Editor,

The column last week by Sally Breen leaves a whole lot of questions unanswered. I won’t get into the global war against terrorism but would like to look for answers to some of the “green” statements made.

The state of Maine has banned the sale of thermometers containing mercury because of the severe potential for pollution. Ms. Breen recommends the use of compact fluorescent lights. Is she not aware that, if you read the fine print on the packages, these contain mercury and must be disposed of as hazardous waste?

Residents of Raymond need to bring their burnt out CFLs to Lewiston and pay for the disposal of each bulb. How many Mainers are treating these bulbs as the poisonous items they are? How much energy is used to safely remove and dispose of the mercury? Is there still a net savings to planet?

Where do we allow the wind farms to be built to generate wind power? High on the mountains where they make economic sense or somewhere on the low-lying areas where there is not sufficient wind? Who is fighting the proposal in western Maine? The AMC and Sierra Club.

Solar energy would make sense where there is sufficient sun, such as the southern states, but in Maine? Is it really efficient on a wide scale here? How much of the state would have to be covered by collectors?

She does not mention hydro power. The state of Maine and “environmental” groups are pushing for the removal of dams that do not pollute to allow fish to travel up the rivers. A noble cause but would it not be better overall for the environment for fishways to be constructed and the dams allowed to continue to help produce the non-polluting power?

Whatever happened to “The Ice Age is Coming” signs that were evident throughout the country when Earth Day was first celebrated? I assume the consensus at that time was that the earth was cooling. The earth has warmed and cooled over the millennia and long before we humans added gases from factories and vehicles.

In fact, Greenland was named to reflect its condition at the time the early explorers landed there. Why would it be catastrophic for it to return to that state?

I’m sure there are a lot of things each of us can do to reduce global warming. But when proposing sweeping changes we have to remove the blinders and think about the unintended consequences and then weigh the costs and benefits.

Bob Jones

Raymond