Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ROVs Discover Deep Sea Trash

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the washing-it-away dept.

Science 82

An anonymous reader writes "Deep beneath the ocean's waves, strange creatures such as rockfish and gorgonian coral thrive in the icy depths. Yet there's something else you'll find if you go searching beneath the sea: trash, and lots of it. Researchers have discovered that our trash is accumulating in the deep sea, particularly in Monterey Canyon off of the coast of California. Scientists knew that trash was affecting shallower depths--about 1,000 feet beneath the water. Yet they were unsure whether the effects extended to the truly deep parts of the ocean that reached up to 13,000 feet. They decided that there was only one way to find out: look for themselves."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

it'll be there for a while, too (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43933791)

The great thing about deep-sea trash is that it decomposes extremely slowly [acs.org] compared to stuff at shallower temperatures, so it'll be around for a while...

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43933869)

If we can find it we can probably pick some of it up. Stuff like that cargo container probably fell off a ship on accident though and probably weighs a ton. I bet hurricanes, weather, floods, tsunamis, and other events contribute to the problem as well. I know if a tsunami hit my city (can't) but it it did it would dump a lot of trash into the ocean. And we do get hurricanes and tropical storms. I wouldn't be surprised to find a refrigerator out there somewhere that wasn't from a wreck.

It would be interesting if they had some stats other than percentages. Like 3000 plastic bags or 10,000 aluminum cans. And maybe some estimated trash densities based on what they have found so far.

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43934109)

Perhaps you might want to delay spending money on utopian projects with no obvious short term (less then a century?) benefits before you can, for example, provide healthcare to your fellow compatriots? If it indeed doesn't decompose, it's going to be stable for a while. Not dumping more stuff seems like a good proposition, but what you're suggesting would be very costly, time-consuming, and the net result would be...you know...a big pile of trash you would have to put somewhere?

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (2)

jamesh (87723) | about a year ago | (#43934185)

Perhaps you might want to delay spending money on utopian projects with no obvious short term (less then a century?) benefits before you can, for example, provide healthcare to your fellow compatriots? If it indeed doesn't decompose, it's going to be stable for a while. Not dumping more stuff seems like a good proposition, but what you're suggesting would be very costly, time-consuming, and the net result would be...you know...a big pile of trash you would have to put somewhere?

Well actually if you found a place in the ocean where aluminium cans tended to collect you might be on to something... i have heard it said that the mines of the future will be the rubbish dumps of today. If someone came up with a cheap way of reducing plastic bags back to more useful hydrocarbons then suddenly a mass of plastic bags could be really useful... not that there is any shortage of them on land though.

OTOH leaving all that carbon at the bottom of the ocean might be a better option

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (4, Interesting)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43934253)

I have no objections agains that. I even contemplated whether it wouldn't be useful to sweep the Great Pacific garbage patch with some kind of automated vessels. You know, all the floating plastic that is actually photodecomposing into toxic chemicals as we speak. Plastic actually *can* be decomposed into light hydrocarbons with thermal depolymeration.

Aluminum cans are obviously low-hanging fruit, but it's much cheaper to collect them as early after being emptied as possible rather then to scour them from the depths of the ocean.

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43938189)

Aluminum cans disolve rather quickly in salt water. Perhaps they would last longer in very deep, cold water but near shore a can will vanish in ten years or less. Ask anyone who uses under water metal detectors as rotting can fragments are super common in shallow water.

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43942411)

Ah, very interesting. So the oxide layer that forms naturally on the surface of aluminium objects isn't resilient enough? In any case, the cans have a surface-to-weight ratio that is unfavourable for surviving in even slightly aggressive environment - the thin walls will disappear quickly even if the corrosion process is comparatively slow, thickness-wise.

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43938247)

If someone came up with a cheap way of reducing plastic bags back to more useful hydrocarbons then suddenly a mass of plastic bags could be really useful... not that there is any shortage of them on land though

Plasma gasification [wikipedia.org]

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43938879)

Replying here so I can reply to both. Reducing them on land will indirectly reduce them in the sea. This is a good idea. I don't like plastic bags very much. But they seem to be a necessary evil to grease the supermarket wheels. I have also seen good uses come out of recycling them in interesting ways.

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#43939873)

Now instead of dumpster diving, people can go trash fishing.

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (1)

tragedy (27079) | about a year ago | (#43943225)

Stuff like that cargo container probably fell off a ship on accident though and probably weighs a ton

Cargo ships are sent out intentionally overloaded and it's very common for cargo containers to fall off. Basically, beancounters have done the math and determined that it's more economical that way. Standard cargo containers weigh from 2 to 5 tons empty.

