Jump to content

Talk:Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mikee8437 (talk | contribs) at 04:48, 17 November 2016 (→Controversy Section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

References & Citations

This article needs to have many of the media references removed. Having looked at various media reports, I see that many use this article as a basis for the information they publish; if we in turn reference them it creates a disinformative feedback loop. There is plenty of scientific material available, so, although media sources can be cited with respect to how the Patch is reported on or to document efforts to study the area, they should not be used to establish any of the basic facts about the patch (size, density, mass, ecological consequences, etc...). For this kind of information, the standard should be academic material published in peer-reviewed journals. Plumbago may have a thought about this as well. Eusebeus (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Some of the existing citations are reliable secondary sources, but some are not. If you have specific references that you know are sourced from Wikipedia, then those citations should be tagged inline with {{Verify credibility}} as Wikipedia policy is very specific about not using circular references. Other useful tags for source problems are listed here. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for this article are still terrible. I dug up a bunch of proper cites several years ago in the literature but I note with dismay that the first four cites are shit newspaper stories, including the straight dope as a reference concerning why we cannot see it! This is simply unacceptable and unencyclopedic. Moreover, a quick trip to Google Scholar turns up plenty of freely available scientific papers on the topic. So, here are some proper refs to be added in and I will junk the newspaper stories. Eusebeus (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For this kind of information, the standard should be academic material published in peer-reviewed journals. Is there a reason for that? As long as a cite is from a reliable source, it doesn't matter whether that source is a newspaper or a scientific paper.
I would remind Eusebeus that this is not their article, and that discussion on the talk page and in edit summaries should be polite. Alastairward (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, there is nothing that says that articles about garbage patches must cite nothing but scientific peer-reviewed journals. If s/he wants to add those as well, that's fine, but the news articles should be kept as long as they meet WP:RS, which as far as I can tell, they do. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the main thrust of what Alastairward and Jrtayloriv have said above. It is appropriate to remove unreliable sources (perhaps straight dope is such an example). But academic journals are often not the very best source for Wikipedia as they are typically primary sources, which "are often difficult to use appropriately."
Rather, WP should be, in the main, sourced with reliable secondary sources. This does not mean that an article can have no primary sources like the academic journal articles, but in sections that too heavily rely on such sources, it is easy to fall into synthesis and violate the WP policy on original research.N2e (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, it makes little sense that current references 3 and 4 go to articles about the same exact Oregon State analysis -- the katu.com article and "OCEANIC 'GARBAGE PATCH' NOT NEARLY AS BIG AS PORTRAYED IN MEDIA" . We could put dozens of convincing sources at the bottom all referring to one study. It would look very impressive indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.103.84 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

On the Gyre generally, its age, formation and properties

  • David M. Karl, "A Sea of Change: Biogeochemical Variability in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre," Ecosystems, Vol. 2, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1999), pp. 181-214
Provides a history of the scientific observation surrounding the gyre formation:

Despite these heroic field efforts, there was very little observational basis for the development of a comprehensive ecological or biogeochemical understanding

of the NPSG biome. Even the most accessible epipelagic habitat remained aqua incognita through the early 1960s when progress toward this goal was first made during the "Ursa Major" (Aug-Oct 1964) and "Zetes" (Jan 1966) expeditions organized by scientists from SIO (SIO Ref. #67-5, SIO Ref. #70-5). Data obtained on the plant and animal populations marked the beginning of what would become a two-decade long series of cruises to the

NPSG (Hayward and others 1983). Observations made during this series of "Climax-region" (Figure 2) cruises provided an unprecedented view of the NPSG habitat and served as the basis for an initial conceptual model of ecosystem structure and dynamics. (p.184)

  • Sverdrup HU, Johnson MW, Fleming RH. 1946. The oceans, their physics, chemistry and general biology. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Recent Peer Reviewed Articles on the patch

  • Pichel WG, Churnside JH, Veenstra TS, Foley DG, Friedman KS, et al. (2007) Marine debris collects within the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54: 1207–1211. (doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.04.010).
  • Dameron OJ, Parke M, Albins MA, Brainard R (2007) Marine debris accumulation in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: an examination of rates and processes. Mar Pollut Bull 54: 423–433. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.11.019.
  • Kubota M (1994) A mechanism for the accumulation of floating marine debris north of Hawaii. J Phys Ocean 24: 1059–1064. (doi:10.1175/1520-0485(1994)024,1059:AMFTAO.2.0.CO;2).
  • Matsumura S, Nasu K. 1997 Distribution of floating debris in the North pacific Ocean: sighting surveys 1986–1991. In Marine debris: sources, impact and solutions (eds J. M. Coe & D. B. Rogers), pp 15–24. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
  • Thompson, R. C. et al. Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science 304 (2004)
  • Charles James Moore, Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly increasing, long-term threat Environmental Research, Volume 108, Issue 2, October 2008, Pages 131-139.
  • D.K.A. Barnes et al., Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 27 July 2009 vol. 364 no.1526, 1985-1998 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0205
  • Peter Ryan, Charles Moore et al., Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 27 July 2009 vol. 364 no. 1526 1999-2012, doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0207
A useful source of information about collection techniques.

