Science Forward

The study of marine plastics has a cyclic theme as cyclic debates focus on cleaning up plastic, spinning and gathering at two polar ends of an ocean current. To date, the majority of those debates, especially among government officials, have not led to the implementation of a solution to the pressing marine problem. However, the solution may have just rolled in (I will admit that these puns are getting to be a bit excessive). This past May, the Water Wheel (really creative title…) was set-up in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor. Personally, I think Southern Fried Science’s “ solar-powered, trash-eating, waterwheel-driven garbage scow” nickname is the real winner.

The Water Wheel is made up of three parts working in unison – a water wheel, several rakers and a steady conveyor belt. The water wheel, which harnesses energy from the current, powers the rakers and belt. The rakers push garbage onto the conveyor, running at a sustainable speed, which then deposits the collected garbage in a large dumpster to be properly disposed of. This large dumpster sits on the water and functions separately from the device. Thereby, replacing filled dumpsters with empty ones, is a simple swap. To supplement the energy produced by the water wheel, the device is also solar-powered. It’s basically the better-looking cousin of the old-fashioned water wheel. So, I guess I can let the boring title thing slide.

The Water Wheel represents the immaculate product of a truly well thought out project. Not only does the device use renewable energy, it stops plastics before they reach an ocean gyre, where the real problems begin, a “no-mans-land” so to speak. If the Water Wheel were to be situated at the mouth of every large body of water leading to the ocean, virtually no discarded plastics would come into contact with marine life and be further broken down into microplastics. Personally, I believe setting up devices like the Water Wheel should be a top priority in the marine plastics community rather than “high-sea cleanup projects”. As Southern Fried Science so simply pointed out “Attacking the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is treating the symptoms, not the cancer.” After we cut off the source of plastic to the Patch then, we can reasonably talk about effectively cleaning it up.

Baltimore Inner Harbor Solar Powered Water Wheel

Article from IFLScience – “SolarPowered Water Wheel Could Clean Ocean Plastic”: http://www.iflscience.com/environment/solar-poweredwater-wheel-could-clean-ocean-plastic

Article from Southern Fried Science – “Charm City’s Water Wheel: The first truly feasible ocean cleaning array is already afloat”:  http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=17362&_ga=1.238528640.1804081251.1406485204

Today, I went to visit a monitoring site with a colleague from the American Littoral Society. We are looking for marsh vegetation recovery after removing an old dock that had washed up during Hurricane Sandy. While we were there, I couldn’t help but notice the large amount of plastic debris littering the marsh. Here is a short video to give you an idea of the scope of this issue, and the stark reminder that the things that we throw away don’t “go away”. Rather, they end up in unexpected places. Like here.

We are all doing this project that is being posted on this website for this society, but do we know what it is or what they stand for? The American Littoral Society specifically centers around the well-being and preservation of marine life and its habitat. Since 1961 they have been the connection between marine life and concerned citizens. They have fostered marine habitat restoration in which citizens become involve and foster their passion for the coast and its preservation. Their main method of education relies on hands on experience in which they lead students into the water and get their hands dirty. Through this experience students realize the need for continuous protection and care for the endangered marine habitats.

Apart from the participating students, there are many members of the American Littoral Society that helped build and maintain its foundation. The president of the society is Kathleen Gasienica. Kathleen’s first experience with volunteering in marine biology preservation was her work in the Clean Ocean Action program, which provided education in schools and in the field on a variety of marine topics. She then continued her field research to encompass The New Jersey Sea Grant Consortium, in which she educated grades K-12 on field work and hands on participation of preserving the New Jersey coasts. In 2008, Kathleen transitioned from field work to mainly desk work, becoming the President of The American Littoral Society. Since then she’s organized events and expeditions that promotes the conservation of a myriad coastal regions.

So what does all of this mean for us? I think that learning about the society and its mission we now have a clear point to focus all of our videos around. Because although we are doing this video for class, we are also doing it as a channel for The American Littoral Society and their educational efforts on coastal preservation. Using this information, we should now be able to link the information we learn from this project to the overall goal of conserving marine habitats in our respective videos. I’m excited to see everyone’s videos!!

References:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kathleen-gasienica/1a/971/14
http://www.littoralsociety.org/

Plastic is a wicked problem, without a doubt. Stories of seals choking on the plastic loops used to hold soda cans together, or of birds dying when they ingest too many plastic fragments should be a call to action, regardless of our plastic addiction. But when we focus on marine plastic’s direct impact on human health, and not just its indirect impact through the degradation of the environment, we find that plastic is a serious threat to our own health, and needs to be addressed for these implications as well as our concern for marine wildlife.

The chemicals used in plastic production have been found in the human population through biomonitoring, and have also been correlated with harmful effects upon human endocrine systems, including reproductive health. [1] These chemicals are primarily transferred to the human population by skin contact, ingestion, and inhalation, and are found in objects used in everyday life, from packaging to drink containers (such as BPA). [2]

But direct contact with plastics is not the only worrisome health risk. Ingestion of seafood ought to be a concern as well. Without a doubt, chemicals associated with plastic pollution are harmful to wildlife, and can be affecting native populations. [3] The depletion of certain marine species will limit the human diet and cause detriment to cultures which place significance upon certain species, whether dietary or traditional. But looking at a shorter-term impact, the consumption of plastic-pellet-ingesting marine life can carry toxic chemicals straight into our diners. [4] Plastics can act as carriers of industrial byproducts and other hazardous chemicals in seawater, absorbing them and then carrying concentrated amounts into fish and other marine life, and from there, into our diet. [5] Additionally, through the process of biomagnification, the levels of toxins collected in smaller fish that consume contaminated plastic pellets are amplified in larger fish which eat many smaller fish. [6] This means that we, at the top of the food chain, are getting the highest concentration of toxins when we eat the larger fish.

A study performed on Japanese rice fish, fish about one inch long, showed that of the fish who were exposed to plastic (polyethylene) pellets that were soaked in the waters of San Diego Bay (as opposed to those with no plastic pellets, and those with clean plastic pellets), 74% showed severe depletions of glycogen, and 11% showed widespread death of individual liver cells. [7] These small fish are an example of the supporting population of food webs, of which we are at the top. For similar reasons, the Environmental Protection Agency recommends that people limit their consumption of predatory fish such as tuna. These fish accumulate high levels of poisons through their diets of smaller, contaminated, fish. [8] By eating many larger fish, we too would accumulate toxins in our body, which put stress on liver health.

Put simply, toxins are absorbed from the ocean’s pollution by small plastic pellets, which are appetizing to small fish. These small fish are appetizing to larger fish, who get loaded with the toxins that the small fish were carrying. These larger fish are appetizing to us, just the next step up in the food chain. And the health risks associated with this chain of toxin transferral are not so appetizing.

[1] Thompson, R. C., C. J. Moore, F. S. Vom Saal, and S. H. Swan. “Plastics, the Environment and Human Health: Current Consensus and Future Trends.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364.1526 (2009): 2153-166. JSTOR. Web.
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Stromberg, Joseph. “How Plastic Pollution Can Carry Flame Retardants Into Your Sushi.” Smithsonian.com. Smithsonian Institute, 21 Nov. 2013. Web. 16 Sept. 2014.
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid
[8] “Fish Consumption Advice.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 17 Sept. 2014.

According to Charles J. Moore, author of the New York Times OP-ED article, “Choking the Oceans With Plastic,” our oceans are becoming oversaturated with a wide variety of plastics. Moore, who is a captain in the U.S. merchant marine, uses compelling story telling skills to compose his observations at sea into an easy to read narrative that grasps the attention of the average reader. Although Moore’s article reads well and is a genuine expression of his concerns for the pollution of Earth’s oceans, there are several faults with his writing.
One major criticism of Moore’s opinion piece is that it fails to properly quantify the plastics he mentions. Upon first reading the article, I did not know much about how much plastic actually pollutes our oceans. After reading the article, I was under the impression that there are patches of plastic so thick people could actually walk on them. After all, Moore did state that he “even came upon a floating island… that had solid areas you could walk on.” I believed that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch looked like a giant plastic island. However, upon further discussion in class I realized that Moore’s article failed to properly quantify his findings. He does not give any solid measurements, but aside from passively avoiding quantifying his opinion he also actively avoided doing so by using vague qualitative words that have little meaning. For example, Moore claims that he was “utterly shocked to see the enormous increase in the quantity of plastic waste” from his last trip in 2009 and that he and his colleagues “estimated that some 2.3 billion pieces of plastic” had flowed into the ocean from just three days of sampling.
How much of an increase in quantity did he actually observe? How did he calculate that 2.3 billion pieces of plastic had flowed into the ocean? Furthermore, how was he able to come up with such a large number over a timespan of just three days?
Another criticism of Moore’s opinion piece is that it offers no viable solution for the plastic problem he discusses. Majority of his article is spent riling up the reader into believing that “more animals are killed by vagrant plastic waste than by even climate change,” and that “plastics are a nightmare to recycle.” Moore points a finger at the aquaculture industry for contributing to the problem, but he offers no plan for cleanup or prevention. Instead, Moore simply mentions plastic containment methods utilized by Britain, the Netherlands, and California.
Perhaps the most important criticism of Moore’s OP-ED is that it takes advantage of the common reader. Being that most readers of the New York Times are not necessarily well educated scientists, they would not be able to critically read this article and notice its flaws and exaggerations.
For anyone interested in reading more about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, here is the citation for an article I found online:

(Couldn’t attach the link for this one but it offered quantitative data and addressed the “island of plastic” misconception that I had)

Kostigen, Thomas M., and From Discover Magazine. “The world’s largest dump: the great pacific garbage patch.” Discover (2008).

Various types of plastic items, like shampoo bottles, water bottles and caps, bubble wrap and other types of packaging are in the largest category of land-based solid waste. Many of these items get introduced into water sources and eventually the ocean. Of course, the majority of fish, birds, and other aquatic organisms are not able to differentiate a tiny plastic bottle cap from their real food, i.e., other sea life. The ingestion of these plastics is extremely detrimental to the lives of the ocean creatures, causing all kinds of health problems and eventually death (as detailed in the previous section). Just as we have created this problem, so too can we solve it with some ingenuity and collaborative community efforts. There have been numerous efforts to diminish the amount of plastics that enter our oceans. For example, in 2006, an act entitled “Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act” was established, aiming to create a program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the United States Coast Guard to “help identify, determine sources of, assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts on the marine environment…” Since the establishment of the act, the staff of the NOAA Marine Debris Program has worked in the U.S. to protect the marine environment, investigating sources of pollution and encouraging other organizations to help fund the process.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also awarded grants to help with the ocean cleanup, a process that requires more than just removing waste that is already in the ocean. In 2012, the EPA awarded $214,000 in grants to reduce disposable plastic packaging as well as fund community action projects geared towards reducing sources of plastics. EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest, Jared Blumenfield comments, “Reducing waste at the source, rather than just cleaning it up, is key to protecting our coastal waters.” [1]
The EPA also suggests that we should “reduce, reuse, and recycle” plastics to manage the pollutants that enter the oceans. For the first two stages (reduce and reuse) involve “source reduction” which can occur by altering the design, manufacture, or use of plastic products and materials. However, there are other problems posed by plastics that cannot be reused or recycled. The EPA states, “proper disposal and management of these used plastics is necessary to prevent it from being carried into waterways and the ocean.” [2]
It is imperative that the management of plastics in our ocean is dealt with sooner rather than later. One study, conducted by Jennifer Lavers at the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies in 2013 suggests that the proportion of the shearwater population ingesting plastic has increased over four years. [3] Another study conducted by the US Academy of Sciences estimated that worldwide marine litter accumulates to approximately 6.4 million tons each year. [4] Scientists are not sure of the long-term effects that plastics will have on our oceans, but it is clear that marine life will continue to suffer if a group global effort is not made to limit plastic waste.

1. Yogi, David. “EPA Awards $214,000 to Reduce Sources of Ocean Pollution.” United States Environmental Protection Agency.
2. “Prevention, Control, and Reduction: Plastics.” United States Environmental Protection Agency.
3. Lavers, Jennifer, et al. “Plastic Ingestion by Flesh-Footed Shearwaters (Puffinus carnies): Implications for Fledgling Body Condition and the Accumulation of Plastic-Derived Chemicals.” Environmental Pollution 187 (Apr. 2014): 124-129. Web.
4. “Distribution of Marine Litter.” United Nations Environmental Programme.

We’d like to mention, first of all, that the albatross is among the largest extant birds on earth. The images of the albatross on the Midway Atoll that had consumed entire film canisters are therefore mildly misleading; much plastic consumption occurs in much smaller doses. And the health issues that arise might not be so much the plastic itself creating a choking hazard, but what might be on it and what it might be releasing. Read More…

What is science? How do we define a field of study that advances and evolves so rapidly? It is easily agreed upon that science is indeed a field of study, it is an endless quest for knowledge and advancement, but it is the how and why of the field that distinguishes science from other intellectual pursuits such as literature and history. Read More…

Photo by Chris Jordan

What do you see in this photograph? Do you see the dead bird? All that seems to be left are feathers, bones and bits of plastic. The carcass is lying in a pristine green field without any visual evidence of human activity. Though in a state of decay, the carcass appears to be relatively intact suggesting that the bird was not killed by a predator. Could it’s death be related to the plastic? Where did the plastic come from? This is the issue which we will explore in depth this semester.

This photo is the work of Chris Jordan who documented the ubiquitous presence of plastic in the guts of dead and decaying albatrosses on Midway Island.  The cause and effect relationship between the plastic and the bird deaths has not been well established despite being the subject of study for three decades. This is partly due to the ethical problems with conducting controlled experiments on plastic ingestion by albatross chicks. However, the mere presence of plastic in the guts of these birds is a testament to the impact we can have on or environment, even in remote locations far from population centers. In fact, the plastic that is found in these birds was likely picked up by adult albatrosses in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. This naturally leads to the questions about where these plastics come from and how they reach the vast and remote centers of the world’s oceans.