Talk:Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Split from North Pacific Gyre

I have split this article from North Pacific Gyre. See Talk:North Pacific Gyre for some discussion of this topic. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 22:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the discussion and I'm not clear why one small article was split into two smaller articles. Can you explain why the article was split? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does seem like this one feature of the gyre is covered disproportionately, and both articles still have strong potential for growth. Seems fine to me to keep them separate, especially since this one will have a number of redirects and links on the garbage issue in particular. Perhaps this will free up the gyre article for more coverage of the oceanographic aspects. -- Beland (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You are the third person to argue that the articles should remain separate. But, I sill don't see why they were split. Yes, you have given me a good what if scenario, explaining what you think they should become, but I edit articles based on what is and I still don't understand why a short article was split into two shorter articles. The redirect issue is easily solved using inline section redirects. I admit that maybe I am not "getting it", but this does a disservice to the reader, forcing them to visit two pages instead of one to read about related content. I think the problem is that we have three editors taking a specialist POV, which is great when it is required, but in this case, we need a generalist approach. Ideally, the articles should be split when the size passes a certain threshold, and even then, summary style would be appropriate. The current split seems to go about the process backwards. Small, related topics are more accessible in one location, not two. —Viriditas | Talk 07:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above in that while their might be a reason to split the articles in the future, due to the small size of each currently, they should remain together so as to provide the reader with the full gambit of information rather than forcing them to visit both pages. An earlier poster argued that there is a disproportionate amount of information on the garbage aspect, but that doesn't mean that the garbage isnt the most important/prevalent issue and therefor should be included with the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.80.226 (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal to merge, as the gyre and garbage patch are distinct subjects, and so the two articles should remain seperate. While the gyre article may short, the garbage patch one is not so. There is definitely capacity for expansion in both, as they are well studied phenomenon — Jack (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this article deserves an individual entry, but I will merge North Pacific Gyre to the main Gyre article, since it is suffucuenbtly succinct that it can accommodate the information. It seems to have split to allow this article to expand. Now that it is separate, we can merge back. Agreed? Eusebeus (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this sounds quite reasonable. -AndrewBuck (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

When and how was the Garbage Patch discovered?

The article needs a section on "history of human understanding", and a documentation of any significant academic study or research into the Garbage Patch. — Jack (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

According to National Geographic, the Patch was discovered in 1997 by Captain Charles Moore while sailing his 50-foot catamaran. The article indicates that the Patch has been known for two decades, but this is counter to what Nat Geo reports. Therefore, since the information in the article didn't have a citation about the discovery of the Patch, and the mentioned timeframe is counter to a reliable source, I have added the info from Nat Geo, and removed the two decade point. --Bentonia School (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In passing, I seem to remember the garbage patch, or something like it, being referenced in the 1992 novel Snow Crash. I'm not sure that I buy the 1997 date. I'll see if I can find anything on the Web of Knowledge. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything beyond the Moore et al. references which I now see are listed below. The Day (1988) government report cited below sounds promising, although I can't find an electronic copy of (it gets cited by Moore et al. though). That might put the 1997 date in context better if someone can find it. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Photograph & Scientific Data

And yet, after all this time, and all these headlines there is not one single verifiable photograph of this alleged mass of waste that is twice the size of Texas...how is this piece of folklore encyclopedia material?

194.75.171.33 (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You want a photo? So go there with a GOOD underwater camera, it's international waters. But this is not whole bottles or sneakers floating on the surface. It's small crumbs and chips drifting below the surface. But I think the article's assertion that taking a photo is "impossible" is too rash. It should be very hard, but possible if you have a bit of luck with the lighting.

And if you have ever traveled across this part of the world, you'd know that it is not exactly trivial to get there in the first place. There is nothing of interest in this region except for marine biologists and geoscientists. Just a large expanse of ocean, devoid of land (which is the main reason this phenomenon exists in the first place). It's too far off the beaten track even for fishermen, and the climate is technically too damn close to a freakin' desert (see Horse latitudes) for any sane person's comfort. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the anon might be expecting a satellite photograph of it. Depending upon the abundance of waste items and their position in the water column (one presumes they float), I guess that they could change the appearance of the sea from space. Any ideas? --Plumbago (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am doubtful that satellite imagery would convey much. As the well-informed Dysmorodrepanis notes, this is a wide area of loosely suspended debris. I contacted the photographer of the image that you find typically associated with this (check Google Images and you'll see it), but on closer inspection, I am skeptical that the image is actually of the patch itself (i.e. just some garbage in the water). A final point, per my cleanup notes below, some work needs to be done on this article to make it more than "this piece of folklore" as described above. I was surprised how slight the scholarly literature appears to be. Eusebeus (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the literature, although the Day (1988) reference that you found below would be interesting to see. Certainly, while it's pretty difficult to pick keywords that pull up anything on the "garbage patch", there seems to be a small quantity of work going on these days on waste plastics. My guess is that a real phenomenon ("trapping" of floating plastic waste in ocean gyres) has been massively hyped up by a positive feedback loop of media attention, till we get to fairly ridiculous statements suggesting that there's a plastic Texas floating out there. If I find any references that you haven't already tracked down, I'll add them here. It'd be nice to clear this one up, one way or the other. Not least because the ridiculousness of some of the statements about the patch has been picked up by bloggers, etc., looking for a stick to beat potentially genuine environmental concerns. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Plumbago, do you have access to Science Direct? If you do, this article offers some great hard numbers. Meanwhile, I'd like to check the accuracy of the "discovery" of the Garbage Patch, since this has been in the Scientific literature since the 1980s. In the event you don't have a subscription, the hard data are:

