Is the plastic islands in the ocean destroying the ocean fast or slower than expected?Are we destroying the oceans faster than expected or is the problem in the early stages of destruction? In the pacific there are 2 major gyres that's create the "Plastic Islands". These islands are on each side of the pacific and have accumulated trash from west-coast of North America and Asia. These patches or islands are very debated upon, and the questions debated is whether the patches are destroying our ocean fast or are just now beginning to be a problem but there is time to fix said problem.  This questions not only affects me but affects everyone in the world. The ocean is very important in keeping the earth sustainable for human life. My personal experience is walking down the beach and seeing trash all around in the water. This made me feel disgusted to even be near the water.  This made me want to find out more about the 8 million metric tons of trash put into the water annually (NOAA). This trash is just on the beaches not including the amount in the water.

The article from Ocean Portal has the main claim that the plastic is a problem but not one that is going to effect the world for a while. Ocean portal uses the evidence for this how the plastic in the ocean is not in full pieces but in microfibers that the human eye can't even see most of the time (NOAA). This is to show how the problem will only grow but at this time it is not a major problem. The plastics won't break down enough to harmless like wood or paper would, but they will become smaller and smaller microfibers of plastic (NOAA). This evidence shows that the ocean is being affected but not at a pace that should put people in a terror.

Now Live Science has an article that is completely on the other side of the spectrum. This article talks about how this is an imminent threat. This article claims that there are already permanent fixtures of trash in the water that have beaches and coastlines (Tia Ghose).  This article talks about how it is growing and there is much more trash on the surface then anyone could imagine. This site uses an interview of Capt. Charles Moore as its main information machine, because he has done years of research and hundreds or sailings through the islands testing and trolling. This gives it some credibility but not as much due to it is not the full conversation and no back up on the proof given.

Now the website Common Dreams, a website for the progressive community, calls the plastic in the ocean an "epidemic" (Lauren). This website is also on the side where the ocean is in immediate danger.  Saying that even if we stopped putting plastic into the ocean today the plastic patches would still grow for hundreds of years (Lauren). This part of the given is reliable that the first article also talks about this, but it doesn't make it seem so immediate in the way this article does. This article does use more sources then the last and has citations which helps give it a lot more credibility. Although it does seem to over use words like epidemic and inevitably (Lauren). These words make it seem like this is going to destroy the world in a matter of months instead of a matter of years. The article doesn't show the support that it will destroy anything as quickly as the article tried to make it seem.

As shown by the articles I have given the research question of, are the plastic islands in the ocean destroying the ocean quickly or slower then what is being said. This gives us much to argue about because the reason for the argument is shown from the articles above, and that the speed at which the oceans are deteriorate is very widely fought over. The main disagreement is the time the islands are forming and the size of the actual trash in the ocean. The different sources make either the statement that the ocean has permanent fixtures of trash and or that the trash mainly can't even be seen by human eye due to the size. My research question may need to be revised into more of the size of the plastic in relation to the time instead of just the time, making the research question more specific and more reliable to do an actual study. Overall the information is very good at making you think both ways but the source and reliability makes you find faults in both sides so more sources and research need to be found to make a more honest prediction to an answer.

