Where are they now...... what to do with the trash???

[AdriftAtSea]

Food is pretty much kosher to toss overboard, since the fish, birds, and other sea life will more than likely eat it. :)

According to MARPOL though, inside the three-mile limit, it is illegal.  Three-to-twelve miles off-shore it should be small pieces, an inch in size or smaller.  Past twelve miles... just dump the food overboard... unless you've got swimmers in the water. :) 

I don't think it would be a good idea to attract sharks when you've got people in the water. :)

[Auspicious]

Thanks for the link to the video. Very disturbing but useful to know. Thank you.

[Lynx]

When you are away from harbors or crowded spots you can toss food overboard. It is also kosher to put your dirty dishes overboard in a mesh bag overnight and clean the next day.

[Captain Smollett]

Zen, thanks for posting that link.  They are doing some important work, and the more word that gets out on that the better.

What I'm going to post is meant to devalue neither the research nor the message of that clip.  But I would urge a word of caution in how we read it.  Part of my objection arises from a 20 year career as a professional scientist/researcher and the push to be "correct" rather than merely convenient.

With that, I offer the following questions/comments:

• I was quite struck by the visual of the plastic floating in the sample bottle.  But, I have to ask, just how much sea, ie, what volume of water, did they sieve to extract THAT MUCH plastic?  That's a VERY important question, as it goes to 'concentration' of the plastic.  Sure, they present a nice visual, and it was probably calculated for maximum emotional impact, but they conveniently leave out the all important NUMBERS that make something SCIENCE.
• They mention their studies show 6x more plastic than zoo plankton.  WOW, that's big.  That's a global type number.  Huge.  My question is have they shown they don't have a sampling bias in their experimental technique - is there 6x more plastic than plankton in the sea water or is that an artifact of their experiment?
• LIfetime of the plastic in the water.  Kurt is correct - plastics don't last as long in environments where they are exposed to sun light (unlike, say, being buried in a landfill).  Plastics floating on or near the water's surface will have a MUCH lower half life than the (incorrect) conventional wisdom of thousands of years suggests.  Does their research explore this?  What is the time profile of their results?  The same throughout the year, spikes, etc?  Remember, the statistics of a single number are meaningless.
• Back to the 6x more plastic than zoo plankton for a sec.  Is there THAT MUCH plastic, or has there been a reduction of the amount of zoo plankton?  Both?  A relative comparison of one to the other is cute, but does NOTHING to point toward causality.

I bring this up for several reasons.  One, this work has been done by "environmental scientists," and I know from direct experience of both working with some and teaching some, that the rigor of "objective science" in this field is often lacking.  I'm not saying this is so with these guys, and I recognize this is just a clip on YouTube, but for what it is worth...

This Clip on YouTube is NOT science.

It makes a powerful statement; it presents a strong visual and emotional impact.  The point - stop polluting - is just as valid no matter what the answers to my questions are.  But I was trained to look at work like this and ask hard, critical questions because "truth" does matter at some point.

Fair Winds.

[CapnK]

I think/thought of those things too, John. We see 'funny science' results all too often these days. We live in the era of the hard sell, I guess. You and I have discussed this many times in the past few years.

That said, what keeps coming back to me is that if there is that much plastic in any part of the ocean that can be dredged up in a mile or two, it's too much.

They report other results in their blog, BTW. A dredge at depth - maybe 30 meters IIRC, basically turned up nothing. Another entry talks of a ball of netting nearly 3' in diameter that would submerge for minutes at the slightest ripple, but come back up slowly after several minutes. Off Los Angeles, after a big rainstorm, they didn't see quite the result they saw in the Gyre. Still, too much.

Ripped from the IMO site:
Time taken for objects to dissolve at sea

• Paper bus ticket           2-4 weeks
• Cotton cloth              1-5 months
• Rope                         3-14 months
• Woollen cloth             1 year
• Painted wood               13 years
• Tin can                        100 years
• Aluminium can           200-500 years
• Plastic bottle              450 years

Admittedly, this list comes from an organization that, at its heart, needs things to be some measure of worse than what they are. :) I'm aware of that. However, a couple of these substances I know I have seen at dates similar to what are given, so that lends some credence to the list. If they are exaggerating the time it takes a plastic bottle to disintegrate by a factor of 5, that means the thing is still floating around out there for what, 85 years +/-? Much longer than I'd expected.

I know how fast plastics break down on my boat, and in the maritime environment in general. It's way faster than that, for things to get to a point where they are unusable, or considered untrustworthy to perform their function. A bleach bottle as a bail bucket might last two years, exposed to the sun constantly.

But once it breaks into the crumbly pieces, well after I am done with it, it's around a lot longer.

That is what struck me - those little pieces, the ones that don't sink, that'll be floating for another 50 years maybe. Wow.

[CharlieJ]

There was a thread a while ago on this subject on the Cruiserlog forum ( out of Australia I believe)

Here's the link-
http://www.cruiserlog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4291

And here's a link to a quite interesting article about the "garbage patch" out in the Pacific that I referenced-

http://beachcombersalert.org/RubberDuckies.html

[Zen]

Valid point(s) !
The larger point is that we are polluting too much, we have way to much packaging and waste that ends up in the oceans. The ocean is full of life, including ours when you think on it. We should not be using the ocean as the final dump for our un-harmonious consumer life style.  If we want to have some prestine places in the world, where we can sail, swim, eat from, play in. we need to take steps now. Not wait until the film is completly true. Even if it is not that bad, why wait until it is to change the problem. So even us on our sailfar boats make a difference, small, like our boats, but... that is still one less piece of plastic, can, bottle, out there. The Great Wall was built one rock at at time.

Zen, thanks for posting that link.  They are doing some important work, and the more word that gets out on that the better.

What I'm going to post is meant to devalue neither the research nor the message of that clip.  But I would urge a word of caution in how we read it.  Part of my objection arises from a 20 year career as a professional scientist/researcher and the push to be "correct" rather than merely convenient.

With that, I offer the following questions/comments:

• I was quite struck by the visual of the plastic floating in the sample bottle.  But, I have to ask, just how much sea, ie, what volume of water, did they sieve to extract THAT MUCH plastic?  That's a VERY important question, as it goes to 'concentration' of the plastic.  Sure, they present a nice visual, and it was probably calculated for maximum emotional impact, but they conveniently leave out the all important NUMBERS that make something SCIENCE.
• They mention their studies show 6x more plastic than zoo plankton.  WOW, that's big.  That's a global type number.  Huge.  My question is have they shown they don't have a sampling bias in their experimental technique - is there 6x more plastic than plankton in the sea water or is that an artifact of their experiment?
• LIfetime of the plastic in the water.  Kurt is correct - plastics don't last as long in environments where they are exposed to sun light (unlike, say, being buried in a landfill).  Plastics floating on or near the water's surface will have a MUCH lower half life than the (incorrect) conventional wisdom of thousands of years suggests.  Does their research explore this?  What is the time profile of their results?  The same throughout the year, spikes, etc?  Remember, the statistics of a single number are meaningless.
• Back to the 6x more plastic than zoo plankton for a sec.  Is there THAT MUCH plastic, or has there been a reduction of the amount of zoo plankton?  Both?  A relative comparison of one to the other is cute, but does NOTHING to point toward causality.

I bring this up for several reasons.  One, this work has been done by "environmental scientists," and I know from direct experience of both working with some and teaching some, that the rigor of "objective science" in this field is often lacking.  I'm not saying this is so with these guys, and I recognize this is just a clip on YouTube, but for what it is worth...

This Clip on YouTube is NOT science.

It makes a powerful statement; it presents a strong visual and emotional impact.  The point - stop polluting - is just as valid no matter what the answers to my questions are.  But I was trained to look at work like this and ask hard, critical questions because "truth" does matter at some point.