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (0)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#43933897)

So we need steeper temperatures?

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (4, Funny)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#43933925)

Man creates deep sea trash that decomposes slowly due to low temperatures. So, man created also global warming, to raise oceans temperature, and accelerate trash decomposition.

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934063)

Temperature relates to molecule speed... it would be difficult for anyone to make something go faster at lower temperatures.

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (4, Funny)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | about a year ago | (#43933905)

Great news for 22nd century anthropologists!

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43933935)

With the good job the NSA is doing we won't need anthropologists. Everything will be preserved forever.

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (4, Funny)

Spudley (171066) | about a year ago | (#43934183)

The great thing about deep-sea trash is that it decomposes extremely slowly [acs.org] compared to stuff at shallower temperatures, so it'll be around for a while...

Awesome! Maybe in a few thousand years, someone will mine it for old copies of the Atari ET game catridge.

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year ago | (#43936605)

That will NEVER happen.
Atari ET is gone. And shall NEVER rise again.

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43940537)

Awesome! Maybe in a few thousand years, someone will mine it for old copies of the Atari ET game catridge.

Or all the XBOX One consoles..

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (2, Funny)

dintech (998802) | about a year ago | (#43934491)

Look on the bright side; if you leave garbage around long enough, it becomes archeology!
With a little patience, you too can make something worthless into something priceless!

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (1)

spetey (164477) | about a year ago | (#43935977)

The pressure also must make for the ultimate trash compactor [superpunch.net] .

Re:it'll be there for a while, too (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43940827)

I wonder if you could use this in a manufacturing process. Make the material at sea level. Put it in a basket. Drop it down and let the energy of the ocean do all the work of compressing the material...

If this works out please remember me and be sure to mention how awesome a random dood on the internet was when you are a billionaire.

Age (1)

spamchang (302052) | about a year ago | (#43933815)

It would have been interesting if the researchers could have figured out how old the trash was--i.e. what make/model of shoe, any identifying marks on the tires, etc. But the major thesis is clear enough: disposable consumerism has victims and unintended (or ignored) consequences.

Re: Age (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934423)

Actually, NPR identified one site as a specific model of Rockport shoe, which actually turned out to be the new home of a Rock fish.

It wasn't a rock. It was a ROCKFISH! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#43937595)

victims

Apparently nobody told the sealife that they shouldn't be making homes in trash. You say old shoe. Rockfish says fish house.

Re:It wasn't a rock. It was a ROCKFISH! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43944275)

victims

Apparently nobody told the sealife that they shouldn't be making homes in trash. You say old shoe. Rockfish says fish house.

LOL.

Re: Age (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about a year ago | (#43938479)

I recognized it, that P.O.S. was all plastic except the upper. Nice digs.

I found astronaut poo (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year ago | (#43933823)

made BY ASTRONUATS! groess!

Re:I found astronaut poo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934485)

made BY ASTRONUATS! groess!

It's not groess to the ASTRONAUTS! It gets recycled into ASTRONAUT food!

Re:I found astronaut poo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934965)

You're such a poopenis, you should spell that as asstronauts but you didn't.

Back to trollschool with you, and write poopenis one hundred times in a comment!

Don't wprry (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43933879)

The free market will solve it.

Re:Don't wprry (1)

aix tom (902140) | about a year ago | (#43933973)

Definetely. The supply of lots of deep see trash, combined with the demand to kill all humans, will make the slowly evolving deep see monsters use it to build weapons of mass destruction to get rid of us. ;-p

sounds pretty biased (1, Troll)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year ago | (#43933917)

First, the trash doesn't seem to "accumulate" on the sea floor, but appears to get buried over time, removing it from the ecosystem. Furthermore, they haven't actually shown significant negative effects.

Of course, it's good to recycle more and people shouldn't discard trash in the ocean, but people should also be truthful and unbiased in the presentation of their research.

Re:sounds pretty biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934003)

First, the trash doesn't seem to "accumulate" on the sea floor, but appears to get buried over time, removing it from the ecosystem.

Life exists far beneath the seafloor, but I'll assume you don't really care about that. Not to mention many forms of life that live on or rely on what is living on the seafloor.

Furthermore, they haven't actually shown significant negative effects.

Ecologists generally assume 'pile of trash is bad' as a default position, as it is a perturbation to the existing conditions. You want to take the opposite position, where you have to prove that there is a negative effect first. Both are valid positions, from different points of view.

Re: sounds pretty biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934103)

Are you working for the pro-ocean trash lobby?

The bias might be in your interpretation... (4, Insightful)

Camael (1048726) | about a year ago | (#43934111)

...because they did address the points you made in the source article.

