my subscriptions
POPULAR-ALL-RANDOM | LOADING...MORE »
mom0nga commented on a post in r/worldnews
msc-away 74 points

This won't work.

1) The north pacific is not a very forgiving place. The forces of the seas on a 2000' tube will break it and its parts - quickly.

2) The idea that you could anchor a barrier in the open ocean currents is absurd. The ocean current is like a river, only your movement relative to the water surrounding you is relevant, without the influence of the wind you move with the current. Its like going down a river in a float tube, putting your feet down and expecting t0 magically start to move upriver. The average depth of open ocean currents is 200 meters. In order to get any sort of 'anchor' or 'drag' effect out of that your 'anchor' would have to be at least 200m deep AND be larger than whatever was on the surface layer.

3) How would you collect the plastic from the 'barrier'? You would obviously have to have some kind of support vessel harvesting the plastic. Words cannot express how dangerous it is to handle something loose in the water like a 2000' tube. Not to mention expensive! It costs about $30,000/day to charter a support vessel to handle this task.

4) Say you have a 2000' tube collecting garbage. The density of the GPGP at its greatest is only 1g/m2. https://www.fastcompany.com/40548220/the-great-pacific-garbage-patch-is-16-times-bigger-than-we-thought. If your 610m tube has 1km/hr of current pass through it and a generous 100% collection rate you would 'harvest' 610 kg of trash an hour, this would take approx 131 thousand hours to collect the estimated 80 metric tons of trash in the GPGP, or approximately 15 years. Also, the GPGP is big. Really big. No, bigger than that. About 1,000,000 sq miles big.

5) Obviously the ideal method would be to use an 300' square offshore mobile platform with DP-3, 4 azipodal thrusters, have solar panels cover the top of the platform except for a corner heli pad along with additional extendable solar panel 'wings' on all four sides. The decks below would house processing facilities, accommodations and power/mechanical facilities. Underneath the platform would be some kind of plastic collection device. The plastic would be collected, processed on the platform with at least one by-product being diesel fuel, and use solar power with diesel backup to keep itself on station processing waste, with the diesel fuel and other products (such as cubes of recycled plastic) capable of being transferred at sea to lightering vessels which would transport it ashore.

6) #5 above would cost about $200m to build, but would probably struggle to collect enough plastic to make a profit. Because there really isn't that much plastic out there in the ocean and most of it has sunk already. (1g/m2 max on surface). But what do I know. I only work out here.

7) None of you are going to read #5 and #6 and I will get downvoted for 'not offering a solution'.

mom0nga 14 points

Also, 98% of ocean plastics aren't pieces of litter that just float on the surface waiting to be scooped up. The vast majority are tiny microplastics (smaller than a grain of rice) evenly distributed in the water column. This machine, if it doesn't immediately get smashed, would only pick up things larger than 2 cm that happen to be on or near the surface.

mom0nga 152 points

This is one of those feel-good headlines that everyone loves, but ocean scientists have been extremely skeptical about this project because it's completely divorced from reality.

Since young inventor Boyan Slat first began, at about age 18, to get attention for his idea, marine biologists and oceanographers have been fairly pulling their hair out at the Ocean Cleanup's huge social media popularity. It makes sense that Slat's idea has become popular. Vague but persuasive sales pitches that promise to solve problems without us having to change our behavior? They're always popular. But here's what's got those scientists in a cranky mood: Slat's idea almost certainly won't make enough of a dent in the ocean plastic pollution to be worth the effort, it will almost certainly injure wildlife already struggling from an ocean with too much of our stuff in it, and the rigs may end up becoming more shredded pieces of plastic in an ocean already literally awash in plastic.

98% of plastic in the ocean are microplastics smaller than a grain of rice, evenly distributed throughout the water column. This machine, if it doesn't get smashed to bits, would only collect things lager than 2 centimeters that happen to be on or near the surface. Things like fish and wildlife. The feasibility study for this project even admits that "Highly migratory species will be highly affected by this project. Swordfish, marlin, sailfish, sharks, tuna-like species are all highly susceptible to being caught in the holding tanks, and possibility diverted by the booms into the platform."

The cofounder of the Plastic Pollution Coalition has written an excellent article explaining why miracle "ocean-cleaning machines" aren't the best way to tackle the problem:

If I had a dime for each brilliant idea to “clean up the “Garbage Patch” that has been forwarded to me over the last few years I would be a millionaire. These gyre cleanup machines, devices and foundations that emerge periodically are not going to happen. However they are likely to get lots of media attention –and distract from the real solutions.

First, there is a gross misconception about what garbage patches are. Plastics take hundreds of years to biodegrade, buy they fragment rather quickly into smaller and smaller particles. Science shows that the vast majority of plastics in the ocean are tiny, under 10 mm in size. The concentrations are very thin, and the particles are scattered throughout the water column of all oceans in the world. In actuality what we have is a planetary soup of plastic particles. In some areas concentrations are higher. These are the “garbage patches", located in the ocean gyres sometimes as vast as continents, where the soup has higher and more consistent concentrations of particles. That’s all. In order for these machines (assuming these get paid for, built and deployed) to capture significant amounts of plastic, they would need to cover millions of square miles of ocean and somehow manage to tell plastic particles apart from other things of the same size, such as fish eggs and plankton, which are essential to all marine life.

Also, the people who come up with some cleanup machines, ranging from product designers to teen-prodigy inventors, often seem to forget a not-so-minor detail: that the ocean is not still, and flat like a giant blue tennis court. The ocean is always moving, sometimes with amazing force. In the unlike event of these contraptions ever being made, they would be pushed around all the time –when not torn to pieces and sunk.

Another key detail that seems to be consistently forgotten is that millions of tons of new plastic trash are entering the ocean as we speak. A fairly old and conservative study estimated that 6.4 million tons of plastic waste enter the ocean every year –adding up to over 100 million tons of plastic already polluting our oceans. Trying to clean this spiraling mess with ships or machines would be like trying to bail out a bathtub with a tea spoon… while the faucet is running!

What about stopping plastic pollution at the source? Wouldn’t that be a better use of our ingenuity, time and money? It also happens to be quite doable too. The plastic industry loves distractions like the cleaning machines, because they put the focus on “cleaning up”, not on how their business of making disposable plastics is destroying the planet. It is also interesting to notice how strongly our culture equates “solution” with “process” and/or “machine”. One immediately has to ask: “What would be the solution for these solutions?” But even given all the misconceptions and cultural trappings that surround us, one has to wonder how these whacky ideas get so much media traction. Different variations of the theme come up often, along with their cousins: the miracle machine that turns plastic into oil, and the 16 year old that discovers a plastic eating bacteria in his garage.

Ultimately, in addition to the relentless activity of vested interest that promote these misconceptions, these stories get passed around because we all like to hear a whisper in our ear that says “it’s all going to be OK. Keep consuming and don’t think too much.”

mom0nga commented on a post in r/politics
mom0nga 29 points

"Environmental Protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations." "We’ll be fine with the environment. We can leave a little bit, but you can’t destroy businesses.”

-- Donald J Trump, 2015

TouristsOfNiagara [score hidden]

Sad fact: just one generation ago, we used to pour used motor oil into the storm drains outside. I watched my father do it in the 70s. My boss in the 80s used to bury old car batteries on his car lot.

We've come a long way in 40 years, and Donald wants to go back there.

mom0nga [score hidden]

In a way, the fact that we've come so far in just one generation makes me hopeful for the future (setbacks aside). If we've managed to improve so much since the 70s and 80s, imagine the progress we could see in another 30 years!

wotmate 54 points

If we farmed and ate all those animals they would survive.

mom0nga 11 points

If we farmed and ate all those animals they would survive.

But conservation isn't just about stockpiling species in captivity. Captive breeding can certainly help, but the goal of conservation is to preserve species in the wild so they can fulfill their role in the natural ecosystem. Keeping species in farms ensures that they exist, but if they're not in the wild where they belong, they might as well be extinct.

[deleted] -41 points

[removed]

mom0nga 39 points

Actually, it's been listed by the IUCN as endangered since 1986, "as the wild Asian elephant population has declined by at least 50% since the 1940s to 1930s, i.e. three elephant generations."

Even if they weren't endangered, the time to start conserving species is before they're teetering on the edge. Just because a species is common doesn't make it "safe" -- disease, natural disasters, and human activity can wipe out a previously-plentiful species in the blink of an eye. Passenger pigeons went from a population of 3 billion to extinction within a single human lifetime.

mom0nga commented on a post in r/todayilearned
JuxtaTerrestrial 1,384 points

Yeah! They will stash their food for later, but if they know someone is watching them, they will pretend to stash it and then actually hide it elsewhere.

One of the experiments i read about also showed that they are capable of passing information to their children. Which is amazing as well! (forgive me if i gets a few of the details wrong.) They used a particular mask to scare the parents before their offspring were hatched, then when the eggs hatched they put trackers on the kids. Then years later they tracked down the crows, and they would give a danger call when they saw the mask.

mom0nga 3 points

Yeah! They will stash their food for later, but if they know someone is watching them, they will pretend to stash it and then actually hide it elsewhere.

Squirrels do this too!

mom0nga commented on a post in r/worldnews
26.4k
Mysteryman64 245 points

Right off the bat, you have some cultural differences. China had an absolutely terrible famine during the Cultural Revolution in the late 50s, early 60s.

MILLIONS of people died from starvation. When you are literally starving to death, concern for animal welfare basically becomes non-existent and you instead see just a walking pile of life-giving food.

Now keep in mind, that was just the worst one. Massive famine has been a regular part of Chinese history for basically its entire history. Over the last 200 years, China has lost, at minimum, over 140 MILLION people to starvation. And that's just people dead, not people who have permanently damaged health due to malnutrition, but who managed to survive.

Under those sort of circumstances, it's pretty easy to see why animal welfare has never really become a norm.

mom0nga 5 points

It also explains why Chinese norms regarding animal welfare are changing (albeit slowly) as younger generations come of age. In 1992, there was only one registered animal protection organization in China. In 2006 there were a handful more. By 2017, there were 200+. Chinese millenials don't have the memories of famine that their elders do, and they're also more educated.

Because of the rising living standards, people are no longer obsessed with getting food on the dinner table,” Li says. That combined with more exposure to international media gives them time to turn their attention to new issues, like animal protection. Another driving factor? A new definition of wealth. The older generation is fixated on ivory as the ultimate status symbol, Li says. In Chinese the word for ivory is xiangya, meaning “elephant tooth,” which has led many to believe erroneously that ivory can be taken from an elephant without inflicting harm. The nonprofit International Fund for Animal Welfare did polling in 2007 in China that found that 70 percent of respondents didn’t realize an elephant had to be killed to take its ivory. Younger Chinese are more likely to be aware that ivory comes only from a dead elephant, and knowing that makes it less desirable to them.

mom0nga commented on a post in r/pics
mom0nga 5 points

Everyone loves to blame China for killing off vaquitas, but the #1 reason the vaquita is facing extinction are the gillnets that were used to catch shrimp for U.S. supermarkets and restaurants.

From 1990 to 2010, the Mexican shrimp industry was primarily responsible for the loss of over 70 percent of the vaquita population, as the number of vaquita dropped from 700 individuals to just 200. It wasn't until 2010 that fishermen began using gillnets to illegally catch totoaba, an endangered fish, for the traditional Chinese medicine market.

IMO, knee-jerk reactions blaming "the Chinese" for extinction can cause us to forget that the average US citizen indirectly kills a lot of endangered species for the sake of cheap food. For example, Burger King's suppliers have destroyed over 1.7 million acres of native forest in Brazil and Bolivia from 2011 to 2015 alone. Pepsico and a lot of other snack-food, candy, and cosmetics companies likely use "conflict palm oil", which is grown by destroying the last remaining habitat for rhinos, elephants, tigers, and orangutans in Sumatra. Wildlife extinction is not just an Asian problem -- it's up to everyone to vote with their wallets and demand that corporations become more sustainable.

Harry-le-Roy 3,617 points

Worth noting, a significant threat to the vaquita is that it is sometimes caught as bycatch by people fishing for totoaba. The totoaba is itself a critically endangered species, but there's a black market trade that sells its swim bladders to buyers in China, where the totoaba swim bladder is considered a delicacy.

In other words, two species are on the brink of extinction, because a handful of people like to feel important, because they can drop a few hundred dollars on soup.

mom0nga 6 points

While totoaba fishing is a problem, the #1 reason the vaquita is facing extinction are the gillnets that were used to catch shrimp for the US market.

From 1990 to 2010, the Mexican shrimp industry was primarily responsible for the loss of over 70 percent of the vaquita population, as the number of vaquita dropped from 700 individuals to just 200. It wasn't until 2010 that fishermen began using gillnets to illegally catch totoaba, an endangered fish, for the traditional Chinese medicine market.

