22 Million Pounds of Plastics Enter the Great Lakes Each Year (chicagotribune.com) 98
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Chicago Tribune: Plastic debris makes up about 80% of the litter on Great Lakes shorelines. Nearly 22 million pounds enter the Great Lakes each year -- more than half of which pours into Lake Michigan, according to estimates calculated by the Rochester Institute of Technology. Regardless of size, as plastics linger in the water, they continue to break down from exposure to sunlight and abrasive waves. Microplastics have been observed in the guts of many Lake Michigan fish, in drinking water and even in beer. Perhaps the most worrisome aspect is that the impact of microplastics on human health remains unclear. Plastics are known to attract industrial contaminants already in the water, like PCBs, while expelling their own chemical additives intended to make them durable, including flame retardants.
While there are still more questions than answers about potential health consequences, one thing is clear: Southern Lake Michigan is a hot spot for plastics. Once plastics enter the lake, they follow lake currents, potentially migrating to other states but largely remaining trapped at the southern end. What goes into Lake Michigan typically stays there. While water from the other Great Lakes moves downstream, Lake Michigan's only major outflow is the Chicago River (and the water it intermittently exchanges with Lake Huron at the Straits of Mackinac). As a result, a drop of water that enters Lake Michigan stays for about 62 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A study published last year found that around 85% of fish caught from three major Lake Michigan tributaries -- the Milwaukee, St. Joseph and Muskegon rivers -- had microplastics in their digestive tracts.
"In the sample size of 74 fish representing 11 species, the invasive round goby had the highest concentrations, possibly from eating filter-feeding quagga mussels, which scientists suspect may be accumulating microplastics," the Chicago Tribune reports. "While detecting microplastics in the guts of Lake Michigan fish is significant, scientists are now studying if these pollutants build up or are excreted by the fish."
While there are still more questions than answers about potential health consequences, one thing is clear: Southern Lake Michigan is a hot spot for plastics. Once plastics enter the lake, they follow lake currents, potentially migrating to other states but largely remaining trapped at the southern end. What goes into Lake Michigan typically stays there. While water from the other Great Lakes moves downstream, Lake Michigan's only major outflow is the Chicago River (and the water it intermittently exchanges with Lake Huron at the Straits of Mackinac). As a result, a drop of water that enters Lake Michigan stays for about 62 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A study published last year found that around 85% of fish caught from three major Lake Michigan tributaries -- the Milwaukee, St. Joseph and Muskegon rivers -- had microplastics in their digestive tracts.
"In the sample size of 74 fish representing 11 species, the invasive round goby had the highest concentrations, possibly from eating filter-feeding quagga mussels, which scientists suspect may be accumulating microplastics," the Chicago Tribune reports. "While detecting microplastics in the guts of Lake Michigan fish is significant, scientists are now studying if these pollutants build up or are excreted by the fish."
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the peasants need to cut back to make up for his wasteful share. As is the everlasting story of the bourgeoisie.
But I do want to echo what the OP said... solutions need to stop being about the blame game and about the scientific and economic solution. Sadly, blame and politics cannot be kept out. People would rather find someone, blame them for it, fight them endlessly about it, and ultimately do very little.
It's the people that say, fuck it, I am going to stop bickering with the morons and do some
Biological solution (Score:1)
"do something about it that get things done."
The only way I can think of to solve this problem is to breed bacteria, fungi or something that has a teste for plastic. Probably it will take several kinds. Alternately, we might change the plastics we use to be biodegradable by existing bugs. These might not start with oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but it's not plastic bags. Eliminating plastic from getting into our water is going to be a LOT harder than some simple plastic bag ban, "environmentalists". Neither of which are going to be easy to replace with something else. I'm not even sure you can remove it from treatment plants.
