Talk:Plastic particle water pollution
|WikiProject Environment||(Rated Stub-class)|
The proper term for this thing seems to be "plastic resin pellet", which yields a lot more Google hits than the "Nurdle". Maybe renaming it would make sense? Themel 06:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, not with quotes around "plastic resin pellet" -- with the quotes, p.r.p. produces 321 hits to 7860 for "nurdle", and although surely some of the "nurdle" hits are for the cricket term, the top ten page of hits seem to be mostly the plastic pellets.Shayanakadidal 04:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is Nurdle used by people in the plastics manufacturing industry, or is it a colloquial term used only when stray pellets are found "in the wild"?--Theodore Kloba (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- How about "waste plastic"? No one in industry refers to the resin pellets as "nurdles" and this article talks about US industry making 60 billion pounds of nurdles per year. Industry makes pellets and some small percentage of those pellets become fugitive, THEN they become "nurdles".Silverchemist (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I quite like the look of these two photos on Flickr:
- I've made a request of the first gentleman. —Pengo 01:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Rewrite urgently needed
This article is mess of conflicting terminology and sources that do not verify content. It's being referenced in a US national newspaper, can someone with expertise (or even accurate knowledge) please work on it?
The intro para and picture discuss plastic pellets BEFORE they are used to make plastic goods. Two paragraphs later, someone seems to have misunderstood the finished little plastic balls (for example in Styrofoam) with the UNFINISHED product. (There's no way that the unfinished product would be a "major contributor" to marine debris -- companies don't just habitually throw away material for unfinished products!)
The "three month study" that quoted isn't talking about either the unfinished good, or the white balls of disintegrating Styrofoam. It's specifically discussing fragments of a finished, decomposing, transparent "liter soda bottle". Then the Wiki article states "Waterborne nurdles, may either be a byproduct of plastic production or pellets broken down from larger chunks of plastic". That's yet ANOTHER definition.
Then this brilliant article concludes with two quite specific statements that have no citations.
will someone explain why plastic pellet is not called plastic pellet?
- This article continues to need a rewrite for clarity and accuracy. A pre-consumer industrial material is still both conflated with and distinguished from a post-consumer waste material. ENeville (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"nurdle" apparently also is a toothpaste squiggle: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/29/colgate-glaxosmithkline-set-to-battle-over-toothpaste-nurdle/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arghman (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Renamed to "Plastic particle water pollution"
I have renamed the article to "Plastic particle water pollution" to reflect the content and the fact that nurdle is not in the OED or dictionary.com. Not sure if the new name is the best option. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
In the text there is a sentence that says, 'the creatures that make up the base of the marine food chain, such as krill, are prematurely dying by choking on nurdles'. I question this. For me choking implies cutting off air. This cannot happen for a water-living organism. This goes back to the old argument about can a fish drown when taken out of water. I ask if someone more expert in nurdles can edit and clarify this sentence. Thanks Mondegreen de plume (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems the full article is available here, but I'm not sure if that display is ok and how to add it. Someone please take over. The same article is linked in the Microplastics page.
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Pellets-Transport-Medium.htm 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Pages related to plastic pellets are being redirected to here. This obviously means that somebody with an agenda is abusing wikipedia. While the issues discussed on this page are real, there's no need to redirect "microbead" to this article. A disambiguation page would be more helpful to readers. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)