Am I missing something? The same day that I read about 20,000-plus protective masks being issued to the Capitol building, I read again about FEMA and its reluctance to be involved with protecting us from a chemical incident at the incinerator and the ongoing battle over funding protective masks for us.I know that someone will be quick to point out that the Washington masks are good for only a few minutes to allow people to exit the area or get to a protected place. I will be told that our masks are better, but much more complicated to maintain and use, and the concern is that we are not smart enough to do that.
Maybe the answer lies not in protective masks that work for hours or days and an evacuation plan.
Has anyone thought about going back to a Cold War model from the 1950s? Back then we had fallout shelters within easy reach of just about everyone. Evacuation was only for people in target areas, and that was to get them out of the blast zone, not to protect them from radiation.
Well, there really is no “blast zone” here. The danger — and I still believe it has been over-dramatized — is from exposure to some levels of chemical contamination, much like exposure to radiation after a nuclear blast.
Why not have “chemical shelters” within a few minutes walking or driving distance for all? Designated rooms in many of our large buildings could be adapted. The Army has portable shelters that could be set up and maintained in residential areas.
If we had this, the masks being used at the Capitol Building would provide protection for the few minutes it would take for everyone to get to a shelter. Of course, we would still have to deal with protecting those who cannot get to a shelter. That, however, can be done.
The problem is we have people talking at each other, rather than with each other. Add to that the inability of our leaders to think “out of the box” and we have our current situation.
Will this change?
Daniel E. Spector, Ph.D.
Chemical Corps Historian, Retired
Jacksonville
The pledge
There is outrage all over the Deep South because of the ruling stating that “under God” in our pledge makes it unconstitutional. Everyone forgets that in the United States of America we are protected by the Bill of Rights that grants us freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I’m not saying that I agree with the ruling. I am a Christian (an open-minded Christian) and I have no problem saying “under God” as I recite the pledge.
But, I can understand exactly where this ruling is coming from.
In February of this year, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court used religion to viciously attack and condemn a certain community. During the recent elections we saw politicians using religion to gain the votes of conservative voters. Across the state our churches tell their congregations who to vote for and what issue is morally right or wrong, such as the lottery. The mixing of church and state has gone too far and now these judges are taking huge leaps to turn it around.
Maybe this ruling goes a little too far, but it is going to take rulings like this to open the eyes of Americans who see nothing wrong with mixing religion with politics.
Michelle McHugh
Montevallo
