Dick Rudolph, Dana Point
I pulled the Los Angeles Times article referenced by Regina Barnes (“Plastics’ Negative Effect on Nature Well Documented,” Dana Point Times, January 10-16, Vol. 7, Issue 2) and the most obvious slant of the article is the liberal use of the words may, fear and the phrase “new to science.”
In simple terms, this is a field of study in its relative infancy with few conclusions other than that there may be a problem. There is also the distinct possibility that there may not be a problem. My issue with the Dana Point City Council banning plastic grocery bags is that there is no justification in either science or previous experience that the bag is responsible for ecological harm nor that bans in place have any real effect on the perceived problem.
As to the production of plastic around the world, the total for 2012 was 52,972,500 tons. Way more than stated in the LA Times article but just as irrelevant to the discussion. Immediately following the production quote in the article is the phrase “This waste gathers in vast oval shaped garbage patches…” I guess the reader is supposed to conclude that all the plastic ends up in the ocean, which it does not. I could go on to tear apart the article, but it’s a waste of ink and time.
It is clear to me that nearly every ecological issue is faith based and used to impress an agenda on the public by lying about facts. Where is the hard data? Where are the unbiased scientific conclusions? For that matter, where are the aerial photographs of the “vast oval garbage patches?”
Whatever the City Council considered in its decision to ban plastic bags, science was not among the attendees. I do not know because the council, except for one screed, has been silent since I began following this issue over a year ago. Oh, and for the record, I do not support a community which dictates to its citizens instead of serving them.
Discussion about this post