Home · Articles · News · Letters to the Editor · Inbox: Nuclear Plant’s Costs
December 24th, 2013 WW Editorial Staff | Letters to the Editor
 

Inbox: Nuclear Plant’s Costs

     
Tags:
“Energy Northwest—owned by a coalition of public utilities—also says the nuclear plant produces environmentally friendly energy.” [“The Not-So-Green Machine,” WW, Dec. 18, 2013.]

So artificial, human-made nuclear pollution in the form of particles and gases, as well as the highly radioactive “spent” fuel produced that we have no solution for and will burden the planet and all life on it for the rest of time, is environmentally friendly energy? Ha!

Nuclear is as far from environmentally or biologically friendly as you can get. I’d take a future invested in coal before I’d take a future invested in nuclear. That’s how bad nuclear is.

—“Deron Kosoff”


You can bet if an anti-nuke says it, the opposite is true.

Everything nuclear is teetering on the edge of doom. Except it’s not. Time passes and, yawn, nothing happens.

Meanwhile, the coal and natural gas burn on, warming our planet, melting sea ice and causing real damage to the environment.

It’s about eliminating carbon, people. Wake up!

—“FreedomRules76”


BLAZERS RELEVANT AGAIN

Thank you for the article [“On the Rebound,” WW, Dec. 18, 2013]. My husband is a rabid Trail Blazers fan, rain or shine, but I quit on them years ago.

I appreciate the update and I’m happy they are doing so well.

I remember 1977 and what a fantastic time it was here in Rip City. I also like those Rip City uniforms.

—“Maggie O’Connor”


From a business perspective (which is what the Blazers are), a sellout means you priced your product too low [“The Fan Who Wasn’t There,” WW, Dec. 18, 2013].

The nosebleed seats are still cheap, but the price of the remainder of the seats have been raised to the point of being too expensive for most people. Watching the game on TV is better than sitting in the nosebleed seats.

The Blazers would rather sell 95 percent of the seats with a higher per-ticket price than sell out and make less total money.

—“disqus”


IS LANDMARK WORTH SAVING?

I hope this building is saved [“Wrecking Brawl,” WW, Dec. 18, 2013]. It’s quintessential Portland, and a beautiful, historic landmark in the St. Johns area. We need to be more concerned with preserving our past, rather than tearing down everything old.

—“Laborn3”


It makes far more sense for Portland and the rest of the world to encourage cleanups rather than become sentimental over what we build. It is an industrial building. Is that really more important that cleaning up our waste and creating a cleaner environment?

—“T J L”


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR must include the author’s street address and phone number for verification. Letters must be 250 or fewer words.
Submit to: 2220 NW Quimby St., Portland, OR 97210.
Fax: (503) 243-1115. Email: mzusman@wweek.com.

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 

 

comments powered by Disqus
 

Web Design for magazines

Close
Close
Close