As a veteran of 27 years in the aerosol industry, I most strenuously object to the biased and unfair characterization that appeared July 16 (Letters).
Appearing above a reader’s letter dealing with the city of Irvine’s passing an ordinance restricting the use of chlorofluorocarbons because of their relationship to ozone depletion was a large picture of an aerosol can being sprayed. The letter itself said nothing about aerosols, yet you saw fit to include a picture.
Ninety-eight percent of the aerosol products sold in the United States do not contain chlorofluorocarbons and have not for more than 10 years, yet you ignored these facts along with placing a misleading editorial cartoon that had nothing to do with the letter itself.
The only inference a reader could logically draw is that aerosols are harming the environment because they contain CFCs. How about getting the facts straight before you try and convict a responsible industry? Better yet, how about an apology to the aerosol industry for your editorial error?
IAN R. GECKER