Vermont Yankee Destroyed Trust
It used to really burn me up to have my trust violated by my mate when I was in an intimate relationship with her. Now I know what I deserve and if a woman violates my trust, I say goodbye.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee just violated the trust of the entire state of Vermont, the regulatory board, the intervenors in the relicense docket, and their spurned lover [Gov. Jim Douglas]. The governor asks for Vermonters to give Entergy a chance to prove that it is trustworthy, to earn back our trust and to show us it merits being given another 20-year chance to run the nuclear reactor. Entergy has had since 2002 to prove its trustworthiness to Vermonters.
Let's review its violations of our trust. During the uprate hearings [when Entergy asked to raise power production to 120 percent of the capacity it was designed for], Entergy was sanctioned by the Public Service Board for not providing discovery data to the intervenors in a timely fashion. This means that the opposition to Vermont Yankee at the regulatory level was left without the time needed to build a stronger case against Entergy.
In 2005 Entergy was sanctioned again when it refused to get required state approvals when it began clearing some of its land to put up two temporary buildings. Then just last year, Entergy admitted to not monitoring radiation from the dry cask installation that had been permitted by the Public Service Board. Entergy monitored the temperature but not the radiation coming off the casks.
The governor also recommends a change of Vermont Yankee management. This writer sees the proposed change in management as akin to turning the untrustworthy mate into a sex kitten, naively assuming her wanderlust would immediately disappear.
In just over two years the reactor's license to operate expires. This breach of trust between the state and Entergy means the accountability and sincerity Entergy must show the state must appear now and be focused on service, not on profit. This is clearly not the Entergy way. There is too little time for Entergy to clean its slate here in Vermont. It has too frequently proven itself untrustworthy.
Governor, I respectfully submit that Entergy deserves no more chances.
Gary Sachs
Brattleboro
*
Postpartum Programs Need a Second Look
I write with a concern about your well-intentioned article about the postpartum depression screening program. I am of the perspective, and work with several local social justice organizations that are also of the perspective, that this screening program will do do more harm than good to mothers and infants. This program is likely to lead to an increase in postpartum depression diagnoses. These diagnoses risk being dangerous in many ways. Most people who receive psychiatric diagnoses receive psychiatric drug(s) shortly thereafter. These psychiatric drugs may be ingested by the newborn baby via the breast milk. These drugs have not been tested on children at all. They certainly have not been tested on infants. In fact, many antidepressants are banned for use with children in different European countries. Many of these drugs are not even safe for adults.
There is also a concern that having more people being officially diagnosed with "postpartum depression" could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a person is having a hard time and is told that it is a disease of some sort, they are less likely to understand their experience as something natural or something that will pass. We are also concerned that getting people diagnosed with "postpartum depression" will take away from understanding some of the social-economic conditions that play into why some people go through a difficult time after giving birth. A psychiatric diagnosis is individualized and often implies that the problem is the person's own or that it's somehow inherent to their body rather than looking at issues of marginalization and/or oppression.
Lee Hurter
The Freedom Center, Northampton
*
I am writing to address my concern about your article on postpartum depression screenings and the proposed PPD legislation. I believe that mandatory mental health screenings will do more harm than good in the long term.
Under the George Bush, Jr. administration there was an initiative called "The New Freedom Initiative" which proposed mandatory mental health screenings across the country. After this initiative was put on the table, many organizations, including the Alliance for Human Research Protection and the local Freedom Center, launched a campaign against these screenings because it became evident that the Bush administration supported this program due to the huge financial benefit it would bring to the pharmaceutical companies. There have been many whistleblowers and researchers who have exposed the corruption behind these unscientific screenings.
As a postpartum mom, I have a lot of perspective on how this time can be difficult. Birth itself can be traumatic; it can bring up issues of sexual abuse or other experiences of being violated. Furthermore, many mothers lose their jobs or lose significant pay during pregnancy or the postpartum time. The postpartum time is also potentially a time of significant self-sacrifice, a time of isolation, a time of sleep deprivation, a time when the body is less physically able, and a time of intense hormone changes. MotherWoman claims PPD is a spectrum disorder. I strongly disagree and assert that there is a wide spectrum of normal and temporary emotions one experiences after giving birth and depression is only one potential manifestation.
I think it's admirable that MotherWoman has support groups and other resources to help new parents during this potentially difficult time. However, the screening campaign invades privacy and risks unnecessary or harmful intervention. I hope that the public can consider these risks and join the effort to stop these mandatory screenings. We can then work together to bring alternative sustaining support to people dealing with difficult and/or painful postpartum periods.
Keely Malone
Holyoke
*
Inserts Annoying
I've been a loyal reader, former employee, and occasional contributor to the Advocate since 1978. I'm a fan, but I've got a major beef. I am getting tired of having to dispose of the annoying advertising inserts that spill out each time I pick up a new copy.
I know, I know, you and everyone else need the revenue that these flyers generate. But please consider not accepting these flyers, and I bet the goodwill will benefit you. At least give it a shot and see if it isn't ultimately worth more to not piss off readers who have to do the work of throwing them away.
Max Hartshorne
GoNomad.com
Editor's note: As publisher of an online travel site, Max Hartshorne may fail to appreciate the vast number of readers who still turn to print publications for news and information. In the case of the free-standing material inserted into the Valley Advocate, Hartshorne is correct that the revenue generated from those inserts is important to us, helping to pay for editorial content and allowing us to distribute the paper free of charge. The inserts themselves are also of value to many of our readers, who are interested in seeing the advertising and using the coupons and other discount offers. As for whatever mess readers are making, there is no need to throw anything away. It is the longstanding policy of our circulation department to pick up leftover papers and inserts, which we will make sure are recycled.
