Calling all divers and snorklers for fact check...

[Paul B]

I saw tires, old engines, bottles and cans directly off the beach in Tahiti, and the worst was in Indonesia, where as I was snorkeling trash bags and bottles were brushing against my face.

Tahiti, especially Bora Bora and many small Islands have a problem in that they have no land fills to dump garbage. Bora Bora doesn't even have a road that goes inland. It is hard and expensive to get rid of large items like cars, washimg machines etc so they lay around to rot or they dump them in the sea. The small Caribbean also has that problem so you see abandoned cars all over the place just rusting away as it is expensive to get rid of them.

Bora Bora.

 

[BlueCursor]

I have found US and Caribbean waters diving sites to be clean. Other parts of the world are not. In fact, it's down right difficult to endure the amount of underwater trash I have seen some dive sites.

 

[gig 'em]

Tahiti, especially Bora Bora and many small Islands have a problem in that they have no land fills to dump garbage. Bora Bora doesn't even have a road that goes inland. It is hard and expensive to get rid of large items like cars, washimg machines etc so they lay around to rot or they dump them in the sea. The small Caribbean also has that problem so you see abandoned cars all over the place just rusting away as it is expensive to get rid of them.

Bora Bora.

Yeah, you see a lot of burning trash piles in French Polynesia

 

[VR28man]

The article is inherently impossible, at least as presented, unless you're talking about heavily inhabited areas. We all should know this.

First, anyone who's kept a reef tank knows that junk (be it detritus, or if people were to add floating plastic to their tanks) accumulates in the areas of lowest flow, and/or at the edges. The ocean is the same way, but much larger. Thus, if there's floating junk in it, it will accumulate in areas with the least flow. Three major categories are rock outcroppings (a small portion of the ocean, and one beset with waves an currents, so most stuff that floats decently will dislodge and go elsewhere), low flow areas relatively near the shore (major) and places in deep blue water where floating garbage accumulates due to the currents disappearing. the low areas near the shore are worst because humans generally hang out near the shore (vice the deep sea), so the raw probability of something being tossed there is exponentially higher.

(sinking stuff of course is completely different, that just goes where it sinks. This is a case where it's totally dependent on where humans dump it. Again, generally close to where humans live, with less heavy sinking junk the further out to sea you go. This is again why Long Island sound is so bad - because there are millions of people who live there who've throw all kinds of stuff in there - normal garbage, stuff they don't want, sunken boats, stuff dropped from their boats, and yes mafia hits - for centuries)

Second, we all know basic tropical coral reef zonation: inshore zone, lagoon, patch reefs in the lagoon, back reef, reef crest, fore reef, deep reef. (if you don't you need to learn it because you can't understand your animals without understanding this. also, temperate zones are similar, though different in the sense outcroppings are not made from coral skeleton rock). If you narrowly just look at "reefs", the it's again impossible that stuff really accumulates there; if the waves are decent than storms will, after several months, push most semi-floating garbage into the inshore zone or back out to sea. Beach cleanup is what needs to be done here. (again, heavy sinking stuff like engine blocks and people wearing cement shoes will stay there forever - at least for our purposes).

So, the amount of stuff is proportional to the number of people who live in a locality. Most of their floating trash will be in their inshore zone, but some of it will be carried away by currents either to other areas (which is why you might see Chinese or American trash in an uninhabited pacific island. Or, famously, parts from airplanes that went down far at sea in the Seychelles), or to dead spots in the global current system. Heavy sinking stuff will always be near where humans generally navigate, or their shorelines. You won't, generally, see a lot of stuff on the back reef, reef crest, etc. because of the currents; what accumulates won't be around for long and will go elsewhere.

Have I seen it snorkeling or diving? Of course you see it here and there, sometimes more, sometimes less depending on recent weather, the amount of people around, etc. But that's anecdotal, it's impossible to accumulate on the coral reefs per se because of the currents.

That does not mean that people shouldn't do anything about trash in their shores, on the ocean floor, or far out at sea. Nor does it mean it's not harmful. But the main thing is that people need to (pardon the pun) clean up their act, with the number one place being their cities.

 

[DLHDesign]

The article is inherently impossible, at least as presented, unless you're talking about heavily inhabited areas. We all should know this.

I'm curious why you find the article "impossible"? It's claims are that plastic - when in connection with coral - causes the coral to sicken and die. From the article:

A new study based on four years of diving on 159 reefs in the Pacific shows that reefs in four countries — Australia, Thailand, Indonesia and Myanmar — are heavily contaminated with plastic. It clings to the coral, especially branching coral. And where it clings, it sickens or kills.

Is your argument that it's impossible for the garbage to accumulate where the study claims it did? Or that the volumes found are impossible? Or something else?

For the record, the actual study can be found here.

 

[jgvergo]

Well, I just stumbled on this BBC report/video. I figured many of you who posted on this thread would be interested in seeing it. As they say, a picture is worth a 1000 words
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-41866046/the-giant-mass-of-plastic-waste-taking-over-the-caribbean

 

[Rick Mathew]

Well, I just stumbled on this BBC report/video. I figured many of you who posted on this thread would be interested in seeing it. As they say, a picture is worth a 1000 words
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-41866046/the-giant-mass-of-plastic-waste-taking-over-the-caribbean

I actually saw something similar to this in Bonaire...not near the this extent but none the less....bad and ugly!

 

[VR28man]

I'm curious why you find the article "impossible"? It's claims are that plastic - when in connection with coral - causes the coral to sicken and die. From the article:


Is your argument that it's impossible for the garbage to accumulate where the study claims it did? Or that the volumes found are impossible? Or something else?

For the record, the actual study can be found here.

Sorry for not responding earlier. Thanks for the link. I didn't have time then to look at the article in depth a few weeks ago. However, the link is now paywalled , so I have to go off my memory.


First, the assertion being made is that "plastic is killing the reefs". My thought on that is, basic oceanography will say that it's very difficult for plastic to accumulate on a large coral reef - a group of rocks sticking out of the ocean that are made mostly of SPS/LPS corals and coral-skeleton rock - at the reef crest, back reef, and fore reef zones. The only kind of coral reef where large amounts of plastic is likely to accumulate are patch reefs in the lagoon and inshore zone, and even then only in places where the currents create dead zones or low flow.

Second, from what I recall of the summary that's now paywalled, the actual study (vice the press reaction and comments on the press articles) stated that they surveyed 200-some "reefs" (no further details in the summary the exact locations, or the location in the overall zonation mentioned above in the summary) in Indonesia, Thailand, and Australia. (they also had, IMO an unnecessary and politicizing table of human population densities per country, which was intended to show the "threat to reefs" by those countries) A number of the Indonesian ones were near heavily populated islands (to include Java, one of the most populated places in the world), and the Thai ones were near big resort locations, IIRC. The Australian ones were parts of the Great Barrier Reef relatively far from inhabited areas (and again, the summary had no details on what section of the reef zone was surveyed).

Without knowledge of flows, reef geography, and which reef zone their each of their surveyed "reefs" come from (which again was not available in what I recall of the summary), their data sample is skewed and meaningless. For instance, a patch reef in a low-ish flow zone on Java will very likely have a lot of trash of various sorts in it, but a fore reef on the Great Barrier reef will likely not. This could be one explanation for their finding that the amount of trash they found in "Indonesia" was several 100X, IIRC, what they found in Australia.

It's like me using LA, NYC, and St. Louis to represent US auto emission levels, while asserting that Canada has much less based on survey areas on the northern BC coast. And then using that imply (with the hopes that the press will takeaway) that the world is threatened by auto emissions. (which it may be, but again such a sample is skewed and meaningless)

Again, no one doubts that trash will accumulate in inshore and lagoon zones with low current or in dead zones. The BBC video above shows such a place. The reef crest is a different animal.

Also, I will buy that plastic caught in branching coral is bad for the corals' growth.



Finally, for the OP: I snorkeled four areas in the U.S. State of Hawaii with heavy coral populations in the last few weeks. Three fringing reefs (Honaunau, Kealakekua Bay, Hanauma Bay - the latter with a small inshore zone, and significant amounts of coral rock, to include a very large former, IIRC, Acropora colony, which died after global cooling caused sea levels to drop and cause Acropora to almost go extinct in the main Hawaiian Islands) and one set of large tide pools (Kapoho Tide pools).

I saw no plastic or other trash on any of these, save for one piece of plastic in Kapoho which I removed.

This is not surprising.

At Honaunau and Kealakekua, the days I was there, the nearshore sea state was on the lower side of 3. Those fringing reefs have no inshore zone and to directly down to deeper water, as they're a mountain slope which goes from ~13k ft continuously down to the abyss at around a 12 degree slope. The sheer strength of the waves and sediment stirred up by such relatively low sea state was impressive, and again any floating garbage in the area would almost certainly be carried out to sea. (or thrown onto the land, depending on the geography- it's very interesting to see in some places large, very smooth stones several meters inland, or on ledges ~10m high, all of which were in the sea for centuries and placed on the land by surge).

Similar goes for Hanauma and Kapoho - nearshore sea states were even higher and the current was strong. Hanauma is aided by a very good clean up program (it's a major state park) for whatever might not be carried out to sea.

ETA: a google search found where trash accumulates on the Big Island of Hawaii:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...est-beach-america_us_58e99a38e4b05413bfe3792d

Bottom line: accumulation of floating plastic, it seems to me, is a function mostly of where the currents go in a particular area. Accumulation of heavy, non floating debris (engine blocks, washing machines, etc.) is simply a function of where people dump them, in turn a function of where it's convenient for people to dump.

 

[Ryan T.L.]

This study comes with a pretty well documented methodology, for further translation you may read Randy’s post.

If anyone wishes to disprove it you could take the methodology and visit the sites or review the process and find flaws in it. Until then it’s a bit like saying “I can’t see the flu virus thus it’s not there.” Sorry don’t mean to be harsh but we can’t just simply rely on our senses to know the world (once we reach a certain age) or else we risk being exceptionally dumb.

 

[Daltrey]

I find it just a little humorous that we are so concerned about plastic when we dump how many gallons of water down the drain with our rodi systems. You know there are countries that don't have clean drinking water yet we are dumping 1000's of gallons down the waste. Don't even get me started on the energy consumption it takes to run a reef tank. Or the fact that we are taking fish and corals from their natural habitat for our own pleasure.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

And yes I dive and I don't see all of this so called plastic pollution that is so concerning to everyone.

You really want to save the world then do your part to make it a better place cause every minute you spend worrying about what someone else is doing is wasted time that you will never get back.

 

[Ryan T.L.]

AgreedDaltrey and an excellent point! Just google Capetown water crisis..I’m not judging anyone and arguably my environmental footprint is pretty bad as I fly around ~200 days a year and run 2 reef tanks...

This post was about someone’s perception differing from a pretty well thought out study. I’m merely a lawyer but could not poke holes in it as its authors don’t label it as the definitive study, but largely an outcome of their long work. Having argued environmental cases for a while it’s been both an annoyance and a humbling experience working with scientists as they can almost never give you a yes or no answer

In this thread we’ve read posts from divers saying they’ve seen trash and didn’t see trash. As a diver I’ve been in both situations. With the exception of the Mediterranean you may or may not see trash. That simply proves nothing as much as seeing a sick person with the flu and getting sick after or not doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of the flu virus.

 

[VR28man]

Which island is that? I would have done that dive in a heartbeat! Cool!

@Dana Riddle, I'm a bit surprised you never heard of it until now. As @saf1 mentioned, this is one of the more common tourist boat dives on Oahu (easy access from Waikiki ). It's off Hawaii Kai. In fact, I've heard that at least some (technical, rebreather) divers do Hanauma, China Rocks, and then this Corsair all in the same dive!

@saf1 : I assume the brain coral in the cockpit looked a bit like these? If so, very cool! Tt's probably the most common coral in Hawaii, and allegedly in the Indo-pacific. (but AFAIK it's not available in the hobby because it's not purty enough...)

http://www.marinelifephotography.com/corals/lobe/porites-lobata.htm

 

[User1]

@VR28man yes, it did look like a couple in that photo which surprised me due to the depth. The plane rests at 114 to 117 feet deep from what I recall. I may have even been as low as 119 feet. The bottom is more or less smooth sandy otherwise open water around. Nothing else is really visible outside the plane wreck and the sand eels or whatever they are. Water was very clear with visibility easily in the 75 - 100 feet range. Do the standard exit boat routine in diving, give the ok to dive master and assistants on boat, meet up with dive buddy, and descend based on what you work out with the dive master. Since my group was advanced and we knew everyone we paired up and the dive master left us alone outside a few photo ops down below. Most people followed the mooring line or whatever the thing is the boat attaches to down. I took the opportunity to practice open water decent because, well, I sometimes suck at it due to clearing ear issues. This was the first dive of the day due to depth so I wanted to take it easy on my ears and really focus. My daughter got caught up in the excitement and made a beeline dive to the bottom and left me which we had a rather nice discussion once we returned to the boat if I recall Other than that it is a wreck, it is more advanced just due to depth and the safety stop, lots of opportunity to practice skills, and while a small plane it is really cool the amount of life that little plane brings. It really is pretty cool and worth it in my opinion.

 

[Dana Riddle]

Certainly my loss - I never dove off Oahu. What is really odd is that I was a member of KUPS (Kona Underwater Photography Society) and attended a meeting where the speaker's presentation was photographing sunken aircraft and specifically WWII planes at that, and he never mentioned it.

 

[User1]

@Dana Riddle it could be due to a not so exciting plane wreck My understanding of the actual wreck is that it was dumped during a training exercise related to fuel or other engine troubles. Other than that it really is a worth while dive because visibility, open water, life at the site, and checks off some advanced skills if that is your thing. While SCUBA is dangerous by nature as you know it is a more saver advanced dive not due to the wreck (which is nice) but due to the air management and safety stop.

 

[VR28man]

John Hoover's book on Hawaii invertebrates says P. lobata can be found down to 200 feet. Also, that big colonies of this coral can be several hundred years old (I saw one or two such things at Honaunau, but more dead examples of such old colonies. In fact, the state of Honaunau as of two weeks ago was depressing, mitgated only by the fact that lots of apparently younger P. lobata were growing on older skeletons in the first 20 ft or so).

I think what happened is that larval coral egg liked the cockpit, attached itself, and started growing there.

Honestly, responding to both you and Dana, I was not really impressed by the southern wreck dives they take you to on Oahu (never did the corsair, but I did do the Sand Tiger nearby, at a similar depth). Kind of interesting wrecks, but not much encrusting life and not really my cup of tea for the amount of money they charge. North Shore scuba or snorkel, or Kaneohe, were much better. I'm also told west coast dives are better. But all the tourists are at Waikiki, so there's a big south island dive bias. Besides, I've found at least for snorkeling, the Big Island is way better IMO. (but I am biased; I think the Big Island is the 2nd greatest place in the US, behind the Rocky Mountains)

ETA: no worries about open water descent troubles. I've not had serious ear issues; my issue is that if it's too deep and too rushed of a descent I get a vertigo like reaction, and have to stop and calm myself down some.........

 

[Jr'sReef]

I wonder how much of the pollution in our oceans actually comes from people being negligent as suppose to things like hurricanes, tsunamis, heavy rains (monsoons) etc that hit these places and totally wash out places. Most trash is buoyant at first and to me seems like the amount of trash washed out in these event is something that may be something that we can come up with to try and avoid all this trash washing out. I just wouldn't know how

 

[Daltrey]

I wonder how much of the pollution in our oceans actually comes from people being negligent as suppose to things like hurricanes, tsunamis, heavy rains (monsoons) etc that hit these places and totally wash out places. Most trash is buoyant at first and to me seems like the amount of trash washed out in these event is something that may be something that we can come up with to try and avoid all this trash washing out. I just wouldn't know how

It's Simple.

https://www.conservation.org/Pages/default.aspxj

We can all do our part.

https://www.conservation.org/pages/tips-to-live-green.aspx

 

[jgvergo]

This study comes with a pretty well documented methodology, for further translation you may read Randy’s post.

If anyone wishes to disprove it you could take the methodology and visit the sites or review the process and find flaws in it. Until then it’s a bit like saying “I can’t see the flu virus thus it’s not there.” Sorry don’t mean to be harsh but we can’t just simply rely on our senses to know the world (once we reach a certain age) or else we risk being exceptionally dumb.

I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think it good to completely rely on one's senses, and I don't think it's good to blindly accept the conclusions of an article, even if it's a peer reviewed scientific article from a respected conference or journal. My original post was motivated by the fact that the study was reporting something that I did not see on my dives and snorkeling trips. I asked for a "fact check" because my observations are a "small n", meaning it could easily be the case that I have simply been lucky (or privileged) to dive in very clean locations. By asking this group, I significantly increased the number of observations. That was the real goal. Hopefully we are all a little better informed as a result

 

[Jr'sReef]

It's Simple.

https://www.conservation.org/Pages/default.aspxj

We can all do our part.

https://www.conservation.org/pages/tips-to-live-green.aspx

Well I didn't mean helping out on a personal level, I do my part. I can't stand seeing trash on the floor nor out floating on the water while out fishing or on the beach. I pick it up and dispose of it properly. However I mean on a massive scale.

For example, places like Mexico, Puerto Rico, DR just to name a few bc I have seen it happen here first hand. Every time there's a big rain, especially in the areas with mountains, the water rushes through specific areas. Usually these areas are designated or made to detour the water through certain areas in the villages ultimately dumping into the ocean. However as this water is rushing through, it's collecting every bottle and piece of trash in its path.

Maybe making some kind of dang or lock system or simple nets that allows the water to pass through as unobstructed as possible right before emptying into the ocean but this spot is a collection area for the trash that is then disposed of just like any trash in the neighborhood. It becomes a collection point for waste management or a dump truck etc to go by weekly and collect it. Most of it will most likely be plastics that can then be recycled. I'm not sure if it makes sense the way I have written it out.