| Fran Cress' letter in the March 20 Reminder refuting my contention that our schools are still superior and producing highly educated students caused me to re-evaluate the dearth of data I used to prove my case. Her long letter wore me down just reading all the data. I find when a simple case cannot be made to substantiate a position, my opponent tries to overwhelm the field with a mass of irrelevant information. She does not offer one fact to refute any specific statement I made in my March 6 letter. She stated she has "real" evidence that is "more reliable than any state or national data that may or may not measure sound educational policies." In other words, she gets to decide which data is honest, true and relevant. My quoting unbiased Newsweek figures, Boston Globe ratings, the list of top 300 high schools available to college entrance deans which include Longmeadow High, government No Child Left Behind ratings, the Longmeadow School System survey or school parents that rated our system very high by over 80 percent of the respondents, our SAT scores that were the highest in many years and the proof of our competence by the acceptance level of our graduates to the best colleges and universities in the country should be discounted in favor of Cress' statistics. Forget about published results from reliable sources. Just accept the various problems identified in her letter. I ask, don't we do anything right? Is there nothing positive about our school system? About these problems, she states "when they begin to affect outcomes and consequently our home sales in a statistically recognizable way it will be too late." According to her letter we already are affecting our outcomes in statistical ways as she demonstrates in the body of her letter. I remember for years she has warned about the affect on home sales if we neglect the schools, as if that should influence our decisions on education. If we've been doing all the wrong things as her list implies, why did the Longmeadow assessors recently raise the evaluation of all Longmeadow property by a large percentage if our deteriorating schools will bring down home values? Perhaps she can convince them to accept her judgement and reduce our taxes! As a longtime resident of Longmeadow and a supporter of our schools for 38 years, when I separate the wheat from the chaff, it's the results that matter only the results. As for educating myself as she suggested, why should I let her facts get in the way of my opinion? In her last paragraph Ms. Cress obliquely questions my commitment to the community and my honesty. She doesn't even know me. Has never met me or spoken one word to me. I resent her high-handed assessment of my motives. She has every right to disagree with my conclusions but not to disparage my intentions. Sam Altman Longmeadow Litter one of many problems Litter abundance just one facet of a very shallow culture. Many tread through the paved ways abutting vehicular traffic. When snow blocks and sidewalk safety is abandoned, they contend with vehicular traffic and unknowns controlling tons of kinetic energy. it's rather obvious that litter source is from the vehicle which begs the question: Who are these slobs? Look at bottle labels and see the alcohol content. Apples fall not far from the tree. So, too, these containers from the imbiber's lips. Plenty are seen at "point-of-sale." Whether tossing is before key turn or at speed, the blood-alcohol possible is disturbing. The graduation, of late, seems to be from nip (50 ml.) to the more macho half pint+. Isn't that "cool"! Fresh off some survey; my insurance company passed the facts to me. Any phone conversation while piloting the auto diminishes brain processed to the same degree as that of DWI. Now, combine the booze with the phone. Government shows little to no action. Whether it's walk access/use rights, bottoms-up and drive, or littering. Money, as usually, is at the root of it all. It has flowered into your vanity. I guess Cool cohabits with Slob. Paul Cooke East Longmeadow Don't have more candidates to choose from I feel it is my duty as an East Longmeadow voter to convey my personal opinion or views in a forthright manner. I would like to discuss our two candidates seeking one of three selectman seats available come April 11. I believe both candidates are individuals of high integrity and sound moral character. I only question their motive in pursuing this vacancy on the Board of Selectmen. Let's discuss candidate Joe Townshend first. He owns and operates a Midas Brake shop in town, therefore, will his input and decisions be of self-benefit and advantage to the business community only or will it encompass all the good citizens of East Longmeadow. Presently, we have a town government that fosters loops. You known what I'm talking about. You heard the expression, you're either in the loop or out of the loop. If you're not an entrepreneur your outside the loop. I, for one, detest loops. Now, let's discuss our other candidate Mike O'Shea. It appears to me that Mr. O'Shea was encouraged to seek this vacant seat by the two remaining selectmen Mr. Delisle and Mr. Driscoll. With this candidate's background in law enforcement, where do you think his emphasis will be directed. I can see it all coming together, the chief of police now has an assistant, a captain. A new detective bureau with new automobiles and on and on and on. Just overkill. Mike O'Shea will be nothing more than a clone for the two remaining selectmen. A vote for Mike O'Shea will be a vote for Mr. Delisle and Mr. Driscoll. It is certainly disappointing that we don't have more candidates to choose from, but I will cast my vote for Joe Townshend "whom I never met" hoping for the best with my fingers crossed. Salvatore Thomas Franco East Longmeadow Flouridation of Longmeadow water The April 25 Longmeadow Town meeting will vote again on the petitions for the referendum on fluoridation of Longmeadow water. Since the only referendum on the fluoridation of Longmeadow water was over twenty years ago, a very significant percentage of the current Longmeadow voters never had an opportunity to vote on this issue. Also, fluoridation of municipal water in the US was initiated without any chronic safety data. We now know considerably more about the uncertain dental benefit and the negative medical side effects of systemic administration of fluoridated water that is imposed on the residents of Longmeadow residents without advised consent and medical supervision. Since the Massachusetts legislature does not mandate fluoridation of municipal water, Longmeadow is not obligated to continue the fluoridation indefinitely. At present, essentially all countries in Europe have terminated fluoridation of municipal water and retrospective epidemiological studies do not indicate that termination of fluoridation has a negative effect on the dental health. Furthermore, on March 22 a prestigious committee of the National Research Council ( NRC ) released a 500 page report on the potential toxic effects of fluoridated water. Several potential health problems are cited in the report and although fluoride concentrations of most municipal waters are below the current EPA upper limit, there is evidence that many Americans are being over-dosed with harmful levels of fluoride. The NRC report also suggests a possible link between chronic exposure to fluoride and negative side effects on the nervous and endocrine systems, including brain, thyroid and pineal gland. Consequently, the report calls on government agencies to introduce nationwide monitoring of fluoride levels in people's urine and blood and recommends research on the relationship between fluoride and diseases such as arthritis, dementia, osteosarcoma, and hypothyroidism. Additional information on the NRC report is listed by www.fluoridealert.org/health site. The above considerations suggest that even if our teeth were the most important organs in our bodies and ingestion of fluoridated water prevented dental cavities as effectively as brushing of the teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, and even if the cost of fluoridation was negligible and the Longmeadow budget had excess funds, we still should question the wisdom of water fluoridation. Because eventually the truth prevails, I am sure that one day Longmeadow will terminate water fluoridation. However, since there is evidence already that the potential negative side effects of fluoridation are greater than the positive, why wait for the day when our children and grandchildren will ask us why we were against the referendum and why we did not study this issue more diligently. Of course, individuals and organizations that aggressively promote fluoridation and ignore all indications of potential medical problems will have to answer more difficult questions. George J. Krol, Ph.D. Longmeadow |
