off to the lab and see what the concentrations are, right ? Such an easy test they could have done it, couldn't they ? So where are the numbers, concentrations, what is all this can have, could have crap ? It could be that space aliens are taking all the fish too.

Let's see the data ...

Just once wouldn't it be nice if Congress (or someone else) funded a study and the study came back and said, you know, no, they looked at the "problem" and concluded that it is such an insignificant threat to human beings and the environment that they don't think you need to throw any more money at it.


----------



## scottyt (Jul 19, 2008)

wind magic you cave it backwards, according to the stuff i read *it could* absorb chemicals from the water and *it may* allow them to concentrate and *it could* leach in to fish that *might* eat it

here is one i think is funny, the boat in the beginning of this thread is run by a capt moore, he is on a 50 foot cat, yet every time he gets in front of a camera he has a "uniform" of some sort on. i guess it to makes him look more knowledgeable. it reminds me of the terrorist and criminal paul watson of the sea sheppards.

and wind magic have you not learned they cant give solid data, ie 3.5 million tonnes, where did the number come from, show us the math

one thing i love about the people who run these "scams" are they are always looking for money, and they get it from those who are part of the problem. ie al gore and his carbon offsets. paul watson who makes his crew pay 1000 bucks for the pleasure of going on his cruises to chase down whale hunters following the law

i personally dont want to see people suffer, but those who think people are the problem should do the world a favor and go live in Africa and see what life with out electricity, clean water, food, etc etc is like. live like you say.. kind of like the sailor i posted about early on, then you will get my respect


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

Windmagic and scotty, I must respectfully disagree with both of you when you say that scientists in a university setting have an agenda that is political or has a funding bias by nature. I come from an academic family, my father has published over 700 papers. By nature the academic process is the most rigorous and well debated intellectual process that we have.

I think it is unfair to say that as an arm chair scientist we have more to offer the subject than someone who has dedicated their life to the study and debate within a specific area of expertise verified through the scientific /academic process.

Sure it is possible that SOME might have been coloured by their funding source but this just simply is true for the majority.


----------



## chris_gee (May 31, 2006)

"Can have, could have, could be, are these science words or political words ?"

Actually they are more like words of appropriately cautious science. A layman may think just measure the level of contaminants in the ocean, and there is your answer.

There are many catches. Firstly the contamination is likely to increase as one moves up the food chain for obvious reasons. One being it is concentrated not eliminated. Secondly in the case of albatross raised levels are also due seemingly to ingestion of whole plastic bits not just soup.

The nature of research is that it is usually partial, and often underfunded. Consequently it is rarely if ever definitive, comprehensive, and often because of its limitations may not be confirmed. It is not sufficient to say yes contamination has an effect. Rather it is a matter of working on what effects in what circumstances, dosages, species, and time periods. Since the studies are often not experimental rather observational, to be precise one may find a correlation but that does not prove causation.
Is that really a problem except for the pedantic? There are ethical issues in say doing human experimental trials of the effects of smoking so the evidence is correlational, augmented by animal trials and lab trials on tissue presumably. Yet we accept the weight of evidence, although it is not proof of causation.
Indeed there is one school of scientific thought that says you cannot prove an hypothesis only disprove it. In practice the process is more like uncovering or unravelling small parts of the picture, and building on that. In testing a thousand chemicals for some effect it might be helpful to say 999 do not appear to influence x, but then the real issue becomes does the other that does have a reproducible effect, and what side effects are there? Then one might go on into what are the differences between those who respond and those who don't and what might be the key factor that might be improved?

A lay person might read a report showing scientists discover prove find such n such wonder drug or effect or whatever.
A better scientist knowing the limits of his study would use more cautious words, like seems may could suggests and warrants further investigation. 
So yes could may might are the words of a scientist. No proof, no problem, will, is and certainly are rather more political, because pandering to prejudice pays.


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

I guess what we as arm chair scientists can do is surmise from what we read about the various specific studies, that look at a small piece of the puzzle and various news reports and then come up with a reaction or intuitive response.

For those who tend to be 'greenies' the response tends to be different that those who consider themselves 'anti-greenies'

I just 'feel' or 'surmise' that when I see the absolutely gross amounts of plastic that the human race is producing and the amount that ends up in the ocean that there might be a problem (I might even hypothesize that.) Someone else might come up with a different hypothesis.

The link posted indicates that some albatross birds are being effected. For those who might downplay the significance I can understand...for those that deny it...I can't accept that.

I spend a lot of time on beaches and see absolutely massive amounts of plastic almost everywhere...this is what we see. When you get to the smaller particle level there is even more.

The fact the certain chemical compounds come from the plastic and then enter the food chain is well documented.

I don't think that we can do much about it except be more responsible with our plastic waste.

Is there anyone out there that would deny this? I personally am trying to make a difference to reduce the amount of plastic that enters the oceans.

I know some people get upset if we accept there is a problem as I assume they are concerned they might be inconvenienced in some way. I would suggest that those making remarks to discredit the entire scientific community who has done any work in this field or made any suggestions that we might have to change our behavior to stem the amount of plastic ending up in the ocean should consider what motivates this reaction. Is it a fear of changing? I somehow doubt that every single person who makes a remark or studies anything to do with conservation or the environment is out to get you, trying to make money, or following some ill thought out agenda.

I certainly don't expect that science or environmentalist claims or suggestions might be off base but what is the goal and how do we get there?


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

If you are referring to me, you've got it so wrong. I am all about environmental causes, the trouble I have with it is that there are so many pollyanna's out there that we can't focus on what is actually important. For example - I am extremely concerned about all the mercury in the food chain, but it is sometimes hard to get people to focus on something important like that when 1000 other environmental causes are all competing for attention, many of them not worthy of having attention paid to them. How much time and energy did we waste on ethanol fuel additives for example ? That was based on a lot of good science too, good science and really piss poor economics. When I talk to people about something I actually feel is important for the environment I find that I am confronted with complete apathy for the most part, people are just burnt out on it, they're to the point now they think so much is wrong that it can't be fixed. I disagree with that, we can fix some of the important things, if we'd just quit focusing on things like chemicals that probably cause cancer if a rat swims in it for a month but might only be a few parts per million out in the ocean.


----------



## DCClancy (Oct 19, 2009)

*Differant view point*

James Lovelock general presentation and home page in English this guy seems to have a alternate view , forget about the nitpicking and save your own a** . He seems to think that global warming is something we can't control, and survival of the spieces is our goal. And it will happen quickly! To many details ..look at the big picture.In terms of the age of the earth , we are a mere speck. James Lovelock general presentation and home page in English 
By the way I do not cosider myself a enviromentlist , just another guy trying to stay alive and happy.


----------



## SundancerKid (Dec 21, 2008)

Great White, you're right. I think many people just do not appreciate how rigorous the process of publishing in a scientific journal usually is. I'm not a scientist but my training is in science (maths and astronomy) so I've got some background.

Before a work is even accepted, it would be reviewed independently and anonymously by other experts in that field. Usually at least two of them. If they don't think the work is up to scratch then it doesn't get published. End of story. If the work *does* get published and subsequently turns out to be shoddy then the journal ends up with egg on its face, so they have a vested interest in getting the best experts they can lay their hands on to review work before it is published.

But more than that.

When a scientist publishes a major work, his biggest critics are often the other scientists. Why? Because they are the competition. If the scientist publishes shoddy work and other scientists realise it, it can be a black mark... can make getting further funding and jobs hard. It can be a career breaker. So you can bet that the scientist has a vested interest in triple checking the findings before he puts it out there.

So I really can't come at the notion that there is a "huge" problem of scientists fabricating their results. Sure, there may be some bad eggs, just as there are in any other slice of humanity. But I really rather believe that most scientists are professional in their approach and that the process they have to go through weeds out any that are less than that.

Sorry, didn't mean to rant. Just seems to have ended up that way!


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

Wind_magic

thanks for being clear on your point of view, and no I didn't mean you in particular. More just the notion of throwing out all science just because it might support a popular environmental concern.

I think what you are saying makes sense...I too think that the cause of the day can get in the way of focusing on what should really be most pressing. I do also appreciate for point about ethanol.

It is too bad that right and wrong couldn't alway be clear as day.

I guess we all agree that it is worth questioning what is going on in the world.

My personal stance is that I might as well do what I believe is right and focus on my area of influence...and listen to others with as open mind as I can while I feel my way along.


