Before I started this environmental profile, I did a lot of research on the topic. I learned about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch about 2 years ago and it really made me think about the environment and trying to keep it from become a massive trash dump. I did many essays on it and if it ever came up in a conversation, I had a decent amount of facts. When I did the research for this profile, I learned a bunch more facts that I can add to my Pacific Garbage Patch conversations. Some of the new things I learned from the newspaper is that some people do not believe the garbage patch is as big as it is made out to be. In the scholarly journal, I learned a lot about the harmful effects of the trash on animals. The United Nations Environment Programme said that each year 100,000 turtles, dolphins, whales, seals and other marine animals are killed by marine debris. 80 % of ocean Debris comes from land pollution. 77 species impacted by entanglement or ingestion of plastic debris since 1974. Those species include sea turtles, seals, cetacean, seabirds sharks, rays, and dugongs. Also in the scholarly journal, it is stated that 90% of flesh-footed shearwater chick were found with plastic in their stomachs because that is what the parent birds feed them. The Un research program estimates 46,000 pieces of plastic are presten in every square mile of the ocean. Beach cleanups in 2008 to 2009 showed a 23% increase in the density of debris. On the legitimate website, I learned that the plastic pieces to sea life ratio is 6:1 and that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch contains aproximatly 3.5 million tons of trash and in it are shoes, toys, bags, pacifiers, wrappers, toothbrushes, bottles and much more different kinds of trash. On the website, plastic was a major focus point. Every bit of plastic that has ever been created still exists, or has been burned and released toxic chemicals into the air. Also with the website, I learned the Pacific Garbage Patch is the largest of the garbage swells.
Each article differed in its amount of bias, objectivity, and depth of information presented. In the newspaper, it seemed like there was a little bias toward the idea that the Pacific Garbage Patch is not all that its made up to be. In the scholarly journal, there was no bias but a lot of information on the subject saying how dangerous and harmful it is. For the website, I feel it is biased towards how the Pacific Garbage Patch needs to be fixed and prevented from increasing mostly because the entire site is just about the patch and plastic. The scholarly journal differed a bit in subjects such as debris and people trying to get attention to oceans problems. As for objectivity, I feel that each author did a good job of sticking to the facts rather than writing their opinion. I did not see the word "I" or "me" and it shows that each author is actually trying to remain neutral and just present the facts although I still feel each presents a different bias. Each article had a different depth of information. The newpaper had a medium amount, showing the scientists and their findings such as Angelicque White and how she found a very small amount of plastic in her research. The scholarly journal had the most information and was most in depth. The author wrote all about how many animals are affected, which species are being affected, how they are affected, how much trash is in the ocean, and what is being done to help the situation. On the wenbsite, the homepage wans't very in depth, but its links were, so if the reader clicked around the website, they could possibly find a lot more information. Most of the likes were focused on plastics rather then the Pacific Garbage Patch itself.
In class, we learned a breif amount about the Garbage Patch. We were given the information that the patch was said to be twice the size of Texas, and when it meets up with the Western Garbage Patch, it can be the size of the United States. 70% of the debris in the water is located at the bottom of the ocean, and that there are more plastic debris then plankton. Also the albatross is fatally affected by the platic it ingests. By eating the plastic, it plugs the digestive system which makes the bird believe it is full but it is actually not getting the nutrients it needs to survive, therefore starving itself. The articles did not explain why the birds die, just that they do because of the plastic. The articles also dont explain that the two patches can meet up.
My veiw on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is that it is a terrifying thing. The fact that there is all this trash out in the ocean because of humans makes me sick. Also fish eat the pastic and trash and get mercury into their systems which is stored into their fatty tissues and when ingested in humans, the mercury can then be tranfered and stored in the humans body. This fact made me go completely vegetarian in comparison to a pescatarian. I do beach clean ups to try and decrease trash in the ocean, i never leave trash on the beach, or anywhere for that matter. I am curious to see what they do to solve the problem of the patch. I once read that someone suggested that they pick up the trash in a giant net, then by helicopter, fly it to the volcanoe on Hawaii and dump the trash in it. Of course that may not work with the toxins released into the air. My stance on this issue is that we need to do something about it, whether its banning plastic bags or having beach patrols making sure no one litters, or figuring out how to make sure no boats litter their trash. My stance is that this problem needs to be fixed.
