Rats on a decaying and odoriferous marine dock? What a surprise! Anyone who has lived near saltwater docks knows that they go hand in hand.
And as the docks deteriorate, the population of rats becomes more brazen and fearless and begins showing up more often as their need to search out and find food becomes more desperate.
Additional Photos
And this is what we present to visitors to the Old Port. Old docks, falling-down buildings, odors that escape the imagination and creating a “no reason to come back here” attitude from visitors.
When will Portland realize this and insist the city planners, councilors and mayor do something about it? And it cannot be a piecemeal effort. It must be a coordinated, “everything goes” attitude and turn the area into a showplace.
Impossible? Hardly, considering harbors all up and down the East Coast have done it already, from Savannah, Ga., to Portsmouth. A plan was developed and the community got behind it and made it happen. Short-term pain? You bet. But long-term gain? Absolutely!
Considering the area from East End Beach to the Portland Fish Pier should be the goal. Making this a very visitor-friendly and welcoming area should be the reason.
The question always is “What to do with the existing businesses?”
• Coordinate with the recent Sprague land lease west of the bridge and create a Fishing Village. Create ample parking there with space for lobstermen, draggers and seafood outlets.
• Get rid of all the old piers, buildings and pilings (painful but necessary).
• Hire a “waterfront designer” to create a visitor showplace.
• Get community backing without the “Monday morning quarterbacks” who have always stifled previous efforts.
Ambitious? You bet. But if we are ever going to see an Old Port we can be proud of, now is the time to start, not tomorrow or the next day, month or year.
Bob Fowler
South Portland
No science-based reason to reject organic food study
This is in response to Elizabeth Kellett’s letter to the editor of Sept. 20 about organic foods (“Organic food good for overall health”).
She asked a number of questions.
When and where these studies were done can be found in the paper, “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review,” published Sept. 4 in Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 157, pages 348-366.
In summary, the studies reviewed were published in the MEDLINE database from January 1966 to May 2011 as well from other databases.
For financing: There was no primary funding source. Of the 12 authors, the third author received an undergraduate funding grant from Stanford University.
Levels of toxins were discussed. The study’s abstract states: “The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce … but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small.”
Their conclusion: “The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”
I do not believe the Press Herald article was misleading. I agree we should not be fooled by “questionable studies.” However, this study appears to have been well done, and it was supported by the Stanford School of Medicine and its Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, as well as the university’s Department of Management Science and Engineering and Department of Statistics.
If one wishes to eat organic foods and does so on a personal, philosophical or other belief system, then I have no argument. But don’t disparage what appears to be a good scientific study.
Lawrence M. Leonard, M.D.
Falmouth
Fall in U.S. oil production under Obama not apparent
In a Sept. 9 commentary (“Party faithful or price of gas?”), Dan Demeritt made this comment: “Restrictions on energy exploration on public lands, limits to off-shore drilling, and the regulatory costs and uncertainty of adding to our energy infrastructure under the Obama administration have slowed the growth in domestic energy supply.”
Prior to reading this piece, I read an article written by Bloomberg reporter Dan Murtaugh on Sept. 7, including the following quote by Bill Klesse, Valero Energy Corp.’s CEO: “Before you know it, we’re going to have so much light, sweet crude that in the U.S. Gulf Coast we’re not going to be importing light sweet crude, and we think that happens next year.”
The article also states that “U.S. oil output surged to the highest level in 13 years in July, according to weekly Energy Department data. The U.S. met 83 percent of its energy demand from domestic sources in the first five months of this year and is heading for the highest annual level since 1991.”
Additionally, Bloomberg reports that Gulf imports of light, sweet crude have fallen 56 percent since 2010.
Perhaps the Obama administration has had little to do with the shale oil boom, but the fact remains that domestic oil production has increased rapidly over the past few years and imports have fallen precipitously.
Andrew Potter
Portland
Channel anger at NFL call in more productive direction
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and vice-presidential candidate (as well as House of Representatives member) Paul Ryan have both supported strong anti-union positions, notably against teachers. In their view, unions are bad for America.
A bad call in a Monday night football game suddenly makes both tea party anti-unionists strong supporters of the NFL referees union.
What might be America’s potential if, instead of making professional football the highest priority for America, we decided that it was just as important to educate our children and support their teaching professionals to build a stronger future America?
John H. Schwartz
Freeport
Public outrage can hasten a resolution to the NFL dispute, but public outrage cannot hasten a resolution to the uncompromising Congress. Is this a statement of America’s priorities?
Bob Layne
Wells
Send questions/comments to the editors.
