La planète nous déteste désormais!

Des avocats pré épluchés, prédécoupés suremballés…


Like bananas, avocados come direct from nature wrapped in their own durable protective packaging. So why is a California-based avocado grower and distributor selling the savory fruits pre-peeled, pre-halved, sealed in plastic, and then wrapped in a cardboard box?

Source : Pre-Peeled, Pre-Halved Avocados Are the Worst Example of Wasteful Packaging Yet

Miel de Hamburger

Vu que les abeilles sont capables de réaliser du miel à partir d’une concentration de sucre supérieure à 15% dans un aliment, elles n’ont eu aucun mal à transformer du miel à partir de hamburger, de céréales ou de soupe instantanée…

Source : L’ADN

Jolies tulipes

Un an dans une ferme de production de tulipes
Quand on s’eloigne de l’agriculture pour se rapprocher de l’industrie, au moins, on a des jolis tracteurs…

Lo vi en La boite verte


Et si on lâchait une bombe thermonucléaire pour de rire? Sur antony par exemple? Qui passerait à la casserole atomique? Un p’tit Fallout ?

Voir même les effets de la bombe du Tsar :

NUKEMAP is a Google Maps mash-up that calculates the effects of the detonation of a nuclear bomb.

Source : NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

Des Data Centers en guise de radiateurs

Comment transformer l’inconvénient d’un objet en avantage en repensant complètement son infrastructure :
Source : Des Data Centers en guise de radiateurs

Décontaminer pour quel retour?

Massif. C’est l’ampleur de la décontamination des no-go zones au alentours de Fukushima. Sans savoir si la pluie ou un feu ramèneront les particules radioactives.

Et pour quel retour? Pour quelle vie dans un lieu qui sera déserté de tout service ou commerce?

When I visited Chernobyl for the first time 7 years ago, I didn’t think that a similar disaster could take place anywhere ever again, and certainly not in Japan. After all, nuclear power is safe and the technology is less and less prone to failure, and therefore a similar disaster cannot happen in the future. Scientists said this, firms that build nuclear power stations said this, and the government said this.
But it did happen.

Source : FUKUSHIMA –

Animal Copyright

Animal Copyright

Achetez une photo prise par un animal, Latinstock reverse les droits d’auteurs pour la protection des espèces menacées…


Miguel Cañete ne doit pas devenir Commissaire européen !

Et enfin, est-il possible qu’une personne étroitement liée au secteur pétrolier et sensé mener à bien la lutte au nom de l’Union Européenne contre le changement climatique puisse offrir « toutes les garanties d’indépendance » alors que la charte de « bonne conduite » des commissaires vise explicitement les « intérêts familiaux » dans les conflits d’intérêts ?

via Conflits d’intérêt : Miguel Cañete ne doit pas devenir Commissaire européen !.


Un image vaut mille mots et souvent une infographie vaut plusieurs images.
Peut on mélanger les deux pour donner une idée plus précise, plus frappante, d’une donnée statistique, une quantité par exemple?

En voici une démonstration élégante et effrayante :
Quel travail et surtout quelle exploitation déraisonnée faut il pour un résultat si infime, mais si rentable.

West O’okiep Mine, Okiep
284,000 tons of copper extracted

Photographer Dillon Marsh, whom we have featured earlier, returns with an intriguing photo series that explores the “price” of extracting precious metals and stones from South Africa’s numerous mines.

In his series ‘For What It’s Worth’, Marsh attempted to visualize the amount of copper and diamonds that lay hidden in the mines.

To give a stark visualization of the amount of copper present in the mines, Marsh added computer-generated spheres to his photos.

In contrast, photos that reveal the amount of diamonds present in the mine are almost hidden from sight—its representation is dwarfed by the large holes that were created during the extraction process.

Are you surprised by the sheer amount of precious diamonds and copper “unearthed” by Marsh in his photos? Check out the rest of his photos below.