Fair Winds.

[Captain Smollett]

The larger point is that we are polluting too much, we have way to much packaging and waste that ends up in the oceans. The ocean is full of life, including ours when you think on it. We should not be using the ocean as the final dump for our un-harmonious consumer life style.  If we want to have some prestine places in the world, where we can sail, swim, eat from, play in. we need to take steps now. Not wait until the film is completly true. Even if it is not that bad, why wait until it is to change the problem. So even us on our sailfar boats make a difference, small, like our boats, but... that is still one less piece of plastic, can, bottle, out there. The Great Wall was built one rock at at time.

Just to be clear, I agree 100%.  Any pollution or any waste is TOO MUCH.

Kurt, I too was really struck by the 'pellets' of plastic that so resemble the zoo plankton.  That alone should give anyone pause about this stuff.  That and the albatrose chick on Midway that died because it had a shampoo bottle cap in its stomach...just wow.

We talk about the sailfar spirit in terms of the trade-off between small-boat advantages against convenience.  I think, it is my opinion, that this video at the very least shows what happens when convenience wins.  Whatever else we do as small boat sailors, I think it is important for us to show we really DO have a different attitude than "waste, consume, pollute, if it suits ME."

[Zen]

Grog for the Capt!!  ;D

[AdriftAtSea]

Well said Capn Smollet.

Personally, I think that most small boat sailors are far more conscious, putting aside CapnK's dreadful lapse, of the environment and our impact on it.  ;)

Fortunately, a lot of companies are beginning to see the problems caused by excessive packaging, and are cutting down on package size.  The latest software and hardware packages I've gotten for my computer were quite different than the previous versions...much smaller and much less material involved.

For instance—the iPod used to come in a package that was about six inches on a side... a cube.  The most recent iPod package I have seen is maybe 1.25" x 5" x 3.5" or so. The exterior package was all paper-based, and much of it looked like recycled materials. There was a lot less plastic in the packaging than previously seen. Now, if all the other companies would just follow suite.

[Auspicious]

We all seem to be in pretty violent agreement here. <grin>

I see an analogy with the global warming debate. If we put half the energy of the debate into reducing our output we would make a real dent in the production of CO2 and noxious gases. Less pollution is inherently good, regardless of global warming truth and causalities.

So even though I moan about the weight of my four-stroke outboard every time I heave it up onto the rail, it does spit less bad stuff out than an equivalent power two-stroke. Of course if I rowed more often I'd produce yet less bad stuff and be healthier besides.

The decomposition times listed above are longer than I expected for organics. One issue is whether there are adverse affects from the presence of an object during decomposition. We operate on the basis of an assumption that glass and metal are okay while plastic is not. Is that true? I don't know if there is another ocean crossing in my future, but if there is I may rethink what goes over the side.

I also wonder if there are efforts already underway to bring improved trash management and recycling to the third world, particularly those bits of it (like the Bahamas) from which we gain so much pleasure directly and vicariously. If there are such efforts, I'd like to know what I/we can do to support them.

[Captain Smollett]

The decomposition times listed above are longer than I expected for organics. One issue is whether there are adverse affects from the presence of an object during decomposition. We operate on the basis of an assumption that glass and metal are okay while plastic is not. Is that true? I don't know if there is another ocean crossing in my future, but if there is I may rethink what goes over the side.

With the usual qualifier "it depends," (mostly on degree I think), I think we can say iron based cans and glass are okay.  We can think of glass simply as fused sand, or alternatively, sand as finely broken glass.  Same stuff.

Iron is a necessary mineral for life, and iron salts (ores) abound in the earth's crust.  So, I would assert tossing the iron cans overboard would have no harmful effect.

Paper is wood, a food item for many organisms, so I see no negative ecological impact to putting paper back into the ecosystem.

Interestingly enough, and just to throw this out there, we have such a 'reaction' to petroleum based products as 'pollution.'  While again I emphasize there is an issue of degree, I did a consulting project a few years ago in which I had to settle a dispute between two companies on the degree to which "mineral oil" could possibly be naturally occuring in a plant oil extract (versus a contaminate added by one of the companies).  Mineral oil is chemically similar to diesel fuel, but you might be surprised at how much of this is part of the natural environment - many plants (hickory, for but one example) contain "mineral oils" in the nut shells, and some plants even EMIT mineral oils into the atmosphere.

So, when we talk of the decomposition of plastic resulting in small "petroleum" hydrocarbons, we DO have to be a bit careful; this is not as "unnatural" as we are often attempted to be led to believe.  The issues might be levels and locations, but it is not as "absolute" in badness as the politcal wing of "environmentalism" pushes.

Again, this in no way is meant as an excuse for "pollution."  What galls me is that in the past few years there has been tremendous research and progress into the recycling of plastics (North Sails anyone??), so the wholesale dumping of these materials is even less necessary than it once was.

I fear the issue is, and always will be, those that just don't care about anything other than their own immediate wants or perceived needs.  Of course, I may be somewhat hypocritical at this time, as all the needless, wasted plastic packaging that came with the Christmas gifts given to my children by my family....

[CharlieJ]

and all the needless wasted petroleum to MAKE that needless wasted plastic.

And just why in the heck do small things like batteries have to be encased in plastic suitable for armor plating??? I have on occasion taken a package out to the shop and CUT IT OPEN WITH  A BANDSAW to get the product out!!!

In fact,we were given a pair of small LED flashlights for Christmas by Laura's son. THAT package had to be cut open using the bandsaw- the plastic was too tough for my Leatherman serrated blade!!

[Auspicious]

Packaging is truly a frustration. I shan't rant on the subject, but it does make me nuts sometimes. I saw an ad on TV last night for a special purpose cutter just for plastic packaging!

The packaging for batteries (in large quantity) at Costco is a wrap of cardboard and a cellophane cover. You can unwrap it with a thumbnail. Much better. In fact, I think I'll write them a fan letter.

[AdriftAtSea]

Be aware that some "paper" products aren't wood-based, or at least contain some non-cellulose fiber materials in them.  Many paper plates are actually laminates that have a thin film of plastic on them, and as such, should not be thrown overboard, but packed and disposed of on land. 

As Capn Smollett has pointed out glass and sand are very much the same thing in different forms, and tin cans are probably less dangerous to the environment than many other forms of packaging. 

As for the new modern "bubble" packaging that is nearly indestructible... the stuff is designed to fit the needs of the retailer, not the consumer.  It showcases the merchandise quite well but is very difficult to open, so theft is much less of a problem.  The fact that end users can get injured trying to open is besides the point and of little concern to the manufacturer or retailer.

[CapnK]

Since at least one person felt compelled enough to disparage me publicly :-\ because of this thread, what follows here is a response at length with regards to the environment and my relationship to it. I post this in order that I might be understood better, and not have misconceptions out there about who or what I am. Personally, it's disappointing to me that I'd even have to do this, but as the founder of this website, it now seems a necessity that I state definitively my stance in regards to the topic of our environment. I would have thought that prior postings of mine had made this clear; evidently, they were not clear enough for some.

Regarding plastics in this thread specifically: I did not do what I've done out of grossly negligent 'non-concern' for our planet; indeed, the reality was quite the opposite, as was written before for all to see. My reasoning for shredding plastic trash was to make it get back to it's constituent elements quicker, because, in my admitted ignorance, I considered that the better alternative to stowing it in a hole land-side for some future generation to deal with. That I was uninformed about the length of time it takes that process to happen, that would be my sin.

Hardly, I think, a reason to be pilloried, yet there it is.

