• Will you choose money over life? • GMOs are on Mainland, too • Dairy farm would be good for Kauai • Sources back up previous claims • Explanation for KIUC meter costs
Will you choose money over life?
When the Dalai Lama was asked what surprised him most about humanity, he said: “Man, because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then, he sacrifices money to recuperate his health.”
How can we afford to take a chance with any potentially harmful health product? A recent “Democracy Now” report disclosed that there are 85,000 chemicals used on the planet and very few have been tested for human safety.
When it comes to chemicals, and now smart meters, many scream, “Proof.” How long did it take the cigarette companies to admit that cigarettes are a cancer risk? How many years did it take to put the warning on each package? How many died from smoking — waiting for proof? How much proof do we need to recognize signs of danger in GMO, too many pesticides and smart meters?
TV is like watching a constant health warning for one drug after the other. Not everyone takes drugs, but everyone eats. Why resist labeling our food?
Are 300 jobs really worth risking the health of the farmers, their families, the island, residents, visitors and future generations? Truthfully, is there a righteous comparison? Are we willing to risk losing our greatest wealth and life itself, to grow questionable food to make money to eat questionable food?
This brings us back to the Dalai Lama’s comment: “Man sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then, he sacrifices money to recuperate his health.”
Gabrielle Olivier, Kapaa
GMOs are on Mainland, too
This is in response to the letter to the editor written by Bob Bobson. His letter stated that the reason seed corn companies do GMO research on Kauai is due to the “fact” that they do not want to grow GMO products on the Mainland and not “infect” other crops here. Not true.
I live in Iowa and I have lived on Kauai. Let me put things in perspective for you. Iowa has 99 counties, each county roughly the same size as one Kauai. Ninety percent of our land is used for agriculture, primarily GMO crops. So, you can see why I have a great deal of trouble comprehending how you came to this misinformed theory.
I would like you to know that the same seed activities performed on Kauai are done on the Mainland as well, actually at a much larger scale. The reason that research is also done on Kauai is to elongate the growing season, and thus, speeding up the research process.
Research and knowledge are wonderful things. Please, in future, practice both of these.
Joan McFarlane, Polk City, Iowa
Dairy farm would be good for Kauai
My name is Alex Franco I’m president of Maui Cattle Company a small local beef processing operation on Maui. I’m also president of the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council an umbrella organization of five County Cattlemen Associations with more than 130 members involved in the cattle industry statewide.
We are in support of the proposed dairy on Kauai as it will help Kauai’s economy and benefit the state not only in milk and beef production, but it will begin to generate a degree of critical mass that is desperately needed in our state to sustain the local food movement. The synergism benefits between the proposed dairy and small farming and processing operations along with needed support from supply houses on the island will stimulate sound economic development. If Hawaii is truly looking at local food sustainability we must understand this will only be possible by allowing both small and large farmers to farm.
Farming is a living business. We can’t put it in a box and say they all need to be small family farms. What is wrong with a large family farm, or what is wrong with a large farm that hires employees and managers with experience and education that will improve the environment and generate a fair return on investment? Hawaii needs all types of farming; small, large, organic, natural, conventional or science based.
Let’s not let people who have strong feelings on what a farm should be like tie the hands of experienced farmers who can contribute to our state’s economy and Hawaii’s food security.
Alex Franco, Kahului, Maui
Sources back up previous claims
As the perpetrator of “propaganda” that Pete Antonson refers to in his letter of Feb. 28, I would like to answer his insinuation that I fabricated information. This time I will include my sources:
1. PA negates my statement regarding increased glyphosate usage and himself writes “Roundup tolerance results in less glyphosate use.” This must have been a typo. Think about it. Glyphosate is Roundup, the weeds still grow back and are getting more resistant. If common sense does not suffice, read the February 2014 USDA report that states GMO crops have led to “increased use of pesticides and herbicides.”
2. PA states “glyphosate is not toxic to humans” in an attempt to correct my warning of feeding Roundup ready food products to our kids. Although long-term independent studies are needed for absolute proof, families need to make their own choices on this decision. Thus labeling should be mandatory. Many studies are beginning to surface that show glyphosate is not safe for humans. One such article is in the Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Feb 2014. In this article, researchers are alarmed at the spike in kidney disease being correlated between areas with hard water and human glyphosate intake (BTW Kauai has hard water).
3. PA states “glyphosate binds to soil and is metabolized by soil microbes.” The National Institute of Health back in Jan 2010 published a study by Lancaster and Hollister concluding that “repeated applications of glyphosate may be related to shifts in the soil microbial community.” Sounds like this means some of the microbes are dying.
4. PA corrects me for saying “glyphosate is absorbed by the plant” on which it is sprayed. My reference here is Monsanto’s own literature. According to the manufacturer, the way it works is the plant absorbs the glyphosate systemically through the foliage, then the herbicide inhibits a specific enzyme thereby destroying the plant’s ability to produce proteins. In a genetically engineered herbicide ready plant, the solution is still absorbed, but the specific enzyme is not inhibited.
5. My suggestion that Monsanto’s Ms Reimann was possibly just out of one of Monsanto’s endowed science departments was a tongue-in-cheek statement with the intent of pointing out how many of our American Universities’ bio science departments are endowed by one of the “Big 6.” This, to me, is an alarming state of affairs.
Robert Brower, Anahola
Explanation for KIUC meter costs
This letter is in response to Michael Shooltz’s letter to the editor asking why it costs extra for KIUC to read the 3,000 analog meters requested by certain members when the costs to read all 30,000 are already in the KIUC rates. I am happy to oblige.
The simple answer, putting aside for a moment economies of scale, is that what we are really dealing with are lost savings. As KIUC doesn’t have to manually read 27,000 meters when it uses smart meters it saves 27/30 or 90 percent of the costs of manually reading the 30,000 meters which Mr. Shooltz correctly states are built into current KIUC rates. The 10 percent KIUC doesn’t save is caused by those members who choose to keep their analog meters. However, because of economies of scale — i.e. the cost per meter of manually reading 30,000 meters is less than the cost per meter of reading only 3,000 — what the opting out members are actually being charged is probably higher than 10 percent of the costs built into the current rates, and those charges also make up for the extra costs of maintaining a separate type of obsolete meter.
As it isn’t necessarily obvious I believe it worth stating that as long as KIUC is fully regulated by the PUC, as it presently is, KIUC can’t just reduce its rates to take account of these savings. That can only be done by a rate case before the PUC. But luckily for all KIUC members, including those who opted for analog meters, KIUC is a cooperative so those savings don’t go to the shareholders in Connecticut as they would have under Kauai Electric. They end up as margins and go back to the members at the end of each year.
David Proudfoot, Former KIUC general counsel, Lihue
