SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Plastics found in stomachs of deepest sea creatures
Animals from the deepest places on Earth have been found with plastic in their stomachs, confirming fears that manmade fibres have contaminated the most remote places on the planet.
The study, led by academics at Newcastle University, found animals from trenches across the Pacific Ocean were contaminated with fibres that probably originated from plastic bottles, packaging and synthetic clothes.
Dr Alan Jamieson, who led the study, said the findings were startling and proved that nowhere on the planet was free from plastics pollution. "There is now no doubt that plastics pollution is so pervasive that nowhere – no matter how remote – is immune," he said.
Evidence of the scale of plastic pollution has been growing in recent months. Earlier this year scientists found plastic in 83% of global tapwater samples, while other studies have found plastic in rock salt and fish. Humans have produced an estimated 8.3bn tonnes of plastic since the 1950s and scientists said it risked near permanent contamination of the planet.
Also at Newcastle University.
(Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Saturday November 18 2017, @06:50PM (5 children)
If its fibers, you can bet it is polyester and nylon and rayon, etc cloths. Not plastic bottles. They don't disintegrate into fibers.
You can also bet that in there was a great deal of cotton and cellulose that they didn't bother to report.
Not to mention shreded wood, ash, soot, pumice, cement dust, and petroleum.
I'd also bet the study harmed more fish than were harmed by the fibers.
Humans are unbelievably good at assuming every molecule of evidence of their existence is somehow devastating to the planet. Usually while sitting around in their polyester shirts typing on plastic keys on a mostly non-recyclable product while castigating every other human on earth, and obliquely suggesting all such products should be outlawed so we can go back to devastating our forests and lands cutting more cellulose and raising more cotton.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @06:55PM
I see none of this hyperbole you mention. I do however see campaigns to reduce waste and transition to more environmentally friendly products. No one that I've ever met, or even seen rant on the net, says that every plastic product must be done away with.
But hey, you're frojack, common sense isn't really your thing.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday November 18 2017, @07:07PM (3 children)
Nice job illustrating my point.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday November 18 2017, @07:35PM (2 children)
Even nicer job taking the bait and illustrating mine.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday November 18 2017, @07:41PM
What was your point, forjack? That you do not understand celluose? Or did some of the plastic you tacked to the side of the shed find its way into the Marianas Trench, and you feel terribly responsible?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Saturday November 18 2017, @08:10PM
Yeh, I'll take your bait because I'm bored. And the planet is so screwed that I've lost the will to find anything more fulfilling to do with my time right now.
Mr. A. C.'s already got this hyperbolic bit well covered.
Yeah, I said we're all guilty. There's no "we" without "me".
I was castigating myself too. See above.
No need to devastate our forests and natural lands if we can solve the other little problem of massive overpopulation by our own species.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?