Coal gasification is dirty and unproven

Coal gasification proponents used the term "alternative energy technology," a marketing gimmick designed to mislead the public into believing coal is clean ("Energy bill slows over 2 key provisions," May 29). It reminds me of President Bush's "Clear Skies" power plant standards that allowed pollution to increase!

Our legislators and governor should not be duped nor should they force taxpayers to support a dirty, unproven, problematic technology.

Coal use in any form requires mining. In the United States, mining means mountain top devastation and community destruction. In South America, mine companies have been accused of murdering union members.

Then there is CO2, the biggest problem of all. How can we support sequestration technology to capture and store CO2 when it has been about as successful as storing nuclear waste? What we need is real CO2 reductions.

Finally, Massachusetts voters and their representatives should know that of two coal gasification facilities in the United States, the Indiana plant exploded in April killing two workers.

If we are required to subsidize energy, make it clean, safe, and sustainable, standards met by solar, geothermal, wind, and ocean-generated energy, all of which are natural resources. Coal gasification fails these standards decisively.

Jane K. Bright
Marblehead

I wonder if the legislators who think coal gasification is a green energy source also believed Ronald Reagan when he argued that ketchup should count as a vegetable in school lunch programs. "Coal gasification" and "green energy" don't belong together in the same sentence, let alone in legislation that's supposed to lessen our dependence on dirty fuels.

State subsidies should not be used to tilt the market toward technologies that tear the tops off mountains, dumps the refuse into valleys, and buries toxins in the nation's shrinking fresh water supply. The coal lobby - and the Big Ag lobby behind the biofuels boondoggle - are already buying up every politician within reach!

Legislators should cut these two poison pills from the energy overhaul bill that is otherwise a wonderful breath of fresh air from Beacon Hill.

Loie Hayes
Roxbury

The article "Energy bill slows over 2 key provisions" highlights some territory where our Legislature should not even be treading.

The longstanding policy crime of mandating ethanol to be included in gasoline has helped to push millions of people around the world into hunger. While the impact on global warming is basically nonexistent, the profits to agribusiness are quite staggering, as are the impacts on hunger, starvation, and basic economic and social functioning.

Now those who stand to benefit - like those who benefit from war and destruction - are wielding their political power in a time of energy uncertainty to get Massachusetts to add fuel to this deadly fire. The New Fuels Alliance might claim to be concerned about reducing dependence on foreign oil, but unintended consequences of earlier and ongoing mandates have already proven disastrous. A biofuel mandate simply takes us further down this road.

We are heading toward an abyss named climate change, and we need to take our foot - and our lives - off the gas in order to reverse course.

Eli Beckerman
Cambridge

Another way to handle the problem posed by clients who speak to an employee in a language other than English: reply in the speaker's language, but after a brief sentence, switch to English ("Chatty clients have foreign worker in bind," June 1). If the client says, "How's the family?" (non-English). The response could be, "Oh, very well, thank you" (non-English), followed by "The children are growing so fast. And your family?" (in English). If the client responds in his or her own language, the employee can continue to start with the client's language, then switch to English in the midst of his or her reply. That way, the client is not being insulted by having his or her preference ignored, but the employee is saying just enough in English that colleagues know what the conversation is about. This arrangement has worked for a bilingual acquaintance.

Janice Locke
Concord

In the interest of historical accuracy I would like to add to the review of digital breast tomosynthesis ("New dimension in detection," June 2). The article gives the reader the idea that digital breast tomosynthesis was Hologic's idea. This is not correct. The general principles of tomosynthesis were first described in the 1960s. I read about it in the 1970s and realized that it could be a major advance in X-ray imaging of the breast, but I had to wait until digital X-ray detectors were made for the breast in the 1990s.

As the founder and director of the breast imaging division at the Massachusetts General Hospital, I led a team at MGH and we developed tomosynthesis for the breast. We were the first to prove the concept for imaging the entire breast, and the patent for digital breast tomosynthesis is held by Massachusetts General Hospital in our names.

Funding from the Department of Defense allowed General Electric to build the first clinically useful whole breast tomosynthesis device for us, and almost 4,000 women have volunteered to participate in our trials also funded by GE and the National Cancer Institute. The fact is that, while GE was deciding whether or not to license the technology from MGH, Richard Moore (head of breast imaging research) and I convinced Hologic (Lorad), and Siemens of the importance of the technology leading to their programs.

Daniel B. Kopans, M.D.
Senior radiologist breast imaging division - Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of radiology - Harvard Medical School

HAVE AN OPINION? Letters intended for publication should include the writer's name, address, and daytime phone number. All letters are subject to editing. E-mail letters to business@globe.com; fax to 617-929-3183; or mail to Business Letters, The Boston Globe, P.O. Box 55819, Boston, MA 02205-5819.