3 ms·

They're still working on open oceans: https://theoceancleanup.com/oceans/ https://theoceancleanup.com/oceans/

JoeAltmaier 2y ago
This river cleanup is brilliant and effective. Messing with the top meter of ocean water does its own kind of damage. So much of the life in the ocean surface layer is going to be involved with the floating trash, like it or not. Ocean surface sterilization seems incautious and worrisome. Never mind we don't like to see trash. Stripping the ocean surface water will have unforeseen consequences.
- laborcontract 2y ago
  Are you talking about sea life? According to the video on the site, the boats travel at less than 3km/h and they have live video feeds monitoring the nets. Am I missing anything here?
  - JoeAltmaier 2y ago
    As most people do, you are considering only fish and such. Things we can see. Not the bulk of all ocean life, the tiny microscopic creatures that dominate the ecosystem. It's only the top surface, right? The ocean can be miles deep! But the density of life in the ocean decreases geometrically with depth. By mass, the top inches contain more life than the entire balance of it. Because, sunlight.
    - NamTaf 2y ago
      Except the net completely transparent to microscopic organisms like plankton? The section "The System at Sea" on this site [1] goes into detail about the multitude of systems they have to prevent the impact on ocean life. There's some 9 image slides give information about it. With all those considered, am I missing something? [1]: https://theoceancleanup.com/oceans/ https://theoceancleanup.com/oceans/
      - nickburns 2y ago
        no parties of this exchange are missing anything here except for not one having been privy to the original and actual design of the system—which specific factors identified (i.e. surface microbiome, etc.), as everyone's comments demonstrate, are clearly worth having been taken, and continue to be worth taking into consideration with previous and future improvements and/or redesigns of such. no need for any of this standoffishness.
      - JoeAltmaier 2y ago
        The life has, like it or not, integrated with the trash. Adhered to it; put spores on it; coated it. Remove the trash - remove some fraction of the life. Not trying to be standoffish. Just being aware that the law of unintended consequences will bite you in the ass every time.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        dingnuts 2y ago
        I'm sure you, random Redditor, er, Orange Site Commenter, are an expert on both the topic and the design of the mechanism in question If only Boyan Slat had thought to ask you first
        JoeAltmaier 2y ago
        Oh, this project is widely criticized over its entire existence. Don't rely on some commenter on HN for sure. Do your own research. It won't take long.
        stephen_g 2y ago
        Hopefully this has already been researched to quantify the amount of life using plastic as a habitat. Intuitively though it just seems like it's going to be such a tiny, tiny fraction that the concern is basically not worth thinking about compared to the problems of ocean garbage...
- cdrini 2y ago
  They have a lot of precautions in place to avoid damaging any wild life. They move slowly, and their nets have special channels to allow animals to pass through and avoid getting caught. See the "managing environmental impact" section here: https://theoceancleanup.com/oceans/ https://theoceancleanup.com/oceans/ I imagine there must be _some_ non zero risk, but I imagine the benefits of removing the plastic outweigh the risk. Ie removing the plastic is better for the wildlife overall, despite the small potential risk.
- foota 2y ago
  It seems to me like removing a non negligible amount of biomass from the ocean would be infeasible, so it's difficult for me to see the impact this could possibly have.
- codingdave 2y ago
  How did you jump from cleanup to sterilization? You do have a point that the impact on the ecosystem is a concern worth exploring, but your statement goes off the rails from there and assumes that they are sterilizing the ocean surface? You've got to expect pushback on such a leap unless you justify it.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  I'm calling for a moratorium on the river barricades until we can determine that it's not damaging to the environment. They were so occupied with whether they could they didn't stop to ask if they should. This is why they need to teach ethics in school next to engineering. Messing with fragile systems like this is dangerous. Many studies show that blocking river flow causes the extinction of species. Until we can be sure that this is safe, we shouldn't do it. We should first study it over a reasonable period of time (say 20 years) before doing anything like this. Humans think they can just modify the environment without consequences. That is the root of the issue. We need real change.
  - rmah 2y ago
    How do you know they didn't stop to ask if they should? And concluded after, detailed and deep study, that yes, they should. Perhaps they (or someone else) already did studies of the impact of blocking rivers partially or totally? Are you, perhaps, making assumptions about what they did without first stopping to think if you should make such assumptions?
  - cdrini 2y ago
    1) this organisation was founded in 2013; they've been thinking and researching into this for a while, this wasn't a rash intervention. 2) they didn't block the river flow! 100% that would be very dangerous. The have a capture device on the surface of the water. Wildlife and water travel freely under the surface. 3) the mission statement of this organisation is about helping wildlife, so I reckon they think a lot about the impacts that anything they do can have on wildlife.

