Plastic pollution

[GreatWhite]

unfortunately the aesthetic issue is not the only issue:

If you thought that the aesthetic issues and the impact on marine life were the only problems associated with the plastic waste that winds up in the ocean, think again. When plastics are exposed to the rain, sun and other environmental conditions they begin to decompose. Polystyrene, for example, starts decomposing within a year. Sounds good, right? Not so much. A recent study from Nihon University in Japan found that the potentially toxic chemicals BPA and PS oligomer are released into the water as plastic decomposes.

The lead research, Katsuhiko Saldo, says that about 150,000 tons of plastic debris wind up on the shores of Japan each year. Now add to that all of the other shores as well as the Texas-sized Great Pacific Garbage Patch found between California and Hawaii that's largely made up of plastic waste.

The chemicals in question spell trouble because they're hormone disruptors and can have a big impact on reproductive systems. Even low-level BPA exposure could have adverse health effects according to some studies. And while when sea animals eat plastics, the trash won't decompose inside their bellies, some of the same toxic substances could be absorbed, resulting in adverse side effects.

Funding for Saido's research came from Nihon University.
The American Chemical Society is a nonprofit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. With more than 154,000 members, ACS is the world's largest scientific society and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by GreatWhite

The chemicals in question spell trouble because they're hormone disruptors and can have a big impact on reproductive systems. Even low-level BPA exposure could have adverse health effects according to some studies. And while when sea animals eat plastics, the trash won't decompose inside their bellies, some of the same toxic substances could be absorbed, resulting in adverse side effects.

Can have, could have, could be, are these science words or political words ?

Look, if the stuff is out there, we should be able to test for it. The text itself says that it doesn't happen inside of an animal that might eat a piece of trash, so the problem must be that its leeching into the water, that must be what they are saying. Well lets go out and get a cup of water from the ocean and send it off to the lab and see what the concentrations are, right ? Such an easy test they could have done it, couldn't they ? So where are the numbers, concentrations, what is all this can have, could have crap ? It could be that space aliens are taking all the fish too.

Let's see the data ...

Just once wouldn't it be nice if Congress (or someone else) funded a study and the study came back and said, you know, no, they looked at the "problem" and concluded that it is such an insignificant threat to human beings and the environment that they don't think you need to throw any more money at it.

[scottyt]

wind magic you cave it backwards, according to the stuff i read it could absorb chemicals from the water and it may allow them to concentrate and it could leach in to fish that might eat it

here is one i think is funny, the boat in the beginning of this thread is run by a capt moore, he is on a 50 foot cat, yet every time he gets in front of a camera he has a "uniform" of some sort on. i guess it to makes him look more knowledgeable. it reminds me of the terrorist and criminal paul watson of the sea sheppards.

and wind magic have you not learned they cant give solid data, ie 3.5 million tonnes, where did the number come from, show us the math

one thing i love about the people who run these "scams" are they are always looking for money, and they get it from those who are part of the problem. ie al gore and his carbon offsets. paul watson who makes his crew pay 1000 bucks for the pleasure of going on his cruises to chase down whale hunters following the law

i personally dont want to see people suffer, but those who think people are the problem should do the world a favor and go live in Africa and see what life with out electricity, clean water, food, etc etc is like. live like you say.. kind of like the sailor i posted about early on, then you will get my respect

[GreatWhite]

Windmagic and scotty, I must respectfully disagree with both of you when you say that scientists in a university setting have an agenda that is political or has a funding bias by nature. I come from an academic family, my father has published over 700 papers. By nature the academic process is the most rigorous and well debated intellectual process that we have.

I think it is unfair to say that as an arm chair scientist we have more to offer the subject than someone who has dedicated their life to the study and debate within a specific area of expertise verified through the scientific /academic process.

Sure it is possible that SOME might have been coloured by their funding source but this just simply is true for the majority.

[chris_gee]

"Can have, could have, could be, are these science words or political words ?"

Actually they are more like words of appropriately cautious science. A layman may think just measure the level of contaminants in the ocean, and there is your answer.

There are many catches. Firstly the contamination is likely to increase as one moves up the food chain for obvious reasons. One being it is concentrated not eliminated. Secondly in the case of albatross raised levels are also due seemingly to ingestion of whole plastic bits not just soup.

The nature of research is that it is usually partial, and often underfunded. Consequently it is rarely if ever definitive, comprehensive, and often because of its limitations may not be confirmed. It is not sufficient to say yes contamination has an effect. Rather it is a matter of working on what effects in what circumstances, dosages, species, and time periods. Since the studies are often not experimental rather observational, to be precise one may find a correlation but that does not prove causation.
Is that really a problem except for the pedantic? There are ethical issues in say doing human experimental trials of the effects of smoking so the evidence is correlational, augmented by animal trials and lab trials on tissue presumably. Yet we accept the weight of evidence, although it is not proof of causation.
Indeed there is one school of scientific thought that says you cannot prove an hypothesis only disprove it. In practice the process is more like uncovering or unravelling small parts of the picture, and building on that. In testing a thousand chemicals for some effect it might be helpful to say 999 do not appear to influence x, but then the real issue becomes does the other that does have a reproducible effect, and what side effects are there? Then one might go on into what are the differences between those who respond and those who don't and what might be the key factor that might be improved?

