57°F
weather icon Clear

Letters to editor of the Pahrump Valley Times

Reader tells former Nye County commissioner to check facts for column

You might want to inform Mr. Schinhofen to do a fact check before he writes his opinion pieces. It is a well-known fact to those of us who don’t watch Fox News that President Obama deported more people than any president in recent history. Maybe you need to start fact-checking the submissions that you receive.

As far as “staging” events, Trump and Fox News (and I use the word “news” loosely), are the masters of misdirection and diversion.

For the record, I am registered non-partisan so I come at this without the usual bias. Thanks.

Dan Fortunato

Insights on Yucca Mountain Repository Licensing effort

Living in Beatty, Nevada, for over 50 years, I have learned a lot regarding various subjects.

One of the most interesting things I have learned is how people deal within themselves regarding the word “radioactivity.”

The word radioactivity speaks for itself, and in more ways in which people are afraid to admit within themselves, much less to each other. Please let me explain.

Radioactivity is “here” basically for all eternity as it has been since long before mankind, namely, the Sun. It isn’t something we can get rid of, so now we, as a people, have to deal with it. Now the question is: How do we deal with it? That is a good question.

Basically, and simply put, radioactivity is nothing else but a flow of particles, neutrons, etc., which is controlled by radioactive absorbing rods to maintain the desired level of energy contained within radioactive reactors. Yes, sometimes things go wrong and he we have emergency situations develop such as Three Mile Island, for example. There has been reactor problems within Russia and Japan as well. Now the question is: How many people died from these reactor failures?

We, including people worldwide, went through the same thing about 130 years ago. It was called electricity. People were afraid of electricity because they didn’t fully understand it. All they “knew” were the hazards of which they heard from other people. Since then electricity is very widely accepted and virtually used in every way of today’s life.

Electricity is nothing else than a controlled flow of electrons that goes house to house, and all businesses throughout the world. Without it, where would we be? What would our world have been like without electricity? The list of questions go on forever, but, at the beginning of the development of electricity, people were equally as scared then about electricity and the problems resulting from it just as we are now presently afraid of radioactivity.

The only problem with radioactivity vs. electricity means we have used radioactive rock to deal with. And now this brings issues to bear in mind. What do we do with the used sources of nuclear fuel? Presently we have numerous used fuel sources scattered all over the world. And what about the present monitoring of these used fuel sources? Are they as adequate as our technology within the United States? What will be done in time when the containers become corroded to such an extent they are no longer able to safely contain the radioactive fuel sources within? There are ways to deal with this I would like to address.

1) Right now we have a site in Nye County, Nevada, known as Yucca Mountain Repository Site, which is also attached to the Mercury Test Site, which is known to be a testing center for above ground and below ground nuclear weapons. Because of these nuclear tests, scientists developed ways to monitor radioactivity.

2) Because of the nuclear weapon testing mentioned in part 1, the grounds surrounding the actual tests sites are basically known to be condemned for hundreds of thousands of years. Why can’t the land in the same proximity for testing be used for Yucca Mountain? We have the scientific know-how to monitor the storage and the best way to address situations as they become apparent. Why contaminate other lands basically being used for the same purpose as Yucca Mountain?

3) Instead of using Yucca Mountain as a high-yielding nuclear burial site, I would like to propose Yucca Mountain be used as a radioactive incinerator, in other words, burn the used fuel source to such an extent there are only ashes to deal with, and then store those remaining ashes within Yucca Mountain. It would greatly minimize the ever pressing need to build more storage containers and would make people realize there is not really anything to be so greatly concerned about.

Right now the main thing Yucca Mountain Repository Site is being used for is nothing else but a political football. It is an item being used by political hopefuls to gain votes. The game is over, now, let’s deal with the issues. I am led to believe the repository site has already been finished and awaiting a train bed to be built to access Yucca Mountain.

In closing, I would like to ask a very simple question: How many people have died worldwide because of nuclear issues such as Three Mile Island, Russia, and Japan’s nuclear reactor problems and how many people died last year in the wildfire in Paradise, California, and not counting so many other people who died due to wildfires in California and throughout the entire world?

What was the cause of the Paradise fire? A faulty electrical wire falling to the ground sparking the fire. Interesting … Are we going to outlaw electricity now?

I, as a private citizen, would welcome any and all future development of Yucca Mountain and to explore the incineration concept I presented, and in hopes this email will generate favorable support from all political representatives regarding Yucca Mountain, including and not limited to, public support, Nye County commissioners, Nevada state legislators, United States legislators, and the president of the United States of America.

Sincerely,

Perry A. Forsyth

National wealth tax would help poverty-stricken

I would like to see the U.S. Congress pass a program into law which would replace the former “Aid to Families With Dependent Children” program which was passed under FDR in 1935 and abolished in 1996. Ever since its abolition, there has been a large increase in the number of people (especially children) living in “extreme poverty” (meaning living on less than two dollars per day) and “deep poverty” (meaning at a level half of the official poverty line).

It could be paid for by adopting a “National Wealth Tax” of 14.25% on all individuals with a net-worth of $10 million and higher, which is exactly what Donald Trump proposed in 1999 before he became what I have always believed him to be, a fake-conservative and a master manipulator.

In return for receiving this assistance, all adult recipients would be responsible for doing some type of volunteer work and/or job training.

Incidentally, on July 31, 2018, “USA Today” newspaper endorsed this National Wealth Tax proposal.

Sincerely,

Stewart B. Epstein

Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
THE LATEST
Tom Rysinski: Football’s zebra herd needs some thinning

Criticizing officials who work high school games is not something I enjoy doing. They’re not making a fortune, they put up with a lot, and you really have to love doing it to devote so much time and energy to it. And in most sports there is a shortage of them. So criticizing them is usually inappropriate.

Tim Burke: A look at open carry issues in nation

Walmart recently announced that it is “respectfully requesting” that customers not openly carry guns into its stores.

Steve Sebelius: Leadership lessons from people who’ve been there

Former governors and senators discussed leadership lessons at a symposium at UNLV’s William S. Boyd Law School last week in a program headed by former Gov. Brian Sandoval.

Thomas Knapp on universal basic income: a totalitarian state’s dream scheme

Andrew Yang’s small but solid polling in the Democratic Party’s 2020 nomination race shows that “Universal Basic Income” has gone from a fringe idea to an idea with a foothold in the popular consciousness.

Thomas Knapp: ‘Nuance’ in politics, public policy?

In 2004, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry called his ever-shifting position on the war in Iraq “nuanced” as a way of explaining why he was for it before he was against it and why his prescriptions for its future kept changing.