During my time as E.P.A. administrator, I focused on developing sustainable solutions to protect our air, land and water. As my perspective on nuclear energy evolved, so did my understanding that we cannot take any clean energy sources off the table.
It is our responsibility to live in the real world and pursue all climate solutions, including nuclear energy.
Carol Browner
East Wallingford, Vt.
The writer is the former director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in addition to being a former E.P.A. administrator and current member of the Nuclear Matters Advocacy Council.
To the Editor:
The enormous costs and lengthy delivery time are not the only (or even the main) reasons that nuclear power is a fantasy. Being carbon-free does not make it clean energy. In fact, nuclear energy is extremely environmentally unfriendly.
All nuclear power plants regularly emit low-level radiation into the atmosphere and waterways, and no one knows for sure whether this increases cancer rates in surrounding communities. Women and children are far more vulnerable to ionizing radiation.
The National Academy of Sciences proposed cancer research surrounding nuclear power plants back in 2014, but so far no government agency is willing to sponsor the research. This is puzzling when the Biden administration expresses concern about cancer, the No. 1 killer in most of the country.
We know that the mining and milling of uranium have caused cancer streaks and have forced entire towns to be evacuated and bulldozed into oblivion. We know that the nation now has over 100,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste scattered around the country with no plans on how or where to store it safely. Some of it will remain lethal for thousands or millions of years.
Why do we want to produce more nuclear power when the supposed benefits are a complete fantasy?
Roger Johnson
San Clemente, Calif.
To the Editor:
“Reviving Nuclear Energy Is a Fantasy” made good points about unrealistic assertions concerning the nuclear power industry, but failed to mention the important point that production of nuclear power requires enormous amounts of water.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, nuclear power plants “need water all of the time” and they use “vast amounts of water” during their normal operations. Moreover, although some plants rely on cooling towers to reduce their need for water, “even the reduced needs can require tens of thousands of gallons per minute.”
For states like New Mexico, use of water matters. As your recent series on groundwater pointed out, many states are using their groundwater faster than it is being recharged. New Mexico is one of those states.
For that reason and because New Mexico’s surface water supplies are limited, the vast amounts of water that would be needed by a nuclear power plant is a critical issue here.
Douglas Meiklejohn
Santa Fe, N.M.
The writer is a water quality and land restoration advocate for Conservation Voters New Mexico.
Quality at Boeing
To the Editor:
Re “Ex-Boeing Manager’s Loyalty, and Unease” and “Crisis Leads to a Loss for Boeing” (Business, April 25):
So, what will be needed at Boeing?
Articles in The New York Times have documented how in recent years the company has made significant operational changes that have sacrificed quality to obtain profits. Although Boeing’s chief executive, David Calhoun, is to leave the company at the end of the year, that won’t be enough.
As Merle Meyers, a quality control manager, told The Times, Boeing didn’t listen to his concerns about quality and eventually reprimanded him, causing him to leave after advancing at the company for the better part of three decades.
To return to focusing on quality and to better control its product quality, Boeing will have to do more than remove a few senior executives. It will also need to eventually move out-of-state manufacturing to Washington to be closer to executives and engineers in Seattle, to hire new senior executives with engineering experience, and to make use of the skills, advice and knowledge of the work force, including management.
To stay on top of problems with quality, workers can’t fear being fired. Boeing also needs to see the union that represents its engineers and many other workers as a partner to help fix current problems, not an organization to work around.
Peter Lazes
Stockbridge, Mass.
The writer is a visiting professor at the School of Labor and Employment Relations, Penn State.
To the Editor:
Re “This Is the Most Infamous Public Toilet in America,” by Ezra Klein (column, May 1):
I was recently in a foreign country and entered a cafe to use the bathroom.
I went to the bathroom without asking permission, but was pleasantly surprised to find a nice little sign on the bathroom door that read:
“Even if you are not eating here, you are welcome to use our bathrooms. Our hospitality is free, but supplies and cleaning crew are not. Please consider leaving a small donation with the cashier on your way out.”
I did, and told the cashier I thought the establishment’s approach was brilliant and civilized. Here is a modest proposal: Can the City Council and the mayor come up with an ad campaign or some public announcement suggesting that our restaurants and cafes introduce a similar approach?
I, for one, would be happy to reward those establishments that do with my patronage.
Bob Raber
New York
Running, Fast and Slow
To the Editor:
“Add a Dash of Sprinting to Exercise” (Well, Science Times, April 30) is absolutely correct. I have been running since 1980, and back then there was not a lot of science about running but a lot of just plain running.
The term “fartlek” (Swedish for “speed play”) was used then. It is a series of running exercises in which, in one version, you go all-out between 10 lampposts, then very slow for another 10. And repeat. It works. Fewer injuries and better performance.
I have run numerous marathons, 10K and 5K races, and competed in triathlons. And at 72, I still do this workout.
Training like this benefits everyone and for whatever you are going to do.
Jeffrey Salgo
Queens