To the Editor:
Regarding WJ Hennigan’s “Victims of Nuclear Tests Deserve More Compensation” (Opinion, May 26):
The federal government’s nuclear weapons testing program was an attack on its own people, and it continued even after the Cold War ended.
Radioactive fallout traveled across the country, entering the body through breath, food, and water. Although officials denied any harm, Americans suffered and died from cancer caused by the fallout.
The 1990 Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was a first step toward compensating “downwinders” with cancer, but it was initially limited to people living in 20 counties in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. Current efforts to expand compensation are struggling to overcome resistance in Congress, and the law is set to expire on June 7 unless action is taken.
Despite mounting evidence of the damage, government inaction continues. Studies have found radioactive strontium-90 in milk and 320,000 baby teeth, proving that fallout is accumulating in the body. Early results from an ongoing health study show that Americans who died of cancer had more than twice the levels of strontium-90 in their baby teeth than healthy Americans.
“The injustice suffered by the victims of bomb testing is enormous. Instead of protecting our citizens, our federal government has harmed them and failed to take responsibility. It is vital that our leaders finally recognize the true impact of bomb testing and expand the law. We cannot allow the law to lapse without doing anything.”
Christie Brinkley
Sag Harbor, New York
The model author is the vice president of the Radiation and Public Health Project.
To the Editor:
We must finally close the door on nuclear testing for good.
The U.S. Senate should approve the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which would ban all nuclear test explosions. The Senate’s failure to approve the treaty has stalled progress on nuclear arms control and disarmament.
We need to take steps to ease international tensions and prevent a costly nuclear arms race with Russia and China. Ratifying the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be a peace settlement to other nuclear-armed states and would facilitate disarmament negotiations.
The alternative is to dive into a dangerous and costly nuclear arsenal buildup. Without diplomatic action, a return to nuclear testing will come back to haunt us for a long time.
Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy were right to seek a treaty to stop all nuclear testing. Today we must finish this work and take a giant step toward protecting the world from nuclear weapons.
William Lamberth
Cincinnati
He is the author of Paths to Peace: From Great Lakes Disarmament to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Should we be strict about apostrophes?
To the Editor:
Regarding John McWhorter’s article “Let’s Think Cool About Apostrophes” (Opinion, May 27):
McWhorter’s words evolution” “And punctuation” misses the point. The reason apostrophes are being abolished is because of punctuation issues. Degenerate Texting and other shorthand methods have lost much of the beauty and clarity of the English language.
Vicki Oliver
new york
He is the author of Power Sales Words: How to Write, Say It and Sell It with Sizzle.
To the Editor:
John McWhorter has said that insisting on strict correct use of English “is in fact a kind of classism,” and while that is a valid point, the opposite may also be true: the opportunity to maintain language standards is open to all; no one can be denied it.
This is the same invitation that the fictional Professor Henry Higgins extended to Eliza Doolittle, who, at the end of the story, navigates the perils of Spanish rain and fools the famous linguist into believing he is royalty.
Evelyn Waugh said, “The English language is so rich in comparison that it can convey any thought with precision and grace.” Some would argue that the opportunity to do so, along with broadening the world and making library cards available to all residents, is one of the most powerful tools for eliminating class discrimination.
Margaret McGeer
Greenwich, Connecticut
To the Editor:
As a retired English professor, I read with great interest an essay by John McWhorter in which he suggests (heretical!) that most apostrophes are probably unnecessary.
One advantage of his proposal is that it could potentially eliminate the overuse or incorrect use of apostrophes, which I’ll admit bothers me more than the omission of apostrophes.
As an example of this problem, I once glanced at a “Free Puppies for Sale” sign while driving down a local road. The author of this message must have remembered the possessive rule (putting an apostrophe before the “s”) he learned in grammar school and applied it diligently.
Admittedly, removing the apostrophe still leaves us with the deeper question of how much we’d pay for a free puppy.
Judith Balisong
Rice Lake, Wisconsin
Monitoring Legislative Initiatives is Important
To the Editor:
Regarding the article “A new centrism emerges in American politics” (May 19, front page):
David Leonhardt’s description of “new populist bipartisanship” is important for Americans to hear because it shows that good things are happening in Washington. But to deliver meaningful legislative victories for the American people and avoid the pitfalls of polarization, Democrats and Republicans need to work together and provide bipartisan, fact-based oversight of enacted policies.
Congress too often enacts solutions to major social problems without paying enough attention to implementing those programs effectively or ensuring transparency about their success. This can leave the intended beneficiaries of those programs disgruntled and disengaged from their government, ultimately leading to disillusionment and extremism.
The American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, and other bipartisan efforts require intense oversight by Congress and state legislatures to ensure that the enormous funds and powers bestowed upon them are used wisely. Even the products of neo-populist bipartisanship could be undone in just a few years without proper mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, coordinate, and communicate their implementation.
Jim Townsend
Detroit
The author is director of the Carl Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy at Wayne State University School of Law.
Congestion Charge
To the Editor:
Regarding “Congestion pricing likely to be a tool, not a solution, to tackle pollution” (news article, May 30):
The proposed congestion pricing program has been controversial, with strong arguments for and against.Here is a suggestion: The MTA and the Governor should announce that the congestion pricing program will begin as an experiment for a set period of time (say, six months or a year).
After that period, the program can be evaluated to determine its benefits and harms. After the evaluation, the program will likely be discontinued or modified to address problems and concerns.
Daniel Feld
new york
