Inbox

MAIL

Power Brokers

Re Bryan Walsh's "The Gas Dilemma" [April 11]: Will it matter that we have lots of gas for power if we have large swaths of our country polluted and unfit for human life? I wish I were more inclined to believe the industry won't just sell all the gas overseas for quick profit and violate its solemn promises to safeguard our water and earth. The BP oil spill, Japan's nuclear disaster and the knowledge that our nuclear industry does not have adequate safeguards make it hard to sleep at night. Let's go solar and wind.

Cecilie Bodnar, CANANDAIGUA, N.Y.

With all its high environmental costs, shale gas can't really be expected to solve the energy crisis. TIME should research and do a cover story on thorium as a long-term solution to generating energy. This low-level radioactive metal used in a liquid fluoride thorium reactor could be a safe, clean and almost limitless source of energy.

Paul Justus, EUREKA SPRINGS, ARK.

I was disappointed in how little time you spent addressing the relationship between natural gas and climate change. You say gas's benefit is "less clear-cut, but it's there." There is a growing body of evidence, most importantly work about to be published by Robert Howarth, that it's not there. If the production of shale gas moves us in the wrong direction regarding climate change, that is a very serious mistake. This question deserves the thorough coverage for which your magazine has distinguished itself.

Wes Ernsberger, OWEGO, N.Y.

As the 2010 documentary Gasland makes clear, water contamination caused by hydraulic fracking is very real. (In the film, a man holds a lighter next to water running from his kitchen faucet, creating a fireball explosion.) Hopefully the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has not been contaminated, too, by contributions from energy-industry lobbyists.

Peter O'Reilly, JERSEY CITY, N.J.

Grave Matters

There are a number of points in Mark Benjamin's story on Arlington National Cemetery we take exception to [April 11]. One omission in particular will mislead TIME's readers. Arlington National Cemetery is prohibited by law from exhuming grave sites without cause. The Code of Federal Regulations provides that "disinterments will be permitted only for cogent reasons." However, the story claims that "the Army now plans to make only educated guesses about the identity of remains rather than digging in the dirt to be sure." It is not a matter of will not but cannot--a fact Benjamin was made aware of.

Stephen R. Lanza, Major General, U.S. Army, Chief of Public Affairs, WASHINGTON

I am horrified but not surprised by your story on the burial-site confusion at Arlington National Cemetery. As a U.S. citizen who has never served, I am ashamed to have asked these men and women to serve in my place and now deny them even the simple dignity of a proper burial. What does it say about us if we can spend billions on weapons systems that are never used but treat our veterans with such complacency?

John J. Barton, DOWNINGTOWN, PA.

Working for Peace