State Rep. Sarah Edwards will leave the State House after five terms in office, reports the Brattleboro Reformer:

Edwards told the Reformer that she is retiring from politics to spend more time working with a family foundation that is developing a model that can be applied to the preservation of coral reefs around the world.

(The story currently posted on the Reformer’s website is very brief; a longer story is promised in the Tuesday edition.)

Edwards is one of five Progressives in the House, and is the longest-serving Progressive. She’s been a vocal opponent of Vermont Yankee, and has been strongly involved in a variety of environmental issues.

Additional comments are welcome from those more knowledgeable about Edwards, and what her departure will mean for the House and the Progressive Party.    

Long time GMD Front Pager Julie Waters passed away this afternoon. I came back to write a few words that will be totally inadequate, and I imagine the other folks here will write their own diaries as well (and although I’m not a publisher/contributor any more, I’d like to suggest those that are consider re-promoting some of Julie’s best stuff from over the years this week).

In 2006 I was making as much noise as I possibly could to put Peter Welch into office, rather than GOP candidate Martha Rainville. At that point, I couldn’t really muster up enough noise to amount to much, though.

Then I, like virtually everyone else in Vermont, read the story about how a lowly blogger had noticed that Rainville’s web site had material plagiarized from other websites. Sure, the Rainville campaign had already made a string of self-sabotaging blunders, but this particular gaffe was bigger, louder, and more costly. The Rainville campaign never recovered.

I knew then that I had to pull this “Julie Waters” person onto Green Mountain Daily. Thankfully, she was quick to sign on – and it turned out we’d already met back when I was Field Director for the Clavelle campaign, and had recruited her wife Cyndi to be a volunteer.

The first time I saw Julie back in, I guess, 2004, she was playing guitar on an outdoor stage in Bellows Falls. I remember what struck me at the time (other than how well she was playing) was how focused she was on what she was doing. Some guitarists in venues like that are flailing around, talking to the crowd, making jokes, whatever – and that’s fine – but Julie seemed to have all her focus trained on every note.

Julie focused on many things: guitar, banjo, blogging, photography, teaching, programming – and making the world a better place. She could have laser-like focused intensity at times, whether it was while skewering a political target, promoting a cause, or just being funny. It was extraordinary how Julie could express herself with fluency in so many media: words, music, photos, probably others.

It was the highest honor and privilege to work with, and get to know her.

It’s hard for me to know what kind of send-off Julie would’ve appreciated. I’ve known her for several years now… hung with her at the barbecues, went to her wedding reception… but never really got to know her well. I guess the distance between Washington and Windham Counties was a bit too much for that. There was a time when she stood ready to take the helm of GMD, until it turned out I wasn’t leaving, and then when I did leave, I knew she was too sick to be pulled into it to that degree – of course I was assuming she would get better, as probably everyone was.

Her not being here anymore is going to seem very unreal for a long time, probably forever. Before my retirement from GMD, I’d written several memorials on this site, some to people I’ve known, worked with or liked – but I never ever imagined I’d be writing one like this.

Julie was a special person. She was talented, funny, brash, smart, challenging, inspired, inspiring and very very very good (and for those who know me, you know that last word is what I consider to be the highest praise there is).

Rest in Peace, Julie. We love you, and you will be missed and remembered.

And you made a difference. You left the world a little better than it was when you got here, and better than it would’ve been if you hadn’t shown up.

And that is what it’s all about, isn’t it?

Bravo.

Well, well. Three members of Bruce Lisman’s supposedly nonpartisan Campaign for Vermont made an appearance at a legislative hearing last week — an appearance special enough for CFV to put out a news release. And you’ll never guess what they talked about.

Yep, high taxes, electricity costs, and uncertaintly over health care reform. Three talking points that are high on Lisman’s list and also — purely coincidentally, I’m sure — key VTGOP campaign issues. But before we get to that, let’s take a quick look at CFV’s website, which has sprouted a poll question. I’m sure it’s a fair, unbiased attempt to gauge the opinions of Vermonters on a key issue facing the state.

