Don't despoil Alaskan refuge when alternatives abound

Don't despoil Alaskan refugewhen alternatives abound
EDITOR:
I wish to comment on the article "How much oil is in Alaska?" that appeared in the Business section Dec. 20. In it, Interior Secretary Gail Norton claims that there is enough oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge "to supply every drop of oil needed by New Hampshire for 315 years, or Maine for 299 years."
For such statements to be meaningful, they must carry an important caveat -- namely, that current levels of consumption will remain in effect for all those years. Given our country's history of exponentially increasing oil consumption, that is unlikely to happen.
Let's put the ANWR oil deposits in a different perspective. The most optimistic (with a 5 percent likelihood) estimate for the amount of oil beneath ANWR is 16 billion barrels. Even if we started drilling today, it would take years for the first barrel of ANWR oil to be piped or transported to the lower 48 states. The United States currently uses about 7.3 billion barrels per year. At current levels of consumption, therefore, those deposits would be exhausted in less than three years!
Is it worth despoiling one of our country's few remaining natural wonders to feed our insatiable oil appetite for such a short time? Not in my opinion. Especially not when less costly and environmentally friendly alternatives, such as conservation, are readily available.
What we need is political leadership and courage in Washington to implement them.
STEPHEN HANZELY
Poland
X The writer is a professor emeritus of physics at Youngstown State University.
Far too many loopholesfill federal do-not-call law
EDITOR:
Some time ago, a law was passed allowing citizens to place their phone numbers on a do-not-call list. This was done over the objections of our two area congressmen who cited jobs as an excuse for people to be annoyed in their home by unwanted callers.
Common problems were multiple dialers, which hung up on many people who answered, telemarketers who would not take the first "not interested" as final, and calls at times that were inconvenient.
The law left enough loopholes to drive a telephone company truck through. Charity solicitations, political advertising, and calls form companies with whom one has a vague connection through an affiliated company are a few loopholes.
Instead of being satisfied with this still huge exception to my right to privacy, the telemarketers have come up with a new dodge. On Dec. 16 I received three calls from people who claimed to be doing surveys. The first was at 5:30 p.m. as I ate supper. The second came at 6:45 as I tried to watch the evening news. The third came at 8:35 and woke me from sleep, as I am an early-to-bed person. This is totally unacceptable!
These telemarketing firms are allowed to invade our homes for one reason only. The people elected to protect our privacy operate in a world where the more tax dollars that go across the table, the more can be diverted into someone's pocket or outright stolen. Their motive is not helping their constituents, the majority of whom prefer to be left alone in their homes.
Instead of a no-call list there should be a call list with people on this list possibly having a portion of their phone bills paid by telemarketers. Then my phone would be as private as my living room.
This of course is fantasy as long as we live in a country where political influence is sold openly. One solution would be to allow no fund raising or running for another term or office while serving a term. This would eliminate a lot of influence peddling, and influence seekers could only contribute to people they trusted to keep campaign promises in the future.
ROBERT J. HUSTED
New Springfield