To the Editor: Thank you for publishing the "Recycling Fuel" letter (December 2007). I wish every issue would contain some mention that points out the availability and advantages of this cleanest and safest of all "green" energy sources.

Publicity is the next best thing to hiring Madison Avenue advertising power to teach and persuade the public, Hollywood, and politicians about the obvious way to cut greenhouse gases. Unlike with the other alternative sources, swinging the political climate is the only thing needed to develop here; mankind has had the technology for decades.

John J. Kerwin Minneapolis

To the Editor: In your December issue, Robert Balhiser wonders, "Why, for the sake of our children and the future of our country, are we not doing everything within our power to quickly and safely develop [nuclear power]?" I have wondered why we are depleting a billion years of stored-by-the-sun fossil fuel in a few short generations. Nuclear is, as predicted in the '50s, clean, safe, and efficient, and the jury is back.

France's experience, the U.S.A.'s impeccable safety record, decades of our Navy's sailors living and sleeping amongst reactors, and, yes, even the worst-case scenario, Chernobyl (whose meltdown and explosion were supposed to end the world, but did maybe as much harm as a month's worth of coal mining and burning), show this.

Perhaps our decision-makers can't do the math, or maybe we engineers, who reputedly can, have remained inexplicably silent while this folly has unfolded.

Personal Arguments
Nolan L. Boyd Athens, Ga.

To the Editor: I read with concern the letter by Dan Pangburn (January 2008) concerning the veracity of global warming.

It doesn't concern me that he questions the contribution of humans to global warming, as there is scientific evidence used by both sides of the issue to support either view. What does concern me about his letter is his attack on the character and motivation of those with whom he disagrees (Al Gore, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Nobel Committee).

Mr. Pangburn claims Mr. Gore's motivation for involvement with this issue is resentment over the 2000 election and the need to control other people.

What evidence does Mr. Pangburn have to support this assertion? He also states the motivation for the IPCC's position on global warming is because its members "are envious of the prosperity and freedom that Americans enjoy." Who are these members he is referring to and do they all come from third-world, backward, freedom-hating countries? Does Mr. Pangburn really believe the Norwegians are so envious of "American prosperity" that they are conspiring to damage our economy by promoting awareness of global warming?

Mr. Pangburn is welcome to his opinion, as are we all, on the scientific merit, environmental consequences, and reality of global warming. However, denigrating without proof those he doesn't agree with reveals Mr. Pangburn's own political motivations on this subject and undermines his objectivity.

Editor's note: The author is a Kirsch-stein-NRSA Postdoctoral Fellow working in the Regenerative Bioscience Center at the University of Georgia.

In the Cards
Marvin A. Moss North Hills, Calif.

To the Editor: One point requires clarification in the very interesting summary of the origins of the digital computer ("Oh, What a Web We Punch," Input/Output, December 2007). As described in a Wikipedia online ency-clopedia article, Herman Hollerith founded the Tabulating Machine Co. in 1896 to commercially exploit the tabulating machine design he had developed for the 1890 census.

Quoting from the Wikipedia article on Hollerith: "To make his [commercial] system work he invented the first automatic card-feed mechanism and the first key punch (i.e., a punch that was operated from a keyboard), which allowed a skilled operator to punch 200-300 cards per hour. He also invented a tabulator. The 1890 tabulator was hardwired to operate only on 1890 Census cards. [To reduce costs, Hollerith had sized his cards to fit equipment that had originally been fabricated to handle Treasury Notes during the printing process but had to be discarded when new issues of the bills were reduced slightly in size.] A wiring panel in his 1906 Type I tabulator allowed it to do different jobs without having to be rebuilt (the first step toward programming). These inventions were the foundation of the modern information processing industry.

"In 1911, four corporations, including Hollerith's firm, merged to form the Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation. Under the presidency of Thomas J. Watson, it was renamed IBM in 1924."

The punched card became a standard tool within the engineering world in the 1950s as firms acquired digital computers to handle the ever-greater volumes of data being generated, but was gradually elbowed aside within a couple of decades by newer forms of data storage. In their heyday, however, they were almost as familiar a part of the office scene as typewriters. Remember the Christmas wreaths fashioned from stacks of discarded punched cards sprayed with gold paint? (For that matter—do you remember typewriters?)

Home Fires
Fred Moehring New York

To the Editor: I disagree with outsourcing (January cover feature) and believe we should rebuild manufacturing in the U.S.A.

Outsourcing has compromised our quality and reduced the mentality of today's workforce.

Editor's note: The author is the founder of Fred A. Moehring Inc., a machine shop in Brooklyn.

Jury's Out
Bruce C. Slifer, P.E.
Rockport, Mass.

To the Editor: A letter from Michael A. Chaszeyka (February) refers to an article by Arthur B. Robinson, et al., of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which supposedly provides evidence that global warming is not tied to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. I, and I suspect many other readers of ME, recently received an unsolicited copy of this article, and other material, along with a request to sign a petition against ratification of the Kyoto treaty.

Subsequent investigation (see http:// www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=
Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine) reveals that the article was not from a peer-reviewed journal, and the OISM is a quasi-scientific organization with a political agenda.

Either Mr. Chaszeyka was duped by this material, or he is knowingly promoting it. In any event, the readers of ME should know that the referenced article is not based on good "science."

Editor's note: After visiting the SourceWatch site, which was critical of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and of the paper on global warming, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," we invited Arthur Robinson to comment. He wrote: "We have studied this issue for the past 10 years. The article to which you refer is a scientific review. According to the rules of this sort of publication, every fact asserted in the article is referenced to the peer-reviewed scientific literature—132 references contained in the article.

"The people on the other side of this issue—not all but many—have used the Internet constantly to smear their opponents with an incredible mixture of outright false statements. SourceWatch is one of their sites."

Lightning Strike
Thomas R. Yezerski, P.E. Whitehall, Pa.

To the Editor: I suppose you have received a sack full of mail concerning the error in "The New Point of View" in the February 2008 issue, where either Tom White noted or author Alan S. Brown wrote about the 50th anniversary of Lockheed's P-38 "Mustang." That particular aircraft was known as the Lightning.

North American designed and manufactured the P-51 Mustang.

Editor's note: We thank all the readers who wrote in to point out our error.

home | features | breaking news | marketplace | departments | about ME back issues | ASME | site search

© 2008 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers