Letters to the Editor
Jeff Dutky
Published Letters: 13 Editor's Choice: 5
-
what is the difference...
[Read the article: Is RU-486 a murder weapon?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The question at the end of the article ("what is the difference between him slipping her the pill and her taking the pill of her own volition?") is an odd one. The difference is the same as that in almost any other type of criminal prosecution: one of consent.
What is the difference between someone else killing me and me killing myself?
What is the difference between somone taking $100 from me by force (or taking it when I'm not paying attention) and me gifting someone with $100?
Sure, the feticide thing is frightening, but not because of these specific circumstances. This guy did something unforgivible (assault with intent to cause bodily harm, at the very least) and should be punnished severely.
-
industrial production of nitrogen vs production of nitrogen compounds
[Read the article: The upside to peak fertilizer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Industrial production of nitrogen (a relatively intert gas that makes up 70% of the Earth's atmosphere) is not an energy intensive process. The process you are thinking of is the production of nitrogen compounds (amonia, nitrates, etc.) from nitrogen (commonly called nitrogen fixing). These compounds are highly reactive (unlike nitrogen gas) and hence require a large amount of energy in their manufacture.
To refer to nitrogen compounds like amonia or nitrates is intellectually lazy and a sign of gross scientific illiteracy, much like referring to the emission of carbon dioxide and methane (both carbon compounds) as carbon emissions. As with carbon emissions it confuses the issue and allows politically motivated people to misdirect public discourse. Carbon dioxide (a colorless, odorless gas) is not carbon (a solid of varying qualities at earthly temperatures and pressures) just as amonia or nitrates (highly reactive liquids or solids) are not nitrogen (a relatively unreactive gas).
I fully realize that you may think that the precise chemical details are a side issue to your economic analysis, but I have difficulty taking your economic analysi seriously when you don't seem to be able to get the simple details of chemistry correct.
-
any electric heat is wasteful
[Read the article: The light-bulb wars switch on again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The problem with electric heat, whether generated by incandescent light bulbs, or by other more "efficient" means is that, unless you generate your own electricity, the electricity must be transmitted to you over a fair distance, incurring transmission losses in the process. In the U.S. the average transmission loss over distance is about 7% (from climatetechnology.gov) which puts electricity at an automatic disadvantage with respect to local heat production by almost any means (a gas furnace, for example, gets pretty close to 100% efficiency extracting energy from fuel in the form of heat). On top of that, the efficiency improvement between incandescent bulbs and CFL bulbs for light production is so high (over an order of magnitude in most cases) that you can more than afford to replace the heat production from the incandescents with other sources and still come out ahead.
-
yes, this is just what the hybrid cars)
[Read the article: Beware the ninja Prius]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the Prius (and other hybrid vehicles) should make some kind of modulated thrumming sound: the kind of sound you hear from vehicles in science fiction movies. Otherwise you can't tell the difference between a working Prius, and one where the driver just forgot to set the parking brake.
-
Eco PC seems more EcoNOMIC and EcoLOGIC
[Read the article: Are laptop PCs the environmentally correct choice?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]About half of the reasons are more concerned with financial impact than with environmental impact (reason #1: cost of manufacture, and reason #2: cost of parts for repair and replacement). The entire political opposition to environmental policy revolves around how much MORE it will cost to do things in an environmentally friendly manner than to continue with the destructive (and allegedly inexpensive) status quo. It should come as any surprise that an ecologically friendly PC is more expensive than a regular one, and anyone concerned about the environment should be prepared to pay that price.
Also, the bit about laptop batteries being toxic is pure ignorance. Modern laptop batteries are almost entirely* harmless in disposal. Unlike older rechargeable battery technologies, modern laptop batteries contain neither lead nor cadmium, which is what makes older rechargeable batteries toxic. Modern batteries are based on Lithium compounds and are basically inert and harmless in their discharged state.
* laptop batteries are usually encased in plastic which may have unpleasant environmental side-effects, but the stuff inside the plastic is mostly harmless.
-
two gripes
[Read the article: Why Ronald Reagan didn't completely suck]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Concerning Wilentz's assertion that the Reagan era has lasted "as long as the combined era of the New Deal, Fair Deal, New Frontier, and Great Society." I can't see how that could possibly be true. If Reagan was responsible for demolishing the New Deal et al, then that era must have lasted at least 50 years (from circa 1935 to 1985, at a minimum, probably longer. I would think a good case could be made that the demolition wasn't completed until around 2000, extending the full era of the New Deal to almost 75 years). The entire Reagan era, as defined by Wilentz himself, is only slightly over 30 years. It sounds like Wilentz is practicing some revisionist history, or maybe it's Reaganite history, complete with Alzheimeric amnesia and confusion of fact with fantasy.