This river cleanup is brilliant and effective. Messing with the top meter of ocean water does its own kind of damage. So much of the life in the ocean surface layer is going to be involved with the floating trash, like it or not. Ocean surface sterilization seems incautious and worrisome. Never mind we don't like to see trash. Stripping the ocean surface water will have unforeseen consequences.

laborcontract 2y ago
Are you talking about sea life? According to the video on the site, the boats travel at less than 3km/h and they have live video feeds monitoring the nets. Am I missing anything here?
- JoeAltmaier 2y ago
  As most people do, you are considering only fish and such. Things we can see. Not the bulk of all ocean life, the tiny microscopic creatures that dominate the ecosystem. It's only the top surface, right? The ocean can be miles deep! But the density of life in the ocean decreases geometrically with depth. By mass, the top inches contain more life than the entire balance of it. Because, sunlight.
  - NamTaf 2y ago
    Except the net completely transparent to microscopic organisms like plankton? The section "The System at Sea" on this site [1] goes into detail about the multitude of systems they have to prevent the impact on ocean life. There's some 9 image slides give information about it. With all those considered, am I missing something? [1]: https://theoceancleanup.com/oceans/ https://theoceancleanup.com/oceans/
    - nickburns 2y ago
      no parties of this exchange are missing anything here except for not one having been privy to the original and actual design of the system—which specific factors identified (i.e. surface microbiome, etc.), as everyone's comments demonstrate, are clearly worth having been taken, and continue to be worth taking into consideration with previous and future improvements and/or redesigns of such. no need for any of this standoffishness.
    - JoeAltmaier 2y ago
      The life has, like it or not, integrated with the trash. Adhered to it; put spores on it; coated it. Remove the trash - remove some fraction of the life. Not trying to be standoffish. Just being aware that the law of unintended consequences will bite you in the ass every time.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - dingnuts 2y ago
        I'm sure you, random Redditor, er, Orange Site Commenter, are an expert on both the topic and the design of the mechanism in question If only Boyan Slat had thought to ask you first
        JoeAltmaier 2y ago
        Oh, this project is widely criticized over its entire existence. Don't rely on some commenter on HN for sure. Do your own research. It won't take long.
      - stephen_g 2y ago
        Hopefully this has already been researched to quantify the amount of life using plastic as a habitat. Intuitively though it just seems like it's going to be such a tiny, tiny fraction that the concern is basically not worth thinking about compared to the problems of ocean garbage...
cdrini 2y ago
They have a lot of precautions in place to avoid damaging any wild life. They move slowly, and their nets have special channels to allow animals to pass through and avoid getting caught. See the "managing environmental impact" section here: https://theoceancleanup.com/oceans/ https://theoceancleanup.com/oceans/ I imagine there must be _some_ non zero risk, but I imagine the benefits of removing the plastic outweigh the risk. Ie removing the plastic is better for the wildlife overall, despite the small potential risk.
foota 2y ago
It seems to me like removing a non negligible amount of biomass from the ocean would be infeasible, so it's difficult for me to see the impact this could possibly have.
codingdave 2y ago
How did you jump from cleanup to sterilization? You do have a point that the impact on the ecosystem is a concern worth exploring, but your statement goes off the rails from there and assumes that they are sterilizing the ocean surface? You've got to expect pushback on such a leap unless you justify it.
renewiltord 2y ago
I'm calling for a moratorium on the river barricades until we can determine that it's not damaging to the environment. They were so occupied with whether they could they didn't stop to ask if they should. This is why they need to teach ethics in school next to engineering. Messing with fragile systems like this is dangerous. Many studies show that blocking river flow causes the extinction of species. Until we can be sure that this is safe, we shouldn't do it. We should first study it over a reasonable period of time (say 20 years) before doing anything like this. Humans think they can just modify the environment without consequences. That is the root of the issue. We need real change.
- rmah 2y ago
  How do you know they didn't stop to ask if they should? And concluded after, detailed and deep study, that yes, they should. Perhaps they (or someone else) already did studies of the impact of blocking rivers partially or totally? Are you, perhaps, making assumptions about what they did without first stopping to think if you should make such assumptions?
- cdrini 2y ago
  1) this organisation was founded in 2013; they've been thinking and researching into this for a while, this wasn't a rash intervention. 2) they didn't block the river flow! 100% that would be very dangerous. The have a capture device on the surface of the water. Wildlife and water travel freely under the surface. 3) the mission statement of this organisation is about helping wildlife, so I reckon they think a lot about the impacts that anything they do can have on wildlife.