Nearly Every Seabird May Be Eating Plastic By 2050 149
sciencehabit writes: According to a new study almost every ocean-foraging species of birds may be eating plastic by 2050. In the five large ocean areas known as "garbage patches," each square kilometer of surface water holds almost 600,000 pieces of debris. Sciencemag reports: "By 2050, about 99.8% of the species studied will have eaten plastic, the researchers report online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Consuming plastic can cause myriad problems, Wilcox says. For example, some types of plastics absorb and concentrate environmental pollutants, he notes. After ingestion, those chemicals can be released into the birds’ digestive tracts, along with chemicals in the plastics that keep them soft and pliable. But plastic bits aren’t always pliable enough to get through a gull’s gut. Most birds have trouble passing large bits of plastic, and they build up in the stomach, sometimes taking up so much room that the birds can’t consume enough food to stay healthy."
on the upside... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most birds have trouble passing large bits of plastic, and they build up in the stomach, sometimes taking up so much room that the birds canâ(TM)t consume enough food to stay healthy.
We can start harvesting bird carcasses for plastic, taking it out of the environment, and acting as a source of plastic. Win-win. /sarcasm (that shouldn't be needed here... but...)
Re: (Score:3)
What if bird love plastic?
Re:not so much on the upside... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:not so much on the upside... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right, of course. What amazes me is the fact that there are people in this forum who have modded your comment 'Funny'. Personally, I can't see anything funny in knowing that we as a society, because of our almost complete lack of concern for what crap we are spilling in the environment, cause millions of birds to die a slow, agonizing death. I challenge anybody - especially the idiots who think it is funny - to eat a couple of broken plastic spoons every day and tell me they enjoy the process of dying from pierced intestines.
Apart from whether one should feel a normal level of empathy towards wildlife or not, it is actually a significant issue. It is scientifically well established that different parts of the environment are closely connected - we talk about food webs, for one thing. We know that taking out just one, significant part of the food web can have a dramatic effect on everything, sometimes in surprising ways; a common theme, though, is that when it happens, it introduces instability, and when it finally settles down again, it is a much lower levels than before and with much lower species diversity.
Yet, we keep playing with these things, refusing to open our eyes and ears, like there was no tomorrow; I just hope we don't turn out to be right in that respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: on the upside... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, as Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat plastic!"
I'm thinking that a this would make a great Godzilla type film . . . the big monster, that eats plastic.
"Mom! Godzilla ate my Nintendo!
Re: on the upside... (Score:2)
Big monster made of plastic, eats humans, ends with monster choking tomdeath on particularly fat man.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the Godzilla monsters, including the King himself, were created by pollution. Godzilla was originally created by US atomic testing, although the recent reboot changed that origin since it was a US film.
Re: (Score:2)
using poster's almost and maybe (Score:1)
Because we are distracted by "global warming" (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of being concerned about the REAL environmental issues.... such as plastics and pollution of our bodies of water, hazardous chemical releases by our own government's negligence, and corruption of potable water supplies.
Re:Because we are distracted by "global warming" (Score:5, Insightful)
So, because one problem exists, we should ignore even worse ones? (Climate change and the mechanism that is causing it does more than simply warm things up, it also causes things like ocean acidification)
That is some sound logic I tell ya h'what.
Re: (Score:1)
There's more than enough evidence to place it in the realm of plausible and even probable science. The news media being shitty doesn't refute how much we know about the effects of our dirty energy sources on the climate.
But I agree, the ends can justify the means, even when they too heavy handed at times. It's too bad China (who will easily be out-polluting us in years to come) doesn't give two shits about our energy policy, since current U.S. politicians and companies are working together in order to make
Re:Because we are distracted by "global warming" (Score:5, Interesting)
It's too bad China (who will easily be out-polluting us in years to come) doesn't give two shits about our energy policy
Did you know that last year, China investments in renewable energy was bigger than that of all European countries combined? They accounted for more than 60%of the world's investment in that sector. And it's even bigger in other "green" areas (forest and wildlife protection, etc).
Nobody in China is thrilled by pollution. But over the last decades they had to deal with insane urbanization rates, the constant threat of starvation and other problems that are completely foreign to us, so yes, fighting pollution did not come first, but that doesn't mean they don't care. They just have to juggle many impossible priorities.
Re: (Score:2)
It's too bad China (who will easily be out-polluting us in years to come) doesn't give two shits about our energy policy
Did you know that last year, China investments in renewable energy was bigger than that of all European countries combined? They accounted for more than 60%of the world's investment in that sector. And it's even bigger in other "green" areas (forest and wildlife protection, etc).
Nobody in China is thrilled by pollution. But over the last decades they had to deal with insane urbanization rates, the constant threat of starvation and other problems that are completely foreign to us, so yes, fighting pollution did not come first, but that doesn't mean they don't care. They just have to juggle many impossible priorities.
How much of that investment is actually planned for use in China versus how much is investment for manufacturing product that will be sold elsewhere?
China is very good at investing in whatever they can then export. I suspect that very little of that product will actually be used in China itself.
Re: (Score:2)
It's too bad China (who will easily be out-polluting us in years to come) doesn't give two shits about our energy policy
Did you know that last year, China investments in renewable energy was bigger than that of all European countries combined? They accounted for more than 60%of the world's investment in that sector. And it's even bigger in other "green" areas (forest and wildlife protection, etc).
Nobody in China is thrilled by pollution. But over the last decades they had to deal with insane urbanization rates, the constant threat of starvation and other problems that are completely foreign to us, so yes, fighting pollution did not come first, but that doesn't mean they don't care. They just have to juggle many impossible priorities.
How much of that investment is actually planned for use in China versus how much is investment for manufacturing product that will be sold elsewhere?
China is very good at investing in whatever they can then export. I suspect that very little of that product will actually be used in China itself.
The economy of China has changed a lot over the last 5 years. Now the majority of the products they manufacture is for the Chinese market. Same goes for recycling - electronic scrap from the USA used to represent 95% of their recycling/refurbishing market, now it's less than half.
It is expected that by 2020, about 60% of the world's middle class will be Chinese. This is a huge market. When poor workers come to the city to get low-paying jobs doing menial labor (which is much better than starvation on bad fa
Re: (Score:2)
It's too bad China (who will easily be out-polluting us in years to come) doesn't give two shits about our energy policy
Did you know that last year, China investments in renewable energy was bigger than that of all European countries combined? They accounted for more than 60%of the world's investment in that sector. And it's even bigger in other "green" areas (forest and wildlife protection, etc).
Nobody in China is thrilled by pollution. But over the last decades they had to deal with insane urbanization rates, the constant threat of starvation and other problems that are completely foreign to us, so yes, fighting pollution did not come first, but that doesn't mean they don't care. They just have to juggle many impossible priorities.
How much of that investment is actually planned for use in China versus how much is investment for manufacturing product that will be sold elsewhere?
China is very good at investing in whatever they can then export. I suspect that very little of that product will actually be used in China itself.
The economy of China has changed a lot over the last 5 years. Now the majority of the products they manufacture is for the Chinese market. Same goes for recycling - electronic scrap from the USA used to represent 95% of their recycling/refurbishing market, now it's less than half.
It is expected that by 2020, about 60% of the world's middle class will be Chinese. This is a huge market. When poor workers come to the city to get low-paying jobs doing menial labor (which is much better than starvation on bad farmland), someone gets a bump higher in the food chain and use their new income to buy dishwashers and computers or move to a nicer home. Multiply that by billions and you get an economy that has a spectacular growth.
Meanwhile, the economy in the western countries is stalled.
All agreed - however you haven't actually answered the question (in bold above).
People who are interested in their first washing machine are not necessarily interested in green technology.