IMO, automatically blaming China for wildlife extinction is a cop-out which ignores the large role that Western consumers play. The average US citizen "eats" a lot of endangered species for the sake of cheap food. For example, Burger King's suppliers have destroyed over 1.7 million acres of native forest in Brazil and Bolivia from 2011 to 2015 alone. Pepsico and a lot of other snack-food, candy, and cosmetics companies likely use "conflict palm oil", which is grown by destroying the last remaining habitat for rhinos, elephants, tigers, and orangutans in Sumatra. It's up to everyone to vote with their wallets and demand that corporations become more sustainable.

mom0nga commented on a post in r/aww
Ppleater 5 points

Not every pet cafe is good for the animals so this trend does have a bit of a down side unfortunately. Don't go into any owl cafes if you're ever over there, and doing some research into a cafe before trying it isn't a bad idea.

mom0nga 4 points

Yeah, the nondomestic animal cafes (owls, sloths, raccoons, etc.) are notoriously inhumane because it's against the nature of these species to constantly interact with people. A lot of owl cafes tie the owls' feet to perches so they can't get away, and one cafe had 7 owls die in a single year. Not everybody who operates an animal attraction loves animals -- unfortunately, some businesses are only in it for the money.

bitfriend2 2 points

The platform can't be effectively policed, but the advertisements FB makes money from can be.

mom0nga 2 points

One of the solutions conservation groups suggested in the article was for FB to partner with local law enforcement to help identify and arrest traffickers, and for them to freeze accounts associated with the illegal wildlife trade.

You'd also think that with image recognition and other software it might be possible for AI to flag suspicious posts (a bot has already been developed which can accurately scan Twitter for mentions of opiates), or for FB to simply hire people to comb through the site and report illegal listings. To their credit, I've reported multiple Marketplace listings selling illegal wildlife products, and all were taken down by Facebook within ~24 hours, suggesting that the problem is merely catching the posts.

mom0nga commented on a post in r/aww
18.1k
Moyashim0n 2 points

It's a munchkin, scottish fold. So it has really short legs and also floppy ears.

mom0nga 1 point

It's worth noting that both of those breeds are the result of deliberately breeding for harmful genetic mutations which people think are "cute." The mutation which makes the Scottish Folds' ears flop also causes weakness in joints and bones, to the point where the British Veterinary Association warns that they shouldn't be bred at all because "they will all to some degree have an incurable, painful and lifelong disease."

Meanwhile, "munchkins" are deliberately bred to have achondroplasia, a genetic disorder which causes deformed, shortened limbs and an enlarged head (basically dwarfism). These cats may be predisposed to painful osteoarthritis or lordosis, a sometimes fatal condition in which the spinal muscles are too short and the spine sinks down into the body.

mom0nga commented on a post in r/aww
RabidBogey 3 points

I want one.

edit still want one.

mom0nga 7 points

I work with owls at a nature center, so trust me when I say no, you don't. Caring for owls involves cleaning lots of poop, gutting dead rodents for them, and getting hissed at. Most owls want nothing to do with humans and would be absolutely miserable in a home -- plus they're illegal to own in most places.

mom0nga commented on a post in r/pics
mom0nga 1 point

Juniper is adorable, but this seems like a good time to bust some common Reddit myths about pet foxes:

First, there is no such thing as a special "domestic fox breed". Although there was a Soviet experiment where fur-farm foxes were selectively bred for calm temperaments, the purpose was to study domestication and produce easier-to-handle animals for the fur industry, not to create pets. Other than having more "friendly" temperaments than a wild fox, these Soviet foxes still had virtually identical genomes to normal fur-farm foxes. They did not turn into dogs.

All foxes are going to be noisy, destructive, smelly, and potentially aggressive, no matter what the breeder tells you or whether or not it was handraised. They may not be friendly with you and will become incredibly frustrated if confined to a home because they are designed to dig and burrow. They are much more difficult to train than dogs because foxes are not "just like dogs."

Finally, the law generally treats all foxes, captive-bred or not, as wild animals. It's illegal to own a fox in most US jurisdictions without a permit (even if your state allows it, your county or city may not). Because foxes are rabies vectors and there has been no vaccine confirmed effective in them, a pet fox that bites someone, or that is alleged to have bitten someone, will, by law, be confiscated and euthanized in order to test for rabies.

I'm not saying that foxes can't live in captivity, but they're not fluffy pets like Reddit often portrays them as. Please remember that for every instance where a pet fox works out, there are many more unpublicized attempts where it didn't. Juniper is a rare exception and not the rule.

mom0nga commented on a post in r/aww
AssuasiveCow 25 points

Good to know my mourning doves are normal for their species. I have a nesting pair that continues to nest above my back patio and continues to fail miserably! I keep finding eggs splattered on my pavement. I’ve only seen chicks hatch once in the 5 years we have had them trying here. Seriously how do they still exist? Lol

mom0nga 24 points

Mourning doves (and pigeons in general) are known to be terrible nest builders. They usually just throw a few twigs down and lay eggs on the pile. Although a lot of eggs are destroyed, the strategy works because they're prolific breeders and can raise up to 6 broods per season. They're more about quantity than quality.

chung_my_wang 4 points

Of what are hummingbird nests made? This one looks like hummingbird feathers and cotton candy.

mom0nga 12 points

Hummingbirds build nests with spider silk, lichen, and fuzzy things like feathers and thistle/dandelion fluff. The spider silk allows the nest to stretch as the nestlings grow.

mom0nga commented on a post in r/NatureIsFuckingLit
StefanoIaniro 15 points

It's actually rarely visible. It only comes out during mating displays and as an intimidation tactic.

mom0nga 3 points

This is what these birds normally look like. It makes the crown all the more spectacular!

mom0nga commented on a post in r/politics
Pizzasaurus-Rex 148 points

As a religious Millenial, it's been difficult finding a welcoming faith community. Too many Churches use Jesus' name to justify bigotry against Liberals, Homosexuals, and Muslims.

mom0nga 4 points

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, despite the name, is generally a very welcoming denomination. Although some individual congregations are still conservative and closed-minded, the denomination as a whole allows women and LGBT clergy, officiates same-sex marriages, encourages questions, and even feels that there are some circumstances where abortion may be "morally responsible."

My particular church never discusses politics, pushes creationism, or singles any group out for damnation. Instead, we read the Bible, focus on Christ's love and salvation for everybody, and put our faith into practice through charitable work and environmentalism, which we call "Care for Creation." We've partnered with other churches (even those of different faiths) to write letters to Congress urging action on climate change, for example. There are still good churches out there.

Spektr44 9 points

Episcopal

Seconding this one. Episcopal churches tend to be ceremonially conservative but theologically/socially liberal. Should be a pretty easy transition for a Catholic.

mom0nga 4 points

I attend the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and despite the name, it's a very liberal denomination. Although some congregations are still conservative, the denomination as a whole allows women and LGBT clergy, officiates same-sex marriages, encourages questions, and feels that there are some circumstances where abortion may be "morally responsible." My particular church never discusses politics, pushes creationism, or singles any group out for damnation. Instead, we read the Bible, focus on Christ's love and salvation for everybody, and put our faith into practice through charitable work and environmentalism, which we call "Care for Creation." We've partnered with other churches to write letters to Congress urging action on climate change, for example. There are still good churches out there, and not all Christians are homophobic, politically conservative, or anti-science.

Load more comments
mom0nga commented on a post in r/politics
grubas 36 points

Well obviously the would be assassin is going to KNOW you have a gun, so your eyes met, civilians hide behind the swinging doors of the saloon and the water trough. Then the clock strikes and you draw and shoot.

If he can even HIT the assassin, all that has been accomplished is a dead or shot assailant, it doesn’t make the people he already shot any less dead.

mom0nga 32 points

According to local press, he told the people at the meeting that "the presence of the gun made them safer." It's magical thinking, like Lisa's rock that keeps tigers away.

mom0nga 3 points

From the article:

Norman laid the pistol out on a table in front of him for “several minutes,” telling the crowd that “the presence of the gun made them safer.” Norman later told the Post and Courier, “I’m not going to be a Gabby Giffords.” He added, “I don’t mind dying, but whoever shoots me better shoot well or I’m shooting back.” Norman told Post and Courier that the pistol was a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun and that he “pointed it away from the meeting attendees.” He added that he plans to display the pistol more often at future constituent meetings.

view more:
next ›
187,857 Karma
119,447 Post Karma
68,410 Comment Karma

Following this user will show all the posts they make to their profile on your front page.

About mom0nga

  • Reddit Gold Membership

  • Reddit Birthday

    February 25, 2013

Other Interesting Profiles

    Want to make posts on your
    own profile?

    Sign up to test the Reddit post to profile beta.

    Sign up