Plastic Micro-Particle Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in Pacific

Re:Plastic Micro-Particle Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in ... by kgwgk on Monday July 31, 2017 @05:46PM (#14896168)

> There’s nothing misleading about the headline

According to the NOAA (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/garbagepatch.html) "The name "Pacific Garbage Patch" has led many to believe that this area is a large and continuous patch of easily visible marine debris items such as bottles and other litter—akin to a literal island of trash that should be visible with satellite or aerial photographs. This is not the case.".

Looks like the very definition of "misleading".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Plastic Micro-Particle Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in ... by kbenson on Monday July 31, 2017 @06:06PM (#14896307)

I think this is a case of insufficient nomenclature. Do we have more appropriate wording that doesn't negate it's usefulness in correctness by being too lengthy?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Plastic Micro-Particle Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in ... by kgwgk on Monday July 31, 2017 @06:17PM (#14896364)

"Plastic particles patch" would be more accurate but it doesn't sound as bad.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Plastic Micro-Particle Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in ... by kbenson on Monday July 31, 2017 @06:53PM (#14896566)

It also somewhat loses in impact because it's not immediately obvious that it's because of sea pollution, which "garbage" does a good job of conveying. You get there through some (admittedly short) reasoning, but that's probably what they were trying to avoid.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Plastic Micro-Particle Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in ... by kgwgk on Monday July 31, 2017 @07:04PM (#14896632)

Plastic pollution patch, then? But it's true that "garbage" does a very good job of conveying the desired (misleading) image.

[ Parent | on HN ]