FUEL: Nuclear is less harmful
At present, the Marden Estate has ‘hosts of golden daffodils’ to go with the many street names from Wordsworth’s Lake District.
Daffodils was just about the first real poem I remember from early school days, and it is likely that the participants in the Whitley Bay Poetry Festival found the same, teachers and children alike.
These daffodils are subject to careless damage, more by adults and their dogs than children.
Children have taken up the great issue of climate change worldwide, though too much staying off school has to be avoided.
Coun Green’s warnings of underage drinking (News Guardian, March 21) must be considered as more immediately necessary.
With regard to the letter in the same edition on the supposed merits of domestic wood-burning stoves, and anything similar, the idea that carefully conditioned wood logs are a sustainable biomass, contributing to environmental safety, is, in my view, a spurious argument.
As a retired long-time employee in the energy industries, I have a lot to answer for because all sorts of stuff was burned to produce heat and electricity. My excuse is that at my very modest seniority, I could not know any better and these industries were based on commercial practices of their time.
The supreme example of wood burning in the UK is the huge 3,600 megawatt power station, Drax, which has been progressively converted from coal to wood chips, this fuel imported in millions of tonnes.
Any so-called ‘classification’ by Defra, or indeed anyone else, that wood stoves are ‘acceptable, is out of date and quite absurd.
The River Tyne has been involved in importing wood chips.
That wonderful invention, the diesel engine, has also been shown to be a health menace so comparisons are absurd.
As someone in their mid-80s with COPD lung problems, I do not wish to leave present children with an environmental irreversible mess.
Nuclear power does not harm health as inadequately controlled wood does.
Mr AM Johnson