Joel Sails JUNK
Sunday, July 27, 2008

Watch Joel's facial hair morph as he discusses techniques for sailing JUNK. They use 4 sails to take full advantage of the varying weather conditions - including FRANKENSAIL, a key sail Joel Macgyvered at sea. Those keen on navigation nitty gritty:
The sailors out there will relate: navigation begins with knowing your boat's strengths and weaknesses.

Junk is fastest when running downwind, but can make progress with the wind on her beam. The rhumb line bearing from our current location to Honolulu is 254.8 degrees.

The bearing is the direction, North=0 or 360, East=90, South=180 and West= 270. So 254.8 is West Southwest. Since the ideal wind for Junk comes from straight behind, we want wind coming from our reciprocal bearing. To calculate the reciprocal of 254.8 degrees, subtract 180--gives us 74.8 degrees or East Northeast. Since Junk can sail 90 degree off the wind, we can add 90 degrees to 74.8, and subtract 90 degrees from 74.8, to get 164.8 degrees and 347.8 degrees.

Is anyone's head spinning yet?

So....we need winds between approx 75 degrees and 350 degrees, roughly 3/4 of the compass! Only in Southwest, or zero winds are we slowed, during which time we drift, read, cook, work on boat projects, blog, and rest...

Next key: knowing where the favorable winds are. At times, we may even reroute our course to seek better winds and better time.

One of the best ways of forecasting the winds within a month is to use a pilot chart:

This here was for the month of June. The circles with radiating arms are wind roses. The wind frequency from any direction is proportional to the arm's length, while widths indicate the frequency of wind speeds blowing in that direction. Do you see the small blue dot on this chart? I drew this next to the closest wind rose. Shows mostly North, Northwest and West winds, with speeds between 4 and 6 on the Beaufort scale.

We're hoping for stronger winds -- tricky to make an efficient beam reach with light winds.

The next step is to look at the wind roses nearby, to see which where the favorable winds are coming from. South Southwest has a very long North Northwest arm with a wind frequency range of 4-6 on the Beaufort scale. From there, a North Northwest wind will allow us to sail Southwest into the even more consistent easterly, or "trade winds", used by ship’s in the 1700’s to sail west across Atlantic and Pacific trade routes.

The blue arrows, representing current direction, point in a westerly direction. The more solid the line, the greater consistency in the current direction. The arrow's tail indicates speed.

We also use the chart plotter/GPS to navigate - essentially an electronic version of the paper chart.

The GPS interfaces with the chart plotter and indicates Junk’s position, as a black triangular shape on the screen. We use the chart to avoid hazards - islands, rocks or shoals with breaking waves. As the saying goes “The ocean is not that dangerous, it’s the hard parts around the edges that will get ya”.

The chart plotter shows our Latitude and longitude, our Course Over Ground (COG), and our Speed Over Ground (SOG). While sailing, we can experiment with different sail trimming configurations, comparing COG and SOG to monitor improvements.

The charter plotter also allows us to pick a waypoint to assess our bearing and remaining distance, and acts as the screen for our AIS system.

In short, extremely helpful tools.
Zen and the art of JUNK maintenance
Friday, July 25, 2008

*Photo of Joel atop mast taken during JUNK construction, pre-launch. Here for kicks.*

July 25th

The sails hang still, like the edge of an oversized tablecloth reaching lazily to the floor. There is no wind again today. We were becalmed 10 days ago, then a gentle breeze brought 500 miles of west. Becalmed again, I step outside to find Mahi Mahi under our raft. Hopefully they will grace our menu. I walk around the deck conducting my ritualistic inspection of bottles, netting, integrity of lashings and welded parts, wear on lines, exposed wires on stays, and a general look and keen listen for things that are different than before.

We noticed a problem - the top of the mast was cracking. I spotted two three-inch cracks coming down from the masthead. And the eyebolt holding the mainsail secure to the masthead was bent open. We’re lucky it didn’t fail under way. What to do? Fortunately, we had two pieces of chain we used to create a bridge between the stays to support the failing eyebolt. A couple of large hose clamps tightened around the top of the mast stopped the crack from lengthening.

