Letters | Downside of natural gas

none | Boulder Weekly


Correction: The photograph that accompanied the article “Shades of White” in our July 7 issue was incorrectly attributed. Credit for the photograph should have gone to Dave Shults. Boulder Weekly regrets the error.

Downside of natural gas

(Re: “Alternative transportation gaining speed,” Boulderganic column, July 7.) Elizabeth Miller’s article on the issues of the natural gas bill H.R. 1380 did not address one major issue. Encouraging the use of natural gas also encourages the practice of drilling using “fracking” techniques. “Fracking” adds toxins to the ground, which eventually poisons the aquifer. Additionally, the release of natural gas from shale deposits means that the natural gas bubbles up to the surface. It seems to me that breaking up the shale layers of ground under our feet may destabilize large areas. I hope that before rushing into this “too good to be true” technology our legislators do due-diligence research.

Lee Black/via Internet

Circumcision facts

(Re: “Circumcision revisited,” letters, July 7, and “To cut or not to cut,” Uncensored, June 23.) First of all, Craig Zalk mentions his own “facts” regarding circumcision that seem to be out of nowhere. The real fact of the matter is that the foreskin is not a birth defect. It has evolved over time to serve many functions perfectly without much attention or special care. If you look around, you’ll see that all mammals have one form or another of foreskin that serves their life and sexual habits perfectly.

American boys don’t need immediate surgical correction at birth! After only a few generations, Americans have completely forgotten that this all started to diminish sexual pleasure, and they were taught to think circumcision is normal and necessary. Cutting off a very specialized healthy organ that is working perfectly is not normal. We stopped doing “routine” tonsillectomies and appendectomies years ago.

True, some men are happy the way they are — but they also don’t know anything different. Many men, however, are unhappy that a part of their body was amputated without their consent, and also many have experienced adult complications because of being cut “too tight” or from irregular cuts. The vast majority of the world’s men are intact, and they are not having the “problems” that circumcision is supposed to solve.

Americans were intact until only 100 or so years ago, and many more young Americans are intact again. It is illegal to cut baby girls, and nearly every American is appalled at the idea.

So why do many people still consider it perfectly OK to amputate part of a boy’s sexual organs without his consent? Leaving boys alone and letting them grow up as nature intended is not a radical idea.

Jere DeBacker/Denver

The July 7 letter from Reston, Va., was a hoot! I have to ask myself: Does the writer have any idea that there is a large cottage industry supporting thousands of men who were circumcised (not for medical reasons), who are restoring their foreskins by stretching techniques developed over the past 50 years or so? Why on earth would all these men spend so much time doing this? In the words of the writer, are they unable to get their facts straight? Perhaps this writer represents a new American political trend: the pro-circumcision birther.

Edward Arnold/Boulder

I just wanted to express my gratitude for Pamela White’s article, “To Cut or Not to Cut.” Thanks for having the courage to print an article that supports the fact that circumcision is not medically necessary!

Camille Patton RN, IBCLC/Denver

Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com