Net-based surveys are less subjective than direct observations but are limited regarding the area that can be sampled (net apertures 1–2 m and ships typically have to slow down to deploy nets, requiring dedicated ship’s time). The plastic debris sampled is determined by net mesh size, with similar mesh sizes required to make meaningful comparisons among studies. Floating debris typically is sampled with a neuston or manta trawl net lined with 0.33 mm mesh (figure 3). Given the very high level of spatial clumping in marine litter (e.g. Ryan 1988a; Pichel et al. 2007), large numbers of net tows are required to adequately characterize the average abundance of litter at sea. Long-term changes in plastic meso-litter have been reported using surface net tows: in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre in 1999, plastic abundance was 335 000 items km22 and 5.1 kg km22 (Moore, C. J. et al. 2001), roughly an order of magnitude greater than samples collected in the 1980s (Day et al. 1990a,b). Similar dramatic increases in plastic debris have been reported off Japan (Ogi et al. 1999). However, caution is needed in interpreting such findings, because of the problems of extreme spatial heterogeneity, and the need to compare samples from equivalent water masses.

Effect on bird populations

  • Young LC, Vanderlip C, Duffy DC, Afanasyev V, Shaffer SA (2009) Bringing Home the Trash: Do Colony-Based Differences in Foraging Distribution Lead to Increased Plastic Ingestion in Laysan Albatrosses? PLoS ONE 4(10): e7623. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007623

While there have been documented detrimental effects on the growth rates and fledging masses of chicks, it is still unclear what levels of mortality are caused by plastic ingestion. What is clear is the source of the plastic: there is now so much floating marine debris accumulated in the North Pacific gyre, that is it known as the ‘great garbage patch’. This patch consists of high densities of floating plastic debris, particularly between 20u–40u N, within a few hundred kilometres of the coast and in the gyre centres, between the tropical and subarctic waters. This area of concentrated debris consists of two accumulations: the ‘Western Garbage Patch’ that occurs off Japan and ‘Eastern Garbage Patch’ residing between Hawaii and California (http://coastwatch.pfel.noaa.gov) that correspond to the locations of two sub-gyres within the North Pacific Gyre [26], connected by a narrower band of marine debris north of the Hawaiian archipelago (Figure 1). Much has been written in the popular press about plastic ingestion by Laysan albatrosses (Figure 2), however, relatively few empirical studies have examined this phenomenon and whether it is species wide, or if this is confined to certain populations.

This article is freely available at http://assets0.pubget.com/pdf/19862322.pdf

  • Laist, D.W., 1997. Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B. (Eds.), Marine Debris––Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 99–139.
  • Blight, L.K., Burger, A.E., 1997. Occurrence of plastic particles in seabirds from the eastern North Pacific. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34, 323–325.

NPOV dispute - article title

The article title as of 2010-04-08 is, and has been for some time, Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

The lede sentence states:

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, also described as the Pacific Trash Vortex, is a gyre of marine litter in the central North Pacific Ocean located roughly between 135° to 155°W and 35° to 42°N

I want to suggest that the current title of article describing the phenomenon may not be in accord with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. As of right now, I don't have a specific alternative proposal to suggest but would like to open the topic up for discussion on the Talk page.

My proposal is to discuss this in two stages:

  • Stage 1 Is this even as issue for any other editors? What do other editors think?
  • Stage 2 (if we get that far) What might be a better and more neutral name for the article?

I have endeavored to open this discussion in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, and chose the section title for this section on the Talk page per that guideline.

So let the scholarly and issues-oriented discussion begin. N2e (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion won't get very far if you don't explain how you think this title does not meet the requirement to be neutral, let alone have any alternative suggestions. I can't see how it is a violation in the slightest, and it is by far the most common name of the phenomena, so it is acceptable per WP:COMMON. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My simple initial take is that for an area of ocean with a just a little over 5 kg of garbage/plastic (in the neustonic layer) per each square kilometer of ocean — albeit "an area in which the mass of plastic debris in the upper water column is significantly higher than average." (quoted from the lede) — a title for a Wikipedia article that includes the words "Great" and "Garbage Patch" does not reflect a neutral point of view. Furthermore, 'garbage' is most often used in a pejorative sense. Thus, I don't believe it is the best name for an article title when less POV titles are available and would be descriptive of the phenomenon. Moreover, several more neutral descriptors are used in several of the sources currently cited in the article.
My take, a more neutral title will allow the phenomenon to be encyclopedically described today, and followed over the coming years as more data is collected, without the bias of the pejorative term "garbage patch" and the size term "great" being in the title. N2e (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate the comment. I think your best bet here is to get the scientific community to change the way they refer to the region, at which point Wikipedia, per WP:NOR, can reflect the new paradigm. As it stands, Wikipedia (NOR, SYNTH, FRINGE, etc...) must reflect the standard practices laid out in the independent reliable sources such as peer-reviewed articles. Eusebeus (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll add a comment below about the terms I see used most often in the scientific community. N2e (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well the patch covers an area possibly "twice the size of the continental United States", so I can't see anything "non neutral" about describing that as a "great patch". And your take, N2e, that the presence of the plastic, with its devastating effects on wild life, is not "garbage" seems fresh and original. However, you have not offered any alternatives, so I have for now, removed your POV tag. Please feel free to add it back when you can establish
  • reliable sources showing that the patch is really quite small
  • reliable sources showing that the plastic and its associated toxins is really quite helpful, and cannot be described as rubbish
  • that there is an alternative name, reflecting your POV, that is widely accepted in the scientific literature (maybe something like "The Tiny Pacific Plastic Treasure Trove") --Epipelagic (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re removal of the POV tag. I think it was not appropriate for you to remove the POV tag prior to allowing a reasonable time for discussion on the Talk page. I would think a week or ten days to be reasonable in order to invite other editors to weigh in on the discussion. However, in order to avoid a revert war with you, I will stand back and allow other editors to consider whether the POV tag ought to be added back and left on the article for a longer period of time. N2e (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of those sources currently cited in the article, it appears to me that only one of the sources that is from what appears to be a journal (Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J.) uses the term "Great Pacific Garbage Patch". The others that appear to be peer-reviewed journals use much less POVish terminology. For example:
  • Quantitative distribution and characteristics of neustonic plastic in the North Pacific Ocean. Final Report to US Department of Commerce,
  • A Sea of Change: Biogeochemical Variability in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre
  • Seas of Debris: A Summary of the Third International Conference on Marine Debris
If we instead look at the list of "Recent Peer Reviewed Articles" on the patch, all quoted above in a recent entry on the Talk page, we see:
  • "Marine debris collects within the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone"
  • "Marine debris accumulation in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: an examination of rates and processes."
  • "A mechanism for the accumulation of floating marine debris north of Hawaii."
  • "Distribution of floating debris in the North pacific Ocean: sighting surveys 1986–1991."
  • "...plastic debris in the marine environment."
  • "Bringing Home the Trash"
  • "Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records."
  • "Occurrence of plastic particles in seabirds from the eastern North Pacific."
These suggest some potential sets of words for a more neutral point-of-view titles like the following. (I am not here suggesting that any one of these is the right title, just that all of them, using words from the titles of the scientific articles, demonstrate it is possible to describe the phenomenon in the central north pacific ocean in a rather less-POV way.
Potential titles" that might have less-POV implicit in them:
  • Marine debris in the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone
  • Marine trash in the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone
  • Plastic particles in the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone
  • Marine debris in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre
  • Marine trash in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre
  • Plastic particles in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre
Hope this answers some of the questions. In any case, I do not think this discussion should be resolved in one day by the comments of just three or four editors. I think it appropriate to leave the POV tag on the article for a week or two to invite discussion on the Talk page by other editors; but as I said above, I will leave it for some other editor to add back in to the article so I don't get into a revert war with Epipelagic. N2e (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay N2e, let's take you seriously. Here are the alternate names you have offered:
N2e's suggested alternatives google.com
Marine debris in the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone 2 hits
Marine trash in the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone no hits
Marine debris in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre 3 hits
Marine trash in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre no hits
Plastic particles in the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone no hits
Plastic particles in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre no hits
These results are clear. You are just making things up. There are no reliable sources supporting any of your alternatives. You clearly do not understand what wp:original, wp:verify and wp:rs are about. You are wasting other editor's time. Anyway, since the title issue has been raised, we might as well look at a Google rundown of the two main contenders
Great Pacific Garbage Patch Pacific Trash Vortex
Google News 66 hits 11 hits
Google News Archives 459 hits 70 hits
Google Scholar 52 hits 5 hits
Google Books 64 hits 5 hits
Google Blogs 18,500 hits 11,200 hits
Reliable sources can be found amongst the Google Scholar and Books results and to a lesser degree amongst the the News results. Google News and Blogs are good indicators of popular usage. If you want to carry on in this vein N2e, then you need to come up with alternatives that can hold their own in this Google rundown. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely with the above and I would add as well that all the scholarly cites provided contain the phrase, if not in the title, then in the body of the article, where the authors note variants on usually referred to as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch or the like (and as a general rule, I would strongly urge editors to read the sources that are provided before introducing a debate over such a broad change). The google evidence and scholarly recognition should pretty much bring this discussion to an end, I should think, and it would be inappropriate to restore a tag that amounts to little more than individual caprice. Eusebeus (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epipelagic, the Google results on the specific sets of words I mentioned is a straw man argument. I merely suggested that some of these terms, which accorded with a lot of the titles in the scholarly literature, would be more neutral terminology. Read what I wrote: I never suggested those specific titles for the article, and was explicit that I was not suggesting them.
Other arguments against my proposal are fine. As of right now, three editors who obviously care deeply about this topic, have weighed in against my proposal in the first three days since I made it. I merely argued that the POV tag ought to stay on the article for a reasonable period of time to invite other editors into the discussion process on this talk page. Apparently, some of the editors with article-specific interest, want to avoid this. I already said I would not get into a revert war about that tag and only leave it to other editors who might come along to choose to re-add it, or not. I just want to allow some time to see if any other WP editors happen by to weigh in during the next week or ten days. I think your action of removing the tag has short-circuited the full and open discussion on the matter. N2e (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry N2e, but the title not being very scholarly accurate is not actualy a violation of the concept of neutrality in the slightest. You might have a point that it is an innacuracy and thus a move is required on that basis, but given the fact that this is easily explained in the article, and that 'Great Garbage Patch' is overwhelmingly, by a country mile, the most common name, I see zero point in a move. In addition, I have actualy seen plenty of sources refer to visible patches of garbage floating on the surface, even if much of it has now degraded and is below the surface, so it is hardly completely innacurate either. MickMacNee (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MickMacNee, Thank you for your reasoned response to the proposal I put on the table. I take your point that scholarly terminology is not the only terminology to use when titling Wikipedia articles. And I agree with that. I do think the scholarly literature points out some potential terminology that might be utilized to make a more neutral point-of-view improvements to the current article title. N2e (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CONCLUSION OF THE NPOV ARTICLE TITLE DISCUSSION