As we’ve said before, boats require maintenance, especially when underway, as the stress of sailing makes everything move, rub, grind, and abrade. I also discovered that where the aluminum airplane fuselage touches the aluminum masts, grooves begin to form. Where netting rubs netting, there are eventual holes. The movements are slow and seemingly innocuous, yet in time change is inevitable. Only with careful inspection can we anticipate these, and stay ahead of the game.

Read on for responses to blog questions about plastics, chemicals, childrens autism, and BPA in canned foods.

To Dawn P's question about chemicals in plastic and rises in childhood autism:
Thank you for a great question. We know that many synthetic compounds found in plastic, which give it properties such as elasticity, color, UV and flame resistance, are also linked to ailments found in humans. We know that synthetic compounds like styrene, bisphenol A, phthalates and nonylphenol are pre-production chemicals found in plastic, and linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, insulin inhibition, and other effects. Then there are the post-production pollutants that adhere to plastic marine debris that hundreds of species have been documented to ingest. The Algalita Marine Research Foundation has discovered significant amounts of DDT, PCBs and PAHs absorbed into plastic. We are finding that these pollutants on plastic, when ingested, migrate into the tissues and organs of some organisms. Those compounds are well known to have adverse effects of wildlife and humans.

I urge you to review the work of Frederick vom Saal, Earl Gray and Ana Soto. I know vom Saal has his published papers available on line. Earl Gray and Ana Soto have done extensive work on endocrine disrupting toxins and their effect on human development and wildlife.

I would be elated to see what research you find. Especially anything published in the last few months, since I've been away for a while.

Cheers,
Marcus

And to the question about BPA in canned foods:

Yes, bisphenol A, the building block of polycarbonate plastic, is all over. It’s that plastic film in cans, dental fillings, polycarbonate water bottles and babyfood bottles. When you touch a new CD or DVD it's on your hands. The argument that it only leaches into food and beverages when heated is false. Scientists have found, that at room temperature, polycarbonate buckets and bowls leach bisphenol A into water (Howdeshell et al., 2003 Environmental Health Perspectives).

Other studies show an alarming relationship between very low doses of bisphenol A and cancer, endocrine disruption and insulin resistance. Bisphenol A is an estrogen mimic, resulting in the growth of cancer cells in the mammary glands and prostate gland in studies of mice. One lab study found that with a dosage of 10µg/kg/day, 100% of the rats developed prostate cancer (Ho et al., 2006, Cancer Research). Another study found bisphenol A, at the same low dose of 10 µg / kg/ day, stimulates abnormal development of basal cells in mouse fetuses. (Timms et al. 2005, PNAS 102:7014). In other studies, the same low dose given to lab rats found at first it stimulates insulin secretion and subsequently causes insulin resistance (Alonso-Magdalena et al. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2006). In humans, researchers found blood levels of BPA were linked to obesity in women (Takeuchi et al. Endo J. 2004). Also, elevated levels of BPA in blood was associated with recurrent miscarriage in women (Takeuchi et al. Endo J. 2004).

What is alarming is that these effects happen in extremely low doses, below human exposure. Bisphenol A is all around us. Even a polycarbonate baby food bottle give your infant a dose of 5 µg/kg/day. The Environmental Protection Agency oral reference dose is 50ug/kg/day, 5 times the dosage found to cause harm in lab studies.

Why does the Environmental Protection Agency permit humans to be in contact with bisphenol A in high doses? To influence regulation, scientists and policymakers work together to draft new policy. Weight of evidence influences that policy. Vom Saal and Hughes reviewed the 161 animal studies with bisphenol A conducted between 1997-2006. They correlated results with funding source.

Chemical corporations fund studies that give desired results. They publish those in trade journals, and reference those when lobbying lawmakers. This creates doubt. Creating doubt is a game industry plays to influence policy. It has been effective to postpone regulation that would hurt their industry, despite the consequences for human health.

It is imperative that the public be involved in the political process. Get to know your political representatives. By contacting them, you can insist that junk science be abandoned. I’m glad one visitor to our blog brought up SB1713, a senate bill to curb the use of bisphenol A in products we come in contact with. Also, contact your local representative to lend your support to California AB 2058. If signed into law, this bill would require large grocery chains and pharmacies statewide to charge a 25 cent fee on single-use plastic and paper bags if a 70% reduction in plastic bag usage is not achieved by the end of 2010.

Best regards,
Marcus

JUNK PSA #4: Toxic Chemistry
Wednesday, July 23, 2008

As JUNK roars towards the half way mark, another reminder of what this voyage is all about: drawing public attention to some of the ecological and human health impacts associated with plastic. Like Bisphenol A in baby bottles and toys

Heres Marcus chatting about BPA from the middle of the Pacific Ocean:

Continued thanks to our generous communications sponsors - Long Beach Marine Electronics, OCENS Inc., and Explorer Satellite for making these videos possible.

In April, Canada became the first country to ban baby bottles containing BPA. Will the US follow suit?

Debate with a skeptic Part II
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Debate with a skeptic Part II
A while back, we posted some comments from Dr. Williscroft, who questioned our claims that the plastic marine debris issue is a significant one, and warrants immediate action.

An interesting addendum to the story: I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Williscroft at a presentation I gave last week to the Los Angeles Adventurers club. To my surprise, he was extremely amiable, and interested in our research, he simply wanted to see quantitative data to illustrate our claims. Fair enough.

The response from Marcus generated further debate on both ends. For those who have followed this lively dialogue, heres part deux:

"I appreciate your reasoned response, but I still see little quantitative information to sink my teeth into. First, while the story of the train wreck is interesting, it misses the point. This was an example of an urgent problem that was NOT being addressed. I suspect you are addressing a no-urgent problem with unwarranted urgency. You state: “…the density of pelagic plastic has doubled since 2005.” This is the kind of statement that is widely used to camouflage fuzzy data. Mind you, I’m NOT saying you are doing this, but this isn’t substantive information. If there was one acre of trash in 2005 and not there is two acres (a doubling), it’s a non problem. If there were twenty thousand acres in 2005, and that has doubled – that strikes me as more noteworthy. But when compared to the vast expanse of the world’s oceans, is even that a “problem” with urgent considerations?"

And now, a response from Marcus:

Dear Robert G. Williscroft, PhD

It seems you misunderstood my point about the urgency to address the plastic marine debris issue. If you “do not see quantitative information to sink your teeth into,” as you state, may I request again that you visit our website for references to the work of our scientists and others. Or browse any university library and scroll through the Marine Pollution Bulletin, or search the index catalog for names like C. Moore, A. Andrady, H. Takada, or R. Thompson. You will find substantial quantitative evidence to document all of our scientific claims. If your sincere interest is a scientific argument, then I strongly suggest you start there. At the end of this response, I have included a list of publications for your review.

From your response, I gather that scientific articles may not be sufficient. To this I have no response. The peer review process in scientific journals is the best available means to share data around the world, other than dragging every scientist into your lab to see physical phenomena with their own eyes. In the peer review process a proposed scientific study is anonymously criticized by other leading scientists in that field. Almost always, the first task is to point out errors in statistical measures or significance. You appear to doubt the statistical significance of our data, therefore, since you live in Southern California, I invite you to visit our lab in Redondo Beach. You will be given a personal tour so that you can see the physical phenomena with your own eyes.

The occurrence of plastic marine debris throughout the North Pacific Ocean is well documented, as are the hundreds of species found with plastic marine debris in or around their bodies. The Algalita Marine Research Foundation has found significant concentrations of DDT, PCBs and PAHs sorbed onto plastic marine debris. Other studies show that the compounds migrate from ingested plastic into the bodies of some organisms. In other research it is well documented that these man-made synthetic chemicals are carcinogenic, endocrine disruptors, and can be attributed to other ailments found in wildlife and humans. There is also wide evidence that man-made synthetic chemicals are bioaccumulating and biomagnifying up the food chain. As I said in my earlier response, the current scientific question is, “Are persistent organic pollutants consumed by marine organisms bioaccumulating up the food chain and into the fisheries that we harvest?”

Admittedly, the causal links from plastic trash in our storm drains, to marine debris, to wildlife contamination and human health concerns, is a difficult chain to connect. Yet, this logical circle is fearfully coming to fruition. Add to this the exponential growth of plastic trash accumulating in the world’s oceans. The plastics industry reported U.S. production of 120 billion pounds of plastic annually, representing a 100% increase in 15 years. This parallels the growth of plastic trash found in the North Pacific Gyre. In 2003 the California Integrated Waste Management Board reported that 25% of plastic produced could not be accounted for through recycling programs, durable goods, or landfills. We are seeing that missing plastic waste accumulating in our oceans. A burgeoning sense of urgency is the meeting of these two roads: our throwaway society, and long-term human health. But, this is not a scientific argument. It is a moral one.

To say that you need to see the effect before you address the cause is unwise considering the global impact of plastic marine debris, especially when all the causal links are illuminating long-term human health concerns. If prosperity, longevity and security of human populations worldwide are tantamount, then employ the precautionary principle.

“There is evidence for adverse health effects in animals, significant human exposure, and safer alternatives are readily available, therefore, until proven otherwise, plastic marine debris and the associated sorbed toxins and pre-production plasticers should be assumed to impact human health. Scientific certainty is not required prior to taking regulatory action.”

If your fear is economics, as you eluded to in your initial reply, then I suggest alternatives to petroleum-based plastics and our throwaway society that are healthy for the environment, our bodies and the marketplace. While much of the developed world embraces a cultural shift to the Sustainable Century, the United States resists departing the Synthetic Century. I would rather see our nation lead rather than lag behind. Markets in alternatives to disposable plastics, like stainless steel water bottles and coffee mugs, and cloth grocery bags, are soaring. To show good faith, when I return to Los Angeles I’ll send you a reusable water bottle. In fact, you can have one of the 100 stainless steel ones we have on JUNK as a souvenir.

Meanwhile, here’s a list of references.

EVIDENCE OF PLASTIC IN THE OCEAN
Robards, M. D.; Gould, P. J.; Piatt, J. F. The highest global concentrations and increased abundance of oceanic plastic debris in the North Pacific: Evidence from seabirds. In Marine Debris; Coe, J. M.; Rogers, D. B., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, 1997.
Reddy, M. S.; Basha, S.; Adimurthy, S.; Ramachandraiah, G. Description of the plastics fragments in marine sediments along the Alang-Sosiya ship-breaking yard, India. Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci. 2006, 68, 656-660.
Carpenter, E. J.; Anderson, S. J.; Harvey, G. R.; Miklas, H. P.; Peck, B. B. Polystyrene spherules in coastal water. Science (Washington, DC, U.S.) 1972, 178, 749-750.
Ng, K. L.; Obbard, J. P. Prevalence of microplastics in Singapore’s coastal marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2006, 52, 761- 767.
Gregory, M. R. Plastic “scrubbers” in hand cleansers: A further (and minor) source for marine pollution identified. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1996, 32, 867-871.
George, G. A. Weathering of polymers. Mater. Forum 1995, 19, 145-161.
Wurl, O.; Obbard, J. P. A review of pollutants in the sea-surface microlayer (SML): A unique habitat for marine microorganisms. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2004, 48, 1016-1030.

EVIDENCE OF PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS ON PLASTIC
Thompson, R. C., Teuten, E., Rowland, S. J., Galloway, T. Potential for Plastics to Transport Hydrophobic Contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 7759-7764.
Rios, L. M.; Moore, C.; Jones, P. R. Persistent organic pollutants carried by synthetic polymers in the ocean environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2007, 54, 1230-1237.
Mato, Y.; Isobe, T.; Takada, H.; Kanehiro, H.; Ohtake, C.; Kaminuma, T. Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, 308-324.
Ye, S.; Andrady, A. L. Fouling of floating plastic debris under Biscayne Bay exposure conditions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1991, 22, 608-613.
Brunauer, S.; Emmett, P. H.; Teller, E. Adsorption of gases in multimolecular layers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1938, 60, 309-319.
Hardy, J. T.; Crecelius, E. A.; Antrim, L. D.; Keiesser, S. L.; Broadhurst, V. L.; Boehm, P. D.; Steinhauer, W. G.; Coogan, T. H. Aquatic surface microlayer contamination in Chesapeake Bay. Mar. Chem. 1990, 28, 333-351.
Pascall, M. A.; Zabik, M. A.; Zabik, M. J.; Hernandez, R. J. Uptake of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from an aqueous medium by polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, and polystyrene films. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 164-169.

EVIDENCE OF PLASTIC IN OR AROUND THE BODIES OF MARINE ORGANISMS
Derraik, J. G. B. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002, 44, 842-852.
Laist, D. W. Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement of marine life in debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In Marine Debris; Coe, J. M.; Rogers, D. B., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, 1997.
Fry, D. M.; Fefer, S. I.; Sileo, L. Ingestion of plastic by laysan albatrosses and wedge-tailed shearwaters in the Hawaiian Islands. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1987, 18, 339-343.
Eriksson, C.; Burton, H. Origins and biological accumulation of small plastic particles in fur seals from Macquire Island. Ambio 2003 32, 380-384.

EVIDENCE OF PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS IN MARINE ORGANISMS
Ryan, P. G.; Connell, A. D.; Gardener, B. D. Plastic ingestion and PCBs in seabirds: Is there a relationship? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1988, 19, 174-176.
Thompson, R. C.; Olsen, Y.; Mitchell, R. P.; Davis, A.; Rowland, S. J.; John, A. W. G.; McGonigle, D.; Russell, A. Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science (Washington, DC, U.S.) 2004, 304, 838.
Voparil, I. M.; Mayer, L. A. Dissolution of sedimentary polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons into the lugworm’s (Arenicola marina) digestive fluids. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 1221-1228.
Voparil, I. M.; Mayer, L. A. Commercially available chemicals that mimic a deposit feeder’s (Arenicola marina) digestive solubilization of lipids. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 4334- 4339.
Lu, X.; Reible, D. D.; Fleeger, J. W. Relative importance of ingested sediment versus pore water as uptake routes for PAHs to the deposit-feeding oligochaete Ilyodrilus templetoni. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2004, 47, 207-214.
Weston, D. P.; Penry, D. L.; Gulmann, L. K. The role of ingestion as a route of contaminant bioaccumulation in a deposit-feeding polychaete. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2000, 38, 446- 454.
Timmermann, K.; Anderson, O. Bioavailability of pyrene to the deposit-feeding polychaete Arenicola marina: Importance of sediment versus water uptake routes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2003, 246, 163-172.
Lamoureux, E. M.; Brownawell, B. J. Chemical and biological availability of sediment-sorbed hydrophobic organic contaminants. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1999, 18, 1733-1741.

Finally, a response from Tamara Adkins, Doctoral Candidate from Antioch University:

I appreciate the attention Dr. Robert G. Williscroft has given to the voyage of the Junk. I was curious to know more about him, and scanned his resume and list of publications online. His impressive credentials include supervising the National Science Foundation Atmospheric Research Program at the South Pole, Given his expertise, I would expect an evidence-based rebuttal to the messages to which Dr Eriksen is bringing our attnetion. If he is aware of studies that would lead to us believe that plastic debris is not increasing in the ocean, or that it is not a threat to wildlife, I would be interested in seeing it.

As an endocrine disruption researcher, the weight of evidence certainly supports the toxicity of even very low doses of many of the monomers and additives found in common plastics (such as phthalates, bisphenol-A, styrene, vinyl chloride, organotin, lead, etc.). Adding these contaminants to the marine food chain does not seem wise. However, I subscribe to the precautionary principle -- the idea that if the risk of catastrophic harm is highly likely but not proven, it would make sense to delay action until further research results are compiled. (This, of course, assumes that not taking action is an option, and that it does not carry its own risks). I suspect, based on the reviews, of Dr Williscroft's book "Chicken Little,", that he does not subscribe to the precautionary principle. In his book, he "debunks" global warming and the hole in the ozone layer, as well as addressing unfounded fears about "terrorists, illegal immigrants, the Bird Flu, fuel dependency, food toxicity, antibiotic resistant bacteria". Mixing politics with science is familiar territory for Dr. Williscroft.

JUNK Jerk
Monday, July 21, 2008

A few posts back, we heard about Marcus and Joel patiently stalking - and then stocking - some fresh Mahi Mahi. After eating their fill, they decorated JUNK with strings of Mahi Jerky, using every available seasoning....here's Marcus to tell you all about it.