What was wrong with the Mail Tribune's Feb. 17 editorial "If LNG is wrong, what's right?"

What was wrong with the Mail Tribune's Feb. 17 editorial "If LNG is wrong, what's right?"

It was couched (i.e., "rigged") so a responder cannot possibly say what energy source other than LNG, "is right," because, as the editorial itself states, there is no "right" one that does not have "drawbacks" — except perhaps geothermal. And even that source is not available widely enough to be significant.

It did not adequately say what is wrong with LNG. The editorial was just vague on that point. It only tangentially covered that point by saying every energy technology has drawbacks.

Evidently, the Mail Tribune editorial writers do not care enough about those "drawbacks" to at least explicitly say what is wrong with the Pacific Connector LNG pipeline, unless these drawbacks affect them personally.

So I'll attempt to elucidate on it.

The pipeline is wrong precisely because it:

Carves a 223-mile, 100-foot-wide, clearcut across the landscape. Causes significant damage to fish and wildlife habitat. Seizes ownership of land for private profit. Significantly diminishes land values. Poses unacceptable physical hazards to land and people.

That is wrong enough for anybody. — Fred Fleetwood, Trail

Crosswalks that don't have stop signs or traffic lights are the most dangerous place to cross a street. Pedestrians expect that cars will stop, and while many cars do, many don't.

Crosswalks are especially dangerous when there is more than one lane because the pedestrian thinks that because the car in the near lane stops, the car in the next lane will too. Children in that situation are particularly invisible to the driver in the second lane, and the motorist in the second lane may have no idea why the car in the first lane is slowing down.

Teaching motorists to be more polite, having stings, etc., if effective, will only increase the false sense of security of the pedestrian. Crosswalks are a well-intended idea that lead to injury and tragic deaths, like this one. If you doubt it, just look where in your town people are most likely to get run over. — Peter Silverman, Ashland

I listened to Sen. Ron Wyden present his "Healthy Americans Act" to change health care delivery in the United States for over two hours. I was very disappointed.

Basically, he wants to keep the for-profit insurance companies intact and running the health care system. Furthermore you cannot opt out — you won't be able to register your car, pay taxes or get a driver's license without proving insurance coverage. He thinks that by passing a few more laws, making it compulsory by corralling employers and wages, it will be much better than what we have now. Wrong! It will be even more complex and bureaucratic with the insurance companies and their lobbyists still vying for their government-protected-monopoly profits.

What we have now is not working. We don't have the benefits of either a true free-market health care system or a government-managed health-care system. Our health care is being dictated to us from above by insurance companies and their lobbyists with no real feedback by either doctors or patients.

Is single-payer the answer? Is government capable of managing health care? I know from being a chiropractor that Medicare is its own nightmare of incompetent, bureaucratic balderdash. Whatever the answer is, Sen. Wyden's solution "¦ isn't! — Tom Clunie D.C., Talent