Letters to the editors



Regarding “Creosote Blues Revisited” (April 18), it is worth noting that the jury decision is supported by the scientific evidence. Based on the findings published in 2005 of the largest mortality study to date of workers employed in creosote wood-treating plants, there is no evidence that employment at wood-treating plants or exposure to creosote-based preservatives was associated with any significant mortality increase from either site-specific cancers or nonmalignant diseases. The study consisted of 2,179 employees at 11 plants in the United States where wood was treated with creosote preservatives.

In addition, correcting an error: Creosote is not banned in the European Union. It is still widely used, but cannot be purchased by members of the general public.

David WebbAdministrative DirectorCreosote CouncilValencia, Penn.


Ouch! No one wants a rig in their backyard! (“War of the Wells,” April 4.) But who owns the mineral rights? Whoever sold the subdivisions and kept the minerals doesn’t give a rip about the surface owners now. Otherwise, there could be some negotiation about rig/well placement.

Can responsible development occur in a respectful and environmentally sound manner? I hope the answer is yes; otherwise, please send all your money to OPEC, and get ready for state income taxes.

Dave Johnson via e-mail

Natural gas prices, utility bills, gasoline prices, and just about all other energy prices are going through the roof and we want more regulation on the industry so they have to jack up their rates and pass them on to me? No thanks, Mr. Henry, Mr. Middleton, or anyone else unable to see the forest for the trees.

This article is overly emotional and short on facts. Very disappointing, Observer, and very unlike a typically smart publication.

Edward Jenkins via e-mail


I loved this article! (“Politics and Prose with Elizabeth Hailey,” April 18.) What an amazing lady Hailey is! I’ve always loved her writing, and I love Robert Leleux on her writing!

Jay Phillipsvia e-mail