Opinion
Let Us Let Go of Restaurant

Folks Around Here Ready To Help Out

Co-op CEO Challenges Editorial

Letters To the Editor

Letters To the Editor

Editorial: Electric Co-Op Kidding Itself

Guest View: Loving Nation Means Those in It

Fire Response Shows Spirit

Discuss Drinking Before the Prom

Letters To the Editor

More
Opinion

HOME	CLASSIFIEDS	OBITUARIES	SPORTS	OPINION

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Letters to the Editor

By

    Article Didn't
    Appear Slanted
    Let's set the record straight about issues in Mr. Baillio's letter on Jan. 31. Mr. Baillio says that he's upset about the so-called slant in the Telegraph's coverage towards Bob Stearley, Edgewood mayoral candidate. The newspaper reporter wrote an excellent article in which he quotes the candidates. That seems like a fair way to report the candidates' views. Does Mr. Baillio feel that someone was misquoted?
    Before writing this letter I took the time to check on the facts. Mr. Baillio accused Bob Stearley of not returning his phone call. Mr. Baillio has apparently forgotten that Bob Stearley did far more than make a phone call; Bob actually went to Mr. Baillio's office and talked with him face to face. So what is Mr. Baillio complaining about?
    I'm a retired engineer who has been interested in the sewer project from the beginning. Building a sewer is a complicated project, and a lot of people participated. No one person can take credit for it. There were a lot of problems with (Mayor Howard) Calkins' original design. First, it called for open ponds to treat the sewage. Those open ponds take up space that could be used for other things. Who wants to live or work next to an open sewage treatment plant? Second, the plan sent to the Council by Mr. Calkins required 13 powered lift stations for returning the treated sewage to the center of town. I'm glad that Calkins' original design didn't get built. Over the life of the system it would have cost us a fortune to maintain and operate it. Fuel costs are high, and we'd be paying the price today.
    Former Councilor Donzil Worthington had a better idea. The Membrane Bio-Reactor system (MBR) approved by the Council is a better neighbor. Instead of open ponds, the indoor treatment is odor free and produces high-quality effluent. The MBR system will also cost less to operate and maintain, and has a smaller footprint that traditional designs. All that will make it cheaper in the long run to expand as the town grows.
    What were Bob Stearley's contributions? He was on the first members of the council to see the value of Donzil's plan and supported it. The council passed a good plan, but what did Mr. Calkins do with that plan? When Bob Stearley was sworn in as mayor in 2004 he found absolutely no files in the mayor's office pertaining to the sewer project. When Bob left office, the planning and design were complete. Bob led the way, but the Council and town staff can share credit too. In November 2006, the project was ready to be put to bid. The council voted to move ahead after Mr. Calkins drew the high card, but the Council would have done so, regardless of who said in the mayor's chair. Mr. Calkins is good and generating publicity and taking credit, but Bob Stearley does a far better job of making the right things happen.
    I want Bob Stearley back as mayor for three main reasons. Bob is very concerned over the diminishing water levels in the Estancia Basin. I want Bob to be at the helm overseeing "sensible" growth of Edgewood. Stearley listened to the people and voted against Campbell Ranch. Calkins publicly supported the annexation and Ring voted for it; both of them ignored the voice of the people! And third, Bob Stearley has pledged that he will not support a property tax without a vote of the people. Let's ask the other two candidates how they feel about this issue.
    GERALD CLEAVER
    Edgewood
    Look at Scientist's
    Credentials First
    Regarding the letter by Ken Johnson in your Jan. 24 issue, "Scientists say CO2 has no effects."
    The lead author of the article cited, Arthur Robinson, is not only a researcher at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, he is also the president and founder of it and the only paid staff member. He is a biochemist and has no scientific credentials in any field related to climatology.
    According to Sourcewatch.org, "The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as 'a small research institute' that studies 'biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging.' It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for 'parents concerned about socialism in the public schools' and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war."
    ... A study of the legitimate scientific literature will show that the consensus of mainstream scientists is that there is at present a global warming trend that is mainly the result of human activity, will most probably have considerable negative consequences, and should be taken very seriously. Action on this serious problem is being fought by oil and coal interests, and their politicians, who are interested in maintaining the status quo and the tremendous profits that profligate energy use is affording them. Michael Moore's movie may have some errors, but the message it sends needs to be heard. The problem is very real, the effects may soon become irreversible if they have not already, and urgent action is needed. The United States should be a leader in this action, not an impediment to it. Anyone who disseminates information such as that put out by A. Robinson as scientifically valid not only does a disservice to the United States, he does a disservice to the whole human population.
    BRUCE MOFFITT
    Sandia Park
    Authors Lacking
    Climate Degrees
    The subject of global warming is a hot-button topic for many scientists, and a continued discussion of the subject is a worthwhile effort. However, it is important to ensure that credible sources of information are referenced in any associated debates, and the article cited in Ken Johnson's letter to the editor (Mountain View Telegraph, January 24) may not meet reasonable criteria for credibility.
    A little research indicates that the article— now published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons— was first issued in its original form as support for the Oregon Petition, an effort to bring pressure to bear on the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto protocol. The article was printed in a format suggesting it was a reprint of a National Academy of Sciences article, and was accompanied by a letter from a past NAS president. As discussed in several articles, including one at sourcewatch.org, the article and petition were denounced by the NAS.
    Neither the senior author, Arthur B. Robinson, nor any of his co-authors had any climatology-related degrees or professional background in atmospheric or climatological research.
    Dr. Robinson is the founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which has also received a substantial attention. The OISM Web site lists Dr. Jane Orient as a faculty member and also as the executive director of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, in whose journal the current "peer reviewed" article appears.
    In a way, this article reminds me of the plethora of e-mail hoaxes that seem to continue making the rounds year after year. At a time when it is so easy to check the credentials of authors and the claims made in articles such as Robinson et al. (not to mention the multitude of e-mail diatribes that seem to land in our inboxes on a daily basis), it is a source of never-ending fascination to me that so much obvious misinformation gets so much attention. As for Mr. Johnson's suggestion for counseling children who may have seen Nobel Prize winner Al Gore's movie, I would suggest an alternative: encourage critical thinking, inquisitiveness, and healthy skepticism in your children, no matter what the subject matter, and help them find the tools for gathering and evaluating information on their own.
    JOHN E. WECKERLE
    Edgewood
    Researchers Just
    Aren't Credible
    This is regarding Ken Johnson's letter in which he asserts that global warming is a hoax, but that if it did occur, it would be good for us.
    He cites a report by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine ("Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide"), published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Sounds pretty credible, right?
    A little Web research can reveal a lot.
    The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a right-wing organization that deals with doctors' economic and political (not scientific) matters, with a good dose of ideology thrown in. Among their positions are opposition to Medicare, the removal of regulation from the health care system, and the re-legalization of DDT.
    The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is an "institute" with one paid staff member (and founder) Arthur Robinson, with six "faculty" members. One of their main efforts is the "Petition Project" which urges the rejection of the Kyoto Treaty or any other effort to prevent climate change. This is led by Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences.
    Because they were being associated with the petition, the NAS (that hotbed of wild-eyed liberals) issued a strong statement that they were in no way associated with it, did not publish the article which Mr. Johnson cites, and did not agree with it in any way. They also revealed that the report had not been published in any peer-reviewed journals, which is the norm for credible scientific reports.
    Authors of the report are Anderson and his son, both whose specialty is "the deamidation of peptides and proteins," according to their Web site, with their second specialty being the development of home schooling curricula. The other author is Willie Soon, an astrophysicist who has done work funded by the American Petroleum Institute. Credible, objective researchers?
    One more tidbit ... why would this pseudoscientific report be published by a physician's political advocacy organization? The director of that group, Jane Orient, is also one of the "faculty" of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Quite a coincidence, eh?
    The report itself is full of unsupported claims regarding nuclear power, "green" energy, and governmental regulation, too many to discuss here.
    This is a sterling example of people promoting an ideological agenda with bogus science, using a smokescreen of respectable-sounding names for their organizations.
    BOB CLANCY
    Sandia Park