Talk:Marine debris

message: Why is there nothing on this page about the trash vortex, called the "Eastern Garbage Patch" or similar names? It is basically a floating island of flotsam. A Shangri-la of garbage, if you will. Here is a greenpeace article about it. No picture of the mass itself, though. Fuzzform 18:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Great Pacific Garbage Patch - 82.18.44.72 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Pacific Garbage Patch 

message: Flotsam and jetsam: essentially the exact same thing as marine debris? There shouldn't be two articles on the same thing - 82.18.44.72 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I can't see why anyone would object, so I'll be bold and do it now - 82.18.44.72 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Cancel that, the article could be expanded, as there is clearly an industrial use for them - 82.18.44.72 (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposals 

message: *The following paragraphs are completely unreferenced: first under study (this also needs clarification), first under Legality of ocean dumping, last paragraph in article.  Also, the  "Source of debris" section is unreferenced.
*Also, you might want to expand the bulleted lists under "Legality of ocean dumping" into prose.  delldot talk 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple suggestions 

message: It seems to me that this article is closely related to marine pollution, and should be developed in tandem with that article.  I have transferred some examples of marine toxins from Wild fisheries#Toxins, but "marine pollution" still needs work. I also wonder whether plastic waste is shaping up as the most serious marine pollutant of all, and whether it warrants an article of it's own? --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that marine debris is definitely a form of marine pollution. However, I strongly oppose merging the articles, as the debris article a well-developed discussion (unlike pollution) of a well documented and clearly notable topic. There should be a section in marine pollution that briefly discusses debris, along with a link to this article, where it can be discussed in depth. Anxietycello (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I wasn't suggesting that we merge them – just that they are closely related, and each should be developed with an eye on the other. --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relating to marine pollution 

message: Recent edit by 91.69.154.123 is possibly vandalism, as it appears to reverse the meaning of the introductory paragraphs using hideous grammar.  I haven't reversed it because I don't know the history on this, I could be mistaken.  --98.196.62.134 (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Vandalism 

message: The article Plastic particle water pollution has some overlap with this article; perhaps the contents of that article should be merged into this one? (It contains information on microplastics, aka nurdles, that perhaps should be put into the parent article if not already there, rather than simply added here.) -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 02:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plastic particle water pollution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Marine debris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927174107/http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1103/1103_feature.html to http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1103/1103_feature.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to a report by Jan Andries van Franeker, industrial plastic decreases by 75% in just 2 years. This study was done in the north sea, which has quite cool water. Appearantly (according to David Barnes, in hotter water, plastic would break down even faster (read http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/090820-plastic-decomposes-oceans-seas.html )
Due to this, I'm doubting the benefit of installations intended to collect macroplastics (like those of The Ocean Cleanup ). Would it not be more efficient to create an installation that is able to burn the microplastics instead ?
One other thing: I'm wondering whether we ourselves aren't all ready cleaning up these microplastics all ready ? From what I read, microscopic organisms consume it, but they can't digest it as their stomach acids aren't powerful enough probably. Larger organisms (large fish like sharks, wales, ...) probably have stronger stomach acids and can digest (or well break it down completely) it. The same goes for humans, and some other land animals like bears, monkeys, crocodiles, ...
As such, I tend to think that by buying for (and eating) the fish caught from our seas, we probably all ready clean up our plastic waste, all though we do poison ourselves a bit in the process.
KVDP (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup of ocean plastics

message: * I think there should be more information on the laws and treaties section. The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act could be added to the United States Law section.
* Both source 44 and 45 is now a dead link. --Zhc070 (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Suggestions 

message: I'm not sure what these terms mean:
*land-based debris
*ocean-based debris
Both are in the ocean, right? I'm guessing "land-based" means the debris came from the land, floating away from the seashore. Ocean-based could mean dropped from a ship?
Also, what about military debris: is it floating, or at the bottom? I think we should make clear in the article that not all "debris" which has polluted the world's oceans is a hazard to birds swimming on the surface - or even visible to people in boats. 
Lastly, we ought to distinguish between big pieces on the surface - like bottles or six-pack rings - and the tiny plastic particles distributed - not to say dissolved through many layers of water. 
When we throw around terms like Great Pacific garbage patch we give the impression of a marine junkyard with acres of easily-seen debris. If we really mean that millions of square miles of ocean have 4 particles per cubic meter of suspended plastic in them, undetectable by satellite photography, or even by casual boaters or divers, then maybe the three "garbage patch" article should be merged here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions and scope

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Marine debris. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629110318/http://192.5.14.110/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1377/MR1377.ch5.pdf to http://192.5.14.110/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1377/MR1377.ch5.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/welcome.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714000000/http://www.rivistasitiunesco.it/articolo.php?id_articolo=2073 to http://www.rivistasitiunesco.it/articolo.php?id_articolo=2073
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327153240/http://www.highseasghost.net/index_new.html to http://www.highseasghost.net/index_new.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Marine debris. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128000648/http://seaturtles.org/article.php?id=1751 to http://www.seaturtles.org/article.php?id=1751
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050524210352/http://library.marist.edu/diglib/EnvSci/archives/hudsmgmt/ny-njharborestuaryprogram/debris.html to http://library.marist.edu/diglib/EnvSci/archives/hudsmgmt/ny-njharborestuaryprogram/debris.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109084709/http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/newsrelease/newsrelease_11_07_07.html to http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/newsrelease/newsrelease_11_07_07.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212044741/http://www.emagazine.com/blog/mid-ocean-plastics-cleanup-schemes-too-little-too-late to http://www.emagazine.com/blog/mid-ocean-plastics-cleanup-schemes-too-little-too-late
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402220928/http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/legislation/mcaa/index.htm to http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/legislation/mcaa/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: -For the most part, references seem to be appropriate and reliable, but many of them are from News Sources (ie: CNN, BBC, NYTimes, Daily Mail) and Magazine Articles (ie: National Geographic, The Environmental Magazine), which have a tendency to not be as informative as more primary sources, which are also referenced on this page. There are also referenced from good sources like the Ocean Science Journal and various research institutions. After checking multiple articles, there didn't appear to be plagiarism or close paraphrasing. 
-Though most references seem to be fairly up-to-date there are a couple that are more out of date (ie: Janice Podsada (19 June 2001). "Lost Sea Cargo: Beach Bounty or Junk?" and Davet, ME; O'Toole, GA (2000), "Microbial biofilms: from ecology to molecular genetics”) and such information should be reevaluated and updated if needed. As many of these sources were accessed in 2008 and 2009 (according to retrieval dates given), the sources were up to date at the time, but information should be reinforced with more recent sources. 
-There isn’t any tendency for bias in the article. Though there tends to be an emphasis on the negative impacts of debris, it is more factual than argumentative. Furthermore, the “Environmental impact” section addresses both negative impacts and mentions positive and neutral impacts of particular debris.  
A few specific suggestions: 
First section: Appropriate reference? The first article that is cited (from CNN) seems to be an article that is more focused on specific effects of pollution on birds in pacific island regions rather than tendencies of debris accumulation. There are likely more appropriate sources regarding locations/occurrences of ocean debris. 
Section on Nurdles: What is an observable impact they have on the environment or animals? Other sections on other types of debris address this, but the reader is kind of left hanging on how nurdles impact the ocean ecosystem...since there is a negative tendency with most others, are we to assume the impact is the same?  
“Sources of debris” section: Should begin with broader sources and then move down into more specifics. There are many more sources of marine debris, but initially mentioning a specific type and incident is kind of distracting from the bigger picture. Seems more focused on “Friendly Floaties", which is a good example, but that should be mentioned after a more general outline of sources. 
“Sources of debris” section: “Marine litter is even found on the floor of the Arctic Ocean” - this out of place under this heading. Would be a better fit under another… possibly in “Deep-sea debris” where other locations are mentioned.
First few sections:
-There are some grammatical issues, including a few run-on sentences, that make some sections difficult to read. Making an effort to avoid such mistakes will help the paper flow better.  
Cinnis (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critiques/suggestions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marine debris. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819214304/http://www.algalita.org/pdf/PLASTIC%20DEBRIS%20ENGLISH.pdf to http://www.algalita.org/pdf/PLASTIC%20DEBRIS%20ENGLISH.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.amlrnrm.sa.gov.au/ProjectsTaskforce/TrashRacks/tabid/544/Default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marine debris. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024154340/http://marinedebris.info/wiki/great-pacific-garbage-patch to http://marinedebris.info/wiki/great-pacific-garbage-patch
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's my understanding that plastic doesn't decompose, it just breaks up into smaller pieces. Those two are very different   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decomposition diagram 

message: Some maps showing the spread of sea-based bacteria like Ideonella sakaiensis, Zalerium maritimum, ... should be made available here (i.e. are they present in places where there is much plastic debris, like the garbage patches, or on beaches and certain rivers (i.e. Citarum, ...), known to carry much plastic waste ?
Also, are these bacteria commercially grown for allowing cleanup volunteers to spread them on beaches containing fine plastic particles, which are difficult to remove by hand?
--Genetics4good (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global spread of plastic-eating microorganisms

message: Please take a look at the ongoing discussion on where in the Wikipedia web the content about microplastics in oceans should be primarily located, and whether a stand-alone article on Plastic pollution in the ocean would be a good idea. The discussion is on the talk page of microplastics here. EMsmile (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the content in this article deals specifically with plastics. My intention for the future would be to move everything to do with plastics to Plastic pollution in the ocean and to remodel this article to be a true overview article about all kinds of marine debris, then linking to the sub-article on plastics wherever required (e.g. for environmental impacts). EMsmile (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Update: In the end, a new article called marine plastic pollution was created and some content moved from here to there. EMsmile (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  More eyes needed regarding new article on "Plastic pollution in the ocean" / microplastics