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Personally I find it disgusting that so-called environmentalists know so little about real science, and the real environment. It's all feel-good, what you can personally do bullshit. The above article is almost a year old, but you basically never hear anything about it again. It's all straws and plastic bags, over and over. Meanwhile the real pollution goes un-noticed and hidden while people focus on the stuff they can see and feel guilty about.
We need to move away from environment ideas being about guilt, and emotion, and towards it being about actual damn science.
Tires? Plastic? Are you trying to tell me tires aren't rubber?
"By weight, he explains, the tread compounds of a conventional tire contain about 28 percent natural rubber, which comes from latex sap, 28 percent synthetic rubber, which is made from oil, and 28 percent carbon black filler—a sootlike reinforcing agent that is produced by partially burning fossil fuels." (Aug 11, 2010)
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:3)
"Plastic and rubber are made from the same families of polymers."
https://rubberplastics.com/ [rubberplastics.com]
Presumably, microplastics are at the decomposition point of being just a polymer chain, whether originally rubber or plastic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is actually the false definition currently massively pushed by the clickbait media.
The actual defintion of microplastics is plastic particulates in micrometre size range. Souce of those is also known - most of it flakes off clothing during drying cycles and is then flushed into the waterways alongside sewage.
Recent WHO study confirmed that microplastics are harmless to humans. They're simply so small that they freely pass through cellular walls while being biologically inert.
Clickbait media has been in
Re: (Score:2)
Not by themselves, no. It will involve reducing multiple kinds of items on multiple fronts. We have to work together to reduce the mess we made.
Re: (Score:3)
We have to work together to reduce the mess we made
And that's why there's so much focus on plastic waste lately. Reducing waste from plastic bags and straws isn't going to make a huge impact on the amount of microplastics ending up in the water, but the impact isn't zero, and it's a relatively painless measure that creates awareness, and lets all of us contribute actively by making an effort to reduce our own waste, participate in beach cleanups, etc. So it's partly a PR measure.
Re: (Score:2)
Removing plastic straws isn't really painless, because there are no good replacements.
So it's partly a PR measure.
The total PR effect could very well be negative, as people resent having their straws removed for a microscopic benefit to nature.
Re: (Score:2)
The total PR effect could very well be negative, as people resent having their straws removed for a microscopic benefit to nature.
You're right. We should have started with the plastic bottles and microfiber clothes, not something small like drinking straws...
Re: (Score:2)
Removing plastic straws isn't really painless, because there are no good replacements.
I don't know. I'm old enough to remember drinking directly from a glass. I know, barbaric, right? I put my lips directly on the edge of the drink container. I get disgusted every time I think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Works with a Whiskey or Whisky very fine. It even sterilizes the edge of the glass before drinking.
Actually if you are into it, Vodka, especially the good ones, are fine, too.
Just avoid doing dumb things, like putting ice into your high alcoholic beverage.
(P.S. when I see your name I always at first read it "Shogun", no idea why)
Re: (Score:2)
There are two replacements:
a) not using straws, wow, that was so easy
b) using straws, as in straws, as in made from straw, wow that was even more easy
Never understood the American/Asian obsession with straws. To much ice in the drink?
Re:Most plastic comes from tires and clothes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Removing plastic straws isn't really painless, because there are no good replacements.
So it's partly a PR measure.
The total PR effect could very well be negative, as people resent having their straws removed for a microscopic benefit to nature.
I don't know how old you are, but there was a time, not too long ago(1990s), when all of a sudden, straws started showing up in drinks at restaurants/bars.
I remember at the time, how wasteful I thought it was.
I didn't ask for or want a straw.
Drinks with ice are colder at the top anyway...
But within a year or two I noticed that all restaurants/bars were doing this.
There wasn't any sort of consumer outcry for straws being ubiquitous.
This was something that one chain did and then everyone had to follow.
I know it may come as a shock, but you can drink fluids from a glass or cup without use of a straw.
Re: (Score:2)
Removing plastic straws isn't really painless, because there are no good replacements.
So it's partly a PR measure.
The total PR effect could very well be negative, as people resent having their straws removed for a microscopic benefit to nature.
I don't know how old you are, but there was a time, not too long ago(1990s), when all of a sudden, straws started showing up in drinks at restaurants/bars.
I remember at the time, how wasteful I thought it was.
I didn't ask for or want a straw.
Drinks with ice are colder at the top anyway...
But within a year or two I noticed that all restaurants/bars were doing this.
There wasn't any sort of consumer outcry for straws being ubiquitous.
This was something that one chain did and then everyone had to follow.
I know it may come as a shock, but you can drink fluids from a glass or cup without use of a straw.
People typically drink faster than they normally would when using a straw.
Glorious capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not painless for me and other people who don't have cars. Plastic bags are a better choice than paper bags when you walk, cycle, or take the bus to do your shopping. I do use the large reusable bags too but I reuse plastic bags to keep different foods apart. If I'm buying some cold items in warmer weather, especially in the summer, they are going to sweat so it's nice to have the plastic bags to keep the water off of everything else. Or when it rains the plastic bags keeps the rain off the groceries. A
Re: (Score:2)
"...nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material..."
Well, now you're covered on polyester blends by both science and religion.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I find it disgusting that so-called environmentalists know so little about real science
Why? Hardly anyone else knows much about real science. In terms of percent of the total, I hardly know anything about science, either. My knowledge is like a rounding error.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Personally I find it disgusting that so-called environmentalists know so little about real science
Why? Hardly anyone else knows much about real science. In terms of percent of the total, I hardly know anything about science, either. My knowledge is like a rounding error.
I think we all know that conservative male Slashdotters like myself are the real scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering your posts on /. I can assure you are in the upper 90% or higher percentage of /. ers that know things about science.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering your posts on /. I can assure you are in the upper 90% or higher percentage of /. ers that know things about science.
/hands angel'o'sphere a moist towelette
You got something brown on your nose bro.
Re:Most plastic comes from tires and clothes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I find it disgusting that so-called environmentalists know so little about real science, and the real environment.
Or maybe they know enough about it and unlike you actually focus on things that have easily workable solutions first rather than what you said (and I quote) "Neither of which are going to be easy to replace with something else"
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Most plastic comes from tires and clothes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Environmentalists are constantly agitating for increased mass transit. That's why progressives in California want to build high speed rail. Unfortunately, so-called conservatives interested in conserving nothing attack such projects at every turn. They decry government taking land and spending money, then they put their goods into trucks which travel on the interstate highway network, which costs more and takes up more space than using rail would.
We have also been warning you about the hazards of synthetic fabrics and throwaway consumerism all along. But you didn't want to listen.
Here's something else you don't want to hear: single use plastics are still stupid, and we can eliminate them, so we should, even if we get it done before tires because of the lobbying efforts of the oil, gas, and rubber interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Environmentalists are constantly agitating for increased mass transit. That's why progressives in California want to build high speed rail.
Enviros claim to love mass transit until they find that this involves actually letting something get built, which is anathema to them. That is how Californians spent $77 billion on permits and lawyers, without actually building their train.
During the same time, China networked its entire country with the same design of high-speed train. They Just Fucking Built It.
Re: (Score:3)
In this country, most of the land is privately owned. About a quarter of the Continental USA is managed by the feds via the BLM, but it's not really useful for transit. So we have to use eminent domain for these projects. We also care about the environment, so we do impact studies before we build. China doesn't have these problems to contend with, but only because they don't give a fuck about the environment, and because they put protesters in labor camps.
If you love China so much, by all means, move there.
Re: (Score:2)
Having eminent domain take a strip from one edge of your big Central Valley farm for an electric rail line impacts it very little, while actually raising the value of your remaining acreage because now it's rail accessible for off-hours freight. And for a project that was supposed to reduce the environmental footprint of car and truck traffic, Caring About The Environment means building such a project sooner, not later. A rational permitting process should not have taken nearly so long.
Re: (Score:2)
During the same time, China networked its entire country with the same design of high-speed train. They Just Fucking Built It.
Maybe you didn't know that China is effectively an Authoritarian state.
This means that the CCP can make arbitrary decisions without consulting anyone.
I wonder what your reaction would be if your property was "eminent(sp?) domained" for a train or something else.
I wonder how you would like living in a country like China that can "just fucking" do whatever they want, regardless.
Maybe you should move there and find out.
And when you get there you can post on slashdot about how great it is.
Re:Most plastic comes from tires and clothes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Spend the god damn money on something at is important. The homeless problem in California.
That's a national problem. The rest of the country sends us its homeless and we're supposed to house them all? I hear a lot about how California's politics are irresponsible, but we're having to shoulder much of the responsibility for everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and you did nothing to address the issue of spending billions on a project with huge cost over runs instead of concentrating on something that would make a difference in the lives of your fellow citizens that need
Re: (Score:2)
"single use plastics are still stupid, and we can eliminate them, so we should"
Really? That's a GREAT idea! Cost and effect don't matter.
I suppose you've created the perfect bio-degrable flexible, shatterproff glass?
Plastic films are about 1/100 the mass of rigid containers but...what the heck...we CAN replace them with...metal? Oh, darn, that requires mining and they rust. Um..paper? No, that requires coatings which prevent recycling. Pottery? Yeah! That's the ticket! Obviously, there was no death, disease
Re: (Score:2)
While part of your statements about mining are true,
with careful selection and proper sourcing ( and people that are willing to pay )
we could use recycled scrap metal.
40 percent of the aluminum cans and 90 percent of steel are recycled
so I can see that as a limited "feel good product"
paper, yep a coating, but that coating will degrade and be ok in 10 to 20 years,
plastic is 80+ ( i've heard higher numbers, but 80 seems about right for ocean
pollution plastic )
Re: (Score:2)
" The above article is almost a year old"
The truth doesn't get old.
Plastic clothes are simple to replace (Score:3)
Clothes made of plastic were invented less than 100 years ago. Clothes made of non-plastic materials have been used for hundreds of thousands of years. Why would it not be easy to replace plastic clothes with non-plastic clothes?
Re: (Score:2)
We have reached peak cotton.
Natural fibers are hard to grow without dependable weather, which is over.
Crops and cities are competing for water.
Have you LOOKED at the price of natural fabrics and products of same recently? I'm guessing no, or you wouldn't ask that question.
Re: (Score:1)
We have reached peak cotton.
Hemp then?
Re: (Score:2)
We used to wear hemp before cotton became economically viable. We switched to cotton because it's much nicer. But yeah, we can go back to hemp. And we sort of are, it's becoming legal in the USA again. Nothing beats a light cotton tee, though, and probably nothing will anytime soon. Nothing else breathes like cotton jersey.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people like the feel of hemp on the skin (or linen) more than cotton.
I never had a hemp shirt/trousers, though.
Linen has the drawback of less durability, it rips more easy or is destroyed by friction (e.g. riding a bike).
The new star on the firmament is bamboo based fabrics. Never tried one though, but it is on my list. Perhaps my wife switches to bamboo farming, so lets see :D
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK bamboo fabrics are basically rayon. I have one bamboo tee shirt and it's fairly nice and has held up pretty well, but it doesn't breathe as well as cotton.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for reporting this about bamboo tee shirts. can I ask if it got as stained by deodorant as cotton does ? have an issue with staining those armpits and I would like to find a solution that might work
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. I'm wearing 100% cotton jeans and a 100% cotton t-shirt right now. Wool socks. Cotton underwear. Leather shoes. What part of that do you think is expensive?
Re: (Score:2)
There's leather being thrown away, especially hides good enough to make shoes but not jackets, so leather shoes are still cheap. But all that cotton stuff has gone up substantially in price over the last decade, much faster than inflation. The cost of a sheet set has about doubled over that time, for example. Cotton tee shirts and underwear have both nearly doubled. And used clothing in natural fibers has even begun to get scarce at thrift stores. People are literally hoarding cotton.
You can expect it to co
Re: (Score:2)
I just bought a 3 pack of nice cotton t-shirts for $15 a few months ago. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that cotton is getting expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
funny but I do track different tee shirt prices
standard Hanes tee shirts are now in the 3.00 to 3.50 each range
pack of 5 is 13.00 to 15.00
2 years ago summer it was a pack of 6 for 9.75 - 10.00
last year summer it was average pack of 6 for 12.00 - 12.90
so yes, the data for delivery price miami, retail, shows that it has increase a lot, 50% or more
Re: (Score:2)
the above was for a finished product .60 to .80
forgot to add the historical cotton prices
https://www.macrotrends.net/25... [macrotrends.net]
which shows that it's still in the old channel range of
I am guessing labour is costing more in the 3rd worlds
Re: (Score:2)
Clothes from cotton, or cotton, costs next to nothing in Asia.
The reason they are expensive in the US is the middle man and the masses who are ready to pay the price while the farmers starve working "at cost".
Bottom line the price for an item produced in Asia is in a shop in Europe 40x production price, 38x of that is "profit" or hidden costs as in Galeries Lafayette in Paris has to pay its building and workers ...
If you google a bit around for shops selling via internet and shipping to your place, you see:
You should read better the article you posted (Score:1)
Most plastic comes from tires and clothes
The article says:
The report estimates that between 9,000 and 32,000 tonnes of microplastic pollution enter British waterways each year from just four sources. The two leading sources are tyre abrasion, with between 7,000 and 19,000 tonnes entering surface waters each year, and clothing.
Then latter on:
The scale of plastic pollution from household plastics is of the same magnitude as that from large plastic waste such as bottles and takeaway containers – about 26,000 tonnes of which enters UK waterways each year.
So as a summary tires and clothes are the biggest polluters of microplastic which is the same order of magnitude as "macroplastic" (which later on break down to microplastic). Indeed handling microplastics will be much harder but this does not mean we should continue polluting with plastic bags, bottles etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I find it disgusting that so-called environmentalists know so little about real science, and the real environment.
Cleaning up the environment has to start somewhere. This is a huge nuanced problem that has to be tackled from many angles.
I'm not sure why you are disgusted.
I would say that your assumption about "so-called" environmentalists is very far off base though. Generally, it is science that leads one to become a supporter of a cleaner environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the club. There are strong environmentalist arguments to be made for nuclear power, hunting, GMOs, controlled grazing on wildlands, coal to natural gas conversions, and forestry management that includes logging. Trying to have those conversations with most environmentalists produces the human equivalent of 'Syntax Error'.
Re: (Score:1)
The places that are the largest offenders of trash are left off these idiots radars. I am talking China, India, and Africa that pollute the world far more probably more in a year then US does in 10 yet no a word is ever said about them.
They can't be tricked into buying the latest environmentalist religious totem.
Re:yet the biggest offenders (Score:5, Interesting)
The places that are the largest offenders of trash are left off these idiots radars. I am talking China, India, and Africa that pollute the world far more probably more in a year then US does in 10 yet no a word is ever said about them.
They can't be tricked into buying the latest environmentalist religious totem.
More electric cars were sold in China in 2018 than in the rest of the world combined. The Chinese government spend $60 billion in the last decade to help jumpstart the EV industry there. They plan to spend at least the much in the coming decade. Plus they are actively limiting the amount of licenses for gas vehicles that can be obtained.
Sounds like they've bought into the environmentalist religious totems in a big way.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't be tricked into buying the latest environmentalist religious totem.
More electric cars were sold in China in 2018 than in the rest of the world combined. ...
Sounds like they've bought into the environmentalist religious totems in a big way.
They have a genuine air pollution issue and electric cars work and sometimes make sense these days. When it's practical, it's not a religious totem.
It's not like they're using paper straws.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like something we used to be pretty good at in the US, - investing in the future.
Now what we worry about is short term profits and keep taxes low for wealthy people and businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
China is building solar and wind as fast as they can, but they're also building coal as fast as they can. So they obviously don't give a shit about the environment.
For China, EVs are about controlling local pollution in cities, not about climate change. They're also about energy independence. China would have to import oil to add non-EVs.
China has not bought into environmentalism at all.
Re: (Score:2)
you'll need to cite the coal source, because I think they shut them down slowly and steady.
Re:yet the biggest offenders (Score:5, Insightful)
It's fine to recognize that other countries have environmental problems, - often more severe than we do. But nothing China does is going to fix the problem of plastics in the Great Lakes. That is our responsibility (the US).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The places that are the largest offenders of trash are left off these idiots radars. I am talking China, India, and Africa that pollute the world far more probably more in a year then US does in 10 yet no a word is ever said about them.
These are just some recent comments from your post history, all modded up by conservative male Slashdotters:
China doesn't give 2 shiats about anything except making their country the richest and most powerful in the world to point no one could stand up to them. They don't care how much of world they destroy as long as they win. Kinda like Daenery's in ep 4 of GoT.
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/... http://www.aei.org/publication [aei.org]... ) If you go from say 2000-2017 in terms of Co2, The US in 2000 was 6000 MtCO, China was 3349 MtCO. So we don't just jump to 2017 we will use middle of 2009. In 2009 it was 5459 MtCO2 for the US and China BALLOONED to 7759 MtCO2, in 2017 the US again lowered it though not as much as first 9 years but it was down to 5270 MtCO2, and China yet again increased there a good 20+% to 9839MtCO2. Yes it would be a world problem but seems like first image that US and handful of countries are even trying while other major players are quick to makeup for the gap. I am not one those AOC fools that believes we will all die in 12 years as remember Gore said we would all die as well in xx years and that year has come and past. I think the numbers are woefully exaggerated to make it appears its far worse then it is and even some numbers say the planet is not getting warming but colder.
No matter how much the US spends to "lower the carbon footprint" and push the liberals climate change agenda it will be all for not when Countries like China, India & (insert name of around 30-40 other countries here) increase the emissions they put out at a multiple factor of what the US cut.
So in regards to your statement that "not a word is ever said about them", I would suggest that you are a lying fucking imbecile, and also that you shut your fat fucking mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
I am talking China, India, and Africa that pollute the world far more probably more in a year then US does in 10 yet no a word is ever said about them.
It's okay. They are putting effort in. They started by no longer accepting your trash.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, India and China are largely creating that pollution to fulfill American economic orders. Iphones, computers, clothing, etc. So while you may want to wave your hands about those countries, you need to nod your head to the fact that WE support and directly enable a large pa
Re: (Score:2)
The places that are the largest offenders of trash are left off these idiots radars. I am talking China, India, and Africa that pollute the world far more probably more in a year then US does in 10 yet no a word is ever said about them.
The last time I checked, the Great Lakes were between Canada and the US.
You should look it up on google maps.
Lakehead University *could* be doing this research (Score:1)
"While detecting microplastics in the guts of Lake Michigan fish is significant, scientists are now studying if these pollutants build up or are excreted by the fish."
This is, of course, the sort of thing that biologists at lakehead university would study (do they lurvs their fishies)...if their department wasn't gutted by the anti [ctvnews.ca]-science [academicmatters.ca] Harper government. And then if issues like this ignored [pulitzercenter.org] by the Trudeau government, maybe the people who came to canada to study fish [twitter.com] wouldn't be constantly on the verge of leaving.
