Plastics Pollution in Our Oceans . . .

[boatman61]

Meantime I have switched back to rock salt.. to many micro plastics in sea salt.

[Allied39]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Ah, another intergovernmental panel of people who all agree with each other to start talking about how they’re going to mandate change fir everyone else. What could possibly go wrong?

On a much smaller scale, how about addressing the kind of problem that I saw yesterday. Two shipping pallets, 4’x4’x4’. Stacked with city water from Orlando, Florida, shipped 2000 miles in half-liter single-use plastic bottles, on a cardboard flat wrapped in single-use plastic, with the entire pallet wrapped in single-use plastic.

Why not start solving the obvious problems?

Because it's all about money. Oh, and no accountability makes it worse. It just is what it is.
Consider for a moment the amount of plastic that has/is being produced and used with the whole covid deal.
An insane person might think that who ever made the bat virus might be held responsible for that, never lone the reportedly millions dead. But that would be insane.

So it just is what it is. Trying to remove greed from the human race...LOL, now thats silly. And re introducing accountability, well thats just ludicrous. That train has sailed!!

I live by a saying....perhaps a prayer....dunno.

"may I have the strength to fix what I can, the patience to accept what I cant and the intelligence to know the difference"

So chatting about how bad evolution is on a cruisers forum which revolves around primarily plastic boats may make some people feel better......I just know .....it is what it is.

Apologies for the interruption, just had to toss in the obvious.

[GordMay]

“How a dramatic win in plastic waste case may curb ocean pollution” ~ by Beth Gardiner

For three years, Diane Wilson combed through marshes of the Gulf Coast, collecting plastic pellets [‘nurdles’]. She, and others, gathered, what she guesses were 46 million pellets, enough to sue Formosa Plastics, the petrochemical plant responsible for the spills.
The retired shrimp boat captain/fisherwoman won.
The monumental $50 million settlement serves as a warning to others, in the industry, that they could face consequences, for leaking plastic nurdles, into the environment.

More about ➥ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...cean-pollution



See also:
“The Great Nurdle Hunt” ➥ https://www.nurdlehunt.org.uk/news-events.html
2021 Report ➥ https://www.nurdlehunt.org.uk/media/..._a3_aw_web.pdf

“Study to quantify plastic pellet loss in the UK”
➥ https://www.nurdlehunt.org.uk/images...t_briefing.pdf

[GordMay]

“End Plastic Pollution:
Towards an internationally legally binding instrument” ~ UNEA-5
Draft Resolution ➥ https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/ha...=1&isAllowed=y

Historic day in the campaign to beat plastic pollution: Nations commit to develop a legally binding agreement
Heads of State, Ministers of environment and other representatives from 175 nations endorsed a historic resolution at the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-5) today in Nairobi to End Plastic Pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024.
The resolution addresses the full lifecycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.

More about ➥ https://www.unep.org/news-and-storie...commit-develop

And ➥ https://www.unep.org/news-and-storie...ion-resolution

At #UNEA5 we have just gavelled the resolution paving the way for global action to #BeatPlasticPollution. The most important environmental deal since the Paris accord.
➥ https://twitter.com/hashtag/UNEA5?src=hashtag_click

UNEA-5: Fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly
➥ https://www.unep.org/environmentassembly/unea5

[Bycrick]

Another PR puff piece. "We’re going to form a committee to get together real-soon-now to start talking about how we can solve the problem someday." And the result will be as binding as the Paris Accords. Real progress. I can hardly wait.

[Bycrick]

Gord — The one on the woman in Texas makes up for the one on the UN. I read the story in National Geographic. A nice, simple case: one polluter, clearly identifiable pollution, a clear way to measure how well they’ve cleaned up. No grand schemes, no we will get to it someday, no nonsense about root causes or sea-level in Sri Lanka. No graphs about the temperature measured somewhere 1870, or was it 1970, no UN committees. Start with the simple stuff first.

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Ah, another intergovernmental panel of people who all agree with each other to start talking about how they’re going to mandate change fir everyone else. What could possibly go wrong?

On a much smaller scale, how about addressing the kind of problem that I saw yesterday. Two shipping pallets, 4’x4’x4’. Stacked with city water from Orlando, Florida, shipped 2000 miles in half-liter single-use plastic bottles, on a cardboard flat wrapped in single-use plastic, with the entire pallet wrapped in single-use plastic.

Why not start solving the obvious problems?

The problem is that both the panel and the palletizers are the same people. In both cases they’re in over their heads with no problem solving skills.

New York banned plastic shopping bags. Florida did not. Yet two years after NY banned them, I still see fifty times more bags laying around NY than I see in FL. Maybe NY should have banned the people who toss plastic bags on the ground (hint: they’re the same ones who don’t put the shopping cart in the return)

On Lake Ontario, one of the most common plastic items is the tampon thing. I’m gonna be sexist and say that it’s not men. Number 2 is buckets- probably men. Number 3 is a combo of toys and busted yard implements- kids and men. The latter I think are escapees from high water and floods. Buckets, well yeah I think people could quit leaving empty buckets around- it ain’t rocket science. The tampon things, well I don’t think those are carried from landfills by seagulls.

[SeanPatrick]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

On a much smaller scale, how about addressing the kind of problem that I saw yesterday. Two shipping pallets, 4’x4’x4’. Stacked with city water from Orlando, Florida, shipped 2000 miles in half-liter single-use plastic bottles, on a cardboard flat wrapped in single-use plastic, with the entire pallet wrapped in single-use plastic.

TL;DR: That stuff is recycled because that's the most cost-effective solution.

Having worked for several different grocery companies in the U.S. in my youth, I can assure you that every single piece of cardboard and plastic that is removed from pallets in the stocking process here is recycled (aside from the boxes we used to give to the people who were moving). Even years ago when I was doing it, the cardboard was compacted and baled and the plastic was collected in bags and both were sent back to the warehouse - on the same trucks that delivered the new load - to then be sent to a recycling facility. We even had signs posted in the work areas detailing how much the company profited from recycling these materials, and it wasn't an insignificant amount.

Aside from the monetary benefits, there were other reasons for doing this. Most retailers only have a couple of dumpsters, which are emptied once a week (maybe twice, if you're really lucky). There is simply no other way that most stores could efficiently dispose of so much cardboard and plastic. We used to produce at least one half-dumpster-sized amount of compacted cardboard every single day. And sometimes there was so much plastic that we had to bale that, too. You'd be astonished at the extent to which plastic can be compacted. An amount that occupies about 3,500 cubic feet in bags could be compacted to a bale the size of about 100 cubic feet ... using the handy 20 ton ram in the baler. That's about a railway car compressed to the size of an average pallet load.

As for the single-use bottles, I can only agree that bottled water is one of the dumbest ideas that humanity has come up with. If not the dumbest. I just wish I had thought of it.

[GordMay]

Crucially, the "End Plastic Pollution" treaty will be legally binding, and will address the full life cycle of plastics, will include a financing mechanism; and it speaks to understanding that some countries can do it more easily, than others.
‘New Scientist’ Reporting ➥ https://www.newscientist.com/article...global-treaty/

Full Text of Resolution ➥ https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/ha...=1&isAllowed=y

[GordMay]

Contact lenses can create a big waste problem
Here's a Solution!

Over 290 million contacts end up in landfills every year, according to TerraCycle, a recycling company, leading the “Every Contact Counts” Recycling Program.

To minimize the big impact that these tiny lenses can have on the environment, hundreds of optometry clinics, across Canada, are taking part in a special program that aims to get them and their packaging recycled.
The Bausch+ Lomb “Every Contact Counts” Recycling Program encourages people to drop off their contacts in a bag, to a participating clinic, for them to be packaged for recycling.

Bausch + Lomb Every Contact Counts Free Recycling Program
Recycle Bausch + Lomb and other brand contact lenses and blister packs. Once collected, the contact lenses, and blister packs, are cleaned and separated, by material type. The materials are recycled into raw formats, that manufacturers use to make new products.
More about ➥ https://www.terracycle.com/en-CA/bri...21874999zoom:4

Discover our recycling process ➥ https://www.terracycle.com/en-CA/abo...ycling_process

[grantmc]

It just gets sadder and sadder: Christchurch (New Zealand) University Study Published a couple of days ago in Cryosphere (full report link here).

Republished here from article in Stuff News Service NZ:

Antarctica pristine no more as microplastics discovered in snow at bottom of the world. The driven snow of the world’s last untouched continent might not be so pure after all.

A world-first study by University of Canterbury researchers – published in science journal The Cryosphere on Wednesday 8 June 2022 – has confirmed the discovery of microplastics in freshly fallen Antarctic snow.

Microplastics are defined as any piece of plastic smaller than five millimetres in length.

PhD student Alex Aves collected snow samples from the remote Ross Ice Shelf in late 2019, as part of her postgraduate Antarctic studies.

Once back in the lab, scientists found particles of microplastics in every sample – and it quickly became apparent her findings would be of global significance. Aves said she was shocked by the discovery.

“It’s incredibly sad, but finding microplastics in fresh Antarctic snow highlights the extent of plastic pollution into even the most remote regions of the world.

“We collected snow samples from 19 sites across the Ross Island region of Antarctica and found microplastics in all of these.” Aves examined the samples using chemical analysis to determine what kind of plastic particles were present. She also looked at their colour, size and shape under a microscope.

They found an average of 29 tiny pieces of plastic per litre of melted snow, even higher than marine concentrations previously discovered in the surrounding Ross Sea, and in Antarctic sea ice.

Immediately next to the scientific bases on Ross Island, Scott Base, and McMurdo Station – the largest station in Antarctica – the density of microplastics was nearly three times higher, with similar concentrations to those found in Italian glacier debris.

There were 13 different types of plastic found, with the most common being PET, or polyethylene terephthalate, commonly used to make soft drink bottles and clothing. Aves and her team also examined the possible sources of the microplastics.

Atmospheric modelling suggested they may have travelled thousands of kilometres through the air, but it was equally likely the presence of humans in Antarctica had established a microplastic “footprint”, the research said.

University of Canterbury atmospheric physics professor Laura Revell said when Aves first travelled to Antarctica they were “optimistic that she wouldn’t find any microplastics in such a pristine and remote location”. “We [also] asked her to collect snow off the Scott Base and McMurdo Station roadways, so she’d have at least some microplastics to study.

“Looking back now, I’m not at all surprised ... From the studies published in the last few years we’ve learned that everywhere we look for airborne microplastics, we find them.” Antarctica New Zealand environmental adviser Natasha Gardiner said the research was “of huge value”.

“It improves our understanding of the extent of plastic pollution near to Scott Base and where it’s coming from,” she said. “We can use this information to reduce plastic pollution at its source and inform our broader environmental management practices.”

The research would help inform international policy, she said, and help all the Antarctic Treaty parties make evidence-based decisions on the urgent need to reduce plastic pollution going forward. Gardiner said they had submitted a paper on Aves’ findings to the upcoming Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting.

Revell was part of a team who detected microplastics floating in New Zealand’s air for the first time in March last year.

She also led a world-first study which found airborne microplastics could have a direct impact on climate change.

In an as-yet unpublished study, one of her students has discovered New Zealanders are probably breathing in more tiny pieces of plastic in their own homes than they are outside – with microplastics concentrations as much as 10 times higher indoors.

As an aside a few posts back someone made the comment suggesting most scientific is biased to the organisation paying for the study. If you would like to follow up who paid for this study and so how it is biased to the results required I suggest contacting: Alex R. Aves (alexandra.aves@pg.canterbury.ac.nz) directly.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by grantmc

It just gets sadder and sadder: Christchurch (New Zealand) University Study Published a couple of days ago in Cryosphere (full report link here).

Republished here from article in Stuff News Service NZ: ...

... As an aside a few posts back someone made the comment suggesting most scientific is biased to the organisation paying for the study. If you would like to follow up who paid for this study and so how it is biased to the results required I suggest contacting: Alex R. Aves (alexandra.aves@pg.canterbury.ac.nz) directly.

Thanks Grant.


According to the press release:

”This research was supported by the Royal Society Te Apārangi and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the field work was completed through the University of Canterbury's Postgraduate Certificate of Antarctic Studies course with logistical support from Antarctica New Zealand.”

The study:
“First evidence of microplastics in Antarctic snow” ~ by Alex R. Aves et al

”... Financial support. This research has been supported by the Marsden Fund* (grant no. MFP-UOC1903)...”

Published June 7/22 ➥ https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/1...-2127-2022.pdf

* The Marsden Fund** is the primary mechanism in New Zealand for funding pure research, undertaken solely to increase knowledge. The Fund is managed by Te Apārangi Royal Society of New Zealand and supports research that is investigator-driven rather than funder- or industry-driven.
➥ https://www.waikato.ac.nz/research-e...rsden-projects

** Marsden Fund
Supports excellence in science, engineering, maths, social sciences and the humanities in New Zealand by providing grants for investigator-initiated research
➥ https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/what...ities/marsden/

[GordMay]

More than half of plastics in Mediterranean marine protected areas originated elsewhere

Researchers have, for the first time, simulated both micro- and macroplastics accumulation, in Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

They found that the majority of Mediterranean countries, included in the study, had at least one MPA, where more than half of macroplastics originated elsewhere. The study [1], published in Frontiers in Marine Science, by researchers from Greece, Italy, and Australia, highlights the need for international collaboration, on plastic pollution management, in marine protected areas.

[1] “Quantifying Transboundary Plastic Pollution in Marine Protected Areas Across the Mediterranean Sea” ~ by Yannis Hatzonikolakis et al
➥ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...21.762235/full

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by grantmc

...
As an aside a few posts back someone made the comment suggesting most scientific [research] is biased to the organisation paying for the study. If you would like to follow up who paid for this study and so how it is biased to the results required I suggest contacting: Alex R. Aves (alexandra.aves@pg.canterbury.ac.nz) directly.

It seems that whenever that claim is made, what's really being said is "YOUR science is biased", or more simply "science is biased". The people claiming this are usually doing so in an effort to discredit or deny some significant scientific finding, while attempting to shore up a weak or nonexistent contrary position. Tribalism trumps truth. (neat, huh? Put that on a T-shirt)

We're apparently into an era of post-truth, where falsehoods are promoted and embraced, usually as part of identity politics. Besides the top-line items like climate-change denial, COVID denial and US election fraud, we still have persistent whoppers like Birthers, Pizzagate, Sandy Hook "hoax", QAnon, etc. making the rounds.

(somebody will now come along to point out that my above link is to Wikipedia. That would be a good example of this sort of anti-scholarship distortion field)

Since 2022 has brought us staggering inflation and now the threat of widespread famine, there's probably more immediate and pressing things to address than microplastics.

[AKA-None]

So LE people should only try to study or address one thing at a time?
Just asking as I’ve seen this line of thought before and I’m a bit confused