Activists causing irrational fear of nuclear power
Nelson Otto
Jefferson City
Dear Editor:
While doing my research on climate change I came across an interesting video by Ted Talks featuring Michael Shellenberger. Shellenberger is an author, environmental policy writer, cofounder and president of “Breakthrough Institute” and founder of “Environmental Progress.” After seeing his first video I searched for more and found Shellenberger has several videos online. Some of his videos are “Why renewable can’t save the planet,” “Why I changed my mind about nuclear power,” “How Fear of Nuclear Ends,” “How fear of nuclear power is hurting the environment” and “How Humans Save Nature.” Shellenberger has been espousing what I’ve been writing about for the last several years. If climate alarmists were serious about the environment then they would support nuclear power and not renewable sources. He states many of the same reasons we should stop using renewable energy such as solar and wind as I have stated in my LTE. Such things as the damage to birds, tortoises, toxic chemicals, and the disposal of used solar panels. He also discusses diluteness and the lack of reliability or how intermittent the sources are.
Something I found very interesting in his video “How Fear of Nuclear Ends” he talks about how environmentalist groups and activists like Jane Fonda used fear to manipulate the public into fearing nuclear power. Sound familiar? He also goes into the facts about nuclear power and how safe it really is. He showed how activist groups against nuclear power actually hurt the reduction in CO2 emissions by blocking the building of new nuclear power plants.
Of the activists going on about climate change the only ones I can see making any rational proposals are those promoting nuclear and the most innovative are those supporting Thorium fuel. The least rational are those promoting the carbon dividend and the Green New Deal. If you believe in CO2 caused climate change fine, but at least have a solution that truly works to reduce CO2 while meeting the energy needs of people. Whether or not one believes in global warming nuclear power makes good sense.
The truth about banned books
Donna Bernkoetter
Jefferson City
Dear Editor:
This is in regard to the letter by Carolyn Rittenhour on the “banned books” issue, where she claimed the bans were started by conservatives and the religious right. I was a little skeptical of that information, so I decided to “Google” that information to see if it was true. Here is what I found.
“The Giving Tree” was banned by a public library in Colorado because it was “sexist.” “Alice in Wonderland” was originally banned in China, because talking animals were put on the same level as humans; in New Hampshire for references to sexual fantasies and promoting drug use. “Winnie the Pooh” was banned in China after comparisons were made to President Xi — mocking him. It was also banned in Poland, because Winnie wore no pants. The ban also claimed the character of Piglet is offensive to Muslims. “Anne Frank” was banned in a Virginia school, saying it had sexual content. It started with a mother’s complaint that it made her daughter uncomfortable. It made no reference to the woman’s religious affiliation or lack of. It was later banned in other places because it was too depressing. “Charlotte’s Web” was banned in Kansas schools because talking animals were an insult to God. This was a religious objection on the part of this group of parents. A junior high in England also banned the book as a proactive measure to avoid offending Muslim students with the presence of fictional pigs in stories. “Where the Wild Things Are” was banned in most southern states because it promotes witchcraft and supernatural events and for being “too dark.” Most accounts are vague, but American Southern libraries and schools seem to be the initial place of the book being challenged. “The Lorax” was banned in Laytonville, California, in 1989 from a local public school, claiming it criminalized the foresting industry. “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” was banned at a Colorado library, for embracing a “poor philosophy of life.” “Wizard of Oz” was banned in all public libraries in Chicago in 1929 for “ungodly influence for depicting women in strong leadership roles.” In 1957, it was banned by the Detroit public libraries for having “no value for children today.”
There is only one definite reference (“Charlotte’s Web”) that mentioned conservatives and the religious right starting this ban. I will give Carolyn a chance to give me proof before I judge her as being misinformed.