NOT.

Should the legislature allow, as the federal law allows, citizens and small businesses the choice to purchase their health insurance inside and outside of the Vermont Health Care Exchange [sic; there is no question mark at the end of the sentence.]

— Yes, I think everyone should be allowed to choose where they purchase their insurance.

— No, I think only employees of big businesses and members of public unions should be allowed the choice of where they purchase their insurance.

I’ve written about Bruce Lisman and the CFV several times now. And this kind of BS is exactly why. CFV claims to be a nonpartisan group trying to ensure a better future for all Vermonters. Bruce Lisman makes all kinds of soothing noises about being positive, building consensus, and growing the economy while maintaining “an unwavering commitment to social responsibility and environmental stewardship.” (from CFV’s website)

But then he pulls crap like this. And he fills our airwaves with radio ads that are clearly aimed at reinforcing Republican ideology, with an occasional token gesture toward the center. (Never the left.) It’s this monumental, and patently obvious, hypocrisy and double-dealing that gets me so irritated with CFV. I’d be happier if they simply changed their name to “Campaign to Supplement an Ineffectual Vermont GOP Through Undisclosed Large Contributions From a Wealthy Vermonter.”

Sorry if the acronym CSIVGOPTULCFWV is a bit unwieldy, but it’s a hell of a lot closer to the truth.

And if you don’t believe me, just ask El Jefe General John McClaughry, Vice President of the Ethan Allen Institute and ruthless advocate for free-market economics:

“If there’s one Vermonter of distinction, ability and vision that Vermonters ought to listen to in these trying economic times, it should be Bruce Lisman,” said EAI VP John McClaughry.

After the jump: a Lisman mugshot, and Republican talking points on display.

I found that little gem in an announcement (pictured nearby, viewable in larger type here, love the mugshot) of a 2010 lecture by Bruce Lisman on growing Vermont’s economy, an event co-sponsored by — yep — the Ethan Allen Institute. All I can say is anyone who attracts the admiration of El Jefe General immediately earns my skepticism and mistrust.

(And anyone who would put out a flyer for a lecture entitled “Finding Skin” with a mugshot-style photo of a Hannibal Lecter lookalike is either absolutely clueless or has a wonderfully subversive sense of humor.)  

Now, on to the legislative testimony of three CFV “Partners”: Marc Sherman, owner of Stowe Mercantile*; Sean Walsh, General Manager of PBM Nutritionals, a Milton-based maker of infant formula sold under a variety of brand names; and William Sayre, identified as President of Duncan Hermanson Corporation, but known to WDEV listeners as Rob Roper’s frequent guest, sidekick, and substitute host on “True North Radio,” the conservative talk show underwritten by the Ethan Allen Institute. Sayre also happens to be the board chairman of Associated Industries of Vermont — another “nonpartisan” group. Not.

*Not to be confused with the other Marc Sherman, owner of Outdoor Gear Exchange in Burlington. They are two different people. Funny world, innit?

According to the news release, Sherman “expressed concerns about the cost and choices being proposed in Vermont’s Health Care Exchange.” A line that could have been lifted from Lisman’s health care radio ad, which is one long, loud anti-reform dog whistle.

That’s all for Mr. Sherman. On to Bill Sayre, who repeated his frequent contention that “Vermont’s tax burden has become one of the highest in the nation relative to income.” He’s been repeating this howler at every opportunity for years now.

And he knows it’s a howler. See, back in 2009, he was named one of three members of the Blue Ribbon Tax Structure Commission, a panel appointed by the Legislature to look into Vermont’s tax system. The Commission’s report was issued in 2011, and included this assessment of Vermont’s tax burden:

Vermont’s choice of tax base makes tax rates unnecessarily high as federal deductions pass through and reduce taxable income. The effective tax rates paid by Vermonters are competitive with other states.

The panel also debunked the myth that taxes are forcing people to leave Vermont.

Available data suggests that those entering Vermont earn more than those leaving. Also, Vermont’s top tax bracket is populated by high-income events, not high-income earners. While the data cannot determine something as subjective as why people are moving, it does demonstrate that definitive claims that the wealthy are moving out and about the effect of this migration are more complicated than currently assumed.

Blue Ribboner Bill Sayre disagreed with pretty much all the Commission’s conclusions, and submitted his own long-winded “Minority Perspective” alongside the Commission’s. In response to the finding that Vermont’s effective tax rates are competitive, he wrote the following:

Regardless of the tax mixture, Vermont’s tax burden is too high.

So he’s shifted from an evidence-based conclusion to an opinion: Screw the details, our taxes are too damn high. And on the subject of Vermonters fleeing our high taxes, he acknowledges that the data doesn’t support his contention. But…

Overall, Vermonters should not be satisfied if anyone is leaving Vermont due to high taxes, and there is substantial anecdotal evidence that it happens frequently.

So his argument boils down to (a) our taxes should be low enough to satisfy the most ardent libertarian, and (b) screw the data, I’ve got anecdotes.

So Bill Sayre exited the Tax Commission with his beliefs intact, and he continues to spout those beliefs even though he’s had a thorough exposure to contrary evidence.  And this week, he shamelessly peddled them to a joint legislative committee. Y’know, Mr. Lisman, for a nonpartisan, you have some funny friends.

Finally, Mr. Walsh, who made an odd and irrelevant point about electricity costs.

Mr. Walsh pointed out that Vermont may have one of the lowest electrical costs in New England, but that his cost per kilowatt hour was already double that of the company’s Idaho operation.

Ah, the classic Vermont/Idaho comparison. Like apples and, er, potatoes. Doug Hoffer, once and future (we hope) candidate for Auditor, posted a very cogent comment about this CFV news release. In it, Hoffer points out that Idaho has “several enormous hydro facilities. Indeed, 76% of Idaho’s electricity is generated from big hydro.”

So comparing Vermont to Idaho on electricity costs is like comparing Vermont to Saudi Arabia on oil reserves, or Vermont to Florida on average winter temperatures. Sorry, Sean, we can’t match Idaho and never will.

Walsh’s real concern was the Democrats’ commitment to renewable energy (like, ahem, hydro?), which he warns will increase electricity costs and, presumably, force our industries to move to Idaho.  

So there you go. Under the aegis of the “nonpartisan” Campaign for Vermont, three business leaders go to Montpelier and reinforce key Republican talking points. To paraphrase John McCain, that’s not nonpartisanship you can believe in.  

In March, Vermont’s Arnie and (our own) Maggie Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates  penned a report for Friends of the Earth,  which prompted the NRC to put an indefinite hold on operation of the San Onofre nuclear facility in California.

In his analysis of available public information, Gundersen has concluded that “both units 2 and 3 have experienced extraordinarily rapid degradation of their steam generator tubes.” He has concluded that the “severe short-term steam generator degradation” could lead to a “large risk of tube failure” and result in “an uncontrolled release of radiation into the environment.”

Now we are hearing some details of the NRC response.  After touring the facility NRC Chairman Jaczko

had this to say about the issue of tube degradation, accelerated by design changes, that was raised in Fairewinds’ report:

The NRC “wants to get to the bottom” of the plant’s problems, he said. “The issue of the steam generators is a very serious issue.”

“We have to have assurance of safety before we will allow the plant to restart,” he added.

Could this be signaling a change in the mindset at the NRC?

Is it too much to hope that they might reexamine their hasty extension of VY’s license in light of lessons from Fukushima?

Of course it is.

How fitting that this news roughly coincides with the 33rd anniversary of the infamous accident at Three Mile Island.

A third of a century later, the official line on the amount of radiation released at TMI, held by both the industry and the NRC, still differs markedly from that of Mr. Gundersen, who was sacked by his employers after coming forward in 1990 as the key whistleblower. For some perspective on this “difference of opinion,” have a look at this interesting piece on how, in the past, truth has been bent to serve industry purposes.

Just to wrap things up, I thought I’d embed a Rachel Madow discussion of Fukushima that brings her special talent for articulation to bear on the realities of this ongoing disaster, plus a look at the politics of nuclear waste.  

Have a peaceful Easter!  Strike that…I wish you an UNEVENTFUL Easter!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

No doubt many of you daily subscribers to the Freeps received a letter with your paper this morning, informing you that Gannett was about to institute yet another change; this time to your home delivery.

It seems that our paper will no longer be flung up on the front porch, an arrangement that has been quite agreeable to me.  It will, instead, be inserted in a tube at the end of our non-existant driveway.

“To provide you the best customer service that we can”

I have emphasized what I believe is the operative part of that quote, which might be expanded thusly:

…while rigorously guarding our bottom line.

The letter ends with the assurance that our subscription rate will not be affected by this “improvement.”

For all the other frustrated Free Press subscribers out there, I decided to share my e-mailed response to the Distribution Manager, Patrick McDonough:

Dear Mr. McDonough,

Thank you for your letter of April 6, proposing to change the manner in which our daily paper is delivered.  Frankly, this has me puzzled.  Where exactly do you propose to “place” this tube?  I don’t expect you’ll start drilling into the exterior of my house, will you?  We have an ample sheltered front porch on which the paper lands nicely without incident on most days.

(continued after the “fold”)

We live in a big house on ……..St., a very busy street adjacent to downtown.  We do not have a driveway in front of our house.  Do you propose to install your tube on the parking strip in front of our house?  If so, you might find that the City of St. Albans takes issue with that arrangement, since this is an historic district where every change must be run by the planning commission.  You may also find that the number of calls from me for missed papers increases substantially, since ….. St. in front of my house serves as primary parking for downtown during business hours, and many may find it convenient to “pick-up” the paper from my delivery tube on their way down to work.

Let’s see, what are all the things I now “love” about the changes proposed by Gannett to Free Press print service?  There is the shift to tabloid “with color on every page,”

so I can look forward to not being too troubled by the depth of my news.  Then there was the sudden switch from color to black and white for the interior pages of the Sunday comics…I guess that would be classed as robbing Peter to pay Paul?

Now, my paper is to be delivered curbside for the enjoyment of the first lucky, if slightly less than honest, passerby.

How much for a digital subscription instead?  Oh, that’s right, if I choose digital I will be further relieved of the burden of excess information because the text available online will represent an abbreviated version of the full paper.

Well I’m pretty much damned if I do and damned if I don’t, am I not?

Thank you for your attention.

UPDATE: See correction and additional information in the comments from Allen Gilbert, Executive Director of the Vermont chapter of the ACLU, who has been working on this issue.

Jack McCullough

The Vermont State Senate is considering a bill that would allow law enforcement officers access to the Vermont Prescription Monitoring System, a statewide database that includes information on the patient, the prescriber, and the drug prescribed, for each prescription written for numerous medications.  Vermont Digger:  

In a joint hearing with the Senate committees on Judiciary and Health and Welfare, law enforcement officers tried to convince senators that allowing trained officers to request personal information surrounding controlled substances would help them deal with the state’s widespread prescription drug abuse problem.

We certainly have a huge problem with prescription drug abuse. And access to the database would certainly give police a new investigative tool to fight that problem.

It would also give police access to a broad array of unrelated information. It would also fundamentally alter the nature and purpose of the VPMS. And it would undermine the assurances given to the people of Vermont when the VPMS came into existence a mere three years ago.

In fact, I wasn’t sure where I came down on this issue until I read the warm fuzzy words on the state Health Department’s website, and realized that the Senate bill would constitute a big fat bait-and-switch:

The purpose of the database is to provide timely and useful information to both licensed prescribers and pharmacists. The VPMS will also help health care providers identify patients who may need treatment for drug abuse or addiction.

Only licensed health care providers and pharmacists, registered with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, and registered with the VPMS, will have access to information in the database.

The VPMS was sold to us as a way to help providers and pharmacists manage patient treatment, not as a law enforcement tool. Even state licensing boards can’t directly access the database; they have to request information regarding a specific investigation. The bill before the Senate would give police direct, unfettered access.

After the jump: false assurances, harbingers of abuse, and why this might actually be irrelevant to fighting drug abuse.

Oh, but the access would only be given to “trained” officers. Whatever “trained” means. And we never see “trained” officers abuse their authority, do we? Was Lt. John Pike “trained” in crowd control measures?

Under what circumstances could the police access the database? Let’s say an officer conducts a routine traffic stop and the driver is acting a little strange. Can the officer call up a “trained” investigator to check the driver against the database? See what drugs he might have taken? Can a “trained” officer call up the prescription records of his ex-wife and see if she’s on antidepressants?

Generally, I don’t like slippery-slope arguments. They’re routinely abused in political debate to attack reasonable proposals by linking them to highly unlikely consequences. (e.g. Obamacare will lead to a government broccoli mandate.) But this isn’t an overhyped extrapolation of several-steps-removed consequences; this is a one-step, direct link. This is standing at the top of a slippery slope with a kind-hearted Senator behind your back asking if you want a push.

There are a whole lot of digital databases out there, and more are being created all the time. I’m sure a lot of them could be very useful to police. It could make law enforcement more efficient — if it doesn’t simply drown the police in a tsunami of data. (The biggest barrier to child-porn investigations isn’t information; it’s the personnel needed to do something useful with all the information they have.) But in a democratic society, there has to be a balance between the interests of law enforcement and the privacy rights of individuals.

There are other objections to this proposal. For one, the VPMS is actually doing a good job at its intended function: helping doctors and pharmacists discover prescription drug abusers. They communicate all the time. Doctors routinely get calls from pharmacists when there’s a questionable prescription on their desk. The vast majority of health care professionals want to prevent prescription drug abuse. (Of course, they don’t go to the cops; they do their best to treat the individual.)

Okay, you might say, if that’s true, why do we have a prescription drug abuse problem?

I don’t know, but my guess is that it has nothing to do with doctors and pharmacists. I’d bet the bulk of the problem comes from illegal trafficking, drugs brought in from out of state or Canada. Having our “trained” officers combing through prescription information won’t help them track down any off-the-books offenders; indeed, it might be counterproductive.

But it’s a shiny new toy, and the cops love a shiny new toy — whether it’s a Taser, a mini-tank, or a big ol’ database.

The Fox News Attack Machine has reached its hairy tentacles into the Green Mountain State, and picked up on a bit of undone housekeeping from President Obama’s visit last Friday.

A Vermont police chief said President Obama’s re-election campaign has failed to reimburse local taxpayers after his officers had to work overtime to provide security at two fundraising events.

Trevor Whipple, the police chief in South Burlington, told Fox News that his department incurred $4,200 in overtime expenses as a result of separate fundraising events featuring President Obama and the First Lady.

“At the end of the day, I’ve submitted an invoice and they haven’t paid,” Whipple told Fox News.

Quick work. And big expectations. The event happened one week ago; you totted up a bill and sent it to the campaign, maybe Monday or Tuesday? Allow a couple days for mail delivery, it’s Wednesday or Thursday. And here it is Friday, and you’re complaining that they haven’t paid.  

On the other hand, Burlington’s police chief is complaining about a much older unpaid bill, so maybe Chief Whipple is just trying to transition from invoice to complaint as quickly as possible.  

Burlington police chief Andi Higbee is exercised over an unpaid $2,100 tab for police overtime during Michelle Obama’s visit to the Queen City in June 2011. (The Fox reporter screws up that detail, but never mind.)

“Here we are in April and we still have this outstanding debt of approximately $2,100,” Burlington police chief Andi Higbee told television station WCAX.

The chiefs’ contention is that the Obama visits were not Presidential, but campaign-related. And therefore, the campaign should pay up.

They may have a point. But this line has gotten extremely blurry over the years, and the Bush/Cheney Administration was one of the worst offenders. Their appearances were almost always before carefully-vetted audiences, and virtually never in a truly public setting.

In any case, a strong argument can be made that a Presidential visit is, in itself, a good thing for a community. Or, in other words:

“The president is the president wherever he goes and whatever he does,” Vermont Democratic Party Chairman Jake Perkinson told Fox News.

In my opinion, the two police chiefs come across as sourpusses. And they’ve willingly provided one more talking point for the Fox News Attack Machine.  

Advice to Republican gubernatorial candidate, Randy Brock:  remove cranium from nether regions.

You will not win friends and influence Vermont voters by refusing to support a resolution of protest against the Supreme’s “Citizens United” decision; not even as weakly as you just did:

“One of the problems is using a sledgehammer to crush grapes,” he said. “If the focus is money in politics, then perhaps a more narrow approach is warranted.”

In retrospect, that sledgehammer-meets-grapes analogy must sound as absurd to you as it does to us, given that that is precisely how the Citizens United decision could be characterized.  

By comparison the Vermont Senate resolution has roughly the impact of a $2.00 tack-hammer.

I don’t know what carat the RNC has been dangling hypnotically before your nose, but it ain’t worth spit here in Vermont.  I write as one of your immediate constituents, knowing that you are, on the whole, an ethical sort of guy, even though I seldom agree with the positions you adopt.

I find it difficult to believe that you, like fellow Republican, Peg Flory, think reversing Citizens United could have any effect on municipalities, since you certainly know their privileges are statutorily governed.

The Citizens United decision and the floodgates of influence-peddling it legitimized are an affront to American democracy and an insult to the stature of the Supreme Court.  Nowhere is that felt more strongly than here in the state of Vermont.

You would do well to remember that the next time you are tempted to make a gesture to appease the money-gods in DC.

Shap Smith has announced that he will not run for Attorney General. Instead, he’ll seek re-election to the House and another term as Speaker.

After careful consideration and valuable conversations with many Vermonters from around the state, I have decided to seek reelection as state representative, and if elected, will ask my colleagues to support me once again to lead them as Speaker of the House.  I see many opportunities to build a stronger Vermont by enhancing our education, tax, and healthcare systems, and I believe I can make the greatest positive impact in those areas as Speaker of the House.

My four years as Speaker have been the most challenging, yet fulfilling years of my time in state government.  We have made great progress in many areas: guiding the state out of a deep recession, building the infrastructure necessary for a strong economy, bringing civil rights to all Vermonters by passing marriage equality, and recovering from a devastating natural disaster.  There is still work to be done and I hope to remain in the legislature to see it through.

This leaves a two-way Dem primary between incumbent Bill Sorrell and Chittenden County State’s Attorney TJ Donovan. Last week, Donovan announced his campaign team. Don’t know if that scared Shap off; probably not. More likely, a lot of those many Vermonters told him it’d be a waste of talent for the Dems to have two good young candidates going for the same office. And, all things considered, he’s a pretty good Speaker. Not that I agree with him 100%, but he does keep things running.

And now, on to the primary…  

(I have long said that I would be FAR more comfortable with nuclear power as a domestic energy source if the industry were nationalized and placed under the control of the Department of the Navy. Bumped. Bulk of content moved under the jump.   – promoted by kestrel9000)

Thank you Sue Prent for writing about the danger from the Entergy Plant in Vernon known as Vermont Yankee. As I have written before, I assembled reactors at the time General Electric designed the reactor installed at Vernon. At that time, when I read what was proposed for the electric power industry, I knew that trouble was coming. No reactor should be operated for profit!

In those years, I encountered a reactor control drive mechanisms that came accompanied by the vendor verification of quality. A book one-quarter of inch thick accompanied it. Every box of the vendor’s shipping inspection report was initialed. Resistance between the terminals for connection of the reactor control rod position indicators was measured and initialed for a reactor control rod position sensor that was not installed beneath the connector. The heads of the screws holding the connector to the mechanism had holes for wire through them and twisted between them to assure that they could not unscrew on their own.

It seemed that no one at the vendors plant had questioned the presence of a left over sensor prior to shipment. There was one very embarrassed  field representative who had to cut the wires, remove the screws and try to explain the false readings and initials for his employer.

On another occasion, the source range instrumentation for a reactor could not be made to operate according the manual received with it. Russ Medbery, ship’s manager, assigned the task to resolve the issue to me. After three weeks of work in the shipyard’s instrument laboratory, I was able to report to Russ that operation according to the manual was unacceptable. General Electric had contracted with the DuMont Corporation to design this critical instrumentation.

The source range nuclear instrumentation for a power plant measures the initial background radiation in a reactor vessel emitted by an isotopic source of neutrons. That background radiation is the basis of determining when the reactor is approaching criticality. Criticality is when the fission reaction is self-sustaining. Thermal neutrons, those that have slowed from their initial energy as fast neutrons when emitted from an uranium fission, are slightly more likely to sustain the reaction than when immediately emitted. The difference between whether the reaction is controllable depends upon whether slow or fast neutrons are continuing the reaction. If the thermal neutrons sustain the reaction, there is control. If fast, or prompt neutrons sustain the reaction there is no control.

The last paragraph is written so that readers will become a little more knowledgeable about the seriousness of the source range instrumentation. After criticality, other instrumentation is used to control an operating reactor. DuMont went bankrupt during the vendor process and General Electric took over the project. It must have been discovered that the instruments would not meet the lifetime specifications for the radio tubes in use at the time. This was changed by reducing the voltages in the instruments by adjustment of variable resistors in the circuits. The manual was changed accordingly to be in agreement. When I realized that all of the variable resistors were at one end of their adjustment or the other end, I realized that the circuit was not being operated as designed. I reported my findings to Russ and General Electric started shouting that I had no business analyzing their provided instrumentation. Too bad! The buck ended with those of us who had to test and operate the reactor before the Navy would accept the ship.

As stated above, I do not believe profit and nuclear power are compatible. I will go a little further than that. I do not believe that anyone who is unwilling to voluntarily live next to a nuclear reactor with his family has the right to make decisions concerning them, their maintenance or their financing. You really need to put up or shut up about nuclear power. Nuclear power is here to stay! Mankind has never abandoned any source of energy once it has been discovered. Nuclear power will not be an exception. The US Navy has successfully operated reactors to propel its ships since 1954. That said, there is an immense organizational difference between military and commercial operations. I stand that accepted corporate practices are unacceptable for the operation of nuclear reactors.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not satisfactorily regulate nuclear power. It is well established that the majority of the commissioners of that organization have connections and loyalties to the industry that they have been politically appointed to regulate. In my opinion, they are slick, over-paid shills for the nuclear industry, slippery like snot on a glass door knob.

The above are examples of the misrepresentations I encountered by corporations in my nuclear work. If anyone, including David Usher, believes what Entergy or any corporation tells them, they are foolish. Corporations will write and say anything to close a moneymaking deal. Goldman-Sachs is dumping its incestment in a company pimping under-age young women to make money. I believe somebody in the Goldman firm knew that they had peddled financial incest to a blind trust in the name of Ann Romney, wife of Republican U.S. presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. Your local ‘trust’ (sic) company has sold mortgages to firms that have sold collections of them for investment. There are now property mortgages in the US which multiple investment instruments claim to own. Who owns yours? The mortgage market is rife with outright fraud. Your interest counts for nothing with corporations. Bloomberg’s financial news carried an article, today, in which someone associated with finance states, bluntly, that nobody puts the customer ahead of his own interests. That is true! Do not ever believe what a corporation tells you.

Do not allow any Entergy or any corporation to control your personal future or that of the State of Vermont!!!!

April 2, 2012

PS To the Editor, the term ‘financial incestment’ was originally a typo. Since, it fits my opinion of the financial industry, I did not correct it.