Why microplastic debris may be the next big threat to our seas

[rangerrebew]

Why microplastic debris may be the next big threat to our seas
June 9, 2017
 

Plastic, metal, rubber and paper are some of the materials that pollute the world's oceans, often in the form of soda cans, cigarette butts, plastic bags and bottles, and fishing gear.

Environmental and marine science specialists call it "marine debris," which, simply put, means anything in the ocean that wasn't put there by nature.

Recently, though, a new type of trash—microplastics—has become a focus for marine researchers, and they fear the impact of this type of debris may be especially dire.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-microplastic-debris-big-threat-seas.html#jCp

[driftdiver]

Those folks are sure afraid of a lot.

[Oceander]

Those folks are sure afraid of a lot.

Microplastic debris is something to be concerned about.  The difference between larger sized garbage and microplastic is a little like the difference between the sand in the Sahara and the dust on the Moon; both are irritants and can cause surface damage to things they hit, but Moon dust gets into everything and is extremely destructive. 

[driftdiver]

Have you ever been in the ocean?

[Oceander]

Have you ever been in the ocean?

Have you?

[driftdiver]

Have you?

Judging from the name I use, yes.  Drift diving

[Oceander]

Judging from the name I use, yes.  Drift diving

Then maybe I just need to 'splain more slowly:  microplastic debris gets into everything in terms of the amount that is consumed by organisms, including, as the article points out, a great deal of small organisms at the base of the food chain.  That plastic does not contribute energy or other resources to the organisms that ingest it, which means that it imperils their survival; that, in turn, imperils the food chain. 

I'm sorry I used a simile in a less than first-grade didactic manner. 

[driftdiver]

Then maybe I just need to 'splain more slowly:  microplastic debris gets into everything in terms of the amount that is consumed by organisms, including, as the article points out, a great deal of small organisms at the base of the food chain.  That plastic does not contribute energy or other resources to the organisms that ingest it, which means that it imperils their survival; that, in turn, imperils the food chain. 

I'm sorry I used a simile in a less than first-grade didactic manner.

Well now you're just being an bleep

[Oceander]

Well now you're just being an bleep

Maybe so, but not without a reason.  Did you read the article at all?

[driftdiver]

Maybe so, but not without a reason.  Did you read the article at all?

Sure I read it.  A lot of may and might and maybes.  If this was a problem. It would already be evident.

No this is propaganda targets at the simpleminded.  Like you

[Oceander]

Sure I read it.  A lot of may and might and maybes.  If this was a problem. It would already be evident.

No this is propaganda targets at the simpleminded.  Like you

Just because it hasn't crashed the food chain yet doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Not every idea had by an environmentalist is wrong for that fact alone. 

[Smokin Joe]

Just because it hasn't crashed the food chain yet doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Not every idea had by an environmentalist is wrong for that fact alone.

Here is what I see:

Still, both researchers stress that extensive studies are needed to better understand the reach and impact of microplastics.

(Don't panic completely yet, we have to spend lots of money and days at the beach first)

"COAST has supported a number of projects investigating the abundance of microplastics in California coastal habitats, how they behave in marine systems, and what happens when marine animals ingest them," Kamer says of her organization's ongoing efforts.

"The results of this research will help California continue to lead the way in protecting our valuable marine and coastal resources."

If you dump the money into our research, we'll be the leaders and then people can panic while quoting research from California. (Not to mention more things to regulate and tax).

[Oceander]

As you wish.  However, even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.  This is something worth putting some research funds into. 

[Cripplecreek]

Just because it hasn't crashed the food chain yet doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Not every idea had by an environmentalist is wrong for that fact alone.

Its like the geniuses who say the asian carp will be a great economic boom for the great lakes or how the zebra mussels are turning lake Michigan into a beautiful pool water blue paradise.

I had some simpleton at TOS tell me that the sea lamprey had been wiped out in the great lakes and don't cost a dime anymore. My state of Michigan spends some 20 million dollars per year to control them.

[Smokin Joe]

As you wish.  However, even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.  This is something worth putting some research funds into.

Unfortunately it follows the accepted pattern of generate panic, get more funding, generate more panic,...lather rinse repeat, and that's how we got the UN ballyhooing about climate change while people make a very good living off of bad models.
I am all for good research, but pushing the panic button sends up an immediate red flag with me.

If individual organisms ingest so much microplastic debris they die, they become sediment and should have the debris trapped. If scavengers like crabs eat the organisms' remains, it stands to reason the crabs will have high debris levels, too, because they are already concentrated in the scavengers' food source, and those crabs may die, too. If that means that chemicals bound to (adsorbed by) or absorbed by the plastics are buried in sediment, too, those have equally been removed from the food chain. If, somehow, those chemicals are being concentrated in the portion of organisms humans consume, that might be cause for concern.

I doubt humans are eating those small crabs. My concerns would be:
1: are these materials entering the human food chain. (Likely not. We don't eat most shorebirds, we do not eat the viscera of most crabs or fish). Other filter feeders may be of concern (Shellfish).
2: Are these materials so negatively impacting populations of organisms that they are disrupting the food chain, or is this a littoral phenomenon confined to specific areas? I can see where there might be higher concentrations of this type of debris in nearshore areas which get significant human traffic, and even down (longshore) current from them, but is this concentration evenly dispersed or more confined to those high traffic areas?

If the latter, long term disruption of the food chain is less likely, as populations expanding from low traffic areas would move into the high traffic areas, while the microfragmental plastics would be bound in the carcasses of those organisms which had succumbed to excessive ingestion.

The obvious reason for plastics (and metal) containers on beaches is the reduction in injuries due to broken glass container bits in the sand. Both containers are resistant to fracture, although anything can be ground up by abrasion in the surf, which is where I presume most of this debris originates, and why it is so small.
Unfortunately, pack it in/pack it out policies are only as effective as the people who conform to them. There are a lot of litterbugs out there.

I wouldn't panic quite yet, and it seems so many articles are written to induce just that reaction.

[bigheadfred]

http://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/

Additional.

I remember a story some years back about how flip-flops were a worldwide ocean pollution menace. People were doing cottage industries from flung flip flops.

[Oceander]

Unfortunately it follows the accepted pattern of generate panic, get more funding, generate more panic,...lather rinse repeat, and that's how we got the UN ballyhooing about climate change while people make a very good living off of bad models.
I am all for good research, but pushing the panic button sends up an immediate red flag with me.

If individual organisms ingest so much microplastic debris they die, they become sediment and should have the debris trapped. If scavengers like crabs eat the organisms' remains, it stands to reason the crabs will have high debris levels, too, because they are already concentrated in the scavengers' food source, and those crabs may die, too. If that means that chemicals bound to (adsorbed by) or absorbed by the plastics are buried in sediment, too, those have equally been removed from the food chain. If, somehow, those chemicals are being concentrated in the portion of organisms humans consume, that might be cause for concern.

I doubt humans are eating those small crabs. My concerns would be:
1: are these materials entering the human food chain. (Likely not. We don't eat most shorebirds, we do not eat the viscera of most crabs or fish). Other filter feeders may be of concern (Shellfish).
2: Are these materials so negatively impacting populations of organisms that they are disrupting the food chain, or is this a littoral phenomenon confined to specific areas? I can see where there might be higher concentrations of this type of debris in nearshore areas which get significant human traffic, and even down (longshore) current from them, but is this concentration evenly dispersed or more confined to those high traffic areas?

If the latter, long term disruption of the food chain is less likely, as populations expanding from low traffic areas would move into the high traffic areas, while the microfragmental plastics would be bound in the carcasses of those organisms which had succumbed to excessive ingestion.

The obvious reason for plastics (and metal) containers on beaches is the reduction in injuries due to broken glass container bits in the sand. Both containers are resistant to fracture, although anything can be ground up by abrasion in the surf, which is where I presume most of this debris originates, and why it is so small.
Unfortunately, pack it in/pack it out policies are only as effective as the people who conform to them. There are a lot of litterbugs out there.

I wouldn't panic quite yet, and it seems so many articles are written to induce just that reaction.

As you wish.  I'm not panicking, simply stating that the authors make some good points and that since studies of this nature are very likely to take a long time, that now is a reasonable time to start doing so. 

Pavlovian responses, pro or con, belong to liberals; the rest of us should consider on the merits and not knee-jerk reject certain conclusions because we don't like them politically. 

[driftdiver]

As you wish.  I'm not panicking, simply stating that the authors make some good points and that since studies of this nature are very likely to take a long time, that now is a reasonable time to start doing so. 

Pavlovian responses, pro or con, belong to liberals; the rest of us should consider on the merits and not knee-jerk reject certain conclusions because we don't like them politically.

Oh noes the sky is falling

 

[truth_seeker]

I have lived in cities on the coast for over 50 years. Conservative politically but environmental concerns rule.

Dumping harmful material and wastes into the ocean is not a good idea, and should be avoided.

Most plastic material is not biodegradable. Stays a long while. Biodegradable plastic can be made from corn starch, as an example.

Some science could solve the micro-plastic problem "matter." Plastics are so "60s." BTW much of our current plastic is made from natural gas.

[driftdiver]

I have lived in cities on the coast for over 50 years. Conservative politically but environmental concerns rule.

Dumping harmful material and wastes into the ocean is not a good idea, and should be avoided.

Most plastic material is not biodegradable. Stays a long while. Biodegradable plastic can be made from corn starch, as an example.

Some science could solve the micro-plastic problem "matter." Plastics are so "60s." BTW much of our current plastic is made from natural gas.

As a diver I can tell you the waters off the US do have garbage in it but a vast amount less then everywhere else.  Yet the stories ALWAYS precede a call for the US to tighten regulations, add taxes, or send money to those countries who don't give a crap.

Perhaps just perhaps pressure should be put upon those folks instead of reaching into my pocket first.  I know thats a crazy idea.

[EC]

I doubt humans are eating those small crabs. My concerns would be:

We don't eat bees either. Yet the bee die off in recent years is a cause for concern because if they go - so do we.

[Smokin Joe]

We don't eat bees either. Yet the bee die off in recent years is a cause for concern because if they go - so do we.

Well, bees pollinate crops. They aren't the only critters who do, but they are preferable, partly because they are efficient at it, and partly because they make honey.
Crabs eat dead things. There are lots of other critters which eat dead things, which manage to get the job done if no crabs show up.
Then, too, crabs don't hold still. Other crabs will come in and fill the niche, while the plastic gets caught up in the carcasses of the dead crabs.

I will grant there is a theoretical point where there could be system overload.
So, Identify the source of the microplastic debris.

Likely sources include plastic containers, especially beverage bottles being ground up by wave action, styrofoam beverage cups, plastic (cold) beverage cups, resins abraded form boats, personal watercraft and surfboards, etc. If there is so much of this material, it should be a relatively simple matter to identify what sort of plastics are involved, be they styrenes, polyethylenes, HDPE, etc. and the likely sources which are being ground to powder in the surf, or perhaps even whether the microplastic debris is even of North American origin. It should be possible to determine which particles resulted from manufacturing processes, or the result of abrasion in a natural environment. Perhaps even how much of this debris is a result of the Tsunamis that hit Japan when Fukushima got wrecked.
At that point take measures to reduce the source, if possible, as the source may already be a given, in which case the problem will have to run its course.

[EC]

A big source is cosmetics. Microbeads, they're called. Too small for water treatment plants to remove, so they wind up in the oceans.

[Smokin Joe]

A big source is cosmetics. Microbeads, they're called. Too small for water treatment plants to remove, so they wind up in the oceans.

Well, now, either the treatment plants need a means to flocculate the plastic beads, (Calgon, take me away--seriously, we used it to get clays to stick together in reserve pits on drilling rigs to get clear water), or some other method to get the particles to clump and be removed. Perhaps there is a bubble flotation method which could be used like that used with gold mining, or even hydrocyclones.

Not that I'm an expert on crab dung, but I have a hard time imagining a particle that a crab can't pass that can't be filtered.

[driftdiver]

A big source is cosmetics. Microbeads, they're called. Too small for water treatment plants to remove, so they wind up in the oceans.

That's been debinked