Back to Candles and Sing-Alongs?
The letters from Seth Tuler and Amelia Shaw that you published on February 11 are representative of the views of many opponents of nuclear power. They describe supposedly inevitable dangers that most of us non-scientists cannot evaluate and that seem wildly inconsistent with the widespread use of nuclear power in Europe and elsewhere in the world. Worse, they only compare the dangers of nuclear power with the absence of nuclear power.
It makes more sense to me to compare the use of nuclear power with its practical alternatives—mainly coal-, oil-, and natural gas-fired power plants. All over this country, people suffer pulmonary and other serious illnesses as the result of exposure to the pollution produced by burning fossil fuels to produce electricity. Forests, lakes and rivers are being killed by acid rain caused by those same pollutants. Storing nuclear waste is dangerous, but so is storing fly ash.
And more people were killed in the explosion at the new gas-fired power plant in Connecticut than died as the direct result of the Three Mile Island accident, the worst at a nuclear power plant in American history.
Unless we are willing to go back to candles and sing-alongs at the fireside, we need to resist fear-mongering long enough to realize that the dangers of nuclear power need to be compared with those of alternative means of producing electricity. Many who have done so have concluded that nuclear power is the safest and most reliable way of producing the electricity we will need in the future.
Paul Cherulnik
Leeds
*
More Thoughts on Postpartum Depression
I am writing in regards to the postpartum depression article (“Support When It’s Needed,” Jan. 21, 2010). I believe that this new law could do wonders for the mothers who really need the help. It is far too often that mothers that are possibly suffering go unrecognized for this type of illness. There is a great need for universal screening for postpartum mothers.
This bill proposal, if approved, would definitely improve the care of both the mother and the baby. As a nursing student and a mental health counselor, I can see how easy it is for these issues to go undetected. After the birth of the baby, much of the focus of care goes to the baby, making sure the baby is growing well and maintaining the baby’s health. The mothers are often long forgotten.
But what people don’t realize is that mothers have a special bond with the baby, and if the mother isn’t going to do well, neither is the baby. With the mother not mentally well, you are putting the wellbeing of both the mother and the child at risk.
I know many are concerned that the law proposal will in fact make the diagnosis of postpartum depression more prevalent, but with proper screening by nurses and doctors, it’s supposed to. Mothers with this issue aren’t vocal and tend to hide it. It is the duty of nurses and doctors to pick up the cues, to be able to send the mothers for early intervention before things get worse. Prevention and early intervention is far better, and more cost-effective, than treatment.
Colette Green
Springfield
*
“Package Is Thin”
Over the last few years you have dropped interesting cartoons, then Alan Bisbort [The World This Week], and now the Globe crossword. If I were a paying subscriber I would cancel. I don’t need your sex ads. Entertainment listings, yes, but you don’t have an exclusive on those. Your one local article per issue is usually worthwhile, but all in all, your package is thin.
Gary Hallgren
Granby
*
Cost It Out
The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is about $116.4 billion a year. The cost of the war on drugs is about $22 billion a year.
Foreign aid is costing us about $41 billion a year. Military aid is about $13 billion a year. These things add up to $193 billion a year. They do nothing for us.
The cost of the military is $997 billion a year; much of it is outside of the country.
The Department of Education budget is $138 billion a year, despite the fact that it has no schools. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is a mere $1 billion a year.
When you add the cost of these items, you have a tidy sum and you have to wonder just what spending this money does for us.
Have you every heard a teabagger complain about this? No.
They and some others who claim to be small business owners rant about the estimated cost of $150 billion a year for health care under the Obama plan. Under the present system you do not choose you doctor, your insurance company chooses your doctor, so the issue of consumer choice is being grossly misrepresented. And right now the uninsured are provided for to some extent under a hodgepodge of programs that would be difficult to add up.
I would like to see an explanation from these “freedom” groups of why they ignore about $1 trillion in wasteful spending and picket against a $150-billion program that, while not perfect, would at least do something constructive.
Perhaps these small business people should look at the way they choose their priorities as a possible reason why they are not doing so well.
Robert Joseph Underwood
Springfield
*
The Stimulus: What’s It Doing?
President Obama is promoting a new $300 billion economic stimulus program. When he took office in January, 2009, he said the $787 billion stimulus program would create 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 and unemployment would remain below 8 percent.
Unemployment is hovering around 10 percent, and the jobs promised by Obama might hit 1.5 million by the end of 2010, but during the last 13 months we lost 5 million jobs.
The stimulus saved the jobs of municipal workers and provided additional unemployment benefits, but it has not provided jobs in the private sector. The money went to government agencies, colleges, nonprofit organizations and entitlement programs. These programs will generate annual deficits of $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion for years to come.
Our government has squandered our financial resources on failed economic programs, and the American work force continues to suffer.
The domestic priority should be creating millions of new jobs, and other domestic initiatives, including health care reform, should wait until the economy improves.
The administration and Congress have to reduce the size of government; cut business taxes; and give U.S. companies incentives to operate in this country and disincentives to move operations and jobs overseas.
Donald A. Moskowitz
Londonderry, N.H.
