How To Write A Letter To The Editor Part I Arguing your position in the written form

1. Be polite. () Respect the people you're talking about, even if you disagree with their political position. Comment on actions more than personalities. 2. Be specific. If you're commenting on an article in the paper, mention the day and page number of the article. If you're commenting on a specific political position or speech, restate it briefly. Don't assume the reader knows what you're talking about: Tell them. 3. Stick to one topic. Deal with one issue, article or speech in one letter. 4. Use facts and figures to back up your arguments. Quote other experts who commented on the same subject, especially if the news article did not mention them. 5. State your qualifications, if useful to the letter. Example: "I've been a teacher for 15 years, and Betty McCollum's plan to invest in childhood education excellence is good because in my experience..." 6. When possible, compare and contrast. State why your candidate is better and why the other candidate is poor on an issue. 7. Be concise. Short letters are more likely to be printed than lengthy screeds. 8. Be original. Don't sound like everyone else. Use your own voice. 9. When appropriate, use humor. 10. Be grammatically correct. The paper will correct any minor spelling errors, but they won't edit letters where the sentences make no sense. 11. Be positive when appropriate. Don't hesitate to send a complimentary letter to the newspaper for a good editorial or story. Congratulate politicians you agree with. 12. Read your letter out loud. Does it sound good? Does it make sense? 13. Send the letter to more than one newspaper, if appropriate. Smaller papers print letters too. 14. Save a copy. Just in case they edit it, you'll know exactly how it was changed. 15. Include all the necessary information about yourself that the newspaper asks for. When sending e-mail, this means your city and telephone number. When sending a letter by mail, make sure it's typed (or legible) with your full return address as well as phone number and signature. This is for your protection, so others can't sign your name to their letter. 16. Keep track of any response you get. If it's a caller who agrees with you, great! You've made a friend. If someone calls you and doesn't give you their name, hang up. If someone calls and politely disagrees, that's fine: Talk to them, and agree to disagree. If you get sent threatening letters (and you might), keep them, at least for a while. Keep

especial track of the nasty ones and call the newspaper's editorial page to let them know. Lou Gelfan, at the Star Tribune, is aware of who some of these people are, but can't tell you and can't prosecute. At least let him know the jerks are still out there. Again, a polite response, even in disagreement, is a worthy communication. But too many Republicans just want to be anonymously nasty. Don't let them get away with it. 17. There are many places to express your opinion, not just letters to the newspaper. There are weekly and monthly magazines. There are internet web sites, blogs, Usenet newsgroups, and chatrooms. Express yourself, in friendly terms, in conversations with friends or in social situations. Aside: Partisan web sites like Bartcop and Bartcop-E are all well and good, but they're preaching to the choir. Letters to the editor are designed to be pursuasive more than an affirmation. Make it so.

Say what you mean and mean what you say. Make if from the heart and your passion will come through.
HTTP://WWW.ROMM.ORG/LTR_TO_EDITOR.HTML

NUCLEAR CRISIS IN FUKUSHIMA JAPAN

Our first thoughts are with the people of the Japan as they face the threat of a nuclear disaster, following an already devastating earthquake and tsunami. Greenpeace will continue to monitor and provide independent assessment of the situation at Japan's nuclear plants, as this is where we can best help by providing expertise. Our heartfelt condolences to all affected by this tragic chain of events.

OPINION 1
NUCLEAR ENERGY ISN'T NEEDED Greenpeace Executive Director Kumi Naidoo wrote the following opinion piece for the New York Times/International Herald Tribune Twelve days are not nearly enough to comprehend the magnitude of the catastrophes that hit Japan starting March 11. From the children who lost parents in the crush of the earthquake, to those whose loved ones are still missing after the tsunami, to the scores of workers risking their health by heroically attempting to stabilize the Fukushima nuclear complex there is no end to the tragic stories. Yet in addition to the grief and empathy I feel for the Japanese people, I am beginning to develop another emotion, and that is anger. As we anxiously await every bit of news about the developments at Fukushima, hoping that radiation leaks and discharges will be brought to an end, that the risk of further catastrophe will be averted, and that the Japanese people will have one less nightmare to cope with, governments across the world continue to promote further investment in nuclear power. Just last week, for example, the government of my home country of South Africa announced that it was adding 9,600 megawatts of nuclear energy to its new energy plan. There are two dangerous assumptions currently parading themselves as fact in the midst of the ongoing nuclear crisis. The first is that nuclear energy is safe. The second is that nuclear energy is an essential element of a low carbon future, that it is needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. Both are false. Nuclear technology will always be vulnerable to human error, natural disaster, design failure or terrorist attack. What we are seeing at Fukushima right now are failures of the systems. The reactors themselves withstood the earthquake and tsunami, but then the vital cooling systems failed. When the back-up power systems also failed, the reactors overheated, eventually causing the spread of radiation. This is only one example of what can go wrong. Nuclear power is inherently unsafe and the list of possible illnesses stemming from exposure to the accompanying radiation is horrifying: genetic mutations, birth defects,

cancer, leukemia and disorders of the reproductive, immune, cardiovascular and endocrine systems. While we have all heard of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, the nuclear industry would have us believe these are but isolated events in an otherwise unblemished history. Not so. Over 800 other significant events have been officially reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency Mayak, Tokaimura, Bohunice, Forsmark to name just a few. The argument that nuclear energy is a necessary component of a carbon-free future is also false. Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council have put together a study called Energy [R]evolution, which clearly shows that a clean energy pathway is cheaper, healthier and delivers faster results for the climate than any other option. This plan calls for the phase-out of existing reactors around the world and a moratorium on construction of new commercial nuclear reactors. Furthermore, an energy scenario recently produced by the conservative International Energy Agency highlights the fact that nuclear power is not necessary for lowering greenhouse gas emissions. It shows that even if existing nuclear power capacity could be quadrupled by 2050, the proportion of energy that it provided would still be below 10 percent globally. This would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by less than 4 percent. The same amount of money, invested in clean, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar could have a much greater impact on lowering global warming. Nuclear energy is an expensive and deadly distraction from the real solutions. Fuelfree sources of energy do not generate international conflicts (as I write I cannot help but think of Libya), they do not run dry and they do not spill. There are initial financial investments to be made, but in time the price of renewables will decline as technological advances and market competition drive the costs down. Furthermore, implemented wisely, a green, nuclear and fossil-free future will create a host of safe, new jobs. As international organizations like Greenpeace join Japans Citizens Nuclear Information Center in an appeal to the Japanese government for improved evacuation plans and other protective measures for people still within the 30-kilometer exclusion zone; as the issue of food and water contamination continues to grow in Asia; as iodine tablets continue to sell out around the globe and people in places as far away from Japan as Los Angeles are on high alert for radioactive plumes it is imperative that as citizens of the world we continue to voice our opposition to further investment in nuclear energy. We need a truly clean energy revolution now. First published in the International Herald Tribune http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/global/index.html March 23rd, 2011

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/Nuclear-energy-isntneeded/

OPINION 2

NUCLEAR POWER IS SAFE - UK'S EX-CHIEF NUCLEAR INSPECTOR

The big challenge for the nuclear industry is getting the message across to the public that nuclear power is safe, says Professor Laurence Williams, who headed the NII Britains watchdog for nuclear installations for almost three decades. One of the challenges for the nuclear industry is to communicate to the public not only on the situation in Japan and its implications the issue there that at the moment we do not have detailed information to enable us to fully, with confidence say what is happening there. Given that it was an absolutely unprecedented challenge in Japan we should be able to get across the message that nuclear power is safe, Williams said. The former head of the UK Nuclear Installations Inspectorate says nuclear power by any definition is safe. Yes, there is a potential hazard in nuclear energy because of the high energy density associated with nuclear fission. But we ensure through a whole variety of ways that the risk is incredibly low. And it comes by good design, good engineering, good operation and good regulation, he said. All modern reactors have to comply with both national and international standards. Part of analyzing the robustness of the design, takes into account external hazards. They take into account earthquake designs, size-making tsunami, high winds, flooding, extreme temperatures. Williams believes that all necessary lessons will be learned from the situation at Fukushima-1 nuclear plant in Japan and there should be no negative effects on building nuclear power plants in the future. When the [Fukushima] plant is brought into a stable state weve got time to think, to have all lessons learned. The EU has already said that there are going to be stress tests done on all nuclear power stations within Europe. Our (UK) government has supported that. We will look again to make sure that the new plant designs are robust and if any lessons need to be learned then they will be learned, he said. Interview video has been uploaded through RTs users uploads form and is courtesy of Nuclear Liaison TV.

http://rt.com/news/nuclear-power-safe-ex-chief/