After two weeks of open discussion on the talk page, it is clear that no consensus exists to change the article title. While I continue to think it would have been best to leave the POV tag on the article during the discussion period, I was overruled by other editors so that was not done; thus, some editors who might have weighed in on the debate never did because they did not know the discussion was going on. But that is water under the bridge. For this cycle, there was no consensus so article title should remain status quo. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research and cleanup split into Research and cleanup and publicity stunts

My apologies if I've done this incorrectly - it's my first edit.

I think the text about the Boyan Slat approach to cleaning the gyres lacks scientific merit. In the TedX talk he claims that although scientists have said that it would take 79,000 years to remove the plastic, he says that he can do it in 5. Additionally, the concept ignores basic principles of hydrodynamics, as the plastic wouldn't move along a boom. The text seems likely to have come from a source very close to the project, so is unlikely to have considered the concept critically.MarcusRCarr (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Research and cleanup section includes a bunch of publicity stunts ie plastiki junk raft which are not true research trips and are not cleaning anything up. I think the sections should be split it 1) research 2) clean up 3) "activism" or some other happy title for publicity stunts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbaha (talk • contribs) 20:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The publicity-generating activism is not unimportant, and deserves a mention in the article. But the activism of course represents a point-of-view and does not belong in the same section with the research and clean up. N2e (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is important to distinguish between activities undertaken for scientific investigation and those to promote ecological awareness. Eusebeus (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Plastiki part since its goals were much broader and not directly related to this topic. Lateg (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the sections split, people will also understand the issue better and take action on it so I agree aswell. User:RyanRubio21 (talk) 9:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.245.69.16 (talk)

Practical Reality of the Patch

I find it strange that there is not a single picture of anything looking like a patch anywhere. Then i read this septic piece http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4132. When I then went back to read the Wikipedia article, I get the feeling that the entire thing is a theoretical construct with much lower real-world implication than this article insinuates.. This is in of itself OK, but I feel there should be presentation of the practical reality of this <patch> too. Maybe there should be added a «Practical Impact» or «criticism» section to this article? Or maybe somebody could incorporate some of the views and references from the skeptoid article. I know how it sound when I say «somebody should», but my editing skills are such that I best stick to the talk page. Jace1982 12:00, 15 July 2010 (+1GMT). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.157.179 (talk)

