Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor,We are writing in response to the article about the release of the federal study of the Rulison test site. Although the study provides welcome information, it also raises new questions. For example, the article states that tritium levels did not exceed background levels in 95 percent of the simulations. What a relief!Now, let’s consider tracking the other radioactive materials, and their daughter products, that are created during a nuclear explosion.Now, let’s consider taking some actual samples in areas of concern, instead of relying solely on computer modeling.Now, let’s consider the 5 percent of the simulations that did show elevated tritium levels. What were the geophysical characteristics of the simulated drill sites that produced tritium? If an application to drill is proposed in an area that matched these characteristics, will the application be denied? Now, let’s consider that the simulations all honored the moratorium on drilling within three miles of the test site; will that limit be maintained? The BLM recently approved development of 82 new wells within three miles of the blast site over the next four years. If the safety levels of the simulations can be used, we could expect four wells to show levels of nuclear contamination, but please remember that the computer models were all based on simulated wells drilled outside this limit. If an accident was to occur and radioactive materials were released, what plan is on file for emergency response? It would seem apparent to any reasonable person that any company asking to drill within the moratorium would be required to present, and make public, just such an emergency plan.Please express your concerns about drilling near the Rulison test site to the COGCC on Oct. 2 in the public hearing room of the old court house 544 Rood Ave. in Grand Junction. Public testimony begins at 2 p.m..Joyce Wizer and Grand Valley Citizens Alliance Executive Board
Dear Editor,A few years ago I wrote a letter to the editor saying that the invasion of Iraq was ill advised and uncalled for. I said the way to dispense of Saddam was to do what has been done with other tyrants and despots; that is, give them a few billion dollars (I suggested 10), and a guaranteed safe exile. Today, there are a dozen or more of these monsters living long healthy lives and bothering no one. Many readers of the letter must have thought: There goes that crazy “Lib” Hunter again, more left-wing nonsense. Instead, we should all support Bush: “We must make peace by making war.” (Shame on the Bush speechwriters for so blatantly plagiarizing George Orwell.)So imagine how surprising to see the article in the Washington Post on Sept. 27, explaining a deal Saddam was trying to make with Bush before the invasion. He wanted safe exile and just $1 billion cash to take a powder. Oh, and one other little thing: He was going to take the secret information on the involvement of presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush in the weapons of mass destruction program.Apparently the offer was being conveyed by both the leaders of Egypt and of Spain. The Spanish prime minister was staying at the Bush Crawford home at the time. Bush wouldn’t consider it for a minute. He was trying to force the U.N. to back his invasion and told the Spanish prime minister he planned on being in Iraq in March one way or the other. Part of the rationale from the Egyptians was that the U.S. could easily count on saving $50 billion, then considered the probable cost of the war. That didn’t phase Bush.Current estimates of the final cost of the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq by a Nobel Laureate economist is predicted at, including years of disability payments and interest on the borrowed billions, some $2 trillion. I’d say President Bush passed up a pretty good deal. Patrick HunterCarbondale
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.