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

I have found the solution to the plastic problem in the world.



> Envion has created a process that transforms plastic waste back into its original form - crude oil.
> 
> Envion introduced its first market-ready commercial unit at a demonstration held at the Montgomery County Solid Waste Transfer Station in Derwood, Maryland.
> 
> ...


Of course I didn't invent the process but I found the website.


----------



## SundancerKid (Dec 21, 2008)

Hmmm.... it gulps up all kinds of plastic, returns it to usable oil, has a small net *gain* in energy and is hugely profitable to run.

So what's the catch? Isn't there some saying about if it seems too good to be true then it probably is? 

Still, if it's for real then it'd be a Good Thing!


----------



## Superpickle (Oct 17, 2009)

"Like the Indian chief said, Take all the 2 legged creatures off the earth , and it will Thrive"
Aside from that Truth, I heard on some TV show, that the Garbage patch in the Pacific is "Twice the size of Texas" :-0


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

I am more than happy to do my part and boat in a NO discharge anyplace area.

BUT every time it rains they shut down shell fishing and beaches because of land based RUNOFF 

Its the same thing with oily waste discharge if i do it on the boat its a BIG deal BUT theres 50 cars in the parking lot leaving and OIL slick and thats JUST FINE


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

it's easier to blame the water polution issues on boaters as they are an easy target and rarely is anyone cruising or boating willing to put up much of a combined unified front to thwart such erroneous claims. Also boaters are often easy scapegoats to mis-direct the un-educated unimformed majority of dirt dwellers. whom believe almost everything they read/see in the media.


----------



## Superpickle (Oct 17, 2009)

It has only been in the recent past, that Anyone gove a hoot what they trrew into the ocean. Boats of ALL sizes dumped it ALL into the Sea. wether it was Garbage, old Fuel cans, Helicopters etc etc etc.. It has been the Accepted Dumping site for the Hunam population.

NOW, we need to find a way to Clean it up.. 
But, thats hard to do, because its a World Wide situation and Few care what the hell is in the ocean. Im suprised the Japanese dont EAT it. Hell, they eat everything Else and they will Eat the Very last Blue whale in a heart beat.. 
eek: OMG, hes a Racist, )oh Piss off.. 
But, I digress.

So, What can be done to Clean it up..? Really, HOW big IS the lump of trash in the Pacific ????
Is it Mostly Plastic ?
I hear a lot of Whining and Crying about it, Where are all the Pics of this Continent size island of Garbage ?
Can we move all the Prisoners to it and make Them clean it up.. ?
Can we Relocate all the Sumolies to it, that would kill 2 Pandas with one shovel  
The sumolies live in a Dump anyway, theyed never notice.

oh. I know, I know, we can move ALL the People to it and Leave the Land to those that had it in the First place.. Animals and Bugs  
Yes, im Extremly Politicly Inccorect. its called "REALITY"


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

In the past, cleaning something up usually means moving the offending material to a differnet hole.

If I were the boss of the world, everything would have a deposit on it and manufacturers would have the means to recycle their products.


----------



## DCClancy (Oct 19, 2009)

*Problems?*

There are NO problems .......only PERCEPTION of reality


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

Pickle,

Just to be clear the 'garbage patch' is not a solid island or mass of plastic but more an area of higher density of plastic concentration. If you run a net through a small volume of the water in the Gyre you will filter out small pieces of sunlight degenerated plastic and many very small fragments of plastic. The depth to which the plastic is found is up to 30 m and the overall area is HUGE.


----------



## hardalee22 (Nov 3, 2006)

Not sure what agenda someone who is concerned about albatrosses might have. Shocking that sailors would be against cleaning our waterways. Was the Clean Water Act a bad idea? Should we be permitted to dump oil and fuel into the water? There is a giant mess of plastic in the ocean. It's a fact.

Albatross & Plastics : Ocean Issues | Monterey Bay Aquarium


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> There is a giant mess of plastic in the ocean. It's a fact.


okay. So now what?


----------



## jbarros (Jul 30, 2002)

Whenever I go hiking, i make a point of hiking more out with me than I hiked in. I remember being so pleased the first time I got out of the Angeles forest and into the Sierras, where I didn't find so much trash I filled my pack with it. 

