Nuclear power is not the solution that recent letter writer makes it out to be
In his recent letter to the Observer?American (May 21), Randy Ridgel blames “extreme environmentalists” for $5-per-gallon gas and goes on to state: “If we had plastered this country, as did France, with nuclear power plants decades ago, we could generate enough electrical power to produce non-polluting hydrogen for automobiles almost as a waste product.”
Randy should be aware that gasoline in France and the rest of Europe topped the $5-mark years ago. A gallon of French petrol currently costs $8.32, which is why European-made cars are mandated to meet the high mileage standards that are so offensive to “free market” proponents like Randy Ridgel.
As for his contention that nuclear power produces “nothing but clean, safe electricity,” there is the small matter of the millions of tons of deadly radioactive wastes buried in the American desert which will remain toxic enough to kill off the population of the world a thousand times over for the next ten thousand years.
I”m sure the former residents of the Russian City of Chernobyl, now an uninhabitable nuclear wasteland, would appreciate Randy Ridgel”s assurances about the safety of nuclear power.
Herb Gura
Lower Lake
Is gay marriage key to over population?
Imagine: “the powers that be” announcing that “gay and lesbian marriage” was “the way to go,” here and elsewhere. Would people take the advice? If they didn”t listen on something like smoking ? with their very life at stake ? who in the world is going to take orders from the government on something as private ? and delightful ? as sexual behavior? There could well be a riot of resistance.
Instead, today, thousands of Californians are waiting in line ? to get married ? as gays and lesbians. The California Supreme Court has joined Massachusetts in granting equality-of-the-sexes to those who want to marry someone of the same sex.
Do you think each gay/lesbian couple has given thought to the “world population problem” and decided to ease it a little through their own action?
Have they considered, for instance, that in 500,000 years of existence, the human population of Earth has crept upwards amazingly slowly. In 1900, there were a total of one billion, and then, from that time to this ? a little over a single century ? our numbers have soared ? to almost seven billion.
No doubt many of the new couples have considered the magnitude of the commitment to an individual child. Some may have even allowed themselves to think that in a scant 50 years our seven billion will become a whopping fifteen billion with commensurate drains on food, water and fuel ? not to speak of escalating “road rage” emanating from that many “unique” human beings ? crowded together on one small planet. Good luck to us all.
Norman Fleishman
Lakeport
