Religious Freedom—Really?

I am writing in response to the January 28 story (News and Commentary, "Church Historic District Challenged in Court") about the Roman Catholic Diocese suit over the creation of the Our Lady of Hope Local Historic District. The claim that there has been "deprivation of the rights of religious freedom, freedom of speech and expression ...." rings hollow. Where was the diocese's suit when Northampton and Chicopee created local historic districts, each containing two Catholic churches?

I suspect this suit is less about protecting religious liberty than about protecting the diocese's ability to maximize its profit as it did with the historic but unprotected Saint Joseph's Church, which was sold in pieces. The diocese sold off the 70-car parking lot for $375,000 17 months before it sold the church for $1,168,000.

Springfield has had six local historic districts since the 1970s, a third of a century. Twelve places of worship for Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and Buddhists can be found in them. Does the Roman Catholic Diocese believe it alone should be exempt, and then only in Springfield?

Robert McCarroll
Springfield

Don't Minimize Tritium

The news about the tritium leak at Vermont Yankee is very alarming and a rapid and transparent response is needed to protect public health. It is also important to get some facts straight. First, the half life of tritium is 12.35 years, not seven to 14 days as reported [in the local press].

Second, tritium is a form of hydrogen. That means it can be incorporated into virtually all biological molecules in cells and tissues because all living organisms contain hydrogen. Organically bound tritium can remain in bodies (tissues) for long periods of time, heightening the risk it poses. On Jan. 31 the Boston Globe mistakenly suggested in an article that tritium leaves the body quickly and thus poses low risk. Third, tritium is highly mobile, and will not remain localized; it moves just like water.

Fourth, standards like Safe Water Drinking Standards are based on what is deemed to be an acceptable risk to a "standard reference man"—a hypothetical adult white male. Most of us are not like this hypothetical guy—fetuses and small children especially, when it comes to things like tritium; it easily passes through the placenta, for example.

Fifth, any exposure carries some risk. The prevailing scientific understanding is that there is a linear relationship between an exposure to radiological contaminants (or dose) and effect (e.g., damage to cells). A low dose carries low risk, not no risk.

It is misleading for the Entergy spokesman to say, "The existence of tritium in such low levels does not present a risk to public health or safety whatsoever" (as quoted in the Burlington Free Press, January 19, 2010), and the NRC and others repeat these kinds of ideas. A higher dose means more risk. This does not mean that, for example, cancer from exposure is inevitable, only that risk is increased. Scientific understanding of how much the risk of diseases like cancer are increased is uncertain.

Clearly, Entergy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the state of Vermont do not understand what is happening at Vermont Yankee. They do not inspire confidence that they can rapidly address problems. This plant should be closed down immediately.

Seth Tuler
Shutesbury

Vermont Citizens Action Network (www.vtcitizen.org) is pleased the Valley Advocate chose to publicize the Solar Panel Raffle (News and Commentary, Jan. 28, 2010) to help pay for the one and only lobbyist in the Vermont Statehouse who speaks for the people! However, the deadline to buy tickets has been extended to March 1, 2010 to give more people an opportunity to support our efforts to stop the relicensing of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee. There are still 450 tickets for sale.

Claire Chang
Gill

It would be wise at this point in history to create a sensible energy policy for the future, rather than repeating the mistakes of the past. The choices which were made in determining today's energy policies were largely driven by inadequate forethought, lobbyists advocating for the oil and nuclear industries, and massive funding of misleading ad campaigns .

Obama's policy that nuclear power can be part of a solution for a clean energy future is repeating mistakes made in the past.

People worry about what kind of economic future we are creating for our children and grandchildren and it might be wise to consider what type of energy legacy we are leaving them. There are many aged and deteriorating nuclear plants across the country [whose operators] are just now admitting that they are contaminating the groundwater at their sites. Some (just some) of the nuclear plants that have recently admitted this are: Indian Point in New York, Yankee Rowe and Pilgrim in Massachusetts, Three Mile Island and Peach Bottom in Pennsylvania, Oyster Creek in New Jersey, Seabrook in New Hampshire and Vermont Yankee in Vernon, Vt.

Obtaining accurate information about the list of the plants leaking radioactive contamination into the water is difficult because providing the information was left up to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And rather than being required legally, it was a voluntary program.

Congressman Ed Markey, who oversees the NRC, was recently advocating for change when he noted that miles of pipes within nuclear reactors have never been adequately inspected and will likely never be adequately inspected under current regulations.

Vermont Yankee sits on a major watershed for agriculture in New England. What kind of legacy are we bequeathing future generations for a safe and healthy food supply by continuing this kind of reckless and irresponsible energy policy? We must protect the land and water.

Vermont Yankee must be shut down now and any further development of nuclear power put on hold until—and that is a big until—there is a safe means of disposing of the waste, and accountability in oversight is in the hands of responsible stewards.

Amelia Shea
via email

Applause for Brown

Martha Coakley lost [last month's election to replace U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy] because the independent voters of Massachusetts are against a government takeover of America's health care system. Plus Martha is arrogant and hopelessly out of touch (like Obama), which didn't help. This was a humiliating defeat for Coakley (and Obama), and a stunning victory for Scott Brown, who will soon be sitting in Ted Kennedy's seat. And sticking it to Obama. I can't wait.

Tim Grant
Bernardston