Letter to the Editor
No plastics week
Published Saturday, April 19, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!April 16, 2008
To the editor:
I’m a member of a group called FAYEA, Fairbanks Alaska Youth for Environmental Action. We’ve been planning something called Week Without Plastics, where, statewide, Alaskans will attempt to limit use of plastics for seven days, April 20-27.
I think that plastics are a very important issue for our environment.
Plastic doesn’t break down for 500 to 1,000 years and after that, all the little particles never go away. The shreds of plastic find their way to bodies of water and can be mistaken for plankton and other small creatures. Globally, more than 1 million birds and sea creatures die every year from ingesting or getting caught in plastic.
When people drink out of plastic water bottles, the chemicals from the plastic leach into the water and can affect their health. It can cause behavioral and neurological problems in developing fetuses and young children.
Some chemicals in plastic are also suspected of causing cancer. Instead, people have started to switch to bottles made of stainless steel.
Rethinking our use of plastic can save us money and other resources. Only 2-3 percent of plastic bags and barely 25 percent of plastic water bottles are recycled in the U.S. In the United States, about 12 billion barrels of oil are used every year just to make plastic bags. Plastic is for sure contributing to global climate change.
Manufacturing one ton of No. 1 plastic produces around 3 tons of carbon dioxide. Americans use 100 billion plastic bags every year!
On average, each plastic bag is only used for 20 minutes. Cloth bags are a great alternative.
Widespread plastic use started only in the mid ’50s and Americans are already dependent on plastic.
I know that if 50 years ago nobody had ever seen plastic, we can find ways to live without it now.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
*Globally, more than 1 million birds and sea creatures die every year from ingesting or getting caught in plastic.*
A senior spokesman for Greenpeace said: "It is unlikely that many animals are killed by plastic bags. The evidence shows just the opposite."
Experts are now saying there is not any direct evidence to back up these figures.
Dr David Laist wrote a study as far back as 1997 on the impact of plastic bags on the environment and yesterday he said his findings were totally at odds with claims that they kill animals when discarded.
He added: "Plastic bags do not figure in entanglement. The main culprits are fishing gear, ropes, lines and strapping bands. Most mammals are too big to get caught up in a plastic bag. The impact of bags on whales, dolphins, porpoises and seals ranges from nil for most species to very minor for perhaps a few species. For birds, plastic bags are not a problem either."
**Plastic doesn’t break down for 500 to 1,000 years**
But critics say decomposition generally takes around 20 years
show me a 1000 year old plastic bag or even a fifty year old plastic bag.
Because of state-of-the-art packaging, the United States wastes less food than any part of the world except Africa, where the threat of starvation means that even rotten food is consumed. Because of packaging, we can meet our consumption needs while producing less food - which means fewer pesticides, less pollution and less energy use.
Without the use of plastics, our total use of packaging materials (measured by weight) would increase four-fold, our energy consumption would double and the garbage we dispose of would more than double.
Although frequently well-intentioned, the advice is all too often based on little more than the simple-minded application of such core beliefs as "recycling is good," "disposables are bad," "packaging is bad," "plastics are bad," etc. In many cases the advice-givers focus on only one environmental concern (such as the volume of solid waste) while ignoring all others (such as air pollution, water pollution, energy use and the use of other scarce resources).
"Advice on what products are environmentally 'good' or 'bad' is often wrong."
From the perspective of the total environment, the advice is often wrong. Consumers who try to follow simple rules when they shop may end up harming the environment more than if they simply ignored the environmental consequences of their behavior.
To most advocates of "green consumerism," aluminum containers are best, glass containers are second best and plastic containers are the least preferred. Yet as Figure IV shows:33
In order to make containers holding an equal volume of liquid, glass requires one-third more energy than plastic and aluminum requires twice as much.
"A plastic bottle requires less energy to produce than either non-recycled aluminum or glass containers."
So if the goal right or wrong is to reduce energy consumption (Global warming), plastic containers are best, glass is in second place and aluminum is a distant third (without recycling) - exactly the reverse of the normal ranking.
a German research organization examined the effects of eliminating all plastic packaging in the Federal Republic of Germany. The results were stunning.
If alternatives replaced plastic packaging whenever available, materials usage by weight in Germany would increase fourfold and packaging costs would more than double.
Energy consumption would almost double from the current levels, and solid wastes would increase by 256 percent.
The report concludes that "all of the cost-intensive endeavors, over many years, to reduce the use of material through more suitable packaging and 'slimming down' individual packaging materials would be [reversed] with one stroke."40 Much criticism of plastics has focused on grocery bags and fast-food packaging. In both instances, the debates have over-simplified reality.
Case Study: Fast-Food Packaging
Several cities, including Portland, Oregon, and Newark, New Jersey, have essentially banned polystyrene food packages - used until last year, for example, to hold McDonald's hamburgers. Yet studies indicate that fast-food plastic packaging is not the "villain" some of its critics have claimed. Indeed, such packaging may actually conserve resources relative to the standard alternatives. Franklin Associates performed a life-cycle study of a set of paper and plastic fast-food products, looking at energy use, air and water emissions and solid waste. Comparing the foam polystyrene "clamshell" hamburger container with a coated, bleached paperboard alternative, the study found that:44
Although the paperboard contributes 29 percent less solid waste by volume than polystyrene clamshells, the clamshells require 30 percent less energy to produce.
The production of the clamshell results in 46 percent less air pollution and 42 percent less water pollution.
Many of the same comparisons apply to the debate over polystyrene cups versus paper cups. For example, a study published in Science argued that:45
The average 10-gram paper cup consumes 33 grams of wood and uses 28 percent more petroleum in its manufacture than the entire input in a polystyrene cup.
"Polystyrene requires less energy and leads to less air and water pollution than many paper alternatives."
The paper cup requires 36 times as much chemical input as the polystyrene cup, partly because it weighs seven times as much.
It takes about 12 times as much steam, 36 times as much electricity and twice as much cooling water to make the paper cup.
About 580 times as much waste water, 10 to 100 times the residual effluents of pollutants and three times the air emission pollutants are produced in making the paper cup.
In addition to all that, paper cups cost the consumer about two-and-one-half times as much as polystyrene cups. And polystyrene is completely recyclable, which isn't always true of the paper used in cups.
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s165/s165.ht...
Plastics and components of plastics have been studied for YEARS and many studies have found no adverse affects on humans. So one study comes out and says that high levels of BPA in bodies can be harmful....HIGH LEVELS...the levels you are exposed to using plastic bottles is miniscule (ppb).
The results of most studies show that the levels of plasticiser that might be consumed as a result of the use of plastic wrap are well below the levels showing toxic effect in animal studies.
good input from the commentors on this subject. i wonder if the kids ever hear this part of the story? are they just being indoctrinated? just hearing one side of the story? here's a lesson for the good well meaning kids. get all sides of a story.
user6244---
I guess that means you dont plan to participate in Week Without Plastics, huh?
Really, I did appreciate your article and link. Very informative. The "fact" about 1 million birds being caught and killed in plastic waste annually caught my eye, and made me skeptical. So many well intentioned environmental ideas have unintended consequences. For example, the world wide shortage of corn for food, because of bio-fuel consumption.
I blame Al Gore.
Get ready, here they come...
how many birds are there on earth?
Abstract Attempts to assess the magnitude of global biodiversity have focused on estimating species richness. However, this is but one component of biodiversity, and others, such as numbers of individuals or biomass, are at least as poorly known and just as important to quantify. Here, we use a variety of methods to estimate the global number of individuals for a single taxon, birds. The different methods yield surprisingly consistent estimates of a global bird population of between 200 billion and 400 billion individuals (1 billion=109). We discuss some of the implications of this figure.
quoted from http://www.springerlink.com/content/g462...
i million a day eh?
i also wondered aloud back when there was so much hype about the corn based ethanol for cars. i wondered about the fact that we are now going to use a bunch of food that we used to export to hungry people, or even just hungry animals is now going to be used to power our driving lifestyle. those who heard me looked at me as if i was some kind of heretic. do the schools not teach critical think skills any more?
anyway... i wish someone like al gore would do studies to find out the impacts of changes made to combat stuff like global warming is going to have. i would sure like to know what my kids and grandkids are in for.
and besides, what is the point of trying. china and india are no more going to change their ways (and china is now officially the worlds biggest polluter) than are a million extra birds not die from silly reasons.
I only drink beer from aluminum cans or glass bottles...it's a start.
There is a health issue with using plastic food containers, or heating food in plastic. There have been a news stories out in the last few months warning that a harmful compound (Bisphenol A) from certain pastic containers (especially number 3, 6, and 7 plastics) leach into food and drink. The problem is compounded if the plastic is heated (example frozen dinners, baby bottles), has been heated while processing packaged food items, or if the plastic container is scratched from re-use.
Sorry AKhusky, I heard about that as well, but I've been eating microwaved food in plastic/styrofoam containers for more than 30 years. Still not dead or poisoned.
newsreader---
That was a softball, but I'm being nice and going to pass on making a remark. It's difficult, but I'm going to refrain...