First, the trash doesn't seem to "accumulate" on the sea floor, but appears to get buried over time, removing it from the ecosystem.

They specifically admitted this in the article. The specific quote reads : "A lot of it gets buried by underwater landslides and sediment movement. Some of it may also be carried into deeper water, farther down the canyon."

Furthermore, they haven't actually shown significant negative effects.

Which the study also admitted. They even pointed out that the rubbish was sometimes benefited the marine life. The specific quote reads : "Other effects on marine life were more subtle. For example, debris in muddy-bottom areas was often used as shelter by seafloor animals, or as a hard surface on which animals anchored themselves. Although such associations seem to benefit the individual animals involved, they also reflect the fact that marine debris is creating changes in the existing natural biological communities."

I think that it is unfair for you to accuse these researchers of telling lies and being biased.

no, the bias is in their interpretation (0, Redundant)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year ago | (#43934197)

They specifically admitted this in the article. The specific quote reads

You're missing the point. They use the term "accumulate" even though they themselves observe that it gets buried. Hence, the term "accumulate" doesn't actually apply.

Which the study also admitted. They even pointed out that the rubbish was sometimes benefited the marine life

Again, they state these facts, but then put a negative spin on it.

I think that it is unfair for you to accuse these researchers of telling lies and being biased.

I did not accuse them of "telling lies", I accused them of bias. They (presumably) state accurate facts, but then interpret or present them using a particular bias. That is, the facts in their own article suggest that their interpretation is biased.

Re:no, the bias is in their interpretation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934437)

You're missing the point. They use the term "accumulate" even though they themselves observe that it gets buried. Hence, the term "accumulate" doesn't actually apply.

So if you bury something, you don't accumulate any of it? It magically disappears does it? You have a load of trash, you bury it under something, and then you put more trash on top - how is that not accumulating more trash?

I guess that as you state there are no significant negative affect from having a load of trash dumped into your living environment, you would be happy for the next load of garbage in your area to be dumped in your place?

Re:no, the bias is in their interpretation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43937741)

I read different definitions of accumulate... I happen to think it is misleading at the very least.
"Accumulating" to me means it is basically coming together in large quantities (like a pile of trash maybe?) as opposed to being littered all over the place on the surface and in sediments.
Though I can see how someone could interpret the word in a sense of there is more and more accumulating, littered all over the ocean floor..
They create very different mental images.

Re:The bias might be in your interpretation... (2, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43934475)

He was talking about SLASHDOT and all of us posters being untruthful in the presentation of the researchers work, not the researchers. The Original poster intentionally left out the details he's highlighting and then the rest of us didn't bother reading the article and just spouted off uninformed opinions.

Re:The bias might be in your interpretation... (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about a year ago | (#43937073)

So... When a natural process produces a result that causes changes in a different part of nature, that is somehow not natural and needs to be prevented?

Or, things change because things change and letting nature run its course is bad.

Re:sounds pretty biased (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934315)

I remember a similar article stating that plastic breaks into little pieces that get eaten by various sea creatures and the chemicals that it contains climb up the food chain eventually making it to us.

Re:sounds pretty biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934393)

http://youtu.be/h2M_Z0f6ecE?t=30s

Re:sounds pretty biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934467)

Removing it from the ecosystem? Are you kidding? There's life kilometers below the sea floor..

Re:significant negative effects (2)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about a year ago | (#43934855)

That Gorgonian Coral did not look too thrilled to have a plastic bag wrapped around it.
People should be truthful and unbiased in their analysis of facts.

Re:significant negative effects (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43935555)

The same coral isn't going to be happy being knocked over by a shark, or having rocks tumble on top of it. All of those happen regularly.

You can't make arguments for environmental protection without actually quantifying impact. Showing a few pictures of creatures in distress and then arguing for action is manipulative and dishonest.

Re:significant negative effects (0)

kwbauer (1677400) | about a year ago | (#43937089)

"manipulative and dishonest" You've just discovered the only tools available to the modern environmental movement.

Re:significant negative effects (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43938139)

The same coral isn't going to be happy being knocked over by a shark, or having rocks tumble on top of it. All of those happen regularly.

You can't make arguments for environmental protection without actually quantifying impact. Showing a few pictures of creatures in distress and then arguing for action is manipulative and dishonest.

The coral is presumably still "being knocked over by a shark, or having rocks tumble on top of it". The garbage is an additional, unnatural environmental stress added on top of natural environmental stresses.

Re:significant negative effects (2)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about a year ago | (#43938243)

I AM NOT AN OCEANOGRAPHER, but I bet the plastic bags outnumber the frickin' sharks at that depth.

Re:significant negative effects (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43938925)

Sharks with frickin' lasers can vaporize the bags! Lets get that patent in!

Re:Quantifying impact (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43938673)

Whilst I was indulging my hobby of picking up other people's trash along Grizzly Peak Boulevard, (Go Bears!) I found an oubliette with a mummified fence lizard, still posed with his tail against the bottom as he rested one last time while trying to claw his way out.
One.

-hoboroadie

This is news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934013)

We're trashing up the ocean.. It's going to be there a long time.

Thats not news.. Or even suprising..

We're trashing up the air and land pretty fast too. And most of THAT will be there for a long time too.

  Is there anyone who honestly didn't know this?

Re:This is news? (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | about a year ago | (#43938783)

The problem has never been with people that don't know this, the problem is with people who are apathetic toward it. We can do a whole hell of a lot with minimal additional effort to improve our waste situation...

Re:This is news? (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about a year ago | (#43939011)

I don't believe most of you realize the extent to the trashing of the arable topsoil.
The hoboroadie used to marvel at the plastic bags drifting overhead from the Altamont landfill heading toward Tracy, or the Sierra Nevada, there to wrap themselves around a Centauria solstitialis or some such, and into the food chain.
As a farmer, I have occasion to observe the process under a variety of conditions, and believe the magnitude of the damage is cause for concern.

So let me get this straight.... (1)

Slugster (635830) | about a year ago | (#43934187)

If the government sinks a whole ship, it's "creating an artificial reef" ---- but if I throw an old shoe into the water, I am "polluting the environment"?

One major difference (4, Interesting)

Viol8 (599362) | about a year ago | (#43934401)

When a ship is deliberately sunk to create a reef ALL the volatiles and potentially toxic substances are removed. Basically all you are left with is iron and a few other metals which are enviromentally benign and are oxidised back to the minerals they came from in a few hundred years.. A shoe however is full of glues, polymers and other man made substances which could take literally millenia to decompose and poison the enviroment in the meantime.

Re:One major difference (1)

Slugster (635830) | about a year ago | (#43934585)

But...... the fish LIKES the shoe! And my feet don't smell that bad!

Re:One major difference (1)

valadaar (1667093) | about a year ago | (#43935387)

Well, the _plan_ is to remove all that stuff. I'm not so sure in practice this is done. Lowest bidder and all. If they remove everything down to the steel, and then sandblast every inch, then I'd agree, but I sincerely doubt they are that meticulous in practice. When I see people use the words ALL, always, never, etc, my bullshit meter goes off the chart. I have rarely seen absolute statements be accurate, especially when there is no financial gain as an end result.

Re:One major difference (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about a year ago | (#43939711)

There are rigorous inspections before they're sunk.

The one thing that stands out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934207)

...is that 'the emotive word 'trash' is actually not what these items become when they reach the bottom of the sea.

Much of the sea bed is featureless grey plain. Occasionally, you get a rock or some other item which blossoms with life. An old shipwreck houses a multitude of organisms - they even sink them specially to create 'artificial reefs'. The Titanic is home to iron-eating microbes...

Here is a shoe performing a useful function - a refuge for a fish, until the other life-forms down there digest it. Why knock it?

 

News at 11 (3, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | about a year ago | (#43934277)

Stuff that sinks, sinks.

Quite what were they expecting? Rubbish like tyres and ropes (i.e. stuff that sinks), which are disposed of in/around water will end up at the bottom of the water. Is this shocking?

Sea animals might become trapped in it. Not news. Sea animals might use it. Not news.

Quite what is the point? To make those of us who DON'T realise what millions of tons of junk does when you throw it in an ocean think bad of themselves?

And, to be honest, on the sea-floor it's more likely to be buried than it is to decay. That's probably a good thing for the life down there. In a few million years it'll be rock again.

Are these "scientists" genuinely astonished that they discovered this rather than the alternative (which is presumably that there's no rubbish down there at all?). I was taught that dense stuff sinks back in primary school.

Re:News at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934505)

It could be possible that most trash accumulates at the shores. That would be reasonable - strong ocean currents push most of the trash towards the shores. We don't have a full picture of these currents, and hence we don't know what will end up where and after how much time.

Even when sinking, it would be reasonable to assume that most of it ends up near the shores. Another reason is that most trash comes from the shores. It's not like we uniformly distribute trash over the ocean.

Of course, being "astonished" is a marketing word in this article, but the result is by no means trivial.

Re:News at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934837)

It could be possible that most trash accumulates at the shores. That would be reasonable - strong ocean currents push most of the trash towards the shores. We don't have a full picture of these currents, and hence we don't know what will end up where and after how much time.

No, we have astonishingly good picture of these currents. We don't have a good picture of the crap that we dump in the ocean.

Re:News at 11 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934507)

Take a deep breath, get a cup of coffee. And try to forget about all those awful things daddy did to you.

Re:News at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43937293)

Who said they were astonished. Their intent was most likely to shine a light (literally) on something that a lot of people probably don't think about, that the garbage problem in the oceans isn't restricted to what washes up on beaches and is visible to all. Calm down.

Re:News at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43938043)

All of your questions would have been answers had you bothered to RTFA instead of posting blind from the heading text.

Re:News at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43938989)

The densest stuff seems to be between these scientists' ears.

Re:News at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43939345)

Did they also discover that water is wet while they were down there?

You know what they say... (1)

Chewbacon (797801) | about a year ago | (#43934499)

One man's deep sea trash is another man's deep sea treasure.

The water is full of urine and feces (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43934531)

The water is already polluted with the urine and feces of the ocean's denizens.

See "Tidal Pools: Nature's Putrid Sewers - Horrifying Planet - Ep. 3 " - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwz37vF-BI4

Re:The water is full of urine and feces (1)

r2kordmaa (1163933) | about a year ago | (#43937835)

Every time you take a sip of water you are drinking few water molecules that have passed Adolf Hitlers bladder

and all those explosives and chemical weapons (1)

Shivetya (243324) | about a year ago | (#43934539)

down there should be loads of fun for researchers.

Yeah, we did that

Contradiction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43935443)

It seemed that most of the debris was creating opportunities for life. Each piece of junk or garbage that they showed was being used as a shelter or fish, soft corals, and what have you, where otherwise there would be no life at all. I'm not in favor of coating the sea floor with tires or shipping containers, but even an old shoe has become a home for a fish. The video states that this is an interruption in the natural environment and implies that this is a negative, but it certainly looks like a positive.

How is a fish haven, where nothing but mud would normally be, a bad thing?

Re:Contradiction? (1, Funny)

kwbauer (1677400) | about a year ago | (#43937161)

No, no, no. Providing artificial homes for wild animals is only good when it is done in coordination with the groups that have enriched themselves at the pubic trough studying the best way to build artificial shelters. Only after years of study are we allowed to build such shelters.

Obviously, these creatures would have been much better served by properly constructed shelters (union workers, OSHA oversight, etc) instead of these haphazard things tossed out there.

Big deal (1)

p51d007 (656414) | about a year ago | (#43935745)

It's providing habitat for sea creatures, so quit your complaining.

1047 Miles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43936483)

The Distance from Vancouver to Monterey, CA; 1047 Miles.

So...if you have a High Tech Submersible and you try REALLY Hard...You might find something every mile or so.

This is the same bunch who did the "Why Buying Tomatoes in the Winter is BAD!" exhibit at the Aquarium.

Get over it, unless you want to kill EVERY single human on the west coast of the United States and Canada, sometimes a coke can will show up in the sacred ocean.

Re:1047 Miles (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about a year ago | (#43937177)

I believe your last sentence 9the part between the commas anyway) was an accurate rephrasing of the desired goal.

Cruise ship garbage (1)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | about a year ago | (#43936991)

What?

They couldn't find a single golf ball (out of hundreds of thousands) that were probably pitched off of a cruise ship or yacht?

Survey the Atlantic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43938453)

Wait till they get to the East Coast, New York area had barges steaming out to sea to dump the trash for decades.

Re:Survey the Atlantic (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43939039)

=/ Yeah I fear that is too tempting of a solution to landfills and just simply lest wasteful practices. That is horrifying to hear. Don't get my wrong I live in a household that produces its fair share of waste and I take it to the landfill every few weeks. And I am always frowning at how much there is. Though a lot is biodegradable. However separating the biodegradable food waste etc... from the crap that should be cleaned and stacked and re-sold-re-used is something IMPOSSIBLE to teach my roommates. They refuse to consider it an option. "Why should we do it if no one else does". "Its garbage!"

B.S. there could be warehouses were this stuff was stored neatly and cleanly until it needed to be used again as packaging material, containers etc...

And the amount of energy it would take to clean it all and re-transport it would be far less than creating new stuff in China.

FTA (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year ago | (#43939675)

Why is this news? People have been throwing thrash into the oceans since people existed. FTA

Rare RTFA (1)

MyHair (589485) | about a year ago | (#43944481)

I RTFA'd looking for photos and videos and was going to skip the comments, but I had to let you know that about a minute into the video Pandora started playing "Message In a Bottle".

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?