To the Editor: The August '06 "Talking Back" feature (page 30) endorsed using favorite employees of your boss to your advantage. While I am not questioning the effectiveness of the technique, I think the morality and ethics of the method are clearly suspect.

Would it not be better to open the channel of communication with the boss, and wherever the boss has been in error, to gently but clearly point it out, in order to make future actions better for everyone? If your position is truly defensible, only the most unethical of bosses will not try to improve or will punish you. If you have found every boss in your life to be hard to deal with, odds are that the problem does not lie with the bosses.

Various other unethical principles are endorsed in the feature, including hidden motives, "plausible deniability," subversiveness, manipulation, and arguably, laziness. Each has an attempted justification. Much effort is being expended to erode the foundations that this nation was built on, usually unwittingly. I challenge this publication and the author to try to help repair the foundation in the future.

The excuse of "I was just trying to be funny" is insufficient. As the company clown, I've learned that it is important for farce to be very clearly conveyed. Your publication is in a position of responsibility, and upon reflection I believe you will see that many readers will see an endorsement of unethical behaviors, and that the net effect of the feature's publication was negative.

Nuclear Debate
James C. Breeding, P.E.
Santa Clara, Calif.

To the Editor: In a letter to the editor in the August issue, Sidney Goodman stated that the Three Mile Island accident "produced stillborn and deformed farm animals on a scale
that farmers had not encountered throughout generations ...."

I am somewhat familiar with the TMI accident and its aftermath. I have never seen a credible report that has shown any lasting negative effects of the accident on the people or the environment. (That also includes farm animals.) The only health effects that are known to have occurred were caused by stress and anxiety.

While Goodman cites "independent studies" as sources for his assertions, he does not name any specific source. Might the reason for that be that these studies were made by anti-nuclear advocacy groups, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace, which are known to be biased.

I support free speech, but that right must be accompanied by responsibility, especially in a publication like ME. Shame on you and Mr. Goodman for spreading anti-nuclear propaganda.

Editor's note: Asked about his sources concerning agricultural problems, Sidney Goodman cited the testimony of a veterinarian, Robert Weber, in a 1980 hearing of the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, and coverage of the incident published by the Baltimore News-American. Goodman, who is secretary of the North Jersey Section of ASME, said he is also an active member of Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

To the Editor: It is generally believed that carbon dioxide released by fossil fuel-burning power plants is causing global warming, which is doing environmental damage. Use of nuclear power plants instead of fossil fuel power plants is being advocated, as they do not release carbon dioxide.
While global warming will do tremendous damage, much of the Earth will remain habitable. Wastes from nuclear power plants have very long lives. However carefully one may store the waste, in the long run natural phenomena such as earth- quakes and tsunamis, in addition to human actions such as wars, could eventually release them into oceans, rivers, ground water, and atmosphere. This could make the entire planet uninhabitable.

Editor's note: The writer is a Fellow of ASME and ASHRAE whose areas of specialty are heat transfer and air conditioning. His experience also includes working for 20 years in the nuclear power industry.

To the Editor: William Billet's letter in the September issue suggested that nuclear power advocates live for three years near Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the Washington spent fuel site. I question these references.

The Chernobyl design did not have the redundant safety systems of U.S. or any other Western reactors. It was the product of a flawed and doomed political system. Three Mile Island was a success; the safety systems worked; no one was injured, and no one should hesitate to live near there. At the Washington site, don't the workers go there every day, with their dosimeter badges to confirm that they are safe?

Sloganeering with scary-sounding locations is not a good way to convince engineers of any point of view.

To the Editor: Regarding the September issue and the Letters to the Editor, I must express my disappointment in the decision to publish a particular anti-nuclear opinion.

Additional waste is a downside to the expansion of our nuclear power generating capacity, but it does not, in my opinion, outweigh the enormous benefits. While I favor a discussion on this issue, I must protest when the exchange turns into unfounded propaganda.

Your decision to publish a letter from Fairmont, Minn., was irresponsible for two reasons: 1) There was no fallout from Three Mile Island because it had a containment—a marvelous example of how safe Western reactors are, even when all else fails, and 2) Chernobyl did not have a containment—one of many design features that made this type of reactor unsafe.

As engineers, we are expected to apply our knowledge for the betterment of mankind and not to misinform because of our irrational fears. I encourage all who wish to express an opinion to do a little research first. Let the facts speak and you will find that clean, safe nuclear energy is the best solution for our growing energy needs.

To the Editor: Your August issue featured a short article, "Engineers Well Prepared," (News & Notes) by Alan S. Brown, which posed the question, "Are engineers emerging from U.S. colleges better prepared than they were 10 years ago?" The question was answered in the affirmitive: "measurably so."

The survey-based data suggest universities are devoting more class time to important skills that are difficult to quantify, such as teamwork, communication, and lifelong learning. That more time in class is devoted to such topics is likely true; that students are "measurably" better in them remains uncertain. The ability to develop true metrics of these skills is imprecise, at best.

What is left unanswered is how students of today compare to those of 1994 in other important, measurable skills—for example, the ability to determine the forces and moments in a truss, calculate the thermal efficiency of a power cycle, or write and debug a computer code. Our limited local evidence suggests that such skills are no better than those of 10 years ago, and perhaps worse.

We encourage ABET [which commissioned the survey] and Mr. Brown to ask other more penetrating and skeptical questions before reaching Panglossian conclusions. Based on our experience with non-U.S. citizens enrolled in our graduate program, we suspect our worldwide competitors may be using different and perhaps more useful metrics to assess their undergraduate engineering education.

Editor's note: The writers are members of the faculty for aerospace and mechanical engineering at the University of Notre Dame.

To the Editor: In a generally well-written article entitled "Easy on the Gas" (July), Harry Hutchinson cites "energy independence" and cost savings as reasons to develop more energy-efficient cars. Why does he fail to include global warming (or climate change) as a motivation to reduce fossil fuel consumption?

This omission is especially puzzling, given that in his concluding sentence, he asks, "How deep a footprint do we want to leave in the world where our kids will have to walk?"

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

© 2006 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers