Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge) states that "as arsenic can constitute up to 17% of some soil samples" and references "Bausinger, Bonnaire, and Preuß, 2007".
I don't really know how to read this either, but the number 17 as such does not appear anywhere in that paper. This quote may be relevant: "Concentrations of As vary between 72,820 and 1,937 mg/kg" (page 13).
These commas appear to be thousands separators, so that's a maximum of 73 grams per kilogram or 7% per mass of a soil sample. I'm not a doctor, but I would advise against eating significant amounts of these soil samples.
"Android 5.0 Lollipop, which comes on Nexus 6, Nexus 9 and Nexus Player, will also be available on Nexus 4, 5, 7, 10 and Google Play edition devices in the coming weeks."
I don't understand why people keep saying that it won't come on Nexus 4.
I didn't see many good counterpoints in the article.
1. They argue the majority of the waste is small particles, and they refer to it as a 'plastic soup'. Are these particles not just larger plastic debris that has decomposed? Wouldn't keeping up with the larger debris help prevent the 'plastic soup' in the first place?
2. Second point, they say the project is too big of a challenge but believe it might work on a smaller scale. I don't think this is a situation where you should think small.
3. Thirdly, they say this will be in the way for boats, and wildlife. The site addresses most of the wildlife concerns because there's nothing to capture wildlife, and it's basically a floating wall. The wildlife can swim under it, or away from it. I'm sure some jellyfish would be floating into it, but it seems like a big improvement over nets. Also, it says their large scale operational test will be 10km wide. That's not exactly disrupting the shipping lanes in the middle of the ocean.
4. Their last points are awful. They say the plastic waste can't be recycled, so it's worthless to pick up, and they close with saying 'cleaning the oceans will never be a solution', and we should instead just reduce the use of plastic.
In short, I have no idea if this thing will work, but watching the videos, it seems like a decent solution that's worth exploring. They seem motivated, and a couple of million dollars isn't much to invest on such a project and team.
rue89 is a far left French news site so it isn't surprising that their solution is anti-consumerism and their skepticism directed at a private initiative is also not surprising as they tend to favor initiatives that come from the State only.
I am not qualified to judge the merits of the criticism or the response, I'm just kind of happy someone is at least trying to do something about trash in the ocean.
I didn't see mentioned. Why do it? It might save some species? That needs to be something they're sure of and sure they can't be saved more cheaply other ways.
We already know of the cost of plastic pollution, just do a freaking Google search. From there it's easy to weigh down the payoff vs. cost.
(If you're too lazy to do, yes, reducing plastic pollution will save a good deal of wildlife, and improve human health too, as probably there will be less toxic bisphenol and polystyrene in that tuna can you pick from the supermarket aisle from plastic pollutants which easily land back in our food chain).
And why should they not do this based on the mere presumption that there could be a cheaper way? Everyone else is free to come up with a better idea.
Your post is incredibly intellectually disingenuous just for the sake of being critical.
Misused is key... The idea of a self-describing data set is pretty cool, and could have a good use if you had to dump a data-set to be consumed by some external 3rd party without any other documentation... (when has that ever happened)
What maddens me is when people use XML to communicate with themselves. It is the biggest waste of bandwidth and processing power, when there are much simpler formats.
Many years ago I took the XAjax library for PHP and re-wrote it without XML.. Using 2 simple delimiters instead, the code was 80% smaller.
My first thought when I read that was, "I can't remember the last time I heard someone rate it positively." I would probably have to go back to the days when everyone expected a transition to XHTML, which would end the tyranny of broken HTML markup on the Internet. Perhaps in those days, it had some positive ratings.
I found this study (https://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-01267232/document) but I am afraid I don't know how to read the results.
I assume that 17% is the absolute maximum proportion of arsenic ever found in a single small sample.