Whirling Vortex of Stupidity
September 24, 2007 2:40 AM   Subscribe

The North Pacific Trash Vortex - Researchers have discovered a Texas-sized area of (mostly plastic) rubbish floating in the Pacific Ocean.

On the most recent episode of QI, Fry posed this question: "what is the largest man-made object in the world?" The answer: The North Pacific Trash Vortex.

The North Pacific sub-tropical gyre covers a large area of the Pacific in which the water circulates clockwise in a slow spiral, which tends to force any floating material into the low energy central area of the gyre. Given its size, I tried looking for a satellite image of it, but have failed so far. Anyone know of one?
posted by chuckdarwin (67 comments total) 22 users marked this as a favorite

 
You know where else there's a Texas-sized area of rubbish?
posted by Poolio at 2:42 AM on September 24, 2007 [35 favorites]


I've been out in the Atlantic, days from either coast, a number of times and it's always shocking how much garbage there is floating around. We would always notice at least two or three good-sized hunks of detritus every day.

I'm curious if there are any pictures of this area. Is it like the Sargasso, but with plastic?
posted by From Bklyn at 3:00 AM on September 24, 2007


No via QI, chuckdarwin?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:01 AM on September 24, 2007


Ugh. How did I miss that second line.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:01 AM on September 24, 2007


Peter - it's a more inside thingy and easy to miss; should I have linked directly to their (rather brilliant and insanely thorough) site/boards?
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:09 AM on September 24, 2007


Reminds me of Stephenson's "Raft" from Snow Crash.
posted by lodurr at 3:11 AM on September 24, 2007 [2 favorites]


I keep thinking about sieving plankton feeders like baleen whales, basking sharks, rays and the like. Whales might (might) be smart enough to get out before ingesting enough plastic to kill them, but it's got to be devastating for some of the large species.
posted by lodurr at 3:23 AM on September 24, 2007


it's got to be devastating for some of the large species

Indeed.
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:27 AM on September 24, 2007


Not to imply that this vortex is a 'good thing', but isn't the silver lining of this situation the fact that with the garbage aggregating in defined locations, it's going to be easier to scoop it up? (Assuming we do finally decide to act on this ...)

I can easily imagine special-purpose vessels, with 'harvester' attachments in front, scooping the stuff up into compactors, etc., just moving back and forth, back and forth through this zone ...
posted by woodblock100 at 3:29 AM on September 24, 2007 [2 favorites]


woodblock100, as far as I know no country wants to take responsibility for cleaning it up.
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:36 AM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


Well, as long as we're 'dreaming' about how this could be done, why not something like this: a fleet of dozens/hundreds of small 'harvester/compactor' boats, working robotically (Roomba-style) plowing back and forth through the vortex. When they get full they return to a 'mother ship' to offload, and then head out again. (They work during non-typhoon seasons ... heading pack to port for maintenance during the bad weather periods)

How to pay for it? There is certainly money in the re-cycling value of the plastic waste (in such large quantities). Probably not enough to pay for the expenses of the collection, but top it up with subsidies from governments, the UN, and private donations (wouldn't you click on the Paypal 'Donate Now' button for such a project? I think most of us would ...)
posted by woodblock100 at 4:00 AM on September 24, 2007 [3 favorites]


And: It's the size of Texas. And: Where's the profit? And: I think we're liable to have somewhat more pressing priorities in the coming decades (climate change, indefinite war, etc.).

And man, that LA Time flash UI was annoying. Oh, let's not worry that the 'net is slow enough already, let's be sure to simulate that slowness in our Flash movie! And let's be extra-sure we slow things down even more by making users click through several slow-to-display (already loaded, so not slow-to-load) Flash interactions to get to the actual stories! Which are in normaly cheesy HTML templates and so accrue no benefit whatever from the Flash widget!
posted by lodurr at 4:02 AM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


On prev: Go for it. But I for one am not optimistic.
posted by lodurr at 4:04 AM on September 24, 2007


"I am often asked why we can’t vacuum up the particles. In fact, it would be more difficult than vacuuming up every square inch of the entire United States, it’s larger and the fragments are mixed below the surface down to at least 30 meters. Also, untold numbers of organisms would be destroyed in the process."

http://marine-litter.gpa.unep.org/documents/World's_largest_landfill.pdf
posted by ryanrs at 4:17 AM on September 24, 2007 [2 favorites]


Plastic Debris in the World's Oceans
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:18 AM on September 24, 2007


I am often asked why we can’t vacuum up the particles. In fact, it would be more difficult than ... etc.

Well, I'm certainly not about to disagree with the people 'on the ground', because they presumably know what they are talking about, but in the same report he also said:

"Everything from huge hawsers to tiny fragments were formed into a miles long line. We picked up hundreds of pounds of netting of all types bailed together in this system along with every type and size of debris imaginable."

That sort of stuff sounds like it would be 'collectable' ... I would imagine a two-pronged approach: changing our disposal habits (obviously) to stop this from getting any worse, and collection of what's already out there (even very slowly, taking a century to do it, if that were necessary ...) There really isn't any other option, actually ...
posted by woodblock100 at 4:30 AM on September 24, 2007


I wonder if this is the same trash vortex mentioned in my favorite episode of This American Life.
posted by tss at 4:37 AM on September 24, 2007 [2 favorites]


This thread from the past is relevant. I don't see any satellite images mentioned there either. Is this maybe something that won't really show up on a satellite image?

Greenpeace mentions an estimate of six kilos of plastic per kilo of plankton - anybody have an idea of what this might mean in terms of mass of plastic / unit area?

These guys have published on the subject, they seem to be the source of the six-to-one figure. Their web site mentions plastic breaking down into smaller pieces by photodegradation, which presumably won't show up in a photo.

On Preview, ryanrs' UNEP link was written by one of the Algalita researchers.
posted by the number 17 at 4:43 AM on September 24, 2007


Excellent post chuckdarwin - I wanted to do this as well after QI, you beat me to it. Great job.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:44 AM on September 24, 2007


There is certainly money in the re-cycling value of the plastic waste (in such large quantities).

If there were any money in it, the trash wouldn't be dumped in the first place.
posted by c13 at 4:47 AM on September 24, 2007


There's not a lot you can do about what's out there. Also:
I think it's important to stress that these trash vortexes are more symbolic of the problem that plastic poses in the ocean rather than the problem themselves.
There is a great deal of material throughout the world's oceans.

But you can, if you're a government looking for long-term good rather than short-term profit, get manufacturers and stores to reduce the creation of this rubbish and to limit its durability. Force all stores to charge a significant amount (at least a dollar) for a sturdy multi-use shopping bag and not to give out disposable or low-reuse bags. Require a largish deposit on all plastic and glass bottles.

Beyond that, require that almost all non-returnable packaging and products (candy wrappers, toothbrushes, dolls, chairs, computers, cars, houses, etc., etc.) eventually be made largely of degradable materials. If you don't expect a product to be used for more than ten years, don't build it to remain essentially intact for a thousand years. Plan obsolescence at the molecular level.
posted by pracowity at 4:50 AM on September 24, 2007 [7 favorites]


vortex sounds so sinister.... maybe if they called it a "confetti floatilla"
posted by fatcatslimslim at 4:54 AM on September 24, 2007 [4 favorites]


Just wait until it runs down the drain.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:55 AM on September 24, 2007


" We found jellyfish that looked like plastic and plastic that looked like jellyfish."

blog+pics from Research Vessel Alguita, 2007 Gyre Voyage.
posted by ryanrs at 4:57 AM on September 24, 2007


Wrong link, ryanrs.
posted by c13 at 4:59 AM on September 24, 2007


This would be home to the Rubber Duckies too, right?
posted by Helga-woo at 5:00 AM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I know, preview...
posted by Helga-woo at 5:01 AM on September 24, 2007


This is a very interesting post. Thanks.

I think we should use QI as a tag for all the great stuff that we come across via Fry and co. Hopefully, one day it could even rival BATSHATINSANE on the tag front.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 5:06 AM on September 24, 2007


Curses! Foiled again.

blog+pics from Research Vessel Alguita, 2007 Gyre Voyage.
posted by ryanrs at 5:08 AM on September 24, 2007


or perhaps BATSHITINSANE.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 5:16 AM on September 24, 2007


Is this 1985 or something? Where are the photographs of any of this stuff? I'm not talking satellite pictures but even just one or two photos of, say, several square miles of vortexed trash.

Observation is great but photographic evidence is priceless.
posted by mistersquid at 5:16 AM on September 24, 2007


Didn't follow everyone else's links, so I apologize if someone already mentioned this, but since we're right between the vortices and the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, It's gotta be pretty clear to the world who's mostly at fault for this shit.
posted by hermitosis at 5:17 AM on September 24, 2007


There really isn't any other option, actually ...

Than what -- stopping it at the source, or picking it up slowly?

Because "do nothing" is always an option. In fact, it's the default option.

Kind of like failure, in that regard...

As for stopping it at the source, I agree w/ pracowity (& presumably others) that it's an important step. But as long as there are large populations of humans on the planet, we are going to be dumping a shitload of garbage into the ocean. It would really be a matter of just how much of a shitload. (Right now it's a petashitload. Maybe with a lot of work we could whittle it down to a terashitload.)

Oh, well. At least it's not buckyjunk.
posted by lodurr at 5:19 AM on September 24, 2007


hermitosis: ... but even just one or two photos of, say, several square miles of vortexed trash.

"I am often asked why we can’t vacuum up the particles. In fact, it would be more difficult than vacuuming up every square inch of the entire United States, it’s larger and the fragments are mixed below the surface down to at least 30 meters. Also, untold numbers of organisms would be destroyed in the process."
posted by lodurr at 5:21 AM on September 24, 2007


Where are the photographs of any of this stuff?

It think it's probably because it looks a lot any other like a stretch of ocean, not a solid field of plastic, and it's only when you sift through it that you discover the relatively high concentration of consumer refuse floating in it.
posted by pracowity at 5:22 AM on September 24, 2007


The blog+pics link is awesome ryanrs! It's a good science blog, and gives a much better indication of the level of contamination.

Too bad the problem it is not more photogenic because that is what is most impressive to people.
posted by From Bklyn at 5:23 AM on September 24, 2007


I just lost some respect for Fry based on his abuse of the term man-made object. It's clearly not a single object and the vortex, a natural phenomena, did the collecting. I thought Fry cared about precision.

Interestingly, on Blue Planet last night they were showing how garbage in the ocean, even fish nets, can create an oasis for sea life by providing shade and functioning as psuedo islands/reefs.

Chuckdarwin, that albatross picture featured in this treehugger story seems to be a bit misleading. Some of the contents, larger pieces in particular, are plastic but a great deal of it appear to be stones which many birds eat to aid in their digestion. That would probably account for the bulk of the weight - plastic is light after all. The photo with the bits in the bird is also obviously faked given the lack of viscera and pristine feathers which would be unlikely post necropsy and the location of the solids throughout the birds entire body rather than in the birds gut. Also seabirds vomit up boluses of indigestible foods.

In fact there is a less propaganda flavoured story here involving the same Cynthia Vanderlip that is less like ad copy provided as a reference at the end of the treehugger story. The website is less attractive and the texts is denser with more conflicting information such as that the last study in 1995 found an avg of 23 grams of plastic unlike the current non-study picture single data point of 226 grams which is acknowledged as an outlier rather than as representative. It also mentions that the latest study indicated plastic ingestion probably doesn't cause mortality. The photos are also real instead of lightboxed fakes. Reality is always so much more messy and complicated than propaganda.

That said I was shocked by how much crap was washed up on Chesil Beach last time I was there. Whether it specifically causes seabird mortality or not it is clearly just plain wrong and there need to be international solutions found for both cleanup and prevention.

Perhaps a slightly modified fishing trawler fleet, now unused thanks to the collapse of fishing stock, could scoop and haul in the plastics
posted by srboisvert at 5:26 AM on September 24, 2007 [2 favorites]


mistersquid:
Is this 1985 or something? Where are the photographs of any of this stuff? I'm not talking satellite pictures but even just one or two photos of, say, several square miles of vortexed trash.

Unless I am mistaken, you have to go out and scoop it with a mesh, it's not like there's an island of floating lawn chairs.

Try searching for "North Atlantic Gyre" in a bibliographic database, you'll get a bunch of relevant papers. The image of an island of trash the size of Texas may be somewhat misleading,
but it looks like this is well documented stuff.
The United Nations may be your idea of a credible source.
posted by the number 17 at 5:27 AM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


srboisvert: Interestingly, on Blue Planet last night they were showing how garbage in the ocean, even fish nets, can create an oasis for sea life by providing shade and functioning as psuedo islands/reefs.

Similarly, discarded tires, imported from southeast asia to North America, Europe and Africa, have provided an ideal habitat for Aedes albopictus (a.k.a. the "asian tiger mosquito"), which is a known vector for lots of fun, exotic and highly lethal diseases. Thanks to those discarded tires, albopictus (and those diseases) are now free to thrive in North America and Europe! All thanks to the miracle of trash!
posted by lodurr at 5:40 AM on September 24, 2007


It's clearly not a single object and the vortex, a natural phenomena, did the collecting. I thought Fry cared about precision.

Riiight. The vortex also synthesized all the plastic and dumped it in the ocean.


Interestingly, on Blue Planet last night they were showing how garbage in the ocean, even fish nets, can create an oasis for sea life by providing shade and functioning as psuedo islands/reefs.

Do you mean the algal blooms? The ones that consume all the oxygen and kill everything before crashing themselves? Or those mentioned in the link, "We've been been unfortunately finding a lot of stuff out here, floating by, which doesn't paint a very good picture, because some of it is from faraway places, has marine life like barnacles and other little creatures living on the plastic," Smith said.
By hitching rides on plastic debris, invasive species can be carried thousands of miles (kms) to interact with native creatures,

posted by c13 at 5:41 AM on September 24, 2007


Excellent post chuckdarwin - I wanted to do this as well after QI, you beat me to it. Great job.

Thanks very much... it was a detail that really struck me and I wanted to find out more.

srboisvert - I realise that the treehugger link is exaggerated for effect, I should have dug deeper to find a way to prove how damaging plastic waste is to marine life. I love your quote, though: Reality is always so much more messy and complicated than propaganda. I agree that fishing vessels should play a role in cleanup, since they made so much of the mess in the first place.

ClanvidHorse - I added the QI and stephenfry tags.

pracowity - we're starting to see a real backlash against carrier bags here. I wish they'd just outlaw the fucking things: they're EVERYWHERE.

I just wanted to add that I didn't know about ghost fishing until I read that pdf upthread.
posted by chuckdarwin at 5:51 AM on September 24, 2007


By hitching rides on plastic debris, invasive species can be carried thousands of miles (kms) to interact with native creatures...

Which leads us back (rather neatly) to my last post.
posted by chuckdarwin at 5:54 AM on September 24, 2007


you envirophiles wouldn't know a work of art if it bit you in the ass.
posted by quonsar at 6:01 AM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


This post amuses me, because I also thought of posting it here.

See, we can tell what would be a Metafilter post when we see it.
posted by smackfu at 6:26 AM on September 24, 2007


*4.33 minutes of silence*
posted by the cuban at 6:27 AM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


Whether or not the North Pacific Gyre is the size of Texas is irrelevent. The sea of floating trash is quite large, and it occurs in an area of the Pacific that is quite productive, and that sea creatures depend upon for food. So its size makes no difference.

Getting rid of the trash is more than just a matter of scooping it out of the ocean. The plastics break down, are ingested by smaller organisms, and have become a permanent part of the food chain. This is just one more way that humans are changing the very chemistry of the oceans.

There's also nurdles:

About 100 billion pounds of pellets are produced every year and shipped to Los Angeles and other manufacturing centers. Huge numbers are spilled on the ground and swept by rainfall into gutters; down storm drains, creeks and rivers; and into the ocean.

From his river sampling, Moore estimated that 236 million pellets washed down the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers in three days' time. Also known as "nurdles" or mermaid tears, they are the most widely seen plastic debris around the world. They have washed ashore as far away as Antarctica.

The pellets, like most types of plastic, are sponges for oily toxic chemicals that don't readily dissolve in water, such as the pesticide DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. Some pellets have been found to contain concentrations of these pollutants 1 million times greater than the levels found in surrounding water.

posted by KokuRyu at 7:12 AM on September 24, 2007


This is just one more way that humans are changing the very chemistry of the oceans.

Long-term exposure to petroleum pollution can interfere with the reproduction of aquatic creatures.
posted by chuckdarwin at 7:19 AM on September 24, 2007


International Pellet Watch:
Plastic resin pellets are small granules generally with shape of a cylinder or a disk with a diameter of a few mm. These plastic particles are industrial raw material transported to manufacturing sites where "user plastics" are made by re-melting and molding into the final products. Resin pellets can be unintentionally released to the environment, both during manufacturing and transport. The released resin pellets are carried by surface run-off, stream, and river waters eventually to the ocean. [...]
posted by pracowity at 7:30 AM on September 24, 2007


I'm curious if there are any pictures of this area. Is it like the Sargasso, but with plastic?

Click here to download the short film Alphabet Soup, a video travelogue of a trip to the North Pacific Gyre. Well worth your while.

The blog
where this is posted belongs to a good friend of mine - formerly a producer at the Discovery Channel - who has been shooting a documentary on the global impact of plastic for the last couple of years.

It started with the voyage to the North Pacific Gyre aboard Captain Charles Moore's research vessel a few years back chronicled in Alphabet Soup (which was sponsored by Aveda Cosmetics, incidentally).
posted by gompa at 8:21 AM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


Resin pellets can be unintentionally released to the environment, both during manufacturing and transport.

Also through overly excited hackey-sacking.
posted by smackfu at 8:25 AM on September 24, 2007 [2 favorites]


Nice post, thanks. In related news, people are working to ban plastic bags (that link is US-specific, here's one that's international).
posted by salvia at 8:32 AM on September 24, 2007


When we learn to retro-process plastics into petroleum for fuel this is going to come in really handy!

[Grasping for silver lining]
posted by Pollomacho at 8:37 AM on September 24, 2007


Ban The Bag


Not that I'm some sort of filthy self-linker, or anything.
posted by chuckdarwin at 8:57 AM on September 24, 2007


Ban The Bag

Ah yes. :) I should try to keep more on top of things.

Reminds me of Stephenson's "Raft" from Snow Crash.

Good point! Could come in handy as seas rise.
posted by salvia at 9:01 AM on September 24, 2007


There is certainly money in the re-cycling value of the plastic waste (in such large quantities).

If there were any money in it, the trash wouldn't be dumped in the first place.
posted by c13 at 4:47 AM on September 24 [+] [!]



I just wanted to refute this as "market worship" and not any kind of actual logic.
posted by eustatic at 9:21 AM on September 24, 2007


Some irony ... the Coast Guard in Hawai'i go out regularly to the northern pacific to collect marine debris (they collect TONS every time). They just announced that they will cancel their next trip since the governor has demanded that they guard the SuperFerry against the dangerous surfers and protesting kids on Kauai.
posted by Surfurrus at 9:24 AM on September 24, 2007


The sea of floating trash is quite large, and it occurs in an area of the Pacific that is quite productive, and that sea creatures depend upon for food.

My anal-nerd side drive me to correct this. The gyre is NOT productive - it has been compared to a marine desert, with has very few nutrients and very little photosynthesis. (Clear water = low nutrients.*) It's a tough place to make a living, which is why there are cool critters specially adapted to making a go of it.

This is just one more way that humans are changing the very chemistry of the oceans.

We've taken out so many of the big fish and whales, and now plastic debris and ocean acidification is taking out the invertebrates. It makes me very sad.

*Yes, coral reefs live in low productivity water.
posted by ilyanassa at 9:27 AM on September 24, 2007 [2 favorites]


I just wanted to refute this as "market worship" and not any kind of actual logic.

Yes yes, actual logic would not suggest that it's very much cheaper to collect trash at the source rather than let it float in the middle of fucking nowhere, disintegrating in the process so that someone can go scoop it up bit by tiny bit and bring back to shore. The recycling plants obviously have missed that golden profit opportunity. Too bad for them, 'cause now that we know where the trash is, there is going to be a mad rush by everybody to pick up all the plastic and dispose of it without any kind of economic incentive. Because people are altruistic.
But you must excuse me, I'm in the middle of sacrificing my frontal lobes to the glorius Market.
posted by c13 at 10:26 AM on September 24, 2007


Researchers have discovered a Texas-sized area of rubbish...

