Online only letters to the editor

Up in smoke?

Editor, The Times:

I challenge columnist Shaunti Feldhahn in her defense of the dangers of second-hand smoke to explain the following:

I grew up in North Dakota where people make their homes airtight during the winters so no cold air gets in. I went through the 1930s, '40s and '50s living under conditions where about 75 percent of the people smoked (cigarettes, cigars and pipes) in their homes and most business places and I do not recall any epidemics of lung cancer, asthma or any of the other diseases that people like Feldhahn blame on second-hand smoke ["Shaunti Feldhahn: Secondhand smoke vs. other hazards of life," Times, syndicated column, July 11].

To the contrary, North Dakotans back then and now, live much longer than people living in big cities across the country. So much so that the major cause of death in North Dakota is simply old age.

Could it be all of the deaths attributed to second-hand smoke are really caused by overall air pollution found mostly in large cities? Let's get real.

— Wayne Jensen, Kirkland

In "Secondhand smoke vs. other hazards of life" [syndicated column, July 11], columnist Diane Glass accurately points out that much more pernicious forms of poison are permitted than tobacco. Some are vastly subsidized.

I can't go in a bank without being assaulted by someone's petrochemical-based "body care product." There is no ban on carpet glue in public buildings, and a couple of minutes of sitting behind an idling diesel truck with clogged injectors easily puts more carcinogenic particles in me than smoking a pack of cigarettes.

Why is our society obsessed with policing the choices of individuals, yet so indifferent to the assaults of industry? Why does our government have such an interest in our personal health choices, but no honest commitment to safeguard a healthy environment?

Up until last winter I could choose to go to one of the many non-smoking establishments in town. I still cannot choose to go to a non-Febreeze soaked mall, or a hydrocarbon-free highway. I can't stop the endless haze from two-stroke lawn mowers (during last week's Smog Alert!), the drift of Round-Up, or the PCB in my water.

And, apparently, I have no choice but to have my taxes expended funding a war to benefit those who would shove more of it down my throat.

— Daniel Snyder, Olympia

I recently had the opportunity to visit the Pacific Northwest. I had heard how clean and beautiful it was. I was hoping to give my lungs some fresh air. Sad to say, I was not able accomplish this. Not at first, anyway.

I flew in to the Seattle-Tacoma Airport and went outside of the baggage claim to wait for my ride. There were people smoking everywhere I looked. I knew there had to be a non smoking section somewhere. I saw the signs in clear view: "Smoking prohibited." OK, I fibbed a little. They were not in clear view — they were behind a gaggle of smokers. I walked up and down the sidewalk looking for a smoke-free area to sit, but there were none. However, I did see plenty of signs saying "smoking permitted."

The smokers had plenty of space to smoke. Why did they have to use the no-smoking area? My guess is they just didn't care about those around them. Those among the smokers were security guards and flight attendants from Northwest Airlines. The very people who should be setting a good example for the rest of us. The sidewalks and trash cans were littered with cigarette butts. I was so disappointed. After all, this was Seattle — the gateway to the Pacific Northwest. The place I had hoped to be get back to nature and breathe some fresh air.

— Les Bohlen, Bettendorf, Iowa

Cameras as cops

Reader Thomas Williams' letter regarding Seattle using cameras to enforce red-light infractions is right on the money [" "Traffic-enforcement system seems unfair," Northwest Voices, July 11].

This proposal was tried in Honolulu in 2002 for speeding and red lights. Living there, I watched the whole thing unfold. There was a 30-day trial where warnings were sent. Then people started receiving tickets. When people started going to court to contest the tickets, they won.

The basic explanation was there was no accuser to question. Williams correctly points out that his warning is erroneous. Should the citizen be placed in the position of having to prove his innocence in such a case as turning right at an intersection while the light is red? This is perfectly legal but he got the warning anyway. How many such tickets will be sent? Will the recipient take his/her time to fight it or pay it?

The system in Honolulu lasted only four months (January-April 2002) before it was dismissed. I predict the same outcome here in Seattle. It might do the city well to do some research on this prior to full implementation.

— Arthur McEntire, Issaquah

Krauthammer column

I hope I'm not the only one writing to express disgust with columnist Charles Krauthammer bemoaning the fact that the Supreme Court has conferred on Hamdan, and others accused of terrorist crimes, "protections that one expects from 'civilized peoples' " ["The Supreme Court goes to war," syndicated column, July 10].

Have Krauthammer and other administration apologists drunk so much of the Bush/Cheney/ Rumsfeld Kool-Aid they've forgotten we used to be proud of our country's civilized treatment of the accused. Remember? We were the good guys. It didn't matter how savagely our enemies behaved; we Americans held ourselves to a higher standard, and by so doing beckoned the rest of the world to follow our ideals. We were all brought up to believe that in American due process is extended to the most despicable characters, no matter how inconvenient.

Now, our government looks for narrow interpretations of international standards of treatment for the accused and lobbies Congress to relax guidelines governing prisoner interrogations. And the right-wing pundits, parroting the administration, imply that anyone (including Supreme Court justices) who speaks out for upholding the highest standards of conduct is soft of terrorism or even treasonous. It's not being treasonous, it's being American — or at least it used to be.

I think one of Hamdan's lawyers said it best when he remarked that the case "wasn't about them, it's about us."

— Tom Taylor, Seattle

Wind-powered Washington

Reading "Wind power generates a towering cash crop" [News, June 19] was a great way to jump-start another dreary Monday morning. Clean energy, healthy farming communities and free-flowing rivers for salmon is a vision more vital than my first cup of morning coffee.

The benefits of wind power extend far beyond the realm of clean energy and much-needed money for our rural farming communities. Wind power can also translate into an alternative to damaging hydropower systems, which include four outdated dams on the Snake River, that have decimated stocks of salmon. In fact, if wind power can eventually provide the region with 3 percent of its electricity, as suggested by the article, then the four lower Snake River dams, that produce less than 4 percent, become even more obsolete and damaging than they already are.

The article adds to dialogue in the region that ponders the possibilities of having it all: Clean energy, new jobs, stable agricultural communities and Northwest salmon. Wind power can provide this region with a needed jolt that can satisfy communities on both sides of the state and can achieve the continued existence of Snake River salmon and steelhead.

— Alex Stone, Seattle