Re: (Score:2)
How much of that investment is actually planned for use in China versus how much is investment for manufacturing product that will be sold elsewhere?
you haven't actually answered the question (in bold above).
People who are interested in their first washing machine are not necessarily interested in green technology.
Nowadays, most of the Chinese investments in green technologies is for domestic use. It's not out of the goodness of their hearts; it's simply because there is a constant shortage of resources.
That's where the fantastic expertise they have in recycling and refurbishing comes from. Did you know that in most cities, the majority of household garbage is *sold*, not thrown away? It's so common that keeping the trash is often seen as a bonus given to housekeepers by their employers.
Recycling and being green is n
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you I find your commentary highly informative -
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, if we keep having 3 cat4 hurricanes churning the Pacific garbage patch, you could easily argue that it's going to be one and the same problem.
Pretty sure that cat5 hurricanes is the minimum (Score:2)
Actually, if we keep having 3 cat4 hurricanes churning the Pacific garbage patch, you could easily argue that it's going to be one and the same problem.
Pretty sure that cat5 hurricanes is the minimum ...assuming you want a good signal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like a mindless anti-government screed.
Which is a real issue, despite your denial.
Which are also real issues, mostly perpetrated by corporate slop and a refusal to pay for the externalities of their production.
Which was an accident by a contractor that further polluted a river already polluted by mining operat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is polution caused by polonium?
Many of us are more concerned by pollution, not polution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of being concerned about the REAL environmental issues.... such as plastics and pollution of our bodies of water, hazardous chemical releases by our own government's negligence, and corruption of potable water supplies.
I don't believe in that either. There is no global warming, and no poisoning or pollution of anything.
See, I can deny better than you can.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe in that either. There is no global warming, and no poisoning or pollution of anything.
I am willing to stipulate that global warming happens and concerns may have some bearing, if you will just agree that toxic chemical releases and water contamination are a bigger more immediately pressing issue that GW should not distract us from.
Also, we have done most of what is within our power regarding GW, and if we weren't so distracted, we could have much more beneficial improvements if our o
Re: (Score:2)
I am willing to stipulate that global warming happens and concerns may have some bearing, if you will just agree that toxic chemical releases and water contamination are a bigger more immediately pressing issue that GW should not distract us from.
But it isn't an either/or situation. People can think about multiple things. We have water cleanup in my area, but that doesn't mean that when I think about acid drainage mitigation, that Greenhouse gas just gets pushed out.
Also, we have done most of what is within our power regarding GW, and if we weren't so distracted, we could have much more beneficial improvementsif our officials would concentrate on fixing things that are the most seriously broken that they can have the greatest positive impact on.
If I might make a financial example. I started saving for retirement when I was pretty young. I didn't live like a pauper, but my house was a ittle less expensive, and my cars were kept a few extra years. But I didn't lose sight of either my retirement funds or my standard of living.
Re: (Score:2)
But it isn't an either/or situation. People can think about multiple things.
People are not very good at doing that.
suddenly a talking point environmentalists, who in similar form are outraged that compact florescent light bulbs have a tiny bit of mercury in them, yet have been throwing their 4 foot long lamps out in the regular garbage since forever.
The 4ft long lamps were a small minority of the lightning market, they have a long life time and are usually installed by pros. in commercial environment
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing one's use of paper products will not reduce global deforestation
I suggest banning the sale of lumber products taken from natural forests, Or of farm or other products created on formerly forested land without paying a heft fee per hectare of land.
Let the economic ramifications work their way back through the system and remove any significant incentive for people to deforest land.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I might help if we stopped using up a decent portion of already cleared arable land for fuel production...
Re: (Score:2)
A good sized piece of the deforestation pie is to increase oil nut and sugar cane production to feed the bio-fuel industry.
Re: (Score:2)
"I suggest banning the sale of lumber products taken from natural forests, Or of farm or other products created on formerly forested land without paying a heft fee per hectare of land."
I would take this farther. Let's stop using anything "wild caught" and favor that which is farmed, be it trees or seafood. Most especially, we want to absolutely ban the use of "wild caught" on labels as though hunting and gathering were somehow more "environmental" or "organic" than farming. If you care about sustainability,
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I actually prefer non-organic foods. I want farmers to use pesticides, gmos, and fertilizer. It's more efficient and better for the planet and humanity on the whole.
Re: (Score:2)
You do have to be careful with fertilizer, too much injures the soil's micro-flora which inhibits the crop's ability to absorb essential nutrients and minerals; modern farmers use a crop production service that analyses the soil, considers the crop being planted and applies a custom blended mixture of fertilizer and minerals. Production increases in Europe have been flat [sciencedirect.com], it's hard to tell if this is because of their abhorance of GMO and pesticides, antiquated farming methods or increased bio-mass [energytransition.de] monocultu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But don't believe me, just look at the predictions made two decades ago, or even one decade ago - zero came true. How many will come true next year (zero) and the year after (zero). How many full decades of incorrect predictions is it going to take bef
Re: (Score:2)
No, they have a theory. The greenhouse effect is a thing. Where they go off on the rails for me is assuming that the earth and humans can't handle climate variability. If anything for the long term strategy, we should be willing and accepting of climate change and be prepared to adapt. No amounts of cuts to carbon emissions will keep the climate constant. Whether climate change is natural or caused by humans, the effect is the same. Live near the ocean? Be prepared to move. Live in a cold climate, be prepar
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been nice if you had written one true thing in that entire post, you have truly written a mighty gish gallop [rationalwiki.org] of ridicule and ignorance.
Some short notes because you're likely libertarded:
War on Seagulls (Score:2)
there has to be a systemic source (Score:1)
considering the quantity, there has to be somebody dumping garbage on a massive scale somewhere. I checked the Wikipedia article and it doesn't mention anything about the source. Considering the high cost of land in asia a doubt if landfills are good option. there has to be large scale dumping going on somewhere of post-consumer garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
It comes from all over. Cruise ships and other large carriers dump their trash into the ocean. Some countries dump their trash into the ocean. Some countries don't cover their trash-filled landfills, and the debris becomes airborne and land in the ocean. And those are just the intentional ones -- if a ship capsizes, you don't think it's contents just disappears, do you?
It dosen't take one large source for this to be a problem. As time marches on, it is a bunch of little sources that are contributing to
Re: (Score:3)
considering the quantity, there has to be somebody dumping garbage on a massive scale somewhere. I checked the Wikipedia article and it doesn't mention anything about the source. Considering the high cost of land in asia a doubt if landfills are good option. there has to be large scale dumping going on somewhere of post-consumer garbage.
FWIW, my understanding that about 80% of the plastics come from land based sources. Much of the plastic is post-consumer waste from urban runoff: sourced from beach litter, rivers and storm drains near large cities. Another large source is garbage transport lossage (e.g., things that fall off barges and trucks on their way to landfills or recycling centers). The biggest industrial source is plastics manufacturers that spill plastic pellets (which generally gets swept up in urban runoff).
In southern Calif
Naaasty birds at the gyre! (Score:2)
dont eat plastic
ok so you did
you stoopid bird
out of the gene pool!
now fishes gonna eat u
meanwhile at the dump
'ocean foraging' boids
have been gulpin' plastic
since 1950s
who weeps for them
hey stoopid man, clean up ocean
not fer boids do it fer yerself
quick before endangered specie
is found thriving in the gyres
becuz then plastic gyres will become
protected international habitat
Humans eat plastic too (Score:4, Interesting)
With all the industrial food wrapped into plastic containers, human also eat plastic, since almost all plastic leak chemical into the food.
Polyethylene and polypropylene may be the exceptions, but they always come with other chemicals that improve color or plasticity.
Fuck'em (Score:1)
An interesting but positive side-effect of pollution.
SIlly me (Score:3)
This is why (Score:1)
The Bright Side (Score:2)
At least its not Alka-Seltzer.
Egghead morons (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The magnitude of this problem is absolutely enormous. It would take huge amounts of resources just to keep pace with the new crap being dumped into the oceans. Furthermore, a lot of this stuff has been broken down into very tiny pieces that a person couldn't just scoop out of the water.
Right now, the most effective way of tackling this issue is preventing even more garbage from getting into the ocean.
I'm not one of these "big government must do something" watermelon environmentalists, but I'm making a con
Science For The Birds (Score:2)
We can perform miracles when we apply science to the problem. All we need here is to reformulate plastics into a nutritious dietary enhancement. Plastics have long taken many forms, textures and other characteristics with the brilliant work of scientists and engineers. The only plastic on my 1950 Pontiac was a hood ornament that looked like amber. Today there's no place to put a magnet in your car- everything is plastic.
Furthermore, let's look on some past breakthroughs, like in the 70s when we created the
A picture is worth a thousand words (Score:3)
Just came across this picture yesterday, better than the one in the article:
http://www.afternoongossip.com/its-time-to-be-worried/14/ [afternoongossip.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You should go through those pictures. Cities are proof of our wastefulness, greenhouses in Spain are a big issue! That is some crazy in that page.
Sixth Great Extinction Event is underway (Score:3, Informative)
Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here
Stanford Report
June 19, 2015
That is the bad news at the center of a new study by a group of scientists including Paul Ehrlich, the Bing Professor of Population Studies in biology and a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Ehrlich and his co-authors call for fast action to conserve threatened species, populations and habitat, but warn that the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.
"[The study] shows without any significant doubt that we are now entering the sixth great mass extinction event," Ehrlich said.
-- Stanford Report, June 19, 2015 [stanford.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Dave Mustaine declared this in 1992! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I work in a technical field in a somewhat creative environment. Sometimes I'm wrong. Sometimes I'm right. There are those who try to make it seem when someone's been wrong once they are wrong about everything. It's a debate tactic which I'm sure has a name, as it's not new. Don't fall prey to it.
Just because someone is wrong once, doesn't mean they are wrong about everything, forever.
Who cares? (Score:1)
The birds that survive will evolve and adapt to become capable of eating the plastic and somehow create the enzymes necessary to neutralize the harmful elements.
Not entirely unlike how humans have somehow managed to survive despite great disease plagues that SHOULD have wiped out entire generations. Although it may be like in Africa where those who are immune to terrible diseases, like Ebola, are shunned, and therefore unable to pass on their genes, unless they viciously rape and impregnate innocent women.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Coward: you, sir, are an idiot.
Alternative Titles (Score:4, Insightful)
Seabirds May Be Living on the Moon by 2020
Seabird May Become the Dominant Species on the Planet by 2020
News for Birds (Score:5, Insightful)
By 2050, nearly all articles posted on "news" sites will be hyped-up predictions of the distant future.
Nearly every HUMAN eating plastic by 2050 (Score:1)
What is that crap in McDonalds nuggets and burgers?? Silicon Putty, the crap you rework seals with.
Charlatans (Score:4, Interesting)
By 2050, about 99.8% of the species studied will have eaten plastic
This sounds a lot like the "one in three women around the world will get raped in their lifetime" bullshit figure that has been repeated ad nauseam over the last 10 years by people who couldn't calc.exe their way out of a paper bag.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem (Score:2)
You need an environmental 9/11, "Sandy Hook", Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, "Remember the Maine", "Remember the Alamo", etc. moment to move people's cheese. Until then, we have too many other crises to think about. I mean, didn't you hear about Miley Cyrus accidentally showing a nipple during the VMAs? Think of the children!...
Heck - If some educated official in a position of power tried to actually do something about it (good or bad), they'd be shot to pieces by lobbyists and special interests that would
Re: (Score:2)
That was the environmental 9/11 or Pearl Harbor you're looking for.
People know we are on the downward spiral.
People have known since the 1970s that the environment is in bad shape, and that as long as we continue our selfish ways not much will change.
It's like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Re: (Score:2)
That didn't take a little longer because the spill itself disappeared so much more quickly from the Gulf than people expected (or that's the story the media told us?) And since I never visit the gulf or visibly rely on what it produces, it faded quickly.
The disaster I describe has to be more permanent and affect the everyday life of all humans. Like an entire species of dogs or cats dying off due to some mystery "colony collapse disorder" later revealed to be man-made (see the 3rd original Planet Of The Ape
Herewith, my solution (Score:3)
Require that the specific gravity of every form of plastic be greater than 1. End of problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there needs to be a small adder for the higher density of seawater, so hat the actual standard would be 1.1 . But you get the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
A further check shows that there is not much about our plastics manufacture that has to change:
http://www.dotmar.com.au/densi... [dotmar.com.au]
The bad guys are polyethylene and polypropylene.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As with carbon emissions, if we step up and lead, others will tend to follow.
Would the scene be from one of those flyspeck African countries that refuses our food aid because someone from Greenpeace has told them that GMO wheat is bad for them? If so, then that country's plastic pollution will quickly take care of itself.
well (Score:1)
then start putting some vitamins in plastic.
the least we could do.
Nice find (Score:1)
Thats a really well worded find. "Can" is soft-speak for 'we imagined really hard and after alot of debate, we might just mention this because our Sierra club membership requires us to buy into the scare".
So, ignore all the real problems. Plastic in the oceans - gotcha. The birds wont have grand children, so we should be alarmed. Stop making drinks with ice cubes today and you'll be saving the planet tomorrow.
What huberus. Why are these things posted when there is so much going on in the world that isn
this is propaganda at work (Score:2)
...because their pronouncements are as carefully contrived as anything by Leni Reifenstahl. Granted, this is slashdot, so it could just be incompetent editing.
Notice the summary starts with a categorical: ..."
"According to a new study almost every ocean-foraging species of birds may be eating plastic by 2050,,,"
Salted with a nice big statistic:
"..In the five large ocean areas known as "garbage patches," each square kilometer of surface water holds almost 600,000 pieces of debris.
Adds in a bit of fluffy FUD
Re: (Score:2)
It should also be noted from TFA that ~90% of birds have eaten plastic now.
So what the article is really saying is that the number of birds eating plastic will have risen 10% in the next 35 years.
Somehow I don't think that that's going to be that big a deal.
Never mind that the "garbage patches" aren't places that most birds ever see, so the concentration of plastic there is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying there aren't floating reefs of garbage? Really? http://education.nationalgeogr... [nationalgeographic.com]
You really should do some research before posting. It will help make you look less like an ass-hole.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, so should you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Despite its enormous size and density (4 particles per cubic meter), the patch is not visible from satellite photography, nor is it necessarily detectable to casual boaters or divers in the area, as it consists primarily of a small increase in suspended, often microscopic particles in the upper water column."
4 PARTICLES per cubic meter.
Often MICROSCOPIC.
Thanks for completely proving my point about the pernicious impression given to casual readers that
Congratulations!! (Score:2)
This sounds like great news, but I have to ask why we're focusing on feeding sea birds instead of people?
Seabirds and landfills (Score:1, Troll)
Indeed.
There are clouds of seagulls constantly hanging out at the landfills in the San Francisco Bay Area, picking food out of the trash as it's dumped. Lots of plastic in the same load (even now that the plastic grocery bags are banned.) Why haven't THEY gone extinct yet?
Do the "environmentalists" think these gulls are better at distinguishing, or surviving ingestion o
Re:Seabirds and landfills (Score:4, Interesting)
A Diet To Die For
One bird feasts on food that would leave most other animals stone dead
Nov 29th 2014
The Economist
Among an average of 528 types of bacterium found on the heads of 50 turkey and black vultures were those that can cause botulism, gangrene, tetanus, septicaemia, blood clots and metastatic abscesses in other animals. And although these birds did not have it, another study found Bacillus anthracis in vulture faeces. It causes anthrax, except in vultures.
Vultures clearly have strong stomachs, in every sense. With an acidity at least ten times that of a human’s, a vulture’s gut destroys a large amount of any potentially pathogenic bacteria that is ingested. Indeed, when the researchers analysed the contents of each bird’s large intestine, they could not detect some 85% of the micro-organisms they had found on its facial skin.
But what remains is hardly benign. The microbial flora in a vulture’s large intestine is dominated by two types of anaerobic faecal bacteria, Clostridia and Fusobacteria, both of which can be deadly to other animals. Some Clostridia species have been responsible for periodic mass die-offs in birds such as ducks, geese and waders (although other species can be beneficial), while Fusobacteria nucleatum is associated with human colon cancer.
-- The Economist, November 29th, 2014 [economist.com]
[Just because seagulls and vultures can do it, doesn't mean terns and albatrosses can]
Re: (Score:2)
A Diet To Die For
One bird feasts on food that would leave most other animals stone dead
Underground Lightning reminds me of a co-worker of mine.
He maintained that there was no need for any regulation of any dangerous chemicals, whether it was asbestos, sewage, or radioactive waste.
He insisted "We'll adapt to all that stuff". He never did have a good answer to my mentioning that adapt means that maybe two people out of a million might survive, and not very well at that.
And lest he get too smug, there are these weird little microspheres of plastic that are getting into the oceans. It turn
Re: (Score:2)
It's a cosmetic product. No good reason is possible. Just "Marketing said so".
'B'-ark material.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I, however, am convinced you're a total fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So because gulls are doing well living out of garbage, there's nothing to worry about.
You're out of your mind.
Re: (Score:2)
It is far more likely that some sort of weird emergent evolution will go an and birds will start to be able to digest plastic.
I can see upsides to it, but birst may start to taste funny after that ;) .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are bacteria and eukaryotes that have been found consuming plastic in the ocean. It's only a matter of time until a bird consumes an "infected plastic" with said organism on it and isn't just killed off. Eventually, if we keep pouring plastic into the environment, this evolution will happen, but it could take thousands / millions of years.
Bacteria != an evolved animal. More likely, if any flying critters end up able to digest petrochemical plastic, that will be after the present ones have died off, and the chemical pathways to extract energy from plastics are initiated. Of course, this new food supply will be very limited, because humans will not likely be producing petrochemical plastics for those millions of years - if we are still around.
For all purposes, petrochemical plastics function much better as a poison than a food source.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty significant claim, for which I'd like to see a citation, because I think you're probably misunderstanding something of which I have heard.
In the mid-70s, bacteria cultured from a waste-water treatment plant at a nylon-manufacturing plant (in Japan, IIRC) were found to be able to metabolise the monomers that form nylon (two different 6-carbon chains with condensible radicals on the 1- and 6- atoms) from the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your purported support :
"Biological communities" living ON particles is one thing, similar to people living ON the coast ; people CONSUMING the coast is a different thing to people CONSUMING a bacon, le
Re: (Score:2)
It is far more likely that some sort of weird emergent evolution will go an and birds will start to be able to digest plastic.
I can see upsides to it, but birst may start to taste funny after that ;) .
So you figure that if we put a thousand people in a room and allow them nothing to eat but rocks, you'll come back in 10 years, and they'll all have evolved to eat rocks? Most plastic has no particular nutrients, although there are exceptions like casein derived plastic, or Henry Ford's unsuccessful soybean plastic for automobile body panels.
It's always good to understand that 99+ percent of all species have gone extinct. And often because of changing environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Coward: you are an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)