Given the size of this thing, it is a bit surprising it needed "discovering".

chuckdarwin: As far as I know no country wants to take responsibility for cleaning it up.

Yeah, where's Greenpeace when you need them?
posted by sour cream at 11:18 AM on September 24, 2007


The small town I live in (Quesnel BC) has recycling for every number of plastic, and they are well used. When I lived in the Vancouver area we were restricted to only a couple grades/formulations, and in the nearest larger town (Prince George, BC) they are even worse.

This is interesting, of course, but there's one thing I noticed...they say collection is nearly impossible and if it WAS possible then they'd be offing large numbers of organisms. Isn't that kind of a sign that things aren't as bad as they make out?
posted by Kickstart70 at 12:22 PM on September 24, 2007


I saw a film this past weekend as part of Gray's Reef Film Festival, titled "Synthetic Seas Stories", which looked at how plastic debris is affecting the ocean. It makes a really good point: plastic doesn't break down, it's gonna stay with us, even if it's just dust in the water.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:36 PM on September 24, 2007


Isn't that kind of a sign that things aren't as bad as they make out?

How do you reckon?

It's hard because the plastic is distributed throughout the upper layer -- 30 meters by one account, down to 100 meters by another.

It's bad because the fact that it's so widely distributed means it's hard for filter-feeders like whales and basking sharks to avoid (it would be easier if it were all concentrated in one place). Also because that way it has an impact on creatures throughout that range.
posted by lodurr at 12:58 PM on September 24, 2007


If you fish in the ocean, one of the most productive places to fish is on the current boundaries...where say the Gulf Stream water forms a boundary with the non-current inshore waters. You can physically see this boundary...the waters are different colors and may even have a different chop pattern on the surface. All over the world, fishing guides refer to this place as "the trashline" because that is what collects there. Just like in the vortex, the boundary traps floating debris. The vast majority of the stuff in the trashline is organic...wood, leaf debris, and aquatic vegetation, and that is one of the reasons the fish are there. The organic debris attracts and generates microscopic life which attracts little fish and so on...but there is an unbelievable variety of man made waste. The most remarkable observation to me is the shoes. About every fifty yards in the trashline there is a flip flop or a sneaker...the rest of the debris is a mixed bag...bottles/combs/synthetic rope/etc...but the footwear is a constant. I have often wondered if there was a way to cruise the line sucking up the junk, but I can see where the naturally ocurring stuff would create a problem. It is a sad thing to see.
posted by cyclopz at 1:59 PM on September 24, 2007 [2 favorites]


re the sunfish: Holy crap that sucka is big.
posted by ninjew at 3:31 PM on September 24, 2007


I’ve got one word for you, Ben, just one word...are you listening?
....Plastics.

Plastic land is not a myth! I’ve seen it!
Plastic land is not just our destination, it is our destiny!

etc.

“The pellets, like most types of plastic, are sponges for oily toxic chemicals that don't readily dissolve in water, such as the pesticide DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. “

Kind of a neat synchronicifuck there.

Yeah, you can’t go anywhere without seeing the grimy underside of the human footprint. Been swimming out in the Atlantic away from everything and seen freaking plastic bottles floating by. Been out to the desert in the middle of nowhere and seen plastic chunks of toy cars.

I remember talking (about drilling in the Alaska preserves) with a buddy of mine and mentioning that - all other elements of the equation aside - we should have areas of pristine wilderness that we take care of.
He asked me “why?”
Why have unspoiled areas of land?
I really couldn’t think of a response. Kinda like being asked why you have a liver or enjoy beauty for it’s own sake.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:45 PM on September 24, 2007


I didn't post anything here yesterday because I spent the entire afternoon Youtubing past shows of QI. Until this post I had no idea it existed. What a freaking awesome show, though I doubt it would even get on cable here in the US - too many beeps.

Man I've been away from England too long....
posted by Sk4n at 6:35 AM on September 25, 2007


Can't Google Map help here? Sounds like a great reporting project . . .
posted by lamarguerite at 8:31 AM on October 1, 2007


« Older "Hey look at this shiny trinket, I think I'll pick...  |  Nicolas Chorier... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments