There are no benefits, ralph. The plastic is consumed by animals, particularly birds, and it is killing them slowly but surely. For example, from Wikipedia on Midway Atoll:
In a case like that, all that is required is some sort of exotic disease or the accidental introduction of a predator species and those birds are gone.
One example of the affects of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
Ah, but are they white chicks? Because if they were, then the media would stand up and take notice. :rolleyes:
The Wikipedia article has a section on photodegradation in the patch.
You forgot the bolded part. Unless they killed all of the birds and examined them, such a claim is hyperbole at best.
Perhaps all that are found died have plastic?
That’s not what the article says, and not what it implies either.
That’s probably why someone added the “citation needed” tag as they smelled bullshit as well.
Yes, the garbage patch exists. I wonder, though… would it be possible to harvest it? And maybe turn it into oil or something?
Actually, those adjectives aren’t redundant at all. It is quite possible to be a leftist without being an alarmist, for example. Or be an alarmist without being a leftist.
Oh, really, there is a real island of garbage twice the size of Texas floating out in the Pacific? Really? Show me a picture. Why is it that no one can provide even one picture of such a garbage patch/island?
I don’t mean a picture of garbage on the deck of a boat that has been netted out of the water. Nor do I mean a picture of animals caught up in plastic, or pictures of a beach covered in plastic pollution. I mean a real picture of a large garbage island floating in the ocean.
It can’t be provided because such a garbage island does not exist.
There is a large area of the Pacific where plastic garbage is more concentrated due to currents. And plastic and other pollution is a very real problem in the oceans. But that is not the same thing as claiming that there is a garbage island.
The actual, true nature of the plastic pollution problem isn’t regarded as impressive enough to stand on it’s own merits, so we get propaganda about an island that does not in fact exist.
You are more likely to be able to provide a picture of a real unicorn that you are to be able to provide a real picture of this “garbage island”.
So in answer to shallora’s original post, yes it is mostly hype and propaganda, with a basis in the real problem of oceanic pollution.
Picture please. Doesn’t have to be twice the size of Texas, actual Texas size will do. Rhode Island size will do. Square mile size will do.
No such picture of any garbage island exists.
From the Straight Dope staff report linked above:
"Calling these garbage islands is highly misleading, as they’re not solid expanses of plastic you can walk on. "
Who here is talking about an actual patch of macroscopic garbage. I think it’s pretty clear there is not one, and no one here is saying otherwise. Those who do are incorrectly passing along an urban legend, not deliberately hoaxing people.
See mitabelli, who I was responding to. No, it is not “a very real thing”.
I think the ‘real thing’ being descibed here is the phenomenon of a collection of floating waste. I don’t see any particular reason to assume that the ‘real thing’ being described is an actual visible island of garbage, unless someone says so explicitly - which they haven’t.
Or in other words, I think you’re possibly disagreeing with your own mistaken interpretation of what mitabelli posted.
Read the thread title. It’s called the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” The Wikipedia article is titled “The Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” Nothing about an island mentioned at all. It exists. That you changed the terminology to “island” from “patch” and challenged someone to show you a picture of an island is weak stuff. A classic strawman.
Why do you want to deny it’s existence anyway? What possible good could come from pretending it isn’t there?
Attention?
I helped form an environmental charity in Hong Kong. We publicised the need to protect the environment by media-friendly beach clean-ups. You would not believe the shit that we pulled out of the sand. Tons of it each cleanup, and almost all of it plastic.
Much of it was derived (we believed) from Hong Kong itself, due to an at-sea dumping policy, but there was other stuff that appeared to come from long, long ago. Weathered scraps of brittle, brightly colored plastic, mainly. My favorite finds, though, were the colostomy bags. :barf:
I don’t think thats quite fair. Maybe the smart folks here on the SDMB realize what the great garbage patch is. But you take your typical person off the street and you either mention it or ask them what they know about it and they ARE NOT going to say its few tiny specks of plastic per cubic foot of water.
They will think its somewhere between a floating plastic bottle always within sight and actual massive collections of floating crap that cover the waters surface in numerous large areas.
Even so, nobody here claimed it was an island.
Re read the OP.
It certainly reads closer to that end of the spectrum than the microscopic specks end IMO.
And the answer to THAT end of the spectrum IS a resounding “no, there isnt one”
I re-read the OP and it looks like it’s expressing doubts about claims described second hand to us, not actually making or supporting such claims. So I maintain: nobody here has claimed it was an island. Re-read what I said.
I have no ax to grind, but wish to add my wholehearted agreement to this interpretation of the OP, which was explicitly skeptical.
If we wish to split hairs, the OP mentioned “discarded floating plastic bottles”; I interpreted this as an exemplum of attitudes of alarmists, not an actual representation of the OP’s opinion. Though a lot of the particles are in fact from that source.