To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I thought that the “Great Garbage Patch” is where free Nike shoes come from.
2 posted on
01/06/2011 12:10:24 PM PST by
Yo-Yo
(Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Articles about this subject are usually accompanied by photographs of floating plastic bottles or bags. Then someone (either the author, or several of the commentators) inevitably declares something like “the plastic doesn't degrade for 1,000 years”.
Imagine if you could buy vinyl paint that didn't degrade for 1,000 years. Or, even if you could buy a Corvette that wouldn't degrade in 1,000 years. The simple fact is that plastics degrade very quickly in sunlight. The vast bulk of the plastic in the so-called “garbage patch” can't be seen with the naked eye. An honest photo of the patch would show clear, blue water — not flotsam and jetsam.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Again, another case where some fine print would have been nice. (The size is estimated)
However, I wonder if someone could please send some boats to collect that junk for once.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
FACTS - the turd in the punch bowl of liberal thought
5 posted on
01/06/2011 12:16:43 PM PST by
lormand
(A Government who robs Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
There goes HER chance of getting tenure...
6 posted on
01/06/2011 12:17:08 PM PST by
WayneS
(Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
8 posted on
01/06/2011 12:19:52 PM PST by
treetopsandroofs
(Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Interesting graphic. I've flown over the Pacific a number of times (west coast to Japan and back) and also been in a seagoing vessel once plus tracked cargo over the ocean hundreds of times.
Interestingly, ships and planes follow the Gulf Streams and seldom venture through or near the location shown as the garbage path.
Thus, it is a convenient theory precisely because it is so hard to disprove. Sort of like claiming there is a lost city on the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
12 posted on
01/06/2011 12:27:55 PM PST by
Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Calculations show that the amount of energy it would take to remove plastics from the ocean is roughly 250 times the mass of the plastic itself; Anybody have a clue what this means?
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Another belief by enviromentalists a load of poo. More important information for the MSM to ignore.
15 posted on
01/06/2011 12:44:25 PM PST by
nerdwithagun
(I'd rather go gun to gun then knife to knife.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Well, now some professors can do a survey to prove how misinformed people are, based upon their source of news:
Question: The amount of plastic in the oceans covers an area twice the size of Texas. True or False?
New York Times readers: 89% True, 11% False.
Fox News listeners: 42% True, 58% False.
Free Republic participants: 0% True, 100% False.
Correct answer: False A recent study by Oregon State University found that the level of plastic in the oceans is less than 1% the size of Texas.
Resulting headlines (sarc): "Study shows New York Times readers more likely to be uninformed"
18 posted on
01/06/2011 1:19:25 PM PST by
Steve_Seattle
("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Seems the plastic in question has been rendered unto microscopic particles diffused thru vast amounts of water. Yes there is trash out there, and it has an effect, but nowhere near the “collect it and build an island” stuff most people are thinking of.
21 posted on
01/06/2011 1:51:12 PM PST by
ctdonath2
(Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson