Dear Editor:

Regarding the article of Thursday, November 22, 2007, "Lobsterman doubts barges and fishing boats can get along," by Barbara Martin, lobsterman Stott Carleton asserts that barges bound for the proposed gasification plant will hurt the lobster industry.

I would like to add, as a summer resident, that having a gasification plant in the area, polluting the water and emitting mercury residues into the air, would turn the midcoast area as a retirement destination into a bad dream. Those of us who looked forward to a pristine environment to pass onto our children and grandchildren, would have to look elsewhere.

When the world is searching for alternative, clean forms of energy, to prevent global warming, why would Wiscasset consider this sort of facility?

Marcia Annenberg

New York

Dear Editor:

The contract zoning ordinance currently being written in Wiscasset is at a very critical stage. Depending on how it is written, it could either provide better protection against the dangers of a coal gasification plant, or it could actually make it easier for Twin Rivers Energy Corporation to get approval for a coal gas and diesel plant in Wiscasset.

Coal gasification is a new, unproven technology with a minimal operating record. "Clean Coal" gasification is not clean. While proponents correctly praise gasification for removing up to 90 percent of coal's mercury emissions, any mercury may be too much. There is no safe level of mercury.

Compared to a coal plant, the U.S. Department of Energy correctly says a "clean coal" gasification plant emits only 65 percent as many airborne particulates. Yet like mercury, no dose of particulates is safe. The Department of Energy says "clean coal" gasification plants release more sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides than coal plants.

DOE says sulfuric acid releases from the American Electric Power "clean coal" plant in Cheshire, Ohio, sickened hundreds of citizens in 2001. AEP spent $850 million trying to solve the problem and failed. In 2002 it bought the entire town and paid to move everyone out. In return, all residents had to agree not to sue AEP for their health problems.

When the U.S. General Accounting Office, the government's oversight agency, recently assessed U.S. "clean coal" facilities, it found that 62 percent had serious financial problems or delays up to seven years, and 15 percent went bankrupt. One example is the plant in West Terre Haute, Ind. -- idled by high costs and poor reliability.

Should Wiscasset allow a partly-dirty "clean coal," experimental technology with a poor history, especially since Twin Rivers Energy Corporation has no experience in gasification? Even proponents admit that gasification plants are 25 percent more expensive than coal, and likely to become more expensive. The government insists that no commercial carbon capture technology will be available for at least 20-30 years. 2004 DOE data also show that energy from gasification, using experimental carbon-capture technology, costs twice as much as wind energy. DOE says natural gas, cogeneration and wind are all cheaper and safer than gasification. Even promising technologies must be used in the right place at the right time.

Because our federal government is replacing the Clean Air Act with the Clear Skies act, a new partly-dirty "clean" coal gas plant in Wiscasset would be allowed to use Cap and Trade laws to get around pollution regulations. Twin Rivers Energy Corporation would be allowed to purchase pollution credits that would allow it to exceed allowable levels of toxic pollutants (including mercury).

It would legally produce solid, liquid and gas pollutants that we do not produce now in Wiscasset. It would legally release hundreds of pounds each of dozens of toxic chemicals that we do not release now in Wiscasset. It would legally release carcinogens such as benzene, reproductive and neurological toxins like toluene, and metals like arsenic, cadmium and lead, that we do not release now in Wiscasset.

It would legally bring new health costs. It would legally endanger our health and our ecosystem. One in eight American women of childbearing age already has blood-mercury levels high enough, according to 2004 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data, to cause neurological-developmental disorders in her unborn children. It would legally cause cancer, heart attacks, asthma and other ailments, that are not caused by a power plant in Wiscasset now.

New mercury regulations for New England are based on cap and trade, and could reduce pollution for the overall region, but not for every locality. It may not protect Wiscasset from becoming a toxic hot spot. A new carbon dioxide regulation will be debated by the Maine Legislation next year, but it may be ineffective against stronger, federal, cap and trade laws.

The most effective protection we have right now against approval of a dirty "clean coal" gasification plant is the height restriction. When contract zoning comes to the voters for approval, extreme vigilance will be needed. Please pay close attention, and stay informed.

Jim Simonetti

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

I read the paper yesterday and was struck by how many people don't understand what a newspaper should be.  They seem to feel a paper's job is to support the town's government or to report only positive stories. 

When you are a public official and you say something foolish or misleading, it should be reported.  Or when a developer is trying to convince the town to support his project, he no longer has the privilege of keeping his past projects, his web site or his connections secret.

You should be proud of your role in the town for no one else is going to do it.  Without your dedication to accurately report what is happening and who is involved, the people of Wiscasset would have no idea what is being done in their name or, even worse, what is being done to them.

Don't listen to the people who complain about the paper.  All of them have other motives or other agendas.

There is a wonderful line at the end of the Ibsen play "The Wild Duck" where one of the characters says that his destiny is "To be the thirteenth man at the table."  That is you.

What inspired me to write was that I was talking with one of my friends about the insulting and absurd letter from the engineer who was upset with you editing his immortal prose.

