To the Editor: I must protest the editorial policy of Mechanical Engineering magazine and the careless tendencies of my fellow engineers in the Letters to the Editor portion of the magazine.

We are technical professionals, but you would not know it looking at this portion of the magazine. We have numerous letters written by people speaking outside their area of expertise expressing opinions that I do not care to read. Even worse, we have a letter published by a member of Greenpeace and Union for Concerned Scientists, both of which have no interest in the truth about nuclear power.

The state of Pennsylvania studied the health effects of Three Mile Island and stated that the release of radiation was too small to affect anybody. No increased cancer risk, nothing. One veterinarian who does not know what he is talking about does not compare with a scientific study by the state—which does not favor nuclear power. If we want to make comments about subjects that we are not experts in, let's say so. Better yet, I would prefer that the magazine either not publish such letters or make the authors state their credentials. I realize letters to the editor are not scientific papers, but this is not the local newspaper they are published in, either.

For the record, I work in the nuclear power field (like many other ASME members) and manage a group that delivers nuclear fuel assemblies to electric utility customers. I regularly serve in design reviews of our products.

We need to decide if Mechanical Engineering is going to have letters to the editor that have a reasonable technical basis or are just uninformed opinions from its members. I prefer the former.

_{Letter of Approval} Patrick D. Corcoran
Reynoldsburg, Ohio

To the Editor: This is a letter of apology.

During my 30-plus years of engineering work, I had not subscribed to ASME and did not receive regular copies of Mechanical Engineering. This was my error.

The skilled writing, article content, and, especially, the Letters to the Editor are superb. Personally, that is my favorite.

There are a multitude of magazines to be had every month. I cannot recall any that match the breadth and uniqueness of scope you bring to print. On occasion, you touch upon what seems to be an obscure event or fact. Immediately in following issues there are very well-written comments with further discussion, information, and argumentation.

I think your magazine very well represents engineering in the commonweal. Thank you so much.

To the Editor: A season doesn't pass that someone does not write in righteous indignation about there being too few women in engineering, as quoted in your November 2006 editorial.

Women don't become engineers because they look at what it takes; they look at what it gives them, and they look elsewhere. Engineering is a bad career choice. What with salary compression, outsourcing, few promotions, no job security, and a lack of non-trivial continuing education, it's a wonder any American wants to be an engineer.

The real issue in engineering careers is the huge number of foreign engineers we import under the H-1B visa program. Their numbers overwhelm the number of women and non-Asian-American minorities in engineering.

Donna Shalala has her own political agenda, and it includes playing to the political correctness crowd. Someone should explain to Ms. Shalala that since 1972, the percentage of bachelor's degrees awarded to women in engineering has grown from 1 percent to over 15 percent.

I have been a member of Mensa for over 10 years. Mensa contains a lot of smart women. During that time, I have known one woman in Mensa who was a working engineer in this area (Minneapolis-St. Paul). I have known more who either quit engineering in college or quit the field after graduation.

My girlfriend receives information about many different quilting, knitting, and other textile arts programs and workshops. A high percentage of them are run by women who used to be engineers—women who, to hear them tell it, got sick of engineering and went on to something better.

The fault is not in our stars, but in our profession.

To the Editor: I am writing in response to your handling of the "scathing" report put out by Donna Shalala's panel.

I am no expert on this presumed "gender bias" topic; however, I did recognize that the report was hugely biased from the comments that you quoted. I was tipped off by the Donna Shalala name, well known for her radical political biases while at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

So I did some research on the topic and found that Ms. Shalala's panel consisted of 17 women and 1 man (no bias there!). Next, it is a well-known fact that male college graduates are now trailing their female counterparts in nearly every academic field. And the idea that women are not succeeding in engineering is an idea of the 1960s that continues to get traction from the likes of Donna Shalala.

Some seem to think that women don't have enough opportunities. But, typically, because of the reverse bias in our society, women are given greater opportunities than their male counterparts. They are just not taken advantage of because many of them desire to be home with children.

My greatest concern about this report is that many will read it and not recognize the material as political propaganda from a leftist leader.

As engineers, we are taught to look at all the options, and think critically and logically. Taking one panel's report as gospel because we like what we hear fails on all accounts.

To the Editor: The article "A Step Closer to Mars" (November 2006) brought a smile to my face. As a young boy in the early 1960s, I would lie in the front yard at night studying constellations, stars, and the moon. Occasionally, I witnessed a nighttime launch from Cape Canaveral. America was heading to the moon!

Approximately 30 years later, I had the honor of working for the "Last Man on the Moon," Gene Cernan, Captain, U.S. Navy (Retired). Gene is one of my heroes. As Commander of Apollo 17, he departed the moon in December 1972. Since then, for 34 years, "manned space flight" is synonymous with "low Earth orbit."

Do we belong in space? Is it worth the price? Should we go back to the moon, then to Mars?

A Mars base, as conceived by the producers of a documentary film, The Mars Underground, and the Center for Advanced Engineering Environments at Old Dominion.

To me, the answer is very clearly "yes." It is human nature to explore and to achieve great things. That having been said, what must be done in order to leave Earth's orbit? Along with the authors of the article, I believe that major challenges exist.

It will take more than brilliant minds, innovators, visionaries, and well-wishers to escape Earth orbit. Technology? No worries—throw another shrimp on the barby. (Don't forget, using 1960s technology and willpower, 12 American heroes walked on the moon, then returned safely to Earth.)

The big problem? How to win the long-term support of an attention-deficit society that demands to know "what's in it for me right now?" Win the public's heart and, historically, political support and funding will follow. However, throwing money at today's "risk-averse" bureaucracy offers limited chance for success.

What is the solution? Short of a national security concern (i.e., a Chinese and/or Russian moon/Mars program), entrepreneurs (aka capitalists) have the greatest chance of success. If a market exists, entrepreneurs will get humans to the moon and Mars—years ahead of a federally funded U.S. team.

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

© 2007 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers