Paint Dust Covers the Upper Layer of the World's Oceans 141
sciencehabit (1205606) writes Even when the sea looks clean, its surface can be flecked with tiny fragments of paint and fiberglass. That's the finding from a study that looked for plastic pollution in the uppermost millimeter of ocean. The microscopic fragments come from the decks and hulls of boats, and they could pose a threat to zooplankton, an important part of the marine food web.
Re: (Score:2)
slowly (Score:4, Insightful)
We're slowly poisoning ourselves. At one point, there will be NO turning back. Scientists have warned us enough!
Re: slowly (Score:3, Insightful)
Balancing skepticism (Score:5, Insightful)
It's important not to accept any input as pure fact on its face. It's equally important to accept facts that are verified, even if inconvenient. Far too often, "healthy skepticism" is another way to say "inconvenient so LA LA LA LA LA (fingers in ears)".
Fact is that micro pollutants are just now entering the threshold of human understanding - and it's a bigger problem than just about anybody guessed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You know wha an 'integral' is in math?
The current AGW situation is not driven by the current output of CO2.
It is driven by the output during the previous 150 years. Sure, we are on peak output, but ten years of what we put out right mow is far away from what we did the last hundred years.
Nevertheless the problem is right now.
Exactly the same as with the article we talk about.
Re: (Score:1)
Hulls were primarily wooden until how long ago?
Re: Balancing skepticism (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
More often they were tarred or varnished. And historical paints were made from equally 'natural' materials, eg. linseed oil and white lead. Which generally are more ablative than modern paints.
My next question is... if the ultimate upshot is a ban on ocean shipping, cui bono?
Re: (Score:2)
Around 100-150 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
just because we are just finding out about them, when shipping has been happening for centuries kind of tells me that its not a bigger problem than anyone guessed as it hasnt shown to be a problem
No, no it does not. You can make that assumption, but it is not in any way supported by the given evidence. That we're finding out about it now only means that we've found out about it now; it tells us nothing about the scope. A whole new family of plastics was just invented by accident. You don't think we've been looking for new plastics? And it's not like it was some strange new combination of things, it was leaving out an ingredient. The truth is that we miss things all the time which look obvious in hin
Re: (Score:3)
Fact is that micro pollutants are just now entering the threshold of human understanding - and it's a bigger problem than just about anybody guessed.
Fact is, that's a logically inconsistent statement. If it's just now entering the threshold of human understanding, than there can't possibly be enough evidence to call it a "bigger problem than just about anybody guessed". Unless, of course, nobody thought it was a problem at all - in which case they wouldn't be called pollutants, but unicorn dust or leprechaun farticles.
Re: (Score:2)
In your rush to correct people you failed to account for the meaning of "human understanding". It doesn't mean that just one human understands. The above sentence makes it clear that someone may well have guessed, but that the general assumption has been that there was no problem.
Someone always gets it. Unfortunately, they are usually ignored until it's too late.
Re: (Score:2)
> Fact is that micro pollutants are just now entering the threshold of human understanding
Or perhaps micro pollutants are just now entering the threshold of human measurement, and the News is reporting it because it's a new thing. (Hence the name.)
Re: slowly (Score:2, Insightful)
We'll have to see what the effect ends up being; but there is reason to be a bit concerned about marine paint. Hull fouling is a drag and people go to some lengths to avoid it. Hull paints formulated to slow fouling are quite common and work by being enthusiastically biocidal.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll have to see what the effect ends up being; but there is reason to be a bit concerned about marine paint. Hull fouling is a drag and people go to some lengths to avoid it. Hull paints formulated to slow fouling are quite common and work by being enthusiastically biocidal.
Except the TFA didn't talk about biocidal hull paint except to note they didn't find it (the paint flecks are heavy and probably drop to the bottom).
The other Important Bit is to note that this study was done in one area of Korea. We need a bit more research in other places to determine how widespread the issue is. I've seen 'third world' fishing boats that almost entirely paint (and a few scattered boards). Compared to say, American or European boats that are predominantly aluminum and there is a questi
Re: slowly (Score:4, Funny)
Compared to say, American or European boats that are predominantly aluminum
So then we're creating a problem of Alzheimer's in the plankton.
Perhaps that explains his devotion to the Chum Bucket and his continued attempts to get the crabby patty recipe?
Re: (Score:2)
Being enthusiastically biocidal is better than unwittingly transporting mussels and other vermin from one coastline to another.
Re: slowly (Score:4, Insightful)
Or it is alarmism. Could threaten zooplankton doesn't mean it will or is likely to. Take every news story with some skepticism.
The problem with alarmism is that it makes people skeptical about everything, even real problems. After people read so many stories about the worlds glaciers melting by 2030, and the giant continent sized island of trash in the Pacific, and then later find out that these are wild hyperbole, they stop taking anything seriously. People like Al Gore, that try to scare people into action by exaggerating problems, do a great disservice. We are all better off just telling the truth.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
You are completely right, except for: Al Gore dod not exaggerate anything!
Re: (Score:2)
You are completely right, except for: Al Gore dod not exaggerate anything!
I was going to respond, but it's too easy a target.
Re: (Score:2)
I do take it with skepticism. I can also do basic math.
Unless something changes, things tend to continue moving on the same direction. If the amount of paint residue on the oceans is increasing steadily, it will continue to increase (again, if nothing changes).
So yeah, there is cause for worry, maybe even alarm. Panic? No. Panic will be when we start seeing large scale effects of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Skepticism is the break of progress.
Every one pointing out something is an 'alarmist' (I guess that is a swear word now in the US? Or a kind of defamation? Are you surprised that other languages/societies does not even have a word for that? There e.g. is no german word for "alarmist". If someone is pointing out something we think about it. We do not just say: 'oh, an alarmist'.
Could threaten zooplankton doesn't mean it will or is likely to. Take every news story with some skepticism.
It exactly means what is
Re: (Score:1)
There e.g. is no german word for "alarmist". If someone is pointing out something we think about it. We do not just say: 'oh, an alarmist'.
The temptation to Godwin this thread is almost overwhelming.
Re: (Score:1)
>Could threaten zooplankton doesn't mean it will or is likely to.
I have to ask: do you just do random things in your life, rationalizing that it's okay just because the consequences are most likely not going to kill you once they become known? In my book, that's called playing Russian Roulette.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: slowly (Score:5, Insightful)
because the conclusions of Silent Spring are somehow invalid and pesticides are so safe you could just gobble them up willy nilly?
some of the people decrying the human impact on the world may be alarmist or overreacting, but they are far less dangerous than those who try to say that there's no impact, nothing is wrong, and everything is/will be fine, so stop worrying.
you can try to impugn one side by saying bias, and defend the other by again claiming bias, but that's irrelevent. the science says what it will, and if you follow the science, that's all that matters. in the case of evolution, global warming, or vaccines the science says "its real", "its happening" and "they work". end of story.
in this new avenue of research the science doesnt say a whole lot yet. its only just started to ask the question, the question being, paraphrased, "is there potential harm here to plankton from particulates in the very top most layer?". there's already been questions asked about the micro-plastics we flush into the water daily (espcially the new fad of plastic microbeads in soaps) that can make it through water treatment plants into the rivers or lakes or oceans, and evidence found that they can buildup in and eventually block fish gills. so this is then related to that line of thinking, but is a new question itself. and it's a good question because plankton is one of the most important (if not THE most important) classes of life on Earth. its the very first link in the food chain for a majority of life on Earth. Further its also the primary producer of oxygen, both atmospheric and water-dissolved, which is fairly important too.
Re: (Score:2)
Like most things the truty is probably somewhere in the middle. Plastic and paint floating on the ocean is not good and will no doubt do some harm but it's not likely to end all life on the planet. Maybe some really big skimmers? Solar powered of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing shy of a nearby gamma burst or the eventual day when the sun goes red-giant is likely to end all life on Earth.
But there are a lot of things shy of that that can make life really uncomfortable for us, perhaps terminally so. It's happened 5 times before, to longer-lived species than us.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a gamma burst won't hurt those microbes living miles deep in the Earth. Sterilization through lots of heat seems like the only thing that'll end life on and in the Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why we are working on creating a tractor beam that can get the Moon to crash into the Earth at a reasonable velocity, to get those microbes deep in the crust! Death to those motherfuckers!
Re: (Score:2)
Not good enough, there will be big chunks of rock with viable microbes inside. Easy way would be to use the tractor beam to crash into Jupiter. more effective but harder, crash into the Sun.
Re: (Score:2)
Like most things the [truth] is probably somewhere in the middle.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/B... [rationalwiki.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This is a true fallacy when the conclusion is already drawn, such as media trying to present "both sides" of climate change as if the relevant sides where "yes, it's warming" and "no, it's cooling" -- while the actual discussion is more like "is the impact of effect X on K equal A or B=A+0.01*A, while taking the interaction with effect Y into account?", where the relevant sides of the discussion are those saying it's A and those saying it is 1.01*A.
In this case (paint dust and zooplankton), I'm less sure if
Re: (Score:2)
plankton is a mix of types of life. all microscopic. some is animal in type (super micro crustaceans), but a lot of it more akin to plant or bacteria, and as such it takes its energy directly from the sun. that's one reason its mainly found in the upper layers of the ocean.
and its the reason this line is questioning is important. we know that water clarity can impact the amount of plankton biomass (as well as other submarine ecosystems such as coral reefs). this question is basically heading towards finding
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
because the conclusions of Silent Spring are somehow invalid and pesticides are so safe you could just gobble them up willy nilly?
Don't be stupid. There's a profound difference between using something responsibly and being a complete moron. Drinking too much water can kill you. Mercury can kill you, but we put it in CFL fluorescent lamps. Many cleaning products are toxic. Do you have a hard time not drinking or eating them?
Many of the conclusions in Silent Spring are questionable, at best [thenewatlantis.com] I'm sure there is validity to some, or even much of it. But that's how you make a good lie, isn't it? I'd like to think that Rachel Carson had the
scientific theories that have lasted 500 years? (Score:3)
Scientific theories are disproved... How many scientific theories have lasted 500 years? 100 years? Or even 50 years?
The three cases in question (evolution, global warming, and vaccines) have all been around for more than 100 years. The practice of science (or natural philosophy) is not 500 years old, so it is unlikely that any of her findings are older. Even so, none of the three examples will be overturned after 500 years. It is implausible that we will eventually find out that vaccines actually don't work, or that evolution isn't really happening, etc. We have observed all of these.
Re: (Score:1)
The three cases in question (evolution, global warming, and vaccines) have all been around for more than 100 years. The practice of science (or natural philosophy) is not 500 years old,
Humans have been observing and recording those observations in order to make sense of the universe since before we even had a concept of what the universe was.
The move towards a rational understanding of nature began at least since the Archaic period in Greece (650 â" 480 BCE) with the Pre-Socratic philosophers. The philosopher Thales of Miletus (7th and 6th centuries BCE), dubbed "the Father of Science" for refusing to accept various supernatural, religious or mythological explanations for natural [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
An example of science that hasn't changed much is the observation (shadows and geometry) by one of those Greeks that the Earth is a sphere of around 25,000 miles in circumference. We've refined it but the basic science has stood up quite well.
Probably some of our current science will be the same, refined but basically right.
Re: (Score:1)
How many people would have been saved death or life of poor health from malaria versus how many would have been hurt or killed by DDT?
Re: (Score:2)
DDT was never totally banned, just the indiscriminate use of it. From the relevant Wikipedia article:
A worldwide ban on its agricultural use was later formalised under the Stockholm Convention, but its limited use in disease vector control continues to this day ...
Re: (Score:1)
because the conclusions of Silent Spring are somehow invalid and pesticides are so safe you could just gobble them up willy nilly?
Yes, the conclusions of Silent Spring *are* invalid. Rachel Carson was a left-wing nut job. And DDT actually is safe to eat. Read how the inventor went around the country eating a teaspoon (or was it a tablespoon?) of it at each speech. Did it kill him? No. Did he get cancer? No. DDT is safe and eliminating it costs about 1 million human lives every year because we can't control the mosquitoes spreading disease.
Re: (Score:2)
because the conclusions of Silent Spring are somehow invalid and pesticides are so safe you could just gobble them up willy nilly?
Yes, the conclusions of Silent Spring *are* invalid. Rachel Carson was a left-wing nut job. And DDT actually is safe to eat. Read how the inventor went around the country eating a teaspoon (or was it a tablespoon?) of it at each speech. Did it kill him? No. Did he get cancer? No. DDT is safe and eliminating it costs about 1 million human lives every year because we can't control the mosquitoes spreading disease.
Where the fuck does this mis-information come from? The only legal use of DDT is for controlling disease vectors, eg killing mosquitoes. Of course it doesn't work very well anymore as due to indiscriminate use allowed the mosquitoes to build up tolerance to DDT.
And George Burns proved that smoking is harmless, smoked cigars and lived till a 101.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The "old white haired ghost in the sky" never told anyone to destroy the earth and everything in it.
Ezekiel 34:19
Psalm 24:1
Re: (Score:2)
The "old white haired ghost in the sky" never told anyone to destroy the earth and everything in it.
No, but he did give dominion over most of it to man, and he doesn't seem to have actually given him a directive to protect it. Instead, he's been promised an accounting day which will consist of a holy war between people who have already died.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Dose makes the poison.
2. Cleaning up is possible.
3. "Warned us enough" makes it sound like there's some level of "sufficient" warning for "us". Who are we? What defines its sufficiency?
Re: (Score:2)
In the meantime, actually dumping paint onto the surface of water, does some pretty amazing things; https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Great Pacific Garbage Patch (Score:1)
Do you remember your amazement when hearing about the pacific garbage patch? And then how you felt when you actually looked it up?
Sherwin-Williams Conspiracy (Score:5, Funny)
This makes Sherwin-Williams and their "Cover the Earth" logo look a lot less like a paint seller/manufacturer and a lot more like some kind of Bond villain.
Least green logo ever (Score:3)
Driving by a S-W a few months ago I wondered if that was the least "green" logo in use today, perhaps ever.
Nominations, anyone?
Re:Least green logo ever (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I noticed Halliburton doesn't have a corporate logo, so I started drawing them one that might be less green. The logo is Dick Cheney in a Hummer H-2 running over small woodland creatures while dumping unused barrels of Agent Orange out of the Hummer's trunk and lighting the rainforest on fire with a flamethrower.
Now if only I had any actual artistic talent and this didn't look like a giant blob of orange highlighter.
Re:Least green logo ever (Score:5, Insightful)
The logo is Dick Cheney in a Hummer H-2 running over small woodland creatures while dumping unused barrels of Agent Orange out of the Hummer's trunk and lighting the rainforest on fire with a flamethrower.
That is so fucking totally unfair. Agent Orange is a Monsanto product.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Blackwater has a bad rep, but their logos don't look too bad [wikipedia.org]. Since I've had a lot of plumbing issues recently, I think of Blackwater in the plumbing sense - sewage.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, man. Literally busted out laughing when I read that.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm just gonna leave this here [salon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just leave this here [youtube.com]
Some sort of protective coating... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Perhaps oil?
rap it! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People who need boats made of artificial fiberglass or have to paint them, you mean. Native tribes and colonial explorers used wooden ships and had more naturally derived products in the sealing.
Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
If your food ends up with components of the paint in it that turn out to be mildly carcinogenic... there's this thing called the food chain.
There is also a problem with plastics entering the food chain in a similar way.
Re:Holy shit (Score:5, Insightful)
remember how kids eating chips of lead based paint ended up with physiological damage because of the chemials dissolving and entering their tissues?
same concept.
just smaller chips.
and a much larger affected biomass.
Math (Score:4, Interesting)
On average, a liter of water from the microlayer contained 195 particles—this concentration is 10 to 100 times higher than microplastic particles in water collected by other methods.
One litre of water is 1,000,000 cubic millimetres. Given a depth of 1 mm that would cover 1 square meter. So therefore 195 particles per square meter. They don't go into how big these particles are. The issue is that these particle float and therefore would be concentrated in the upper 1 millimetre of water. They have not shown it is a problem.
Re:Math (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
1 "milli-liters" = 1 cubic centimetre (cc) = 1000 cubic millimetres
Re: (Score:1)
The homeopaths would leave you to believe that this is a MAJOR issue and the ENTIRE PUBLIC'S HEALTH and SAFETY is at RISK.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So... 195,000,000 particles per square kilometer in our 361 million square kilometers of ocean. That is over 70 quadrillion paint particles polluting our oceans. We are all clearly doomed!
It depends on whether the particles are accumulating faster than they are leaving the system. If the figures we're talking about represent an equilibrium that will continue indefinitely into the future, surely we are not doomed. But if the concentration of particles is increasing and people need to do something about this before it becomes a problem, we might be.
Eventually something's going to get our species. Either changes in the Sun will make the Earth uninhabitable to anything recognizably human, or w
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, we should measure this every year to see if the number is increasing.
Re: (Score:2)
They have not shown it is a problem.
Perhaps not but its certainly worth following up on a previously unknown phenomenon that may or may not affect the global food supply. Your math showing an apparently small concentration doesn't take into account the biology of any creature living in the ocean. You haven't shown there isn't a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't shown there isn't a problem.
Proving a negative is almost impossible. For example, prove that you are not a serial killer.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were a serial killer I would not want others to know about it.
They would put me in prison or kill me, an undesirable outcome.
You clearly either know or suspect.
You are part of "others".
You are capable or telling others.
I should silence you.
Killing you would be a very effective way to silence you.
If I were a serial killer I would be capable of causing your death
I am not a serial killer, or you would be dead.
QED.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were a serial killer I would be capable of causing your death
[citation needed]
I am not a serial killer, or you would be dead.
QED.
The ability to do a thing does not equal having done the thing.
QED, you do not have a valid argument
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly either know or suspect.
I neither know or suspect. I am just making an accusation and challenging you to prove it false.
If I were a serial killer I would be capable of causing your death
You have no idea who I am or where I live. Maybe you are only capable of killing children under the age of five?
I am not a serial killer, or you would be dead.
The other explanations for my continues existence are as follows;
1. You don't know who I am.
2. You don't have the financial resources to come to me and kill me.
3. You don't have the capability of killing someone who can defend themselves.
4. The attempt would uncover your actions.
To put it slightly diffe
Re: (Score:2)
Nor do they tell us the ratio to non-plastic junk floating in that same water, especially naturally occuring junk. Not every particle floating in the oceans is of human origin; I'd hazard most are the result of atmospheric dust.
Obvious solution (Score:2)
Why would there be fish in helicopters? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the positive side of this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The total area covered is a minuscule percentage of what was formerly uncovered.
Personally, I don't buy it, because plankton isn't a thing, it's a class of things. Because we are talking about particles, the danger isn't to plankton. The danger is to plankton feeders. Individual plankton which die because they come in contact with a paint particle are going to fall out of the mix and become food for something lower down instead of something feeding near the surface. Not all of them are going to be vulnerabl
Re: (Score:2)
I find it more likely that some microorganism will find a way to extract energy from the particles, if it's not already doing so. Which may produce the GP's possible state of equilibrium.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it more likely that some microorganism will find a way to extract energy from the particles, if it's not already doing so.
That's not a good thing. Paints are overwhelmingly still colored with things we don't want in the food chain. We really don't want plankton to metabolize these particles. We want them to stay as intact as possible for as long as possible, ideally until they somehow end up on the ocean floor or in a cleanup project somewhere — but anywhere that won't put them into the food chain or drinking water would be fantastic.
Not even a part per billion. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not once the media gets hold of it. Prepare for sensationalism acceleration.
Fiberglass Dust (Score:1)
that stuff is the Worst.
I work in a big German Yacht building business, so i've got some experience with that stuff.
Avoid that shit at all costs. If you get in on your skin it will itch and sting you.
If you try to wash it of you might have some temporary relief, but put some clothes on or lay down in your bed and it will sting terribly.
If you're new to the stuff, it sometimes will last for more than a day.
I know people who got so used to it, the sometimes don't even wear the safety overals. These guys are s
Will sunlight break down the chemicals? (Score:2)
The upper millimeter of the ocean is a very sunny place to be.
Re: (Score:2)
James Ballard (Score:1)
But apparently it's not that ludicrous...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
we are in a damn closed system, we should start to LIMIT things
This is why I am damned tired of hearing the "we must have nuclear because we otherwise can't produce enough base load to produce all our disposable garbage wal-mart shit" argument. We're engaging in too much economic activity, and the argument that we must not only sustain but increase it is not laughable but terrifying.