Nababeep South Mine, Nababeep
302,792 tons of copper extracted

Kimberly Mine
14.5 million carats of diamonds extracted

Close-up of Kimberly Mine, detail showing the total diamond production

Blue Mine, Springbok
3,535 tons of copper extracted

Jagersfontein Mine
9.52 million carats of diamonds extracted

Close-up of Jagersfontein Mine, detail showing the total diamond production

Tweefontein Mine, Concordia
38,748 tons of copper extracted

Jubilee Mine, Concordia
6,500 tons of copper extracted

[via Visual News, Images by Dillon Marsh]

Lo vi en TAXI Daily News

Mobility on demand

Pourquoi posséder quand on peut tout partager.
C’est cette maxime que met en place la ville de Helsinski pour ses transports : habitez la ville, payez au forfait ou à la consommation et vous accédez librement aux vélos, bus, tram, parking, et voiture de la ville. Le tout coordonné par votre téléphone.

Ten years from now, transportation in Helsinki may operate very differently from the current system.

The service will be run by transportation operators, through which the regular citizen can buy all they want with a click. This does not only entail public transportation within the city, but also carpool, taxi, a train ticket to Tampere or parking fees in the city centre.

Few want to own their own car in future, when everything can be shared. If one wishes to travel from Puotila to Pukinmäki, the « route planner » of 2025 will provide information on where to change the city bike for a car due to impending rain, in addition to information on the fastest connection.

The City of Helsinki believes in the model so strongly that it plans to test it at the turn of the year with a few major employers in Vallila. Employers are being persuaded to join in by building a platform that enables employees to buy transportation services with their own funds.


Message in a (plastic) bottle.

Il y a des tonnes de plastiques dans les océans mais… pas assez!
Ou en tout cas pas assez selon notre production. Oú disparaît donc ce plastique? En micro billes absorbées par le plancton

Image: Kevin Krejci/Flickr

There’s some 40,000 tons of plastic floating on the surfaces of the world’s oceans, which is leaving researchers wondering: Where the hell is the rest?

That number is nothing to scoff at, of course, but it’s many orders of magnitude lower than the estimated amount of plastic that has been going into the oceans since at least the mid-1970s. Plastic in the ocean isn’t simply disappearing, but it has to be going somewhere. And that’s the scary thing.

In a paper published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Andres Cozar of Spain’s University of Cadiz and an international team of colleagues report that the "quantity of plastic floating in the ocean and its final destination are still unknown."

"A conservative first-order estimate of the floating plastic released into the open ocean from the 1970s (10^6 tons) is 100-fold larger than our estimate of the current load of plastic stored in the ocean," Cozar wrote. "Large loads of plastic fragments with sizes from microns to some millimeters are unaccounted for in the surface loads. The pathway and ultimate fate of the missing plastic are as yet unknown."

Cozar has a couple theories, which we’ll get to in a minute. Chief among them, however, is the idea that fish are eating microplastics (mistaking them for plankton or accidentally eating them along with plankton, which are increasingly calling plastic home) and pooping them out. The feces is then dense enough to sink to the bottom of the ocean, and that’s where all the plastic is.

Gross, yeah, and probably not good news if we want to have any shot of cleaning this stuff up.

The results of Cozar’s survey. Image: PNAS

Just because we don’t know where a lot of this stuff goes doesn’t mean that there isn’t an incredible amount of micro plastics floating on Earth’s oceans. Plastic generally doesn’t sink under normal circumstances, and 88 percent of the more than 3,000 samples from around the world that his team took had micro plastics in it.

As you might expect, roughly 35 percent of the total amount of micro plastics are located in the North Pacific Ocean, home of the gyre that many have begun referring to as a floating island of plastic. There are also substantial gyres in the North and South Atlantic Ocean, and the Southern Indian Ocean. 

Back in the 1970s, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that roughly 45,000 tons of plastic made its way into the oceans each year, and that was before the annual production of plastic increased fivefold—in 2010, the world made 265 million tons of plastic, for instance.

That brings us to the crux of the study, and the question that’s probably on your mind—where is it? Cozar has four theories, none of them particularly good news for ocean health. 

Shore deposition: Basically, plastics somehow make it out of gyres in the middle of the ocean and make it back onto shore somewhere. This is very unlikely to happen, for pretty obvious reasons, namely that it generally defies the laws of physics. Gyres are essentially very large, circular tides. Absent many large storms, the plastic trapped in the middle of them isn’t making its way back to shore. Cozar wrote, "A selective washing ashore of the millimeter-sized fragments trapped in central areas of the open ocean is unlikely."  

Nanofragmentation: This is the idea that micro plastics have become "nano plastics" that are very, very difficult to detect. Plastic naturally breaks into tinier pieces, and the sun has something to do with that, but Cozar says there’s no reason to suggest that "solar-induced fragmentation" has increased since the 1980s, when several studies were done on the phenomenon.

For the plastics to be broken down further, there’s likely some sort of bacteria or plankton that has evolved to do it, or that does so naturally. There is some research to back that up. "Recent scanning electron micrographs of the surface of micro plastic particles showed indications that oceanic bacterial populations may be contributing to their degradation, potentially intervening in the fragmentation dynamics," Cozar wrote. 

Biofouling: We’ve seen animals make homes out of plastic, we’ve seen reefs that incorporate plastic—that’s biofouling. Cozar suggests that plankton and other small organisms may be accumulating on the plastic, making the plastics able to sink, probably very slowly because seawater density gets higher with depth.

This is another potentially sound possibility, were it not for the fact that, in field tests, plastic makes a very poor home for much of anything. "Field experiments have shown that biofouled plastic debris undergoes a rapid defouling when submerged, causing the plastic to return to the surface," reads the report.

Ingestion: This is the most likely scenario, Cozart suggests. It’s not a pretty one. Microplastics can end up being roughly the same size as zooplankton, an incredibly important part of the oceanic food chain. Previous studies have found that fish that eat plankton often have plastic in their stomachs, so it’s not a farfetched idea. The idea here is that fish eat the plastic, poop it out, and it sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

"Gut content of [plankton-eating] fish is evacuated as long viscous feces that assume spheroid shapes while sinking at high velocities," he wrote. "Hence, micro plastic fragments could also reach the bottom via defecation, a proposition that requires further quantitative testing."

The overall answer, of course, is probably some combination of the four of these scenarios. We’re going to have to figure it out if we want an outside shot of ever cleaning up the oceans. Maybe we can use what we find to fuel 3D printers.

Lo vi en Motherboard RSS Feed

Les chaussettes seront sèches 30% plus vite.

C’est pas le tout de réchauffer le climat : l’évaporation de l’eau de toute la planète va être plus importante que prévue.
Une broutille : 30% de l’eau disponible

Drought at Lake Hume. Image: Flickr

Sure, scientists expect the changing climate to bring on more drought. There’s going to be less rainfall in already arid regions, that’s fairly certain. And that alone would be bad news for denizens of the planet’s dry zones—in some places in North Africa, the American Southwest, India, and the Middle East, water shortages could well become an existential threat to civilization. But new research shows that evaporation may be more of a problem than previously thought: Climate change could dry out up to a third of the planet. 

The study, published in the journal Climate Dynamics last month, estimates that climate change will cause reduced rainfall alone to dessicate 12 percent of the Earth’s land by 2100. But if evaporation is factored in, the study’s authors say that it will "increase the percentage of global land area projected to experience at least moderate drying by the end of the 21st century from 12 to 30 percent."

“We know from basic physics that warmer temperatures will help to dry things out,” the study’s lead author, Benjamin Cook, a climate scientist with Columbia University and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in a statement. “Even if precipitation changes in the future are uncertain, there are good reasons to be concerned about water resources.”

Writing in a 2011 literature review in the science journal Nature, the physicist Joe Romm elaborates on how increased heat and evaporation can lead to a vicious cycle: "Precipitation patterns are expected to shift, expanding the dry subtropics. What precipitation there is will probably come in extreme deluges, resulting in runoff rather than drought alleviation. Warming causes greater evaporation and, once the ground is dry, the Sun’s energy goes into baking the soil, leading to a further increase in air temperature."

Lo vi en Motherboard RSS Feed