Imusuallyright,
When I read an article or letter that makes claims that seem unreasonable or questionable, or just some form of feel good propaganda, I feel I should just type out that this story such and such is just wrong. Having done that then to explain why I think such and such is wrong usually requires searching the network for studies or opinions that take a different view. Sometimes it actually takes some effort to locate, especially studies. Many opinions are formed or studies are brought up to back up opinions. Most of these feel good letter are based on weak studies or just poor reasoning.
I find these studies and the opposing opinions then either bring them up front or paste the links.
And why not since many of the opposing opinions or studies do one heck of a job making there point.
Now everyone can see both sides of the issue and make up there own minds as to its validity.
Oh' and by the way the day you can provide the name of at least three otherwise healthy people that died as a result of SHS exposure will be the day I may actually take notice.. till then it's all Junk Science......
Polarmark: Of course the schools don't teach critical thinking skills anymore. Haven't you heard of the No Child Gets Ahead Law? How in the world would kids stay in the "Proficient" range, if they actually thought about anything? All kids are taught anymore is how to regurgitate little factoids. Long live George Bush.
When it comes to epidemiology and studies that use the same methods. To me they must meet a statistical significance of at least 2.0 (200%) preferably 3.0 (300%) with a 95% confidence level before they should even be considered.
Epidemiological studies can only go to prove that an agent could have caused, but not that it did cause, an effect in any particular case:
Epidemiology is concerned with the incidence of disease in populations and does not address the question of the cause of an individual’s disease. This question, sometimes referred to as specific causation, is beyond the domain of the science of epidemiology.
Back to plastic:
I personally will not use any more or less plastic.
I find that plastic insures that the products I purchase at the market stay fresh longer, prevents it from getting cross contaminated from other products, etc.
I also find that the bags used to transport have multiple uses besides just getting my goods home. They make good trash bags for the small waste baskets in the bathroom and office, and the truck/car.
I also use them to keep things dry while out camping.I use them to take my lunch in on occasions as well.
I am sure others have different ways of using them.
Hey as usual don't take my word for it.
Here are comments from those people working in positions that many worship.
National Cancer Institute - “In epidemiologic research, relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.” – National Cancer Institute, “Abortion and possible risk for breast cancer: analysis and inconsistencies,” October 26, 1994.
Sir Richard Doll - " ... when relative risk lies between 1 and 2 ... problems of interpretation may become acute, and it may be extremely difficult to disentangle the various contributions of biased information, confounding of two or more factors, and cause and effect."
“The Causes of Cancer," by Richard Doll, F.R.S. and Richard Peto. Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 1981, p. 1219.
WHO/IARC - “Relative risks of less than 2.0 may readily reflect some unperceived bias or confounding factor, those over 5.0 are unlikely to do so.” - Breslow and Day, 1980, Statistical methods in cancer research, Vol. 1, The analysis of case control studies. Published by the World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Sci. Pub. No. 32, Lyon, p. 36
FDA - “Relative risks of 2 have a history of unreliability” - Robert Temple, M.D. Food and Drug Administration Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Letters, September 8, 1999
FDA - "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.
That alot of the studies to include ones that where suggested in the original letter stated that millions of animals die as a result of the use of plastic yet the studies used to determine this are likely flawed are misinterpreted. Yet many people will perpetuate it anyway as if it were fact.
Here is a funny example of how absurd studies can be.
The Dangers of Bread
A recent Cincinnati Enquirer headline read, "Smell of baked bread may be health hazard." The article went on to describe the dangers of the smell of baking bread. The main danger, apparently, is that the organic components of this aroma may break down ozone (I'm not making this stuff up).
I was horrified. When are we going to do something about bread- induced global warming? Sure, we attack tobacco companies, but when is the government going to go after Big Bread?
Well, I've done a little research, and what I've discovered should make anyone think twice....
1.More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters.
2.Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3.In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4.More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5.Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
6.Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low occurrence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and osteoporosis.
7.Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after only two days.
8.Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter and even cold cuts.
9.Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10.Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11.Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12.Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.
In light of these frightening statistics, we propose the following bread restrictions:
No sale of bread to minors.
No advertising of bread within 1000 feet of a school.
A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
A $4.2 zillion fine on the three biggest bread manufacturers. Please send this e-mail on to everyone you know who cares about this crucial issue.
Fifty years ago a number of people died without the help of medical plastics. Plastics do some amazing things.
I recommend you contact Alaska Sea Grant up at the University. I used to work there and they have some very interesting studies on plastic. They also have an interesting publication on cleaning up oil from spills from the ocean and another very interesting study on Fish Farming. All subjects that have been in the news. Alot of dolphin and sea turtles get caught in plastic (some from discarded fish nets and others the simple rings from pop cans).
Good luck on your research. If he's still working there contact Kurt Byers and he will be a great help.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.