Garbage island

[Deleted]

I watched that during raid, and I couldn't be bothered looking for part 2, but most of that video seems to be ridiculing people who recylce and environmentalism in general. As opposed to making actual arguments backed up with real facts.

watching the whole thing would be a good move then.
They actually make some really compelling arguments.

[Deleted]

That episode was not really about the Garbage island ? At all !

edit: nvm im wrong :P

[Krolikn]

I love adding to it.

[Deleted]

not really, but simmilar. it was about earth having too much rubbish to deal with i think.

It was about new York circa 2000, having a wasteful attitude. Not really all that similar.

[artemishunter1]

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/tra...-garbage-patch

In the pacific ocean there is a stew of garbage collected by ocean currents from all around the world estimated twice the size of Texas. Made up of mostly plastic, a non biodegradable substance. Instead "Sunlight does eventually "photodegrade" the bonds in plastic polymers, reducing it to smaller and smaller pieces, but that just makes matters worse. The plastic still never goes away; it just becomes microscopic and may be eaten by tiny marine organisms, entering the food chain."
"This is bad for a couple of reasons. First, Bamford says, is plastic's "inherent toxicity": It often contains colorants and chemicals like bisphenol-A, which studies have linked to various environmental and health problems, and these toxins may leach out into the seawater. Plastic has also been shown to absorb pre-existing organic pollutants like PCBs from the surrounding seawater, which can enter the food chain — along with BPA and other inherent toxins"

Now i have never been a huge environmentalist, but after learning about this, I'm sad to know that this is going on and there's not much we can do to stop it. But maybe the answer is not what we can do but what we should not do, and thats continue to litter in the oceans. Eventually the waters will entangle a lot of the trash and spit it out, but it can't do that if more trash is going in then out.
I always try to recycle properly and i hope more people do to, for its a simple thing to do, and a simple thing not to litter.
What do u think of this? Do you think there is anything we can do?

Various countries have taken step not to dump litter on the ocean. At the beginning, people thought what dropped in the ocean would sink deep in the ocean and will have no problem.

[semaphore]

watching the whole thing would be a good move then.
They actually make some really compelling arguments.

Such as? And what evidence did they cite? I'm assuming that's all in part two.

[Deleted]

Such as? And what evidence did they cite? I'm assuming that's all in part two.

Part 3 also had something to add.

It is hard for me to summarize it for you, because i don´t know which aspect of recycling, your defending.

Do you like the savior of natural resources?
Do you like the financial gain ?

Just the fact that the united states has used 8 billion dollars on recycling should raise alarms, when the whole idea behind recycling is saving resources, not using them? it is really backwards.
It is significantly more harmful the the enviremoent to recycle paper, than it is to have a tree farm, for the purpose of paper production. not to mention all the added benefits of having a tree cycle going

of all the garbage the US produces total, only 3% of it comes from private households

Some people seem to think (my own experience) That the opposite of recycling is dumping the trash in the nature. I dont recycle, but i have never just villy nilly thrown anything on the ground.

[bekilrwale]

There was an Episode of Futurama about this.

First thing that came to my mind lol.

[Deleted]

Actually it will. If you send the garbage to recycling facilities it gets recycled. So from old plastic bags you get new ones which you can buy in supermarket. And as such, the garbage doesn't go in water anymore, it goes into new stuff. And when you throw said new stuff, it goes back into being recycled, and back to new.

You missed the entire point. All the gargbage in the sea is supposed to be at the garbage dumps, but for one reason or another some ends up in the sea. The same will happen if the garbage is supposed to go to recycling centers.

The garbage in the sea isn't escaping anywhere from the garbage dumps. It gets in the sea before it ever reaches the dump. And it will get in the sea before it reaches the recycling centers.

[Deleted]

First thing that came to my mind lol.

The episode was about a barge made in new york to transport garbage after a fake report, that stated we were running out of landfills.
A report that has been disputed by nearly all people. And is also what futurama made fun of.

"The Mobro 4000 was a barge made infamous in 1987 for hauling the same load of trash along the east coast of North America from New York to Belize and back until a way was found to dispose of the garbage. During this journey, local press often referred to the Mobro 4000 as the Gar-barge"

the episode had nothing to do with the problematic of people dumping trash in the oceans.

[davesurfer]

What I find interesting is they don't even know how big it is. In the end all we have is drawings, and nothing exact. How do we even know it exists in the size and scope they are speaking to?

Every time this topic comes up I try to find real pictures of it and I just can't find anything more that what I could create in a swimming pool

This reminds me of the poor Polar Bear picture Al Gore used, people should look into the truth of that picture

[Endeavor]

Isnt that island called England?

JOKES!

[Blitzc]

Wow, the last time I heard about this the island was only as large AS Texas. Now twice the size ...

[semaphore]

Part 3 also had something to add.

I can't bring myself to finish watching it. It's ridiculously sensationalist and blatantly biased, not to mention fallacious. They simply insist that reclying is bad, and then spend their entire time ridiculing environmentalists and attacking recyclilng advocates for supporting recycling. Without actually bothering to show why recycling is bad in the first place. Maybe they'll present that in part 3, but I frankly can't be bothered.

Also the only "expert" they seem to be showing is a professor of economics. I mean, some of his arguments were esentially "we can dig more landfills!" Which pretty much misses the entire point of what horrifies environmentalists.

Just the fact that the united states has used 8 billion dollars on recycling should raise alarms, when the whole idea behind recycling is saving resources, not using them? it is really backwards.

That's an extremely simplistic view that frankly makes no sense at all. Firstly, spending $8 billion on recycling is nothing to be alarmed about when the United Stats has a GDP of $14.59 [/i]trillion[//i]. Secondly, doing anything requries resources, the point of recycling is to reduce overall resource usage. It is retarded to attack recycling on the grounds that "it uses resources".

It is significantly more harmful the the enviremoent to recycle paper, than it is to have a tree farm, for the purpose of paper production. not to mention all the added benefits of having a tree cycle going

What evidence do you have for this?

of all the garbage the US produces total, only 3% of it comes from private households

Again, what evidence do you have for this? Other than that you just read it from a youtube comment?

---------- Post added 2012-04-26 at 03:56 PM ----------

What I find interesting is they don't even know how big it is. In the end all we have is drawings, and nothing exact. How do we even know it exists in the size and scope they are speaking to?

That's because it all depends on how you're defining the "island" in terms of the concentration of plastic materials.

[Deleted]

I can't bring myself to finish watching it. It's ridiculously sensationalist and blatantly biased, not to mention fallacious. They simply insist that reclying is bad, and then spend their entire time ridiculing environmentalists and attacking recyclilng advocates for supporting recycling. Without actually bothering to show why recycling is bad in the first place.

Also the only "expert" they seem to be showing is a professor of economics. I mean, some of his arguments were esentially "we can dig more landfills!" Which pretty much misses the entire point of what horrifies environmentalists.




That's an extremely simplistic view that frankly makes no sense at all. Firstly, spending $8 billion on recycling is nothing to be alarmed about when the United Stats has a GDP of $14.59 [/i]trillion[//i]. Secondly, doing anything requries resources, the point of recycling is to reduce overall resource usage. It is retarded to attack recycling on the grounds that "it uses resources".



What evidence do you have for this?



Again, what evidence do you have for this? Other than that you just read it from a youtube comment?

I was merely trying to summerize the penn and teller show for you, and what arguments they used.
i am not going to spend hours upon hours looking for the facts about recycling they used. i even quite clearly stated the only part of the thread which was based on my opinion.

i live in Denmark, we dont recycle things unless its proven to be effective. Something the united states could learn a thing or two from.
So tell me, why recycle everything? You can get fined if you dont recycle in the united states. Yet, the people have to bear the burden of proof. Now thats just silly in my opinion.

And just as a last note. Please grow up and stop calling things retarded. You might not agree, but calling it retarded is just a waste of time.
Lets just assume, the 8 billion number mentioned, is the net loss compared to not recycling. and the agument becomes quite "unretarded"
Could the 8 billion have been used to clean the ocean instead of sorting your plastic from your linen ?

I am not saying all recycling is bad. Alumium cans, or glass bottles for example are greatly beneficial to recycle.
but Recycling one ton of plastic bags costs $4,000. The recycled product can be sold for $32.
http://www.cleanair.org/Waste/wasteFacts.html#_ednref6

When is it enough ? Recycling for the sake of recycling is as wasteful as something can get. All the money, all the transporting, all the time used, for no gain. Such a shame

[Reeve]

Interesting photo:



The reason you can't find a good picture of the scope of the thing is that it's mostly low density particulates dissolved in the water, and not one giant continuous mass of garbage the way that people think of it.

[Xexec]

You missed the entire point. All the gargbage in the sea is supposed to be at the garbage dumps, but for one reason or another some ends up in the sea. The same will happen if the garbage is supposed to go to recycling centers.

The garbage in the sea isn't escaping anywhere from the garbage dumps. It gets in the sea before it ever reaches the dump. And it will get in the sea before it reaches the recycling centers.

Exactly. The part about garbage and recycling was me talking, and weather or not that has anything to do with the island of garbage we are building, i felt it went along with the topic. I think most of the trash comes from ordinary people from all around the world littering, cause i hope its not our garbage/recycling companies dumping all our filth in the oceans.



Its not an island above the water that you can walk across, but it can very well be heading that way. Its like a chunky soup filled with trash, mainly plastics, thats the reason there is no clear satellite images. As well as because its a fluid system that moves constantly, also making it hard to predict its true size, but the fact remains that huge amounts of man-made debris accumulate there.

[BLCalliente]

I thought this topic was about Staten Island. :P

Shouldn't laugh though. They turned a giant mountain of trash into a ski hill around here..

Is it Mount Brighton?

[Liagala]

If only marine life could evolve to consume plastics.

Not marine life, but... http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/this-cou...154207424.html

[BLCalliente]

watching the whole thing would be a good move then.
They actually make some really compelling arguments.

What are the compelling arguments they make? I didn't hear any.