Actually, and quite contrary to the prior subtle accusation, I'm no ecological troll. In fact and in reality, I'm sure that I live within one of the lightest ecological 'footprints' possible in our culture. I'd readily wager that it is quite a bit smaller than most folks, here or anywhere. Also, in composing this, I've realized that I pretty much *live* recycling. :)

I produce 2-3 grocery store bags of trash per week (say 2-3 cubic feet). That's less than 20% of the amount produced by an average American, from what I've read.
I live only on my boat, and do not maintain a separate residence with it's own consuming overhead.
I drive as little as possible, and in an older car that I bought used (1991, so it does have emission controls). I buy old cars figuring that the pollution produced from an older engine is much less than the pollution generated from the process of making a new car for me. Also, I don't like promoting the thought process that allows continued production of new cars for purchase at a whim.
I frequently bike instead of driving, when the trip is within reasonable range.
My boat is an older, much used boat - 'recycled', if you will. Just as with cars, by 'recycling' an older boat instead of buying a new vessel, I lessen the ecological impact of both my existence and choices.

I've been environmentally aware since I was much, much younger, growing up in relative 'country'. I read Muir and Thoreau and more, and saw the sense of what they wrote when I was in my early teens. I have always lived as much as possible in a manner of harmony with the world around me.
I've organized and done several long-distance kayaking expeditions to promote awareness of the effects of pollutions on our rivers, using them as a method to raise money for agencies like The Nature Conservancy, while simultaneously promoting their efforts through print, radio, and TV press conferences held along the route.*
I've contributed money and time to groups and events which protect and preserve our natural resources.
I just recently gave a free website - design, updates and maintenance, and hosting - to a group of people that were trying to stop the construction of a commercial marina on the banks of a local, undeveloped river. And so on.

I did buy some electronics recently - a new computer, 4 months ago, but it's a business tool, and the prior laptop was a 2001 model, getting long in the tooth for the complicated graphic work I do almost daily. I still have the box the new one came in, in my storage unit, and will keep it for the lifetime of the computer, in case I need a box for it. My mp3 player is a 2001-vintage Archos, my cell phone is over 2 years old, and would be older, if they hadn't made me go to a digital model when the network switched over. The prior phone I had for longer than 5 years. My camera is 5-6 years old. I don't consume lightly, in other words.

Last, and probably the biggest thing I feel that I personally could do (and in full understanding that it is a highly personal choice, and most certainly not one that I judge other people on or by): I've never reproduced, and will not do so. :) This was a decision I made for myself a long, long time ago. My reasons for this at their most basic are that I think that the world would be a better place with less people on it, and this is just one other way I can do my part, by making at least one less consumer of the worlds resources.

I could go on, but this should be enough to reasonably clear things up.

What other people choose to do with their lives is not an overriding concern of mine, and I do my best not to fault others for their choices.

I've learned that many people will do as they do, not as they say, but choose to feel righteous just for having said the saying part. That boggles me.

Of course, I do wish that everyone would live mindfully and harmoniously with the environment of the little blue planet around them. I do what I personally can to be that way, yet I realize that there are some things I may wish which I don't have the power to control. That which I do have power over, I do my best with. We all have choices in our lives that we could make in order to effectively further the lifetime of our planet.

So there it is, that's who CapnK is, in his relationship to the environment around all of us. I hope that's good enough for you - it's good enough for me, at least. :)

-----------
*(I'd be remiss at this point if I didn't mention some sponsors who really helped our efforts on those expeditions. Patagonia, Perception/Aquaterra, Wilderness Medical, Quest Outfitters, and SunCom were all principal sponsors in what we did for our rivers, and I can never thank them enough.)

[Captain Smollett]

glass and sand are very much the same thing in different forms

Sorry to be pedantic, but if you are going to simply reiterate what I said, say it right.  Glass and sand are NOT different forms, they are the SAME THING.  Silicon dioxide, +/- some impurities.  The only significant difference is particle size, which is a PHYSICAL property, not one of composition (ie, a chemical property).

As for paper vs composites, I meant what I said when I said PAPER.  If I had meant composites, that's what I would have said.  PAPER is wood.

Okay, go ahead.  Blast into me now ...   ::)

[AdriftAtSea]

Capn Smollett-

I did say it right.  By forms I meant physical, not chemical makeup.  If I had meant chemical properties, I would have said so.  The word composition does not appear anywhere in my previous post....  ::)

Just in case you don't understand:

Def: Form (Lat. forma Eng. mould), refers to the external three-dimensional outline, appearance or configuration of some thing - in contrast to the matter or content or substance of which it is composed (compare with shape).

glass and sand are very much the same thing in different forms

Sorry to be pedantic, but if you are going to simply reiterate what I said, say it right.  Glass and sand are NOT different forms, they are the SAME THING.  Silicon dioxide, +/- some impurities.  The only significant difference is particle size, which is a PHYSICAL property, not one of composition (ie, a chemical property).

My point, which you obviously missed, is that many things that may be mistaken for paper are actually either composites or plastic, and that one should be cautious about throwing "paper" products overboard, when in reality they may not, in fact, be paper.  ::)

As for paper vs composites, I meant what I said when I said PAPER.  If I had meant composites, that's what I would have said.  PAPER is wood.

Okay, go ahead.  Blast into me now ...   ::)

[Captain Smollett]

Dan, I don't think I miss your point.  What I miss is the point of your posting what I said again, and adding tangential information that only confuses the issue.

On another note, Kurt, I'm sorry you felt the need to justify yourself on this board.  I think I can speak for at least some of the others and say we know who you are.  You mentioned the WHY of what you thought which was quite reasonable.

Let's face it, guys, the 'conventional' wisdom on all this stuff changes as we (as a race) learn more.  I'll use a parallel example.  These days, clinical research very clearly shows that infant mortality decreases when babies are put to bed on their backs - hence the "Back To Sleep" campaign to educate parents.

That was not always the case.  About thirty years ago, it was believed 'better' to put babies to sleep on their stomachs.  It is arguable that this advice actually increased infant mortality. I have one family member who lost a child to SIDS, in the 1970's, and he clearly remembers being 'instructed' to put the child down on the tummy.  He carries an noticable amount of guilt now, because NOW, with 20-20 hindsight, he knows that was NOT the best approach.

What is important is that we keep our minds open to learning new things - to not always THINK we know everything and that the world (and our place in it) is static.  Albert Einstein was fond of saying that when you think you know something, all understanding stops.  So, whether we are talking about the evolution of knowledge in regards to SIDS or a change in understanding on the RELATIVE rates of plastic decomposition in the sea vs in a landfill, the important part is that we (as a species AND as individuals) allow our knowledge to evolve.

Before we get all super-sanctimonious about this plastic stuff, we MUST admit at least the POSSIBILITY that we are still only seeing it in one dimension.  Who knows, we MIGHT find in another 20 years of research that it is actually BENEFICIAL to the ocean's ecosystem in ways we cannot fathom right now.  Okay, that's a stretch, and I doubt it myself, but it COULD BE.  Far far stranger things have happened in man's scientific development in the past 3,000 years.

I'll close with this as an example to ponder.  The hypothesis of plate tectonics in geology was once loudly ridiculed by the scientific community when it was first proposed as being pseudoscience rather than science.  Now it is THE accepted foundational theory of many geological processes. 

Science and understanding change over time.  Blasting someone, anyone, for being willing to learn something new about the world, and alter their actions based on that (a very big deal), seems to me somewhat disingenuous at best.

[Lost Lake]

Since at least one person felt compelled enough to disparage me publicly :-\ because of this thread, what follows here is a response at length with regards to the environment and my relationship to it.

I DIDN'T DO IT!!  :D

For the record, I started this thread innocently enough, CapnK exposed a minor ignorance he held, and I stated that was not my intent.

I believe CapnK made an honest mistake, and honest evaluation and an honest redirection. Grog to you sir!!

I don't think anyone should belittle a person with these fine qualities. Lashes to whoever prematurely judged CapnK.

Now let's move on. I've got cans to dispose of!!! :)