In his March 13 Forum letter (“Dartmouth biomass plant won’t be an improvement”), Austin Eaton suggests that the Thayer School of Engineering look into alternatives to building a biomass heating plant near the Dartmouth College campus (“Search for biomass developer begins,” Feb. 21). Good idea. Toxicology researchers at the Geisel School of Medicine might also offer insights on the health effects of pollution associated with burning biomass and biofuels.
In New Hampshire, “biofuels” may include bio-oil or synthetic gas derived from construction and demolition debris, a pernicious waste stream. Permissible lead and arsenic levels in processed C&D debris are unreasonably high under current regulations, compounding concerns about heavy metals in wood harvested in New Hampshire’s forests and particulate matter released through combustion. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services estimates one small biomass facility in Bridgewater, N.H., emits about 90 pounds of airborne lead annually. This is typical for biomass burners fueled with wood chips, without the introduction of waste-derived biofuels.
NHDES suggests lead in soil ranges from about 50 to 400 milligrams per kilogram. Some of the lead in forest soils is from air deposition, a result of decades of burning leaded gasoline and other industrial sources. Pollution control equipment on incinerators and biomass plants captures lead, which is dropped into the ash. In New Hampshire, a significant portion of that ash is mixed with sewer sludge and spread on agricultural land, where it bio-accumulates.
House Bill 358 would end the burning of C&D debris at New Hampshire’s last waste incinerator in Concord. More important, the bill would bar the burning of waste-derived bio-oils and synthetic gas.
I urge Upper Valley residents to contact their representatives in support of HB358, which would reinstate New Hampshire’s sensible ban on burning C&D debris or fuels derived from it. There are alternatives. Dartmouth should remove burning waste-derived “biofuel” from consideration, before the debate on the new heating plant proceeds.
JOHN TUTHILL
Acworth
The writer is a former state representative who served on the Environment and Agriculture Committee.
In response to the Forum letter by Stephen Dycus (“Sen. Sanders is an opportunist,” March 15), I’ve got to say I am a bit confused.
According to the letter, Bernie Sanders was responsible for Donald Trump’s election, and because he chose to run as a Democrat, he is an opportunist. Sanders ran as a Democrat because he knew that running as an independent would have split the Democratic vote. In many polls, Sanders was beating Trump by double digits while Hillary Clinton was within the margin of error.
As it turned out, the Democrats got the candidate they anointed as worthy and then proceeded to alienate all of Sanders’ supporters by making Debbie Wasserman Schultz the head of the Clinton campaign and picking the most wishy-washy, white-bread vice presidential candidate, instead of a more progressive-minded person.
For the last 35 years or more, Sanders has been fighting for the middle class and pushing for universal health care, paid community college, paid family leave, a working minimum wage, equal opportunity for all and a country governed of, by and for the people and not the wealthy and corporate interests. Now, all of a sudden, it seems like all of the ideas he has been championing for all this time are the acceptable platform.
It seems to me that if anyone is an opportunist it’s the Democratic Party, whose members are signing on to Sanders’ ideas and trying to make everyone think they thought of it. As Bernie always says, “Not me. Us.” And us are highly motivated.
Sanders has created a movement that has come out of the gate full speed and gaining. No matter what the DNC and the corporate media try to do to tamp him down, he will prevail. We are larger and stronger than we were in 2016 and there will be no stopping our passion. The only opportunity we have now is to elect Bernie Sanders president and continue the political revolution he began.
JOHN LANZA
Sharon
During the decades I’ve been a subscriber to the Valley News I’ve managed to stay out of the political, literary and gun-rights arguments in the Forum. However, after reading the article about Upper Valley pies, I can bite my tongue no longer (“Calculating pie: We sampled as many as we could, but it wasn’t as easy as … you know,” March 13). When your reporter writes statements like, “The apples in the filling were pleasingly crisp,” well, them’s fighting words.
My father, who was born and raised in Maine at the turn of the last century, was a great lover of apple pies. He was very finicky about the apples used in the filling. I found that odd until, as I child, I ordered a piece of apple pie at a restaurant. After one bite, I thought (in modern parlance) “OMG — something is horribly wrong with this pie.”
It was then I learned, in a loss of innocence-coming of age sort of way, that there are two camps when it comes to apple pie apples — the meltingly delicious camp and the bizarrely chewy camp. Clearly your reviewing staff was either raised by coyotes or by people who don’t know that if you use the right apples (including McIntosh and Cortland), you need add only a bit of sugar, some cinnamon and a sprinkle of nutmeg to your filling (no thickeners) to achieve a delectable, appley, tart-sweet pie that pairs perfectly with a slice of sharp cheddar cheese.
Being an avid pie baker myself, I’ve never eaten a King Arthur Flour pie. After reading this article, though, it’s clear they are the one place that knows how to bake an authentic, New England-style apple pie — perfect for breakfast as well as dessert.
JANE LABUN
Newbury, Vt.