• 
• 

Published on February 8, 2008

As such, Biffo the Bear seems to have done the dirty on Lord Snooty (or is he Desperate Dan)?

What the little lord can be musing over now from his castle in Knightsbridge, one can only guess. But surely, having been promised a short tenure from Biffo, he now finds that maybe the family silver may have to be sold if he is to avoid riding out a three-year sentence on social benefits - although Biffo has made confused and convoluted statements on the subject. Let's hope he's been paying his national security contributions over the past year.

James Groveway

Bangkok

-------------

No excuse for killing an unarmed victim

Re: "Victim may not be as innocent as reported", Letters, February 7.

The labelling of a policeman's killing of a tourist as "probably self defence" is an outrage of major proportions. A policeman shooting an unarmed person is abhorrent and must be condemned, not absolved. Period. The fact that the holder of the weapon was a drunken policeman is further cause for harsh punishment.

Furthermore, as a crime against a tourist, against individuals seeking relaxation and leisure pursuits in a foreign land, it is a blot on Thailand's international reputation, better known for smiling faces and exemplary service.

As a dependent of the tourism industry, along with millions of Thais, we must stand united in our condemnation of this atrocity and demand justice for those wronged.

Aaron Frankel

Bangkok

-------------

Little hope for justice with this Cabinet

Re: "Put the brakes on rogue cops", Editorial, February 5.

Really? With Chalerm Yoobumrung as Interior minister (himself a police officer)? Is it necessary to recall his record? I'm quite sure the person who killed a policeman (in a Bangkok nightclub) a few years ago has not been convicted and is still a free man.

TP

Bangkok

-------------

Officials don't care about nuclear safety 

Re: "Nuclear debate not necessary", Letters, February 2.

I read with interest Ken Albertsen's cogent critique of the nuclear power debate in Thailand. Ken, your analysis pre-supposes that the people who run Thailand care about the country at all. They do not. Witness the last premier's sell-out of all the business assets he had acquired through his political life in Thailand.

The people in charge of mega-projects simply do not care what happens to Thailand or to the Thai people. In fact, some of the items that appear on your list as drawbacks appear in their plus column. "High construction costs" is the sine qua non of mega-projects. A 20-per-cent rake-off of a billion baht pales when the prospect turns to hundreds of billions of baht. Similarly, the need to import fuel presents a great opportunity for kickbacks.

All those other drawbacks are just not their problem. Their job, as they see it, is to pump up the project, grease the skids and take their percentage off the top. "You can't see it from my house", is the expression that covers their relationship to the end product.

Analysing mega-projects in Thailand is like analysing wars perpetrated by the United States. The real reason both are undertaken has nothing at all to do with the reasons given to the