3 ms·
It seems like the study folks are quoting is a peer reviewed article in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22939-w?fbclid=IwAR2s0iX2t6BZ_wz8FkWN
by drewg123 4y ago
It seems like the study folks are quoting is a peer reviewed article in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22939-w?fbclid=IwAR2s0iX2t6BZ_wz8FkWNRD8DK6ROwuQcE6k7nXM4rjz1LAdQZmlXfeluOuo https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22939-w?fbclid=Iw...
It states "Over three-quarters of the GPGP mass was carried by debris larger than 5 cm and at least 46% was comprised of fishing nets."
- munificent 4y agoAh, good catch! That does agree with the article, so maybe that's where the claim comes from and not directly from the Greenpeace article. There's still a difference between "quantity dumped per year" and "total amount measured right now". It seems like ghost gear is not a large fraction of the plastic entering the ocean, but it a large fraction of the accumulated large pieces in the garbage patch. I presume that's because fishing gear is designed to survive in the ocean so takes longer to break down than other plastics.
- verdverm 4y agoHere's a NOAA page on the topic https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/marinedebris/plastics-in-the-ocean.html https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/marinedebris/plastics-...