6 ms·

There Is No Island of Trash in the Pacific

48 points by r0muald 10y ago

mlvljr 10y ago
Was saving them a myth as well, to make someone a fortune? :)
douche 10y ago
You want to look at the largest instances of ocean pollution in world history? Look at submarine warfare in WW1[1] and WW2[2]. Millions and millions of gallons of bunker oil spilled out, not to mention all the chemicals, explosives, and other bits of nastiness in contained in the cargo of those ships. [1] http://www.naval-history.net/WW1LossesaContents.htm http://www.naval-history.net/WW1LossesaContents.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_sunk_by_submarines_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_sunk_by_submarin...
- coldtea 10y ago
  Sounds like a lot, but compared to industrial pollution since WWII those are probably just "drops in the ocean" (pun intended).
EGreg 10y ago
Is the word "myth" here being used in the sense of being true but connected to storytelling nevertheless? Because the Great Pacific Garbage Patch really exists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch The patch is characterized by exceptionally high relative concentrations of pelagic plastics, chemical sludge and other debris that have been trapped by the currents of the North Pacific Gyre.[2] Because of its large area, it is of very low density (4 particles per cubic meter), and therefore not visible from satellite photography, nor even necessarily to casual boaters or divers in the area. It consists primarily of a small increase in suspended, often microscopic, particles in the upper water column. Research has shown that this plastic marine debris affects at least 267 species worldwide Also, overfishing is real. Colony collapse disorder is real and affects wild bees. Monarch butterflies and others are becoming extinct. So are tigers and many other species. (although the trend has been halted for tigers). The human population explosion and energy use explosion that grew even faster are the problem. Regardless of how efficient we get, we can't sustain such population growth indefintely. And Capitalism is extremely efficient at exacerbating negative externalities - whether factory farms, private prisons, weapons manufacturers or manufacturers of anything (plastic etc.) the incentive is to exploit negative externalities as much as possible to have more customers pay more money faster. The collective effect is perpetually increasing money velocity and increased velocity of exploiting externalities.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Is the word "myth" here being used in the sense of being true but connected to storytelling nevertheless? Because the Great Pacific Garbage Patch really exists From TFA, which pretty much says the same thing with different words: >In fact, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch was barely visible, since it comprised mostly micro-garbage. It can’t be scanned by satellites, or scoped out on Google Earth. You could be sailing right through the gyre, as many have observed, and never notice that you’re in the middle of a death-shaped noxious vortex. The patch is such a wishy-washy phenomenon, with wishy-washy impacts, that its extent can’t be described with any certainty. (“No scientifically sound estimates exist for the size or mass,” notes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.) What doesn't exist and is a myth is the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" as usually described in the media (the miles of visible floatsam, actual whole garbage thrown in, etc).
  - EGreg 10y ago
    Just because the flotsam isn't visible doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The concentrations of the garbage are quite high. And being microscopic, they're very hard to clean up.
    - ajoy39 10y ago
      They're not saying it doesn't exist, they're saying it's been exaggerated to death to the point where the actual thing doesn't resemble the myth at all. There is no floating trash island, it's not "twice the size of texas", and in fact as stated in the article no scientifically sound estimates to it's size exist. The story was told as basically an iceberg of trash the size of a continent in the middle of the ocean and that's not at all what it really is. It exists, it's a problem, but it's not the mythical thing it's made out to be.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >Just because the flotsam isn't visible doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They don't say it doesn't exist, period. They say it doesn't exist in the particular (mythical) form described. If the Lock Bigfoot turned out to be a stray gorilla from some local zoo, he would exist, but the "Bigfoot" as described would still be a myth. (Myth after all is commonly based on some historical basis).
h4nkoslo 10y ago
Slate (especially their headline writers) is kind of notorious for a style of smug contrarianism mixed with condescension. It's unreadable.
buovjaga 10y ago
I guess we'll find out more soon: http://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/show/item/announcing-the-aerial-expedition/ http://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/show/item/announcing-...
ilitirit 10y ago
What is the myth they are referring to? I haven't been following any stories about the Pacific Gyre in the mainstream media, but I've always understood it to be a region in the Pacific where garbage seems to concentrate because of ocean currents. Much of the garbage isn't visible as it floats just beneath the surface. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StNZ3XUBDYw#t=1m17s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StNZ3XUBDYw#t=1m17s
- InclinedPlane 10y ago
  The myth is that it's a particularly gross and garbage choked area. I've seen many articles and comments about it which have used pictures of garbage strewn Manila harbor as illustration, for example. The reality is that if you were in the middle of the Pacific gyre you could look overboard and not perceive anything special, because mostly it's an increased abundance of tiny pieces of plastic, most of them floating under the surface. Unfortunately, like many issues, people have a hard time caring about things unless they're fairly blatant. It's a big reason why "charismatic megafauna" tend to be poster children for endangered species.
InclinedPlane 10y ago
Here's the problem: http://i.imgur.com/KW0d1qh.jpg http://i.imgur.com/KW0d1qh.jpg That's a google image search for "pacific garbage patch", and about half of the results are pure fiction. Photos of heavily polluted inhabited areas that are not actually part of the pacific gyre. Many articles reproduce these pictures from other sources and just assume they are photos of the garbage patch (a typical "citogenesis" problem: https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/). This is very important because it bears directly on the credibility of scientists and of environmental activists. Once you lose credibility you rarely get it back. Many, many people (even some scientists, sadly) believe that action is more important than truth. That "doing the right thing" is paramount, even if you have to twist the facts a teensy bit to make them more palatable to the masses. But the masses are fickle, and they pick up on these things readily, with the result being a loss of credibility. It's very difficult to always avoid the temptation of the easy, quick short-term gain, but the importance of maintaining scientific discipline should always override that impulse.

48 points by r0muald 10y ago

Was saving them a myth as well, to make someone a fortune? :)

You want to look at the largest instances of ocean pollution in world history? Look at submarine warfare in WW1[1] and WW2[2]. Millions and millions of gallons of bunker oil spilled out, not to mention all the chemicals, explosives, and other bits of nastiness in contained in the cargo of those ships. [1] http://www.naval-history.net/WW1LossesaContents.htm http://www.naval-history.net/WW1LossesaContents.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_sunk_by_submarines_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_sunk_by_submarin...

coldtea 10y ago
Sounds like a lot, but compared to industrial pollution since WWII those are probably just "drops in the ocean" (pun intended).

EGreg 10y ago

Is the word "myth" here being used in the sense of being true but connected to storytelling nevertheless? Because the Great Pacific Garbage Patch really exists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch The patch is characterized by exceptionally high relative concentrations of pelagic plastics, chemical sludge and other debris that have been trapped by the currents of the North Pacific Gyre.[2] Because of its large area, it is of very low density (4 particles per cubic meter), and therefore not visible from satellite photography, nor even necessarily to casual boaters or divers in the area. It consists primarily of a small increase in suspended, often microscopic, particles in the upper water column. Research has shown that this plastic marine debris affects at least 267 species worldwide Also, overfishing is real. Colony collapse disorder is real and affects wild bees. Monarch butterflies and others are becoming extinct. So are tigers and many other species. (although the trend has been halted for tigers). The human population explosion and energy use explosion that grew even faster are the problem. Regardless of how efficient we get, we can't sustain such population growth indefintely. And Capitalism is extremely efficient at exacerbating negative externalities - whether factory farms, private prisons, weapons manufacturers or manufacturers of anything (plastic etc.) the incentive is to exploit negative externalities as much as possible to have more customers pay more money faster. The collective effect is perpetually increasing money velocity and increased velocity of exploiting externalities.

coldtea 10y ago
>Is the word "myth" here being used in the sense of being true but connected to storytelling nevertheless? Because the Great Pacific Garbage Patch really exists From TFA, which pretty much says the same thing with different words: >In fact, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch was barely visible, since it comprised mostly micro-garbage. It can’t be scanned by satellites, or scoped out on Google Earth. You could be sailing right through the gyre, as many have observed, and never notice that you’re in the middle of a death-shaped noxious vortex. The patch is such a wishy-washy phenomenon, with wishy-washy impacts, that its extent can’t be described with any certainty. (“No scientifically sound estimates exist for the size or mass,” notes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.) What doesn't exist and is a myth is the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" as usually described in the media (the miles of visible floatsam, actual whole garbage thrown in, etc).
- EGreg 10y ago
  Just because the flotsam isn't visible doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The concentrations of the garbage are quite high. And being microscopic, they're very hard to clean up.
  - ajoy39 10y ago
    They're not saying it doesn't exist, they're saying it's been exaggerated to death to the point where the actual thing doesn't resemble the myth at all. There is no floating trash island, it's not "twice the size of texas", and in fact as stated in the article no scientifically sound estimates to it's size exist. The story was told as basically an iceberg of trash the size of a continent in the middle of the ocean and that's not at all what it really is. It exists, it's a problem, but it's not the mythical thing it's made out to be.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Just because the flotsam isn't visible doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They don't say it doesn't exist, period. They say it doesn't exist in the particular (mythical) form described. If the Lock Bigfoot turned out to be a stray gorilla from some local zoo, he would exist, but the "Bigfoot" as described would still be a myth. (Myth after all is commonly based on some historical basis).

h4nkoslo 10y ago

Slate (especially their headline writers) is kind of notorious for a style of smug contrarianism mixed with condescension. It's unreadable.

buovjaga 10y ago

I guess we'll find out more soon: http://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/show/item/announcing-the-aerial-expedition/ http://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/show/item/announcing-...

ilitirit 10y ago

What is the myth they are referring to? I haven't been following any stories about the Pacific Gyre in the mainstream media, but I've always understood it to be a region in the Pacific where garbage seems to concentrate because of ocean currents. Much of the garbage isn't visible as it floats just beneath the surface. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StNZ3XUBDYw#t=1m17s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StNZ3XUBDYw#t=1m17s

InclinedPlane 10y ago
The myth is that it's a particularly gross and garbage choked area. I've seen many articles and comments about it which have used pictures of garbage strewn Manila harbor as illustration, for example. The reality is that if you were in the middle of the Pacific gyre you could look overboard and not perceive anything special, because mostly it's an increased abundance of tiny pieces of plastic, most of them floating under the surface. Unfortunately, like many issues, people have a hard time caring about things unless they're fairly blatant. It's a big reason why "charismatic megafauna" tend to be poster children for endangered species.

InclinedPlane 10y ago

Here's the problem: http://i.imgur.com/KW0d1qh.jpg http://i.imgur.com/KW0d1qh.jpg That's a google image search for "pacific garbage patch", and about half of the results are pure fiction. Photos of heavily polluted inhabited areas that are not actually part of the pacific gyre. Many articles reproduce these pictures from other sources and just assume they are photos of the garbage patch (a typical "citogenesis" problem: https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/). This is very important because it bears directly on the credibility of scientists and of environmental activists. Once you lose credibility you rarely get it back. Many, many people (even some scientists, sadly) believe that action is more important than truth. That "doing the right thing" is paramount, even if you have to twist the facts a teensy bit to make them more palatable to the masses. But the masses are fickle, and they pick up on these things readily, with the result being a loss of credibility. It's very difficult to always avoid the temptation of the easy, quick short-term gain, but the importance of maintaining scientific discipline should always override that impulse.