  • That is a gratifying link since it seems to rely on the Wikipedia article for a lot of its basic facts as well as references (which Plumbago and I added in July 2008 when we cleaned up this article). First, the Wiki article notes the degree of concentration, and repeats again and again the estimated distribution of neuston plastic, so it is quite transparent about what the patch means. Second, that link is too old to factor in the latest data involving Albatross populations, which provide corollary evidence of the impact of plastic accumulations in the affected region. In short, there has been no serious, scientific, peer-reviewed study that invalidates the main points noted in the article. One thing I have tried to do is to prevent overlinking to hysterical newspaper articles and reports. In its substance, you will find that the article's facts are supported with substantial reference to the scientific literature. As such, it remains, in my opinion, one of the best summaries available for understanding what the patch actually refers to. Eusebeus (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"That is gratifying link"... comments like that are sarcastic and strengthen my belife that the only reason this myth still exists is because of a few eager and over theoretical individuals. And I agree that this article does not empehsise to a sufficient degree that this "Patch" is not a patch. But I guess one can't make a name for "The none-localized pacific slightlig-higher-densisty-then-normal-microscopic-particals theroy". But I don't see are reason to change the article. Sure it will contribute to another misconseption (like the great wall of China beeing visable from space). Scientist probably know that this is a intresting study of degredation and ocean make-up, and the rest not involved will belive another half-true myth. So, no harm done, but just missleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.156.124 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Garbage implies that there is garbage there dosen't it? If it excists shouldent there be pictures of a garbage patch out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.111.13 (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "No pictures" debate is a big misconception on what the garbage patch is. It is NOT a flotilla of garbage as what most people assume that it is. To the naked eye or to view it on google earth is impossible. If you skim just below the surface you will pick up about varing percentages of zooplankton to broken down plastic. The area in question may be the size of texas but it is not a huge pile of floating plastic. My belief is that this misconception is not clarified because a huge texas sized floating pile of trash is more sexy to bring attention to the cause, but in reality, unless you fish, skim or dredge, you probably wouldnt even know its there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.103.61 (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is the size of the US and there is surface showing in places. Try googlng it to find the "myth"

http://www.google.com/images?q=the+great+garbage+patch&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=PolKTZyyAsP38AaYmYCzDg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CDUQsAQwAQ&biw=991&bih=552 Why is this kind of comment even allowed ?98.149.114.34 (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will find documentation everywhere. http://www.bambooandtikis.com/blog/garbage-patch-in-great-pacific Tons of 98.149.114.34 (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there you have it. NONE of those picture is from the site, most of them even show a shoreline. In what world is picture of garbage in a river and and on a beach documentation of something supposedly hundreds of miles out in the ocean, and the size of USAx2? If I may cite the research above: “ plastic meso-litter: 5.1 kg km22.” and “However, caution is needed in interpreting such findings, because of the problems of extreme spatial heterogeneity, and the need to compare samples from equivalent water masses”. In other words, about 15kg if you looked at an area the size of Manhattan, and its not even clear if this is different from other ocean locations. At this point the only coverage that this “Great Garbage Patch” is worth - is a segment on BBC's QI. Jacealcard —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Gross Misrepresentation

I've edited the article to remove grossly false statements. Here's the original offending paragraph:

The patch is not a visibly dense field of floating debris. The process of disintegration means that the plastic particulate in much of the affected region is too small to be seen. Researchers must estimate the patch's overall extent and debris density from samples. In a 2001 study, researchers (including Moore) found concentrations of plastics at 334,721 pieces per km2 with a mean mass of 5,114 grams (11.27 lbs) per km2. Assuming each particle of plastic averaged 5 mm x 5 mm, this would amount to only 8m2 per km2. Nonetheless, this represents a very high amount with respect to the overall ecology of the neuston. In many of the sampled areas, the overall concentration of plastics was seven times greater than the concentration of zooplankton. Samples collected at deeper points in the water column found much lower levels of debris (primarily monofilament fishing line), confirming earlier observations that most plastic waste concentrates in the upper water column.[27]

Notice that

1. the source says absolutely nothing about whether small debris is visible on the surface,

2. makes no statement about the visibility of the particulates in general (although the particulates that they studied were generally too small to be seen, but these particles were studied as they are the biologically important particles),

3. the 2001 study in question in no way, shape or form states or implies that their purpose was to study the total mass of the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch; rather, they sought to study the biologically relevant plastic mass,

- That is 11.27 lbs in 264,172,050 gallons of sea water. Johnson-Bob (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. the study was primarily about the neuston, yet the article in no way, shape or form stated or implied that the majority of the mass of plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch was in the neuston - rather (and I emphasize with capitals), the majority of THE BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE/MOST PROBLEMATIC plastic was in the neuston,

5. the article in no way, shape or form states or implies that their purpose was to demonstrate that the plastic waste concentrates in the upper water column, nor that they succeeded in such an endeavour, but again, rather, that the problematic plastics were most prevalent in the neuston, regarding the last sentence in the quoted paragraph, and

6. the primary author has claimed to the press, seven years after the publication of the cited article, that he believes the mass to be 100 million tons, i.e. a density of about 1000 times that suggested in the above paragraph [1]

As such, I found the article utterly irresponsible, and the claims of media exaggeration unfounded. I therefor removed these doubtful claims, and added C J Moore's estimate from the (in this case, unduly) maligned mass media. Boeremoer (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that my change has been reverted, with a call to reach consensus. No-one has disputed the substance of my claim above. Boeremoer (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have rereverted, to my version - any interested editors clearly do not have the page on their watchlists, and can only find my revisions by reading the page. I'd rather undergo BRD with such an editor.
Also, some of the references are pathological - aside from the dubious Oregon State press release (university press releases are done by marketing folk, not scientists - could we reference the papers published as a result of this work?), several papers have only author names (Moore) and year, without further details (title, journal, volume, pages) that may be necessary to identify the work. I've marked some of these with citation needed. Boeremoer (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your tone is needlessly, and quite curiously, aggressive. For citation issues, why don't you be WP:BOLD and fix them according to the Ref MoS? Upon review, I think your edits are ok - especially since the paragraph was highly redundant. I am surprised that given your enthusiasm for rooting out the "utterly irresponsible" aspects of the article, that you didn't excise the overall size estimates, since this borders on OR. Finally, the ref for the paragraph seems to be erroneous - have you looked through Ryan 09? This, I believe, will give you some numbers regarding neuston densities & the characteristics of UWC contaminants. Finally, thanks for the laugh at "pathological references." Eusebeus (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
full citation information for Moore 2004 is missing
What should I cite for the dubious citations (e.g. Moore 2004)? Without more information, its a matter of hunting down likely candidates for a source.
By Ryan 09, I take it you are referring to doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0207 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 27 July 2009 vol. 364 no. 1526 1999-2012
This paper distinguishes between macrodebris (diameter > 2cm), mesodebris and microdebris (<0.2mm); the manta trawls performed in the article cited (Moore) is appropriate (according to the paper by Ryan et alia) for microdebris. This paper cites other papers that have performed estimates, but doesn't repeat those estimates. I could go read up on them tonight. I thought of removing the OR, but felt that that might be overreach - my immediate concerns were the falsifications. I might remove the OR tonight. Boeremoer (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try perhaps Thompson (Science 7 May 2004: Vol. 304 no. 5672 p. 838 DOI: 10.1126/science.1094559). Also the size OR can be replaced with figures (for total accum. by weight) from "Reduce the Plastic Debris: A Model Research on the Great Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch," Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 113 - 116), 59-63 DOI 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.113-116.59 Yun Zhang et al., 2010. I might add this when I have time. Eusebeus (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. It looks like the discussion to improve the article is proceeding usefully (above) between the two editors involved. I will just say that I find the attention to having actual reliable sources with {{full}} citations to support claims made in this article refreshing. Wikipedia is improved at the margins, edit by edit, so I think you are on the right path. Cull the bad, keep the good and sourced, improve the sources and prose; over time, the article gets better. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise that I haven't made the changes promised - too busy - will try on thursday. Boeremoer (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo -- is it connected with the GPGP?

This photo is currently in the Effect on wildlife section of the article.

The remains of a Laysan Albatross chick which was fed plastic by its parents resulting in death [citation needed]

Do we have any reliable source indication that this photo is even connected with the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? I have no problem with the photo documenting something, in some Wikipedia article. It's just not clear that it is connected with the GPGP. N2e (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the picture is extremly missleading and should be removed. Jacealcard (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it even exist?

I was just reading a Wall Street Journal article about plastic bags and this enviro-crusader claimed that the patch does not really exist. I began to think maybe it was a legend like sea monsters of old. How would we landlubbers even know! I came here (Ive been here before years ago) and noticed that there is no picture of it. I even remember going on Google Maps once and seeing nothing. So, does it really exist? Has there been any flyover or anything? Its really interesting that its kind of like a legendary sea monster.--Metallurgist (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make the same point before, but was met with a very aggressive attitude here. But in the last two years I have seen no evidence that convinces me that there relay is a Great Garbage Patch. I think this thing is still alive because the maps with arrows and the whole story has a narrative that is easy to understand, imagine and is interesting, more than that there relay is such a patch. Jacealcard (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi to both of you. I can't post this to the page itself, since I suspect it would represent original research, but I've been to the patch as part of a scientific research voyage. There was no visible "island" of trash, but the amount of visible flotsam increased relative to other parts of the ocean I've been in. Furthermore the net tows we did had significantly larger amounts of plastic in them than net tows in other parts of the Pacific. The patch isn't visible from space or air because most of the plastic pieces are on the scale of millimeters. If you go to the websites for SEAPLEX, or Kaisei or SUPER HI-CAT, some scientific expeditions to the patch, there are some pictures available.Picosaur (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic seen in most waters is a suitable harbor for algae and other life. It's intrinsicly bouyant and floats on the surface where sun nourishes algae and many nutrients concentrate. Often fish will school around flotsam to feed on life harboring in it. Decaying life creates gas bubbles and increases floating plastic's already bouyant nature. The claim that the plastic particles are both "too small and float too far below the surface to be seen" doesn't fit the nature of plastic flotsam and life that harbors on it that is seen anywhere else. 98.164.80.209 (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami flotsam and the gyre

