Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stomach of Dead Whale Contained 'Nothing but Nonstop Plastic'

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 372 posts

Re: Stomach of Dead Whale Contained 'Nothing but Nonstop Plastic'

#81

Post by ndnxhs »

choeger wrote: post #14
viraptor wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> global investment and adherence to never dumping plastics that are not biodegradable. Or not producing the unnecessary packaging in the first place. We really don't need every single cucumber wrapped in its own plastic film. (Like it's common in the shops recently...) Lots of other packaging is completely useless as well.

We may not strictly need it, but it is there for a reason. Be it less pesticides (my organic cucumbers come wrapped, the non-organic don't) or less waste (because damaged cucumbers are thrown away). The real question is, how does the plastic end up in the ocean? Bonus points for: can there be a biodegradable replacement?

The plastic in the ocean is mainly fishing nets that are discarded there because its easier

Re: Stomach of Dead Whale Contained 'Nothing but Nonstop Plastic'

#83

Post by riffraff »

robjan wrote: post #30
A2017U1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are claiming China paid money for recycling waste and then threw it straight in the ocean? Seems incredibly implausible.

China was usually paid money to deal with the waste

it was not, china paid to buy plastic and recycle it. Then, oddly enough, it sold it back to the west.

The current situation is that they stopped doing that because it's not economic anymore (and some "green backlash").

If they were just being payed to buy plastic and dump it in the rivers there would be no problem in continuing to do that.

Re: Stomach of Dead Whale Contained 'Nothing but Nonstop Plastic'

#84

Post by Lewton »

xondono wrote: post #66
cageface wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need to eat meat or fish at all to be healthy, and meat & fish are very resource intensive. We're better off redirecting all the resources we currently waste trying to feed 8 billion people this way into sustainable, plant-based diets anyway.

Not trying to start the flame war, but this: >We don't need to eat meat or fish at all to be healthy Is still heavily disputed in nutrition circles.

Can you link to any material?

I really don’t think any nutritional scientist would claim it’s impossible to be healthy as a vegetarian. Whether it’s easier with meat or feasible for all people is something else

Re: Stomach of Dead Whale Contained 'Nothing but Nonstop Plastic'

#85

Post by isolli »

cageface wrote: post #58
ehnto wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure that is good advice. Fixing the fishing industry is important, overfishing is rampant as is plastic waste from it. But fish is probably one of the best alternatives we have to other environmentally unfriendly meats we currently raise. As populations grow it is proving to be key to keeping everyone fed. Farmed fish most importantly will soon be the majority of fish consumed. Getting ocean based fishing t…

We don't need to eat meat or fish at all to be healthy, and meat & fish are very resource intensive. We're better off redirecting all the resources we currently waste trying to feed 8 billion people this way into sustainable, plant-based diets anyway.

I was vegetarian for 20 years, vegan for 7, yet I started eating meat and fish about a year ago. Here are my thoughts:

- I started eating animal products again for health reason; I believe many people can thrive on a vegetarian or vegan diet, but I couldn't. It makes me unhappy, but there I am.

- Similarly vegetarian and vegan for a long time, my wife started craving animal products the minute she got pregnant. And after birth she became very ill, and survived on chicken broth. In short, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

- There is no reason for anyone to eat meat twice a day; and above all there is no reason for heavy subsidies so that everyone can eat meat cheaply twice a day.

So my preferred solution: animals raised humanely and sustainably to allow for healthy, limited consumption of animal products, with products priced at actual cost in order to eliminate over-consumption.

Re: Stomach of Dead Whale Contained 'Nothing but Nonstop Plastic'

#86

Post by ookdatnog »

ecmascript wrote: post #72
cageface wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need to eat meat or fish at all to be healthy, and meat & fish are very resource intensive. We're better off redirecting all the resources we currently waste trying to feed 8 billion people this way into sustainable, plant-based diets anyway.

> We don't need to eat meat or fish at all to be healthy I think you will have to back that statement up if you want to be taken seriously. I for one am certainly not going to stop eating fish and meat, I have been a vegetarian for over a year and I did not fancy it.

> I think you will have to back that statement up if you want to be taken seriously.

This is such a mainstream statement that it seems to me entirely reasonable to omit a source. You can find dozens of them by looking up "vegetarianism" on wikipedia and navigating to the "health effects" section.

Re: Stomach of Dead Whale Contained 'Nothing but Nonstop Plastic'

#87

Post by cageface »

xondono wrote: post #66
cageface wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need to eat meat or fish at all to be healthy, and meat & fish are very resource intensive. We're better off redirecting all the resources we currently waste trying to feed 8 billion people this way into sustainable, plant-based diets anyway.

Not trying to start the flame war, but this: >We don't need to eat meat or fish at all to be healthy Is still heavily disputed in nutrition circles.

It's not. The American Dietetics Association states as its official position that a vegan diet is healthful and adequate for all stages of life:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

There's currently quite a bit of debate over whether or not plant-based diets are better than other diets, but not over whether or not they are healthy.

Re: Stomach of Dead Whale Contained 'Nothing but Nonstop Plastic'

#88

Post by cageface »

ecmascript wrote: post #72
cageface wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need to eat meat or fish at all to be healthy, and meat & fish are very resource intensive. We're better off redirecting all the resources we currently waste trying to feed 8 billion people this way into sustainable, plant-based diets anyway.

> We don't need to eat meat or fish at all to be healthy I think you will have to back that statement up if you want to be taken seriously. I for one am certainly not going to stop eating fish and meat, I have been a vegetarian for over a year and I did not fancy it.

It's the official position of the largest association of professional nutritionists in the US. It's hardly controversial.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

Re: Stomach of Dead Whale Contained 'Nothing but Nonstop Plastic'

#89

Post by titzer »

cageface wrote: post #35

These stories rarely mention this for some reason but the bulk of the plastic junk in the ocean is discarded fishing nets, not consumer waste. Reducing the plastic waste you personally generate is still a good idea, of course, but if you really want to have an impact then stop eating fish. https://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/ocean-plastic-made-disca... https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/great-pacific-ga...

Citation needed. 8 million tons of plastic waste enter the ocean every year. You're telling me there's 4 million tons (8 billion pounds) of fishing nets every year? Nope.

Re: Stomach of Dead Whale Contained 'Nothing but Nonstop Plastic'

#90

Post by riffraff »

hbarka wrote: post #7

Why hasn’t Amazon, Costco, or Walmart used their clout to effect a positive change? Have you seen all the plastic and unnecessary packaging in the goods they sell. The size of the packaging relative to the actual product is so ridiculous sometimes.

actually, I get all of amazon stuff in europe in cardboard boxes with paper fillings and thread+paper tape.

Is it a european thing? Have I just been incredibly lucky?

Post reply on HN