A total of 27 698 small pieces of plastic weighing 424 g were collected from the surface water at stations in the gyre, yielding a mean abundance of 3 34 271 pieces km2 and a mean mass of 5114 g/km2. Abundance ranged from 31 982 pieces km2 to 969 777 pieces/km2, and mass ranged from 64 to 30 169 g km2. Plastic fragments accounted for the majority of the material collected in the smaller size categories. Thin plastic films, such as those used in sandwich bags, accounted for half of the abundance in the second largest size category, and pieces of line (polypropylene and monofilament) comprised the greatest fraction of the material collected in the largest size category.

More as I find it.

Here's the link to Day 1988.

http://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/TM/SWFSC/NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154_P247.PDF

Day postulated the existence of the patch

After entering the ocean, however, neuston plastic is redistributed by currents and winds. For example, plastic entering the ocean in Japan is moved eastward by the Subarctic Current (in Subarctic Water) and the Kuroshio (in Transitional Water, Kawai 1972; Favorite et al. 1976; Nagata et al. 1986). In this way, the plastic is transported from high-density areas to low-density areas. In addition to this eastward movement, Ekman stress from winds tends to move surface waters from the subarctic and the subtropics toward the Transitional Water mass as a whole (see Roden 1970: fig. 5). Because of the convergent nature of this Ekman flow, densities tend to be high in Transitional Water. In addition, the generally convergent nature of water in the North Pacific Central Gyre (Masuzawa 1972) should result in high densities there also. (Day, 1988, 261)

Eusebeus (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Eusebeus! And well done finding the report. It now seems more clear. I'll try to help you edit the article into shape next week (assuming you've not finished by then!). Incidentally, I do have Science Direct access, but I'm currently away from it - back next week. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup Discussion Section

From Eusebeus (talk)

Random research notes:

1. The origins of this seem to be the 2003 Nat Hist. article. The term was coined by Curtis Ebbesmeyer according to that article and it's size is his estimate. UPDATE: change to Day postulate from 88. Size provided with la & lo references. (CITE)
2. http://alguita.com/pdf/Density-of-Particles.pdf
3. A quick review of the scientific literature suggests this is more commonly known as the Eastern Garbage Patch. We should perhaps move the article to that (current rd) page.
4. Some cribbed refs of some potential value:

• 1. Day, R.H., 1988. Quantitative distribution and characteristics of neustonic plastic in the North Pacific Ocean. Final Report to US Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Auke Bay Laboratory. Auke Bay, AK, 73 pp.
  2. Derraik, J.G.B., The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. 2002, Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:842-852
  3. Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris, EPA-842-B-02-002, August 2002 Oceans and Coastal Protection Division (4504T) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460
  4. Andrady, T.L., Plastics in Marine Environment, 2005 In: Proceedings of the Plastic Debris Rivers to Sea Conference, 2005
  5. Thompson, Richard C., et al, Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic?, Science, Vol. 304, 2004, 843
  6. Moore, C.J., S.L. Moore, M. K. Leecaster, and S.B. Weisberg. 2001. A comparison of plastic and plankton in the North Pacific central gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42:1297-1300.
  7. Moore, C.J., S.L. Moore, S.B. Weisberg, G. Lattin and A. Zellers. 2002. A comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton abundance in southern California’s coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:1035-1038.

The section on wildlife impact is only partially accurate and needs major reworking. Expand source beyond Moore. Original:
The floating particles also resemble zooplankton, which can lead to them being consumed by jellyfish, thus entering the ocean food chain. In samples taken from the gyre in 2001, the mass of plastic exceeded that of zooplankton (the dominant animal life in the area) by a factor of seven. Many of these long-lasting pieces end up in the stomachs of marine birds and animals, including sea turtles, and Black-footed Albatross. Besides ingestion and entanglement of wildlife, the floating debris absorbs toxins in the water which, when ingested, are mistaken by the animal brain for estradiol, causing hormone disruption in the affected wildlife.

• quick note. I have to hop off for a bit - it really needs a etymology (definition) section as there seems to be some argument about names and what it is exactly. Who named it and when for instance. This should be somewhere at the top of the article. I am sure some of our resident seabird experts will help with the wildlife impact. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

headings and subheadings

OK, i have reorganized this - thus we have a definition section, a section on genesis, then one on sequelae ec. It then needs one on govt legislation/general acceptance etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of Moore's guesstimates as to the origins of the waste? Sounds to me pretty made-up - I'd like to see some real evidence that this is the case. Eusebeus (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

True - alot of science is based on speculation and I am all for the discussion of this in articles. I am much more in favour of an article mapping out what is known, not known and what is speculation. I grew tired of books for laypeople on various scientific topics presenting speculation as fact. If a person is a significant party to a particular theory or article, and they have an opinion which may be more speculative and/or not universally accepted, I am more than happy for their thory to be included as long as it is explained that it is their theory and on what basis or evidence it is based. Agree I would really like to see how he came up with the estimate and feel this would be highly desirable if not essential to be included. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations

There are citations noted in the text, but the citations don't lead to any sort of list of sources or bibliography -- in other words, what's here is backed up by footnote numbers that don't lead to footnotes. This needs to be fixed.