Disney, DeSantis, Bible; Vero Beach unhoused; Gayle Harrell; Raisin' Cane Tour | Letters

Managing waste can help preserve our future

Landfills are commonly used to manage waste, but even the most advanced landfill liners will eventually break down, causing toxic chemicals to seep into the surrounding land and water.

These chemicals include heavy metals, volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, all of which can harm human health and the environment. Once these chemicals contaminate the soil, they can prevent plants from growing and reduce soil fertility. When they contaminate the groundwater, they can make the water unsafe to drink and harm aquatic life.

Preventing the seepage of toxic chemicals from landfills is critical to safeguarding the environment and public health. Advanced landfill liners like geomembranes and leachate collection systems can capture seepage before it can contaminate the environment. But eventually all liners will break down and fail.

In addition to landfill seepage, it is essential to note that toxic waste can travel up to 5 miles through bedrock, potentially contaminating groundwater sources beyond the landfill boundaries. This emphasizes the importance of properly managing and disposing of hazardous waste.

To address the problem of landfill seepage and reduce the need for landfills, waste reduction is an effective strategy. Waste reduction involves reducing the amount of waste produced through composting, recycling and purchasing products with minimal packaging. Another alternative is waste-to-energy technology, which converts waste into usable energy through incineration, gasification and pyrolysis. It is crucial to ensure that this technology is implemented in a safe and responsible manner.

Ultimately, reducing consumption, properly disposing of hazardous waste and exploring alternative waste management options are essential to addressing landfill seepage and protecting the environment and public health. By taking these steps, we can work toward a sustainable future.

Chrisi Thanos, Port St. Lucie

Cape Town program shows benefits of program for 'unhoused'

Sometimes a word change can be a game changer.

I heard a woman use the word "unhoused" recently instead of "homeless," and I think that places the issue in a more positive light. Unhoused removes a great deal of the negative stigma typically attached to the homeless. Use of the word could set a more positive tone as people gather around a table to address this pervasive issue as they work to come up with potential solutions.

In Cape Town, South Africa, unhoused individuals sign up to a program intended to get them back on their feet as being drug- and alcohol-free. With that step, they enter the program with mentor support. They each receive a chanteuse vest with insulated pickets.

This sounded similar to something mentioned recently in one of Laurence Reisman's recent columns regarding the unhoused in Vero Beach.

The unhoused arrive at a given point each morning for a hot breakfast. They are each given a sandwich and water on the way out the door. Then they are given a garbage bag and taken to a specific area to clean up trash.

At the end of the day, they are picked up, taken to their meeting point, where they have a hot dinner and receive a stipend. They most probably reside in the townships, a feature throughout South Africa.

So, according to my guide, this program is very successful. Cape Town and its environs are spotless! These people are helped physically and mentally; they receive two hot meals a day; lunch and a payment for services rendered. They are contributing to a community and presumably feel good about that.

I described this program publicly in Vero Beach several months ago and to Savannah city management. It’s a straightforward formula. Resolving the “unhoused” portion of the equation is complicated and takes commitment and participation of many diverse parties.

Barbara Ruddy, Vero Beach

DeSantis should read Bible to learn code on how to treat fellow Floridians

Under Ron DeSantis' Republican leadership, I guess we should ban the Bible, as God preached all men are created equal: Do unto others as you would do unto yourself.

God didn't condone lying, hatred, name-calling, etc. God preached love and understanding. Even if one doesn't agree with someone else, you don't attack people; you show through righteous living your morality.

Maybe people who watch a news show full of fear, lies and hate should pick up a copy of the Bible and read it before under DeSantis no DEI can be tolerated in the free state of Florida.

Gail Williams, Vero Beach

Here's how Disney World could end up with new moniker

Your readers should do the right thing and message or email their Florida representatives to stop messing around in Disney business. I would suggest that Florida representatives purchase Disney, then they could control all of Disney and rename it to DeSantis Land!

Rick Vaughn, Vero Beach

Large research studies key to physician recommendations of treatment

I appreciate Don Klein's passion in his recent letter, and I am glad he had a good outcome with proton beam treatment for prostate cancer, but anecdotes are not evidence of superiority of proton beam versus intensity modulated radiation therapy.

Most men will have a good result with either IMRT or proton treatment, and the only way to compare them is with a large research study. In the largest published study, more than 12,000 men who underwent either proton therapy or IMRT were compared: There was no significant difference in effectiveness, and IMRT had less gastrointestinal toxicity than proton therapy.

It may be that with greater experience, proton therapy may prove to be a more effective or less toxic option, but until that research is published, I do not recommend that men insist upon proton therapy, and continue to recommend men consult with their radiation oncologists to provide individual recommendations.

Keith W. Roach, M.D., FACP, is associate professor of clinical medicine at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University in New York. His column appears in Treasure Coast Newspapers.

Don't blame Big Sugar for pollution; take Raisin' Cane Tour

The April 24 letter about the multimillion-dollar East Fork Creek Storm Water Treatment Area project includes incorrect information. The author incorrectly speculates that U.S. Sugar lobbied for the project, and suggests this stormwater treatment area is about water from Lake Okeechobee.

The primary objective of the project is to improve water quality from local basin runoff. Doing this will help Martin County meet the total maximum daily load requirements flowing into Manatee Pocket. This project is not related to Lake Okeechobee.

The writer makes several incorrect statements. He calls the process of sending water into Lake Okeechobee as ‘backwash.” He must be referring to "back-pumping," which is only used for emergency purposes under South Florida Water Management District direction to prevent flooding of local lakeside communities. This is not a practice “continuously” used by farming companies, as implied. In fact, no farmers, regardless of crops, can move water into or out of the lake.

If his goal is to blame sugarcane farmers for what he calls polluting Lake Okeechobee, he is wrong there, too. Sugarcane farmers in the Glades area are continuously meeting local, state and federal guidelines for water and air quality. South Florida farmers grow dozens of food crops under strict parameters.

The writer seems to be parroting old rhetoric and politically motivated accusations, and it is irresponsible of him to make statements that are not factually correct. He should do his homework before he disparages thousands of farmers who make a living feeding Americans across this state and around the country.

May I suggest he sign up for a “Raisin’ Cane Tour” and learn the truth about U.S. Sugar’s record as environmental stewards and get a better understanding of sugarcane farmers and their high-tech, modern farming operations. He may change his tune.

Ronald Rose, Stuart

Fontenay wrong in questioning personal issue for Sen. Gayle Harrell

Blake Fontenay’s column published April 23 criticizing Sen. Gayle Harrell is appalling. He continues to inflict his ridiculous opinions on us and this paper keeps publishing them as though they have value.

He somehow thinks he knows what the senator feels, thinks or should do? I have a flash for him. It is he and those like him who continue to divide this country. All elected officials should and must legislate with the welfare of the majority in mind and to bring the thoughts and opinions of their constituents to the table. Creating, supporting or opposing any form of proposed legislation based on personal issues has no place in government.

We need to get back to legitimate government. A government that legislates by necessity, using facts and purpose rather than emotion is the only way out of the mess we are in.

People like Fontenay who are paid to write need to remember that he was not elected. He does, however, have a platform to influence people who “remarkably” believe what he writes. He needs to live up to the responsibility that goes with that privilege and contribute to greater good.

Gayle Harrell has been an effective and reflective guardian of our rights and needs for many years. Fontenay should get off his ego long enough to consider doing something of value. He could find 10 things to praise the senator for; instead he pries publicly into her private life, for all I know without any thought or concern for what impact her words will undoubtedly have on her or her family.

Robert Heslop, Fort Pierce

No more voting for poor or mediocre candidates

I am not into joining any geocidal ego-agreement we need to have war to get peace, or that we need to vote in line with how others are predicted to vote for a poor or mediocre candidate for president 2024, instead of the best candidate.

No more fooling around; everything is on the line now. Let's pray first for life on Earth.

Steve Gifford, Vero Beach

Fiscal responsibility necessary for national to survive

Real economic growth is essential to a modern country. The growth has to be at a greater rate than the inflation rate. Without growth, wages cannot rise and there is pandemonium as different pressure groups battle for scarcer and scarcer resources.

Who creates growth? Businesses — large and small — make profits that they use to 1) pay their investors, 2) make capital improvements to expand or for research and development for new products and improvements to existing products and 3) pay the government for essential services. Along the way, employees benefit from their wages, and consumers get the benefit of the goods and services produced. The government receives taxes and regulates industry to avoid bad behavior, but their main obligations are to protect the country from foreign invasion, provide a solid currency, and to promote trade abroad.

Government has to recognize its economic strengths and weaknesses and act accordingly. If we have an abundance of agricultural products, we should export the surplus. Similarly, we should utilize our God-given oil and gas to meet our needs and export the rest. After all, the United States is the most economically efficient and environmentally friendly producer of oil and gas in the world.

One source of inflation has been overspending by the government. The federal government collects about $5 trillion annually in revenues. Right now, our national debt is $32 trillion; it was just $5 trillion in 2000. So in 22 years we’ve had deficits of $27 trillion — five times what we had in the first 200+ years of U.S. existence.

Democrats and Republicans must wake up. We need an immediate dose of fiscal responsibility if we expect to survive as a country.

Tom Miller, Vero Beach

When can government strip First Amendment rights from corporations?

Regarding a letter from the Vero Beach gentleman who defended Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis going after Disney, the gentleman wrote:

"(DeSantis) sees corporations signing on to political agendas outside their purview."

Here’s some news for the gentleman: In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled corporations have a First Amendment right. By his logic, would it be perfectly fine if the state of California went after Koch Industries? Koch is a corporation and it has a political agenda. Would it be OK for California to use the power of the state to try and destroy Koch Industries or to use state power for Koch to make business decisions that made California government happy?

What if the state of California went after the Fox entertainment corporation? After all, Disney and Fox are both registered entertainment corporations.

Corporations, like individuals, have the Constitution protecting them. The very first right in the Constitution is free speech. The Supreme Court has deemed Disney has protections of the Constitution to speak freely without government interference or government punishment.

The letter goes on to state: "Yet when Democrat activists push sexual identity, racial equity in society or 'inclusion lectures' in schools, there’s a problem."

Well, has anyone heard the following words before?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

These are not my words; they are Thomas Jefferson's words from the Declaration of Independence and our Founding Fathers.

Don Whisman, Stuart

This article originally appeared on Treasure Coast Newspapers: Disney, DeSantis, Bible; Vero Beach unhoused; Gayle Harrell; US Sugar