Share this:

Nuclear is never safe to use as a source of power. Congress must end all funds for new plants in the U.S. Here are the reasons why:

1. Once released, nuclear contamination will continue essentially forever, and there is no way to clean it up.

2. No one knows how many cases of cancer may have been and continue to be caused by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now several reactors in Japan.

3. No matter how improbable a nuclear release is thought to be, the consequences are immeasurably high, i.e. the risk is far, far too great for a sane society to be taking.

4. The applicable actuarial and statistical logic is well understood by casino operators and insurance writers. That’s why the latter refuse to insure nuclear plant operators – the cost is just too great!  It is only through government guarantees that operators have been to bring these plants on line.

5. And finally, I ask you to consider the term “credible earthquake.” There is no such thing as a “credible earthquake.” The Japan earthquake has to make us skeptical of any upper limit. (This just has to be a propaganda device by those who push nuclear power for their own profit.)

Please act now to make sure that the Title 17 loan “guarantee” program for new nuclear construction is not increased in the upcoming Continuing Resolution and next year’s budget, but that all existing funds are cut from this unnecessary, fallacious and lethal program.

Patricia Frostholm

(Re: “Tax Increase Is No Solution,” NBI, 3/11:)

Richard Luehrs offers no new thinking in dredging up the Chamber of Commerce’s long-standing bias against taxes of any sort. If Luehrs is correct in linking lower taxes with growth and prosperity, then the tax cuts from Bush’s first administration should have produced a miraculous boom instead of the worst recession since 1929. Alas, tax cuts did not swell the public coffers. Then Luehrs bemoans business taxes despite noting that the debate in Sacramento is over consumption and income taxes. He focuses on the Legislature and Governor even though the proposal being debated is whether voters should decide if they want to tax themselves. Finally, he implies deeper budget cuts won’t hurt schools or public safety, which is downright laughable. The voters should have a chance to be heard on whether taxes should be part of the solution to our $25 billion problem.

Bob Schmidt

(re: “Hooray for Daylight Saving Time!,” NBI, 3/11:)

I’m not with you re: DST. It disturbs the family unit by not having dinner together; i.e. the kids play outside or are involved in other activities until dark. Obesity is increased secondary to getting fast food instead of a more wholesome meal at home and eating later in the evening prior to bedtime allowing calorie absorption and also interferring with sleep due to a full stomach with an increasing possibility of GERD. Now I do agree that we ought to on one or the other all year.

C.R. Jordan, MD

(comment from

Share this: