It was refreshing to see the letter from Dodd Stacy recently (“Choosing clean energy,” Sept. 28). Whenever I read an op-ed about climate or energy in the Valley News, it invariably leaves out nuclear power as an option in our future energy mix.
I would ask readers to think about the 1980s, around the last time a reactor was completed and at the same time think about what technology looked like. Cell phones were about the size of a small shoebox, cars were still barely good for 100k miles, televisions weighed 50 pounds and more costly and the television antenna was still mounted on roofs in rural areas. Would the reader think that no advances have been made on the nuclear reactor? Generation III and IV reactors use much different technology and use more than 90% of the fissionable material opposed to 5% in previous reactors. Nuclear waste can be stored more safely and takes a small fraction of the time formerly used to become unreactive.
More and more environmentalists have become atomic energy advocates when taking a common sense look at the scaling up problems with renewables, including James Hanson and Stewart Brand, names that should be familiar to environmentalists and climate activists. We can’t put 20 million EVs on the road using just solar and wind.
One last fact, the calculation of deaths per TWh generated (Terra Watt hour) has rooftop solar as 11 times more dangerous than nuclear energy, which is at the very bottom of the list! It’s time for people from both sides of the issue to start talking to one another about realistic power generation needs and solutions.
Ted Schaft
Hanover
Prentiss serves her constituents
In January 2022 I decided I wanted to become an EMT, as I wanted to help my community and also learn what it was like providing patient care. I was all ready to take my EMT class but I ran into one issue: parking! The University of New Hampshire, in Durham, (where I attend school) is known for having limited parking and looking as late as I did in January, parking was impossible to find for that coming semester. Without being able to find parking, I would not have been able to take the EMT class.
Sue Prentiss heard about my conundrum through a family friend and she took action. Sue reached out to her network and found a lovely couple, in Durham, who permitted me to park at their house while I was taking the EMT class. This is just one small example of the many ways Sue Prentiss cares about and supports her constituents and our community.
I successfully passed the EMT course and am a volunteer EMT in the Durham area. I have been able to experience some truly amazing things as an EMT, like bringing a new life into the world. This opportunity would not have happened if it wasn’t for Sue Prentiss, so I will be supporting her in this upcoming election and I hope you will as well.
Quinn Beek
Lebanon
Article 22 myths
I received in a letter from Vt. Rep. Anne Donahue (R-Northfield). In it she says, “On Election Day, Article 22 — a radical amendment that will enshrine late-term, anything goes abortion in the Vermont Constitution — will be on the ballot.” The actual name of it is the Reproductive Liberty Amendment. Deceptively, the words abortion and woman do not appear anywhere in its wording.
She also recounts many other crucial points about Article 22 that Vermont voters need to know. I’ll only mention, in her words, the truth behind 5 Myths about it.
First: “Some pro-choice voters believe that if they do not vote for Article 22, abortion will become illegal in Vermont. But abortion is legal in Vermont and will remain so if voters say NO to Article 22.”
Second: “It has been suggested that pro-choice voters should automatically support Article22… .(However) there’s a huge gulf between what most pro-choice voters want and what Article 22 actually does.”
Third: “Article 22 has nothing to do with codifying Roe v. Wade. It created a framework to protect abortion rights during the first trimester. Article 22 will go far beyond any protections in Roe, to grant an unlimited right to abortion in later trimesters.”
Fourth: “Article 22 is not needed to protect Vermont from a federal law restricting abortion. Article 22 won’t be in the U.S. Constitution, but in the Vermont one (irreversible by Vermont voters) if it passes on Election Day.”
Finally: “We’re told that late-term abortions don’t happen in Vermont … right now, (however) many Vermont hospitals have policies that refer women seeking late-term abortions elsewhere. But if Article 22 passes, Vermont hospitals cannot enact such policies. They could also be prevented from enacting policies regarding other reproductive choices — (like) children choosing sterilization and courts striking down laws for gender transition surgeries, both without parental notification because of Article 22.
Therefore, knowing the truth behind these myths, I join Rep. Donahue in urging Vermont voters to no on Article 22.
Mary Mayott
Springfield, Vt.