Letters to the editor, April 20

Public's complaint; it's the pits

|

4/20/2008 - 4/20/08

Our citizens are concerned with the Department of Energy's proposal for consolidation of the nuclear weapons complex coupled with building plutonium pits at Los Alamos National Laboratory. They are concerned for good reason.

Cultural, economic, health-safety, and environmental impacts were barely debated during public hearings before the DOE was gone.

A recently announced two-week extension of the public comment period regarding this proposal is appreciated. But this issue deserves more scrutiny here in New Mexico and across the nation. My community was originally denied a public hearing until I demanded their voices be heard. We won't allow federal bureaucrats to simply say, "No more debate!"

Our citizens are gracious, but won't accept any federal program that neither strengthens nor enriches the "Land of Enchantment." I call for more time and more careful consideration of more nuclear weapons versus creating a new path toward energy independence and lasting peace.

Don't repeat yesterday; build a new tomorrow.

Joseph M. Maestas

Mayor, City of Española



"Ten thousand pits (plutonium triggers for nuclear bombs) are stored at Pantex, (the bomb plant near Amarillo)," said Ted Wyka, spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, at a hearing in Española. A Sandia National Lab study states that pits don't wear out.

Despite this surplus, Los Alamos wants to build 80 to 120 more pits a year under a plan dubbed "Complex Transformation," the "Preferred Alternative," for Los Alamos.

A Pentagon study claims that food shortages due to climate change and refugees fleeing disasters like flooding are our worst security threat. More nuclear weapons will not solve this or any problem.

We need a "No New Pits," alternative and "Bombplex Transformation." The labs should focus on "Environmental Stewardship," not "Stockpile Stewardship." We can't afford to squander money or scientific expertise on nukes.

Write Ted Wyka, NNSA Office of Transformation NA-10.0, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington DC 20585, by April 30.

Shel Neymark

Embudo

Water writs

Thank you for the April 14 editorial, "Until LANL concerns met, don't be in Buckman rush," in which you advised city councilors, county commissioners and developers not to rush forward with the proposed Buckman Direct Diversion Project until concerns about Los Alamos National Laboratory pollution are addressed. That is the purpose of the appeal of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety and Amigos Bravos to the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service about their authorizations to build the diversion project on federal lands directly downstream from LANL.

It is widely known that LANL is a prolific source of contaminants in water. This is why we want the federal agencies to publicly investigate the transport of LANL-origin contaminants to the Río Grande and the proposed diversion project. The failure of the federal agencies to do this is the basis of our appeal.

We want the city and county to work with the federal agencies to produce a legitimate document that demonstrates that they are providing clean, safe drinking water.

Joni Arends

CCNS

Michael Jensen

Amigos Bravos

Living river

On a walk with my wife this morning I enjoyed the many glories of spring, particularly a little water winding its way down our river. My guess is that it was no more than 2 or 3 cubic feet/second but what a beautiful bit of water that can be. Along the river, sights and sounds were lively and delightful, sparkling morning light, music of water flowing over and around the rocky riverbed.

That little stream of water I saw today could be seen year round if plans now being discussed were implemented. For our little city that is known throughout the world for beauty, both natural and humanly created, what a gift of beauty it would be to once again have a living river.

Will McDonald

Santa Fe

Insurance rebate

Now that gasoline is pushing toward $4 a gallon, it's time for the state Legislature to adjust New Mexico's auto-insurance laws. As a retired person on a fixed income, I am having to drive as little as possible. But no matter how little I drive my car, the cost of my auto insurance stays the same. As we enter a time of forced frugality with gas consumption, the state's insurance companies should take the lead in lowering rates, or offering rebates, when auto use is markedly reduced from the "average" miles driven that these companies use to calculate their rates for all New Mexican citizens. Since all cars have an odometer that displays miles driven, this info — month to month or year to year — could be submitted to the insurance companies for use in determining rates or rebates for any driver in the state.

Robert Ford

Cerrillos

Fuel for ire

Some of us bought high mileage (32-40 mpg) diesel cars to offset the low-mileage gas guzzlers. How were we rewarded? Diesel gas at the Santa Fe pumps is now $4.19 per gallon. How can one explain a much cheaper to distill diesel fuel price at $4.19 per gallon and regular unleaded at $3.30? Price gouging perhaps?

Dale Goering

Santa Fe

Nuclear, for now

Isn't it sad that more coal-fired power plants are being built, not just in China but now, likely, in our own neighborhood on the Navajo Reservation? This in spite of the clear disaster facing us as a result of global warming. Of course, coal can meet our power needs safely if the carbon dioxide is sequestered. But this is costly. Wind and solar power are also costly. We can hope that in the future, these costs will come down.

However in the meantime, and this is heresy for environmentalists (I count myself as one), only nuclear power is ready to fill the gap. Dangerous, perhaps, but the safety record is really awfully good. And disposal of the waste is still a problem (which perhaps can be mitigated by recycling). However, on balance and until there are better choices, nuclear is a far better direction to take than coal.

Bill Maxon

Santa Fe

Bag that idea

I read with interest the articles from the Business and Quality of Life Committee's proposed resolution to charge a fee for plastic grocery bags. My husband and I are recent transplants here from Kentucky and we adore this city and the awesome beauty of this area. However I had to laugh out loud at the idea of charging for bags as a topic for this committee. How about a resolution to pick up more trash? Or fix the broken sidewalks? Or groom the grounds more around the beautiful Capitol building? Or do something drastic about graffiti on the old adobe walls?

By the way, plastic grocery bags have many uses. Mostly, they work great for picking up after my dog!

Jonna Bluemlein

Santa Fe