Putting in a Good Word for Plastics

Some writers like to publish if they can get involved in a currently popular issue, even though their statements are less than factual. An example is “plastics” as the “bad guy” (“The Ocean Pays Price for People’s Bad Plastic Habits,” Letters, July 7). Compared to other forms of packaging, this just isn’t true.

Plastic does take many years to disintegrate in an ocean environment, but aluminum requires almost the same time and glass lasts forever. Snap-off rings from cans have been eaten by, and killed, more fish than have been killed by six-pack carriers and/or bags (polyethylene floats and is washed ashore).

Yes, some cities have outlawed polystyrene, but they have just been overwhelmed by the current plastic hysteria. Plastics are just as recyclable as aluminum or glass, but they are so inexpensive that users tend to just discard them. Look around your home and count the items made from plastic other than packaging. Then count the important things that could possibly be replaced by something else. Many years ago plastic was a cheap replacement for something. Today, there is nothing to replace many plastic products.

Finally, the letter writer, Linda Newton, chose to relate plastics to the Huntington Beach oil spill and to poisonous gases that are released by burning or manufacturing. Know the truth. Most polyethylene is produced from natural gas, which is renewable. It takes many years to replace trees from which paper is made, and we do not know of any possible replacement for bauxite, which is the raw material for aluminum. I am not aware of any plastics that emit poisonous gas when manufactured, and it is just as illegal to burn plastics as any other trash.

Finally, more energy is required to produce aluminum, paper or glass than to convert plastic from raw material to you.

C.M. (CORK) LEVINSON, Newport Beach