In the water, this can be a lot more fun, as I would use my boathook and do man-over drills with random pieces of garbage I saw in the water, sometimes coming to a stop, other times hooking it as I went by.  

I cant help but think of the Yogi Bear cartoon where the ranger tricks them into picking up the trash. 

-- James


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

Great idea James...sounds like you are making cleaning up fun! I will definitely try that with my kids.


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

I guess there were some posters who were trying to make the point that they were actually concerned about the health of the environment but were concerned that we might get side tracked by an issue that wasn't the most pressing of our times !?? 

Personally I think everything we do that makes our oceans cleaner is a good thing whether or not it is the most efficient use of time and resources...

Arguing which is the best or most correct thing to do is a bit of a distraction in my opinion.

How hard is it to bring cloth bags to the grocery store, heck they are stronger. How hard is it to use a refillable water bottle instead on contributing to the horrible, obscene amount of water bottles thrown out by North Americans everyday...this amount of plastic waste is MASSIVE

I don't know of a single experienced sailor who would ever condone throwing plastic in the ocean on purpose!

This is a basic tenant of responsible boating.

Anybody who suggests that this is some plot by the environmentalists to ruin the country should take and good long hard look at what they are saying!


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

GreatWhite said:


> Anybody who suggests that this is some plot by the environmentalists to ruin the country should take and good long hard look at what they are saying!


GW, anyone who thinks all environmentalist are out to save the world should research all the mainstream groups; I have (did so for many many years), and they are not what they apprear to be, I had this discussion before on this site and I will say it again, this subject is like a great onion that you need to peel the layers off and like the great onion the more layers you remove the more it stinks.

Reading these posts there are some that are on the verge of understanding it all but still have many layers to go and then there are those that are still staring at the out skin while rolling it around in their hands thinking this will make me feel good

Bottom line is environmentalism hasn't been about the environment since the late 70's, it's been nothing but one political agenda after another, I saw this change coming in the early 70's and that why I ( like many others ) left orgs like the Sierra Club, their means to a end was highly distorted and has only gotten worse.

All I'm saying is understand who you're associating yourself with (which means digging deep ) and understand their motives, which you won't find on their website home page or the emails the send out looking for money for the save the ( fill in the blank ) call to action


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

Poopydeck, it sounds like you have a lot more understanding of environmental groups than I do. 

I also hear that you have seen examples of environmental groups creating public perceptions that assist them in there own political agendas.

I personally am not affiliated with any environmental group but am basing my beliefs with what I have seen with my own eyes and learned on my own.

The planet is finite and precious. I would like to protect it.

How you choose to do it is fine with me...I choose to keep plastic out of the ocean when I can.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

erps said:


> okay. So now what?


Milk it for all it's worth; how many years has the clean water act been in place ?, how many years has Save the Bay been around ? how many billions of dollars has been invested threw individuals donations, large corps like the Tide foundation and the likes, yet decades later we still deal with closed beaches because of inland runoff and failed sanitation facilities ??,

The environmental problems are not there to solve, they are there to exploit and capitalize on, when one has run it's course another will take it's place


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

There's feel good environmentalism, and then there is actually doing things that help the environment - rarely do the two meet.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

GreatWhite said:


> .I choose to keep plastic out of the ocean when I can.


As does my family, we carry a small fishing net in the dink ( my granddaughters brain storm ) and we pick crap up and lots of it, we also use reusable bags for shopping, eliminated plastic water bottles altogether by using britta.

As liveaboards we see the ocean as our home and the critters that live within it (or on it ) as pets, people trashing my front yard pisses me off to no end, having our waters & beaches closed off do to toxic runoff or raw sewer spills year after year pisses me off to no end, watching enviro groups that use issues like these to raise money for decades and solving nothing has really soured me


----------



## JiffyLube (Jan 25, 2008)

There has been a lot of talk on this subject both ways, but not many if any solutions. Now that this subject has been beaten to death, what we should be talking about are solutions. Who among all of you has a solution or combination of ideas to solve this problem?

I'll start with one idea even if he sounds stupid.

I say pay fishermen to drag fine nets through the surface of the ocean to collect the trash, and transfer the trash onto pick up boats that will take the trash back to land for disposal.

Who has another idea?


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

hardalee22 said:


> Not sure what agenda someone who is concerned about albatrosses might have. Shocking that sailors would be against cleaning our waterways. Was the Clean Water Act a bad idea? Should we be permitted to dump oil and fuel into the water? There is a giant mess of plastic in the ocean. It's a fact.
> 
> Albatross & Plastics : Ocean Issues | Monterey Bay Aquarium


Hardalee, it took me awhile to find the right harddrive and folder so could use your post as a example of onion peeling.

You sight a link by the MB Aquarium as to say " if they say it, it must true "; well, here's peeling the onion in reverse.

Starting several layers in with Dave Fenton (Fenton Communications) this will lead you to EMS ( Environmental Media Sources ) now, understand what their purpose in life has been since the mid 90's. EMS exists to make money, it turns a profit for Fenton Communications by improving the bottom lines of a wide variety of Fenton clients. ( Environmental & Reseach Orgs )

Once you get pass that layer, next you'll see who funds them, such as the Tides foundation, Pew and Packard and the likes; research their history and agendas.

Once you're able to stop shaking your head in disgust, look up who their frequent donees are and you will find the likes of SeaWeb, NRDC, Environmental Defense, National Audubon Society, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

I know this was a half assed ( missing a lot of info, but it's kinda late ) however, you should get the idea here, someone at the MB Aquarium prints what is needed and in return MB Aquarium gets it's much needed funding.( that kind of money doesn't come from gate fees and public donations )

There is always a agenda or ulterior motive


----------



## SundancerKid (Dec 21, 2008)

JiffyLube said:


> I say pay fishermen to drag fine nets through the surface of the ocean to collect the trash, and transfer the trash onto pick up boats that will take the trash back to land for disposal.
> 
> Who has another idea?


Sorry JiffyLube but there is a problem with your solution... I imagine anything fine enough to pick up small pieces of plastic would pick up a lot of sealife as well. The cure could kill more than the disease.

But I agree, the talk should be about solutions. Stopping the production of plastic is also not a solution. Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution for you but I suspect that the best one will lie in the production of better plastics.


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

I think we should start by giving people some hope.

How ?

Start by being honest about some things so that we can filter out the non-sense. Honestly says that curb side recycling doesn't work for anything except aluminum cans, simple as that. The energy used by curb side recycling does not justify its cost, especially for plastics, and that's even after you take human labor costs out of the equation, which environmentalists of course already do (they think our time has no value, that we should all pitch in for the environment no matter what the cost in time and energy).

Then let's move on to getting rid of the boogey men like boaters who are blamed for all kinds of problems when the real problems are things like runoff from streets, fields, etc, into the water system.

Then let's realize somewhere along the way that human beings are the reason we care about having a clean environment, not the environment for its own sake, and stop this culture of talking about human beings like we are only a problem. People just don't like it, they don't respond well to it, and if you buy into the argument completely the only reasonable path is to toss everybody you know off a high cliff to cut down on the "problem". Being a human being on this planet means that we generate a certain amount of waste, there will never be a way to avoid that, all organisms on this planet create waste that is toxic to themselves and usually others (though not always, oxygen is a plant waste product, for example). Human beings are no different, we will always create waste.

Then after we fix people's brains so that they are thinking like human beings again then they might be able to filter out a lot of the environmental non-sense they hear and think about things in a reasonable perspective. Once we get there and undo the damage that has been done then we can focus on actual solutions to real problems - problems like mercury in the water, problems like figuring out how to clean up the superfund sites, problems like runoff from the water sheds. We can focus on finding real solutions to real problems that will yield real results.

I've said before in similar threads that you have to include the human being in all of this, solutions that disregard humans won't work. What does that mean ? It means, for example, that human beings like to have fun, so stop thinking you're going to be able to get rid of all of the personal watercraft because it hurts the environment, because that simply isn't going to happen. Focus instead of making the vehicles in a way that won't harm the environment as much. Stop trying to make it so people can't drive on the beaches in North Carolina and start realizing that it actually causes very little in the way of damage, just because it seems like it does doesn't mean that it actually does. Allow for the fact that people are going to want to race cars on the Salt Flats, yeah, maybe it leaves some tracks, but are tracks in the Salt Flats responsible for many deaths in L.A. or N.Y. from toxins ? Not really.

Stop worrying about who is throwing glass in the ocean, start actually trying to actually find a place to store nuclear waste, etc. It has taken the environmental movement more than 50 years to screw people's heads up to the point that they can't even think rationally about things anymore, it is time to fix the damage. It is time for people to realize that they aren't helping the environment by going to the outdoor store (church) to buy a tent and some new boots, and that they are helping the environment when they pass legislation opening a nuclear waste dumping site. It is time for people to understand what they don't know so that they can understand more that they should know. Hint: If you actually believe what you learned from urban textbooks that the poor pitiful farmers were destroying the countryside until the smart urban folks came out and showed them all how to plow around the hills instead of up and down, then you've got a long ways to go. If you want to know about the environment and how to save it, get out of the city and go out to the country and learn something from the farmers you look down on, hang around with people who are in the environment and who really are concerned with things like fertilizer runoff.

At some point, once trust is restored, people might actually start believing they can make a difference and stop believing that no matter what they do it won't matter. At some point they might watch a movie about the next thing that is going to destroy us all and stop believing it, maybe keep their eye on the ball and fix real problems.


----------



## chris_gee (May 31, 2006)

Attitude change starts with awareness and can grow with time even if it seems to do so slowly.
As for some scepticism about organisations environmental or not, fair enough, but it seems odd to spend "many many years" researching in depth into their backgounds. Guess the French secret service did that when they blew up Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior, in the name of national security. Still a job is a job. Nudge nudge wink wink say no more.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

chris_gee said:


> Guess the French secret service did that when they blew up Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior, in the name of national security.


Some think the Steve Irwin should meet the same fate

But as far as Green Peace goes, heres a ditty from Canada



> October 28, 2009 by John Myers
> 
> Greenpeace is running rampant across Alberta's oil sands. In the past few weeks, 37 activists have been arrested in a spate of incidents targeting North America's most important energy resource.
> 
> ...


deception, disruption, exaggeration, exploitation and when all eles fails...........blow the sh*t up

Post 1975 conservationism at it's finest


----------



## DCClancy (Oct 19, 2009)

*Self preservation......*

To quote "Mother Nature, in whose lap we sit and who sustains us, sometimes eats her young" as we debate the issues . I agree , about the enviro's wasting and polluting as they protest, as I have said before , drastic action is required. Let's put money towards solar , or , ????? We are smart enough to put people on the moon , maybe , we could find a way to clean up the mess here. Put the cash towards inovation instead of bailing out auto companys. ??


----------



## GreatWhite (Jan 30, 2007)

I consider myself an environmentalist but I have absolutely no affiliation with any enviro group whatsoever ...I but I believe that with the astronomical advances that are taking place with nanotechnology we will easily be able to produce all our current energy demand with solar within 20 years... 

So regarding the tar sands I really think that we should be careful and bring a careful eye to what is going on there. The scale is absolutely MASSIVE and it really threatens a huge amount of water which is very precious in the Alberta province...

Similar to the bird pics...sometimes having a focus brought to an issue can have some benefits...not saying I have any answers but as most of us live in democratic countries it helps to know what is going on...

You can't believe everything you read but I sure a heck appreciate having ALL sides if the argument available to me.

I wouldn't want to miss any of the views...although many are sponsored.


----------



## chris_gee (May 31, 2006)

"deception, disruption, exaggeration, exploitation and when all eles fails...........blow the sh*t up"

Yeah right. Rainbow Warrior? I can't debate the detail of every action by Greenpeace. I simply don't know the detail. For what it is worth I am not a member of Greenpeace or the CIA.

But I wonder if I should be concerned. No I am now.

There is another problem with land run off? Sorry mate have seen that strategy used too often for it to cut any ice with me.


----------



## JiffyLube (Jan 25, 2008)

SundancerKid said:


> Sorry JiffyLube but there is a problem with your solution... I imagine anything fine enough to pick up small pieces of plastic would pick up a lot of sealife as well. The cure could kill more than the disease.
> 
> But I agree, the talk should be about solutions. Stopping the production of plastic is also not a solution. Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution for you but I suspect that the best one will lie in the production of better plastics.


Well then, how about a plastic type material that breaks down faster? Whatever idea helps solve the problem the whole world will have to get behind it, because the U.S. can't do it alone.


----------