There might not be enough info currently on this, but an idea for future expansion: it looks like large amounts of debris from the Japanese tsunami will be augmenting the garbage patch over the next few years. CBC on tsunami debris and ocean currents The Interior (Talk) 21:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC) hi my name is chanelle i go to ..... lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.251.186.114 (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trash removal

My invention the water barrage removes trash from the ocean. Its basically a ferry, like the ones from mark twain, but the propellers pick up and dump the trash onto the ship for processing. Each propeller is on the side of the ship where the trash goes onto a ramp which stores the trash for compacting and tractor removal. Imagine having this on a oil tanker! Trash could be removed by the tons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Density of plastics through water column

This section contains only a single sentence that is unrelated to density. The information should be merged into another section and the heading removed. Tryanmax (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, with citations. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation needed as to WHY there is not a lot of visible plastic.

Even accepting the statements made many times that the vast majority of the patch is made up of tiny pieces of plastic, there is still the factoid that the patch is growing in area, from fresh and new plastic washed in from land. So I would intuitively expect the patch to contain a wide range of sizes of plastic, right up to and including their original sizes.

From many of the other comments here and on the external links, clearly this is a reasonably common expectation. OK, the intuitive expectation is wrong. Therefore, it would seem to be quite important to have some information here as to why. Why isn't there in the GPGP a significantly large number of plastic bags and bottles and six-pack holders and the like, or even pieces thereof?

Becoming more specific, what is the timeline here? If a plastic bag is washed into the Pacific at say, Tokyo, how long typically would it take to get to the GPGP? And hand in hand with that, how long would it take to for say 90% of that plastic bag to break down to some arbitrary size limit, say 100 microns? Anyone know for sure the answers to such questions? Old_Wombat (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support this wholeheartedly. The only reason I don’t do it myself is because I'm to bad with words. Jacealcard —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Duplication of effort

I note that there is much duplication of effort between this article and Indian Ocean Garbage Patch and have started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oceans#Oceanic garbage patches. Please comment there rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption in Formation section

In the Formation section of the article, there's an image currently captioned, "The north Pacific Garbage Patch on a continuous ocean map".

Problem is, the map displayed does not show the Garbage Patch at all. It's simply, according to its description, a 'map of the worlds oceans currents and gyres based on a "dolphins perspective" that is where the oceans are shown as a single body of water and the flux can be easier understood without cutting it anywhere.'

I'm not even sure how I'd caption that for use in this article, or if it makes sense to include it at all, but the current inaccurate caption could use attention from a knowledgeable party. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albatross photo

Anyone else get confused with the subtitles "Research and cleanup" and "cleanup efforts?" With all these open tabs I thought I was on the talk page instead of the article!!

Anyhow, I come here to express concern over the photo to the right.

I cannot verify that it comes from USGS. The link provided on its Commons page is dead, and neither Tineye nor Google turns anything up. If the photo and accompanying statements do not come from scientists, it needs to be removed immediately. For all we know, the bird could have died of other causes and had its corpse wash ashore full of plastic after being jostled around the litter patch. Or someone could have placed it there. - Sweet Nightmares 21:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly don't know what you are talking about Sweet Night mares but if you see a problem then fix it. Bwtranch (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Of the approximately one-third of the chicks that die, many of them are due to being fed plastic from their parents." could be improved easily. Mixing a more precise but less important statistic (1/3) with "many" deaths just reads very poorly. If there are going to be statistics used then let them be used effectively.131.111.243.142 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Cleanup efforts" section - ad for "Method"?

I believe the current section "Cleanup efforts" is titled a bit misleadingly, and its contents is mostly promo contents for the firm "Method". Am I too harsh in feeling so? BACbKA (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to rewrite it, and I added it to the cleanup & research section instead. What are your thoughts? - Sweet Nightmares 18:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great rewrite, this way it makes perfect sense within the rest of the article. I've nuked the old section now that you've put it in the research and cleanup one. Thanks a lot! BACbKA (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction is wrong

According to the introduction of the article (latitude and logitude), the waste patch should contain Japan! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.1.117 (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source doesn't demonstrate caption - Albatross ingestion

Remains of an Albatross containing ingested flotsam

This image has a caption claiming the flotsam was ingested. The image and the source do not contain enough information to distinguish this plastics between ingested flotsam and waste blown into the corpse as it decayed. I've removed it as unsourced SPACKlick (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're perhaps being a little overzealous. Looking at the arrangement of the plastic pieces, I think it is extremely unlikely that the plastic blew into the corpse as it decayed - some of it is even wedged beneath the ribcage. To me, the only feasible explanations are either that the chick ate the plastric before it died, or the photographer carefully placed the plastic there afterwards in an act of dishonesty. It isn't possible to refute the last possibility with 100% certainty, but I should think it quite unlikely. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that intuitively it appears unlikely but I'm no expert in how waste travels across a beach due to wind and wave action and the affect of an albatross corpse on that. Without the source making the claim, it shouldn't be in the article. SPACKlick (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Edit to add this article has an image where the source makes the claim (although the debris is smaller), as does this and this but I can't find out if those images can be used. SPACKlick (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no photo of the garbage patch/island?

I was a little surprised to see that the entire article doesn't have a single photo of the actual garbage patch. It has several photos of where it is located, why it's located where it is, etc., but not a single one of the actual thing. Shouldn't there be some sort of photo? Without seeing the garbage, it's hard to feel too emotional about it. Alan daniel (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not massively visible, to quote the lede
visible from satellite photography, nor even necessarily to a casual boater or 
diver in the area, since it consists primarily of a small increase in suspended, 
often-microscopic particles in the upper water column.
So photos of it mostly just look like any other patch of ocean. From the discovery section
The patch is not easily visible because it consists of very small pieces, almost 
invisible to the naked eye,[7] most of its contents are suspended beneath the 
surface of the ocean,[8] and the relatively low density of the plastic debris at, 
in one scientific study, 5.1 kilograms of plastic per square kilometer of ocean area
From estimates of size
The size of the patch is unknown, as large items readily visible from a boat deck 
are uncommon. Most debris consists of small plastic particles suspended at or just 
below the surface, making it impossible to detect by aircraft or satellite. Instead, 
the size of the patch is determined by sampling.

SPACKlick (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check on Google Image Search turns up a bunch of pictures, so there are at least areas of it that are visible. Of course, that raises the question of whether we should have such pictures here when they might give the wrong impression of what most of the patch looks like. --Aquillion (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I bet what you found doesn't include ANY of the patch, not just some areas. What you're likely to find is images of some guy in a boat surrounded by garbage but that is not in fact the patch. 99.229.18.245 (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2015

Stop this HUGE DESINFORMATION!!! 187.121.88.197 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: not a request. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reference checks

We need to do a proper check of the sources cited in this article. To begin with, I noticed that the reference currently listed as #36 (http://www.contracostatimes.com/search/ ci_13258216?nclick_check=1) does not actually support the text it is attached to. The text in question is "Many of these fish are then consumed by humans, resulting in their ingestion of toxic chemicals." in the "effect on wildlife and humans" section. The closest thing in the source to this statement is the point where it says that "state toxicologists have taken [samples] to an environmental chemistry lab in Berkeley to see if any chemicals are moving up the food chain." No results are stated and I have not seen any such claims made elsewhere, therefore I believe that this should be removed as unsourced information.

The following statement about invasive species is even more suspect. I managed to find the statement referenced on a different page than the one linked, and it was simply speculation that this was likely to happen. Speculation from an expert carries some weight, but it should be clearly separated from empirical facts.

As an aside, because I can't currently edit the article, it should be noted that the North Pacific Gyre is not synonymous with the horse latitudes ("Formation", paragraph one). Somebody please fix this. --Skaling (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New PNAS paper

A paper and a commentary on this topic came out in PNAS last week:

  • Chris Wilcox, Erik Van Sebille, Britta Denise Hardesty: Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds is global, pervasive, and increasing. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, doi:10.1073/pnas.1502108112.
  • Boris Worm: Silent spring in the ocean. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, doi:10.1073/pnas.1513514112.

Unfortunately, I don't have access and can thus not judge if the contents may provide a valuable addition to this article. --Leyo 00:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Great Pacific garbage patch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Great Pacific garbage patch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Pacific garbage patch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section

From reading the full source article it seems that Dr. Angelicque White is complaining about how the term "garbage patch" is a misnomer and how it is often misconstrued and misrepresented in the media, as plastic islands rather than small particles of plastic floating floating separate from one another. I think that this section either needs to be expanded to include the full scope of the article and Dr. White's comments or rolled in to another section that is already speaking about the size of the debris and the patch overall. [2] Mikee8437 (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the controversy section to include the full scope of the article. Mikee8437 (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Specifically for the 2015 and 2016 subsections, what are the current plans/projects or studies that are being or have been conducted, would like to see these expanded upon. Mikee8437 (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on Wildlife

The layout of this section seemed disjointed and did not seem to follow a natural flow and seemed to be made up of similar repetitive statements about how plastics enter the food chain throughout which was distracting to read through. Mikee8437 (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ Knapton, Sarah; Pearlman, Jonathan. "'Great Pacific Garbage Patch' is a myth, warn experts, as survey shows there is no 'rubbish island'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 5 November 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch&oldid=749979360"