A lay person might read a report showing scientists discover prove find such n such wonder drug or effect or whatever.
A better scientist knowing the limits of his study would use more cautious words, like seems may could suggests and warrants further investigation.
So yes could may might are the words of a scientist. No proof, no problem, will, is and certainly are rather more political, because pandering to prejudice pays.

[GreatWhite]

I guess what we as arm chair scientists can do is surmise from what we read about the various specific studies, that look at a small piece of the puzzle and various news reports and then come up with a reaction or intuitive response.

For those who tend to be 'greenies' the response tends to be different that those who consider themselves 'anti-greenies'

I just 'feel' or 'surmise' that when I see the absolutely gross amounts of plastic that the human race is producing and the amount that ends up in the ocean that there might be a problem (I might even hypothesize that.) Someone else might come up with a different hypothesis.

The link posted indicates that some albatross birds are being effected. For those who might downplay the significance I can understand...for those that deny it...I can't accept that.

I spend a lot of time on beaches and see absolutely massive amounts of plastic almost everywhere...this is what we see. When you get to the smaller particle level there is even more.

The fact the certain chemical compounds come from the plastic and then enter the food chain is well documented.

I don't think that we can do much about it except be more responsible with our plastic waste.

Is there anyone out there that would deny this? I personally am trying to make a difference to reduce the amount of plastic that enters the oceans.

I know some people get upset if we accept there is a problem as I assume they are concerned they might be inconvenienced in some way. I would suggest that those making remarks to discredit the entire scientific community who has done any work in this field or made any suggestions that we might have to change our behavior to stem the amount of plastic ending up in the ocean should consider what motivates this reaction. Is it a fear of changing? I somehow doubt that every single person who makes a remark or studies anything to do with conservation or the environment is out to get you, trying to make money, or following some ill thought out agenda.

I certainly don't expect that science or environmentalist claims or suggestions might be off base but what is the goal and how do we get there?

[wind_magic]

If you are referring to me, you've got it so wrong. I am all about environmental causes, the trouble I have with it is that there are so many pollyanna's out there that we can't focus on what is actually important. For example - I am extremely concerned about all the mercury in the food chain, but it is sometimes hard to get people to focus on something important like that when 1000 other environmental causes are all competing for attention, many of them not worthy of having attention paid to them. How much time and energy did we waste on ethanol fuel additives for example ? That was based on a lot of good science too, good science and really piss poor economics. When I talk to people about something I actually feel is important for the environment I find that I am confronted with complete apathy for the most part, people are just burnt out on it, they're to the point now they think so much is wrong that it can't be fixed. I disagree with that, we can fix some of the important things, if we'd just quit focusing on things like chemicals that probably cause cancer if a rat swims in it for a month but might only be a few parts per million out in the ocean.

[DCClancy]

James Lovelock general presentation and home page in English this guy seems to have a alternate view , forget about the nitpicking and save your own a** . He seems to think that global warming is something we can't control, and survival of the spieces is our goal. And it will happen quickly! To many details ..look at the big picture.In terms of the age of the earth , we are a mere speck. James Lovelock general presentation and home page in English
By the way I do not cosider myself a enviromentlist , just another guy trying to stay alive and happy.

[SundancerKid]

Great White, you're right. I think many people just do not appreciate how rigorous the process of publishing in a scientific journal usually is. I'm not a scientist but my training is in science (maths and astronomy) so I've got some background.

Before a work is even accepted, it would be reviewed independently and anonymously by other experts in that field. Usually at least two of them. If they don't think the work is up to scratch then it doesn't get published. End of story. If the work does get published and subsequently turns out to be shoddy then the journal ends up with egg on its face, so they have a vested interest in getting the best experts they can lay their hands on to review work before it is published.

But more than that.

When a scientist publishes a major work, his biggest critics are often the other scientists. Why? Because they are the competition. If the scientist publishes shoddy work and other scientists realise it, it can be a black mark... can make getting further funding and jobs hard. It can be a career breaker. So you can bet that the scientist has a vested interest in triple checking the findings before he puts it out there.

So I really can't come at the notion that there is a "huge" problem of scientists fabricating their results. Sure, there may be some bad eggs, just as there are in any other slice of humanity. But I really rather believe that most scientists are professional in their approach and that the process they have to go through weeds out any that are less than that.

Sorry, didn't mean to rant. Just seems to have ended up that way!

[GreatWhite]

Wind_magic

thanks for being clear on your point of view, and no I didn't mean you in particular. More just the notion of throwing out all science just because it might support a popular environmental concern.

I think what you are saying makes sense...I too think that the cause of the day can get in the way of focusing on what should really be most pressing. I do also appreciate for point about ethanol.

It is too bad that right and wrong couldn't alway be clear as day.

I guess we all agree that it is worth questioning what is going on in the world.

My personal stance is that I might as well do what I believe is right and focus on my area of influence...and listen to others with as open mind as I can while I feel my way along.