 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
 Farmland and doctrine EDITOR: In Louise S. Greenfield's article concerning farmland in the November 1980 issue, she indicates that Illinois is losing farmland at the rate of 100,000 acres per year, when in fact during the period 1974 through 1978 Illinois actually gained 966,819 acres of cropland. It is interesting that Ms. Greenfield, as most environmentalists, thoughtlessly quoted figures which upon close examination are on many occasions exactly the opposite of the truth. Charles L. Bartholomew, Ph.D. [In reply to Dr. Bartholomew, Louis S. Greenfield notes: "The 100,000 acre figure was the most widely cited statistic I came across in my six months of research. It has been offered by both the U.S. and Ilhnois departments of agriculture, it has been widely adopted by government — including the Governor's Office, the Soil Conservation Service and the Farmer's Home Administration — and the press, as well as such groups as the Illinois Rural Planning Council, the Ilhnois State Chamber of Commerce and the Task Force on the Future of Illinois. "As I noted in my article, there is a certain amount of farmland in reserve. This land, however, is finite in quantity, and much of it is of a quality inferior to the primeland which is being irreversibly converted to nonfarm uses. Thoughtless conversion of prime land — rather than responsible use of existing urban resources and less-than-prime rural land — cannot be balanced out indefinitely by the bringing of reserve land into production. I consider this a matter of common sense rather than an environmentalist doctrine." — Editor] Wastes at Sheffield EDITOR: The "Science" column on nuclear wastes at Sheffield in the August edition of Illinois Issues has been read in our office and the consensus of opinion is that it is a balanced, informed review of the history of the Sheffield site. Our one concern relates to a possible inference that might be drawn that NECO buried 34 pounds of Plutonium in violation of our license authority. This is, of course, not the case. Charles F. Eason, Jr. [In reply to Mr. Eason, "Science" columnist Keith Jackson explains: "Mr. Easton refers to the statement, 'No transuranics (metals with higher atomic numbers than uranium) were permitted; however, about 34 pounds of plutonium, a transuranic, were buried at the site among nearly three million cubic feet of waste under lease and license requirements.' It should not be inferred from that sentence that Nuclear Engineering buried 34 pounds of plutonium in violation of lease and license authority. It should be understood that the disposal of the plutonium was authorized under NECO's lease and license authority. According to NECO, the plutonium accumulated to 34 pounds from several thousand shipments of waste which contained traces of plutonium." — Editor] February 1981/Illinois Issues/28 |
|
|