Neither of us had ever heard of a paper that didn't reserve the right to edit submissions and that if he didn't want to run the risk of being edited he shouldn't have sent the letter in or perhaps written it more succinctly. My father used to call his form of writing "turgid prose."

We both agreed you were a star and should be praised

Stand tall, you are doing a good, good job.

J.D. Neeson

Edgecomb

Dear Editor:

The Department of Transportation (MDOT) is currently seeking public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Route 1 Corridor Study. It is possible that a final decision could be made sometime next year on this controversy to locate a by-pass around Wiscasset Village to alleviate traffic congestion in the village and improve public safety on Route 1.

I have been involved in this issue for many years in various discussions and as a member of the first MDOT Route 1 Corridor Study in 1990-1991. I firmly believe that MDOT needs to now move ahead immediately to fully implement actions that will reduce the present vehicle-trip demand and improve the existing transportation system within Wiscasset Village. These actions and improvements should be done and tested before millions of tax dollars are committed to a by-pass of the village. In the event that such actions and improvements do not together substantially reduce traffic congestion in the village and improve public safety on Route 1, I would support the proposed N8C (so-called long bridge) option.

The most important action that should be taken to reduce vehicle-trip demand northbound is both fixed and variable-message signs on Interstate 295 before the Route 1 exit to Brunswick. The fixed signs should indicate the existence of the Kennebec River Bridge at Augusta and Routes 3 and 17 as alternative routes for those with destinations north and east of Rockland. The variable-message signs would operate when traffic congestion in Wiscasset Village met or exceeded a 5-minute delay. Similar and location-specific signs should be erected southbound in Belfast before the Route 1 exit to Route 3 and also in Rockland before the Route 1 exit to Route 17.

Both these suggestions were made in various forms during the first MDOT Route 1 corridor study. But there has been, and will continue to be, very strong political pressure by some in the business community to prevent the implementation of these actions.

There are several improvements to the existing transportation system within Wiscasset Village that should be made. These improvements taken together should greatly reduce the pedestrian traffic and accelerate vehicle traffic through the village. First, to keep pedestrians off Route 1, an overhead walkway should be built opposite Treats. Second, serious consideration should be given to relocating the Post Office outside the Route 1 corridor. Third, Red's Eat's should be purchased with public funds and eliminated from the Route 1 corridor. Fourth, northbound left turns off Route 1 onto Middle and Water Streets should be prohibited and so should southbound left turns off Route 1 onto Water Street. Signs should also be placed northbound on Route 1 before the Lincoln County Courthouse to provide an option for those vehicles wishing to stop in Wiscasset Village with parking on Middle Street. Finally, all parking in the village should be eliminated on both sides of Route 1. It should be recognized by the public that there has been, and will continue to be, very strong political pressure by the Town of Wiscasset against these improvements. I urge all those homeowners and businesses that would be directly affected by the building of any of the Wiscasset by-pass options, members of environmental groups concerned with the loss of wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors, open space, and scenic beauty, and members of the public that want their tax dollars spent wisely to contact the MDOT, their local representatives, and the Federal Highway Administration asking that all of the above actions and improvements be fully implemented and tested before a final decision is made on a by-pass of Wiscasset Village.

Nicholas Barth

Boothbay

Dear Editor:

I read the School Committee's update on the teacher's contract negotiation in last week's paper with great interest.

For over 15 months, the teachers have been working under their old contract while negotiating a new one. That seems like a long time to me, but then why hurry when your enjoying health and dental insurance that's free for individuals and 90 percent paid for families!!

I must commend the school committee for finally owning up to our excessive school-spending situation. This school committee has published many very interesting facts, some of which I am repeating below for everyone's information:

• We are $1.4 million over the budget the state recognizes as necessary.

• Our per pupil cost for 2005 was $11,343 compared to the state average of $8,230.

• Our 2005 per pupil cost was 38 percent higher than the state average.

• We ranked 14 th in the state for mills raised for education in 2005.

• School costs continue to rise even though student enrollment decreases.

• The burden of supporting our schools has increasingly fallen on local taxpayers.

• The average classroom teacher salary in 2006-07 was $45,957 compared to the state average of $40,855.

• Teacher salaries in 2006-07 were 5.2 percent higher than salaries recognized under the state's formula.

• Over the past 10 years, health insurance costs have increased by 173 percent.

• This year, the cost of a single subscriber plan is $6,096.96 and the cost of a family plan is a staggering $16,725.12.

• Currently we pay 100 percent of the single subscriber premium and 90 percent of the cost for dependent coverage.

The committee's article goes on and on with interesting data and explains their latest offer. I think the committee's offer is extremely generous. I hope the committee does not back down one bit more. In fact, if this offer is not accepted, the committee should withdraw it and come back with something less costly to the taxpayers, especially when it comes to paying the teacher's insurance premiums.

Thanks are in order to the school committee for all the work they have done on this contract and I hope they stick to their guns.

We all have to continue working to get the school budget more in line with state averages.

Dick Grondin

Wiscasset