Letters to the Editor for Feb. 16, 2019
Build reactor to use up plutonium from DOE shipment
In the Feb. 13 edition, Abby Johnson writes about the DOE’s recent plutonium shipment. At the end of her column she remarks that the DOE’s “brazen action is an opportunity for new conversation.” Well, here’s my contribution. Make lemonade. That is, build one or more fast breeder reactors to use up the stuff as well as considerable other nuclear waste and enjoy the copious carbon free energy they will deliver.
OK, this may be expensive carbon-free energy, but there is a good argument for charging the excess cost back to the DOE and any other dumpers. And yes, even fast breeder reactors themselves leave behind a reduced amount of radioactive nuclear waste, but with much shorter half-lives than that of plutonium. Fast breeder reactors are nothing new. For further reference, my fellow readers may go to http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-breeder-reactors-nuclear-waste-nightmare.
An acceptable deal?
The Legislature in Carson City is bracketed by two jurisdictions in which an illegal alien committed double murders a few weeks ago with a stolen gun. For you Democrat lawmakers, that would be four murders total.
We’re told the Nevada Legislature’s background check bill aims to “reduce gun violence,” even as the Las Vegas sheriff has decided to no longer make illegal aliens available to ICE for traffic tickets or other minor infractions. The Reno/Douglas killer got a traffic ticket about a year ago. Had he been handed over to ICE and deported right then, four people would be alive today.
Jay Leno was making jokes 20 years ago about undocumented Democrats being waved into the country by the party that can’t win elections without help from non-citizen voters. Their open borders policy brings in honest, hard working immigrants mixed in with mooches who will go on some sort of taxpayer-funded assistance as well as violent human and drug traffickers. I doubt the murder victims’ families think that’s an acceptable deal.
Comments in abortion debate exploits honest help
In response to Leonard R. Schmidt’s LTE published Feb. 10:
Schmidt’s framing of the issue of “late-term abortion” intentionally distorts the conditions under which this legislation was discussed in Virginia. Northam’s comments, as a former pediatric neurologist, were about cases of serious complications that severely impact medical conditions of the fetus, as well as causing severe impact to the health of the mother. These are rare and wrenching cases that none of us would willingly choose.
Misrepresenting the context and medical methods used in order to inflame a debate that is already overheated invites reckless judgment of the parents who are faced with this horrible choice cruelly exploits those who offer help and betrays those who seek honest engagement.
Laura J. Hale
Constitution does not dictate what to do with arms
SB 143- NV Leg. 2019
My U.S. Constitution gives me the “right to keep and bear arms.”
With mature consideration, it also says that right shall not be interfered with.
My Constitution does not designate what I can or cannot do with that “arm” once I get it.
That issue is dealt with in a different section of law, which society chooses to avoid or ignore.
SB143 is self-aggrandizing, self-promoting and does not deal with the real reason, for itself at all; namely the elimination of those using “arms” illegally.
It solves nothing in that regard and just wastes more time on the promotion issue.
It is a blessing that some of those types eliminate themselves.
Those trained in the law, that interpret the law, adjudicate the law, profit from the law, ally with and exempt themselves from the law should not be designing or making the law.
At the Feb. 13 hearing, someone said “we need to do something.”
They could start by maturely thinking about the actions done so far and the time already wasted doing that.