Dear Editor,

This letter is in response to Mr. Randy Fricke of Western Slope Renewable Energy, who claims to be an "expert" on corn ethanol production. First: it is obvious that Mr. Fricke has a vested interest in promoting corn ethanol because of his business. Second: when he asserts than Mr. Sundin's column is easily discredited, it would help to state at least one fact or reference to that end. Mr. Fricke's long list of personal experience in the promotion of ethanol fuels and his opinions about starving farmers are not "facts," either. It would appear that he, like the nation's corn farmers, have a lot to gain if they can sell the fiction of corn-based ethanol to the American public. The Bush Administration's endorsement of ethanol is little more than currying the farm vote.

Since it appears it is fair to make unreferenced statements in this discussion, I'll make one. Current scientific investigation, not by the oil industry, totally agrees with Mr. Sundin's statements, and suggests the large amounts of water, fertilizers, and pesticides used to grow corn and soy beans and the by-products of creating and burning ethanol creates far more environmental pollution than does the burning of gasoline. However, current research seems to agree that biodiesel does seem to be a net gain.

I would encourage Mr. Fricke to reference an article in the Dec. 9, 2006, issue of Science News, page 372, titled "Going Native" (diverse grassland plants edge out crops as biofuel). The article references work of ecologist David Tilman at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, who is not an "oil company academic." Science News has no connection with the oil industry, it simply reports on the latest results of research worldwide.

I would also recommend Science News as an excellent reference to those who would like to keep up with science in general, or who are in doubt as to the validity of global warming. It might save some newsprint if some good Samaritan would buy a subscription for some of our readers.

R.W. Boyle

New Castle

Dear Editor,

A few weeks back, a gentleman wrote asking why we stay in this valley if we cannot afford to.

I chose to live here when it was still affordable, and found many reasons to stay. The panoramic beauty is what songs are written about, and the air is crisp and clean, unlike Denver were I was born. I stay because I can walk home in the evening, not having to worry about being attacked. And I don't have to worry about my child being nabbed on the roadside. We have a sense of safety and wellness here that is not prevalent in most parts of the country. I live here because this has become my home, this is were my people are and this is why many of us choose to stay regardless of cost.

So allow us to complain if we find the prices intolerable, we were here long before the gas companies and taxes, and we will remain long after.

Willow Lepanto

New Castle