10 ms·
From practical and philosophical points of view, if the container and its cargo are stuck at the bottom of the sea forever, is it really a problem? Of course,
by k_sze 8y ago
From practical and philosophical points of view, if the container and its cargo are stuck at the bottom of the sea forever, is it really a problem?
Of course, I'm aware that random man-made things polluting the oceans is a bad thing in general, but in this specific case, if the plastic is just stuck there forever, is it still pollution in practical terms? The electronics inside the phones probably won't pass modern environmental standards (e.g. RoHS), so let's forget about the electronics for now and only focus on the plastic.
On the one hand, does the plastic release toxic chemicals in high enough concentration as it decomposes (slowly?)? On the other hand, does the container and its cargo somehow become a new shelter/habitat for certain species of marine life?
- vectorEQ 8y agoits still polution to the life in the ocean. humans aren't the only ones inhabiting this place as you point out. (taking into account there could be any number of containers - as if one ends up there, it's likely this process of it ending up there is not unique)
- fearhugs 8y ago"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change."[1] I think the above comment is questioning whether this container is causing `adverse' change. If not then I suppose this particular case wouldn't be classified as pollution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution
- tengbretson 8y agoShould we consider sea snails leaving behind their shells when they die litter?
- jschwartzi 8y agoIf one beach had a million sea snails leaving shells behind, and the beach were cluttered with them, and it was choking out any other life on the beach, then yeah we would consider that litter. It's the same as when sea urchins devour whole kelp forests, rendering parts of the sea floor totally barren. One or two urchins aren't a big deal but when they breed without limits they can completely destroy an ocean ecosystem. And so we kill them off when we need to to try to be good stewards of our planet.
- tengbretson 8y ago> If one beach... The very existence of beaches at all is the result of the overwhelming dead remains of billions of diatoms and crushed shells. I have no doubt there would be a totally different ecosystem if it weren't for their remains.
- andrewflnr 8y agoSo if some organisms were naturally excreting a chemical toxic to most life on the planet, with no feedback mechanism to stop them, you'd be against that, right? Don't answer that, it's a trick question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
- perilunar 8y agoYes, but 'litter' is not necessarily bad. Fallen leaves are 'leaf litter' for example. The problem is not litter per se, but how it degrades over time. Shells become sand, leaves become soil. Glass becomes sea glass. Plastics become deadly blockages in animals stomachs.
- CydeWeys 8y agoIt's not buried at the bottom of the sea though. It's in a cave on the shore. And the cargo is not stuck on the bottom of the sea permanently either; it's periodically washing ashore and causing ongoing pollution and litter problems.
- glenneroo 8y agoToxic chemicals are only one aspect of pollution. AFAIK the more serious threat is from plastic decomposing into micro/nano-sized particles, which are then consumed by plankton who then perish and/or are consumed by ever-larger creatures in the food chain. Plankton are vital for our species' survival, since they produce 50-85% of the world's oxygen supply, as well as feeding all other living things in the ocean (and eventually ending up in Human stomachs).
- blackflame7000 8y agoYea but the ocean is full of things decomposing into small particles. Rocks for one.
- orf 8y agoWell that's OK then. Thank god.
- coryrc 8y agoI don't think you should be downvoted, as it's a valid observation. Nanoplastics concentrate toxic compounds within themselves, smuggling them past animals' defense system. This does not happen with rock. There has not been enough time for animals to evolve systems to remove nanoplastics from their bodies.
- throwaway5752 8y agoI don't doubt that microplastics are not good for the environment and organisms that consume them, but can you provide a citation for the toxin concentration claim so I can learn more about it?
- A2017U1 8y agoTop 3 results here should do fine. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nanoplastic%20toxin%20concentration https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nanoplastic%20toxin%20...
- 8y ago