Niagara Gazette

January 14, 2007

LETTERS: Jan. 13's letters to the editor


Ready to tap out

I’m just wondering if anyone else is aware that the Niagara Falls Water Board charges us for water that we don’t use. For the last year, I have been getting my water bill for the exact same amount. When I called to find out if someone was reading my meter or if they were just estimating, I was told that the meter is being read; however, there is a minimum charge that I am billed. No matter how little my usage is, I am charged for 13 units of water.

During the last billing period I used nine units of water but paid for 13. I just received my bill over the weekend for the last three months, and again I used nine units of water but am paying for 13.

I was even told by the man who answered the phone at the Water Board that you could be on vacation for three months and not use one drop of water and still have to pay for the minimum of 13 units.

Isn’t it bad enough that we are being raked over the coals by the city for our taxes but now we get it stuck to us by the Water Board as well?

Tina Julian

Niagara Falls



Questions for AES

For the record, let me state what I stated in the AES public hearing. I respect the employees of AES and many are beloved members of my church.

However, in his guest view on Jan. 9, AES employee Dennis Detschner leaves some of the facts concerning environmental safety and monitoring of the landfill at AES Somerset unanswered. Mr. Detschner states that AES has “... respect for our townspeople along with the EPA and DEC ....” If that is true, then why does AES refuse to permit either the DEC or the town to go on site and analyze the water runoff from the current landfill? If Mr. Detschner respects the EPA, then he cannot object to the EPA using the term “toxic” when describing the 1.2 million pounds of chemicals as a “toxic release inventory?” When will AES agree to the recent judges’ recommendation that it comply with NY State environmental laws? So far, it has refused to be inspected by the DEC. Why? What does AES have to hide?

Perhaps AES should run a full-page ad which explains the full list of “toxic” chemicals from the EPA site (http://www.epa.gov/tri/) and answers the above questions.

Merrill Bender

Somerset



Avoid meat, cloned and otherwise

The government is a step closer to lifting its ban on products from cloned animals — but what does this mean for our health? Debates over cloning were recently rekindled when the Food and Drug Administration announced it believed that milk and meat from cloned cows, pigs and goats are as safe as products from conventionally bred animals.

As a dietician, I know that eating meat — whether it’s from a cloned animal or not — poses serious health risks. Consuming even one meal high in saturated fat, which is found mostly in animal products and has long been linked to cardiovascular disease, can do immediate damage to the heart. A growing number of scientific studies are finding that eating meat is also associated with breast, colon and prostate cancer.

Cloning animals for human consumption is a serious issue, but this country has a bigger problem on its hands: As a result of our meat-heavy eating habits, obesity and type-two diabetes are reaching catastrophic levels among Americans of all ages. But these diseases won’t have much of a future if we avoid meat — cloned or not — and fill up on fruits, vegetables, beans, and other healthy vegetarian fare.

Dulcie Ward

Staff Nutritionist

Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine

Washington, D.C.