But let's vote the Liberals/Cons back in, amirite Canada?
Re: (Score:2)
But let's vote the Liberals/Cons back in, amirite Canada?
What't the alternative the NDP? Hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Re: (Score:3)
But let's vote the Liberals/Cons back in, amirite Canada?
What't the alternative the NDP? Hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
The coming Canadian election is about to shock the shit out of the Americans and the polsters and pundits. The government will either be a weird green party/ndp mashup or a completely unholy liberal/conservative coalition with Justin and Andrew ready to stick each other with the knives they hide behind their backs. The bullshit that is going on with organized crime and real estate money laundering, rape of the forests, the systematic destruction of anadromous fish habitat and government sponsored over-fishi
Re: (Score:1)
Back in my day... (Score:4, Funny)
That's not very much (Score:5, Insightful)
This is really a very small amount. Especially compared to other countries [earthday.org] which are adding hundreds of thousands or millions of tons of plastic to the water each year, and are not even trying to reduce or control it. (70%-90% of their waste ends up in the landscape and waterways, vs 2% in the U.S.)
Lowest-hanging fruit first guys. It's a waste to spend money reducing mismanged plastic waste here by a few hundred tons, when a mere fraction of the same amount spent elsewhere would reduce it by thousands or tens of of thousands of tons.
Re: (Score:3)
So it's okay to dump your plastic somewhere big, and (as yet) not very laden with the stuff?
Yes, others are worse, but that doesn't sound like an excuse to pollute something/somewhere because you're not as bad as them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's our source of clean drinking water. Any amount of plastic is too much.
Re: (Score:2)
He says as he sips his bottled water or coffee from a styrofoam cup, eating his danish off a plastic plate with a plastic fork, while sitting in a polyester covered chair rolling around on a polyester carpet and typing on a plastic keyboard.
OK. I'll admit. That's just me, but I doubt any Slashdotter is much different. We're constantly surrounded by plastic. The grandparent's point about 2.3ppb being noise is well founded.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sipping from a glass bottle of bear, sitting on a chair made from wood and steal on a cotton covered pillow filled with wool. ....
However the MacBook Air I'm typing on has plastic keys
We have no carpet, we have stone floors, and depending if we move or improve the house, it will get a wooden floor.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about general averages, it's about concentration and distribution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Pounds? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pounds? What is this, the dark ages?
No it is the new age of American Conservative measurement which adds perceived weight to the data, by converting metric Kg to imperial Lbs you can more than double the numbers of American Conservatives reading the post, clutching at plastic strawman arguments then spewing anti Al Gore and anti environmental science rhetoric on Slashdot.
I say bring back the anon cowherd and double the dose of articles about plastic pollution at least then we might see more intelligent arguments than a moron blaming China,
assumptions... (Score:2)
So, 22 million pounds per year, which is 10 gigagrams per year.
If we assume a density of 1.0 kiligrams/liter (same as water, basically), then we're talking 10 megaliters of plastics per year, dumped into 22.8 petaliters of G'Lakes every year. So, in the timezone of 0.00000005% plastic every year?
So in a century, we should see 0.000005% of the water in the Lakes replaced with plastics? Assuming that none of the plastics goes out to sea (yeah, the G'Lakes are still connected to the Atlantic), of course.
I
Re: (Score:2)
...or look at it a different way: it's not a big problem, so it won't take much to eliminate it entirely.
Or, alternatively, do nothing and enjoy the level of 'dumping' increasing every year because no one does anything about it. I've never been to Lake Michigan, but I'll bet it's much more interesting in its relatively natural state than a polluted one.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope your computer has wooden keys.
Data Point (Score:2)
If I did the math correctly the mass of the water in the great lakes is 50,000,000,000,000,000 (4.9E16) pounds, which means we'll need to a lot better than 22,000,000 (2.2E7) pounds per year if we're ever going to fill it up.
Simple solution (Score:2)