3 ms·
Yea the graphic/map with source of plastic pollution per river delta is pretty eye opening. Which I suspect is why it's not better known or distributed.
by beerandt 2y ago
Yea the graphic/map with source of plastic pollution per river delta is pretty eye opening.
Which I suspect is why it's not better known or distributed.
- xnx 2y agoThis one? https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mass-of-river-plastic-flowing-into-oceans-in-tons-per-year-River-contributions-are_fig2_380494417 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mass-of-river-plastic-fl... I don't know enough to distinguish that this isn't just a graphic of population x flow rate.
- beerandt 2y agoThat's similar to the one I've seen. It uses some averages and rates to backfill totals, but isn't just pop x flow. It has a coefficient for 'waste mismanagement' which seems to dominate the eqn of how much ends up in the rivers vs landfills or otherwise secured.
- Lerc 2y agoDo you have a link with more tangible details? I was under the impression that ocean plastic was comprised largely from discarded/lost material from ocean going industries followed by tyre dust. A quick google didn't reveal much more than organizations think science is done by SEO. Found a lot of incomparable data being compared. Measurements by mass, measurements by particle. Varying definitions of what constitutes a microplastic. from >2cm to >0.1mm I found claims for top 10 rivers ranging from 95% to 18% of the river plastic. In general a lot of percentages, and few absolute numbers. In general it makes me despair for finding actual data. I'd like to be able to at least check that they calculated the percentage correctly mathematically. Preferably I could also know what as a proportion of what was being calculated so I could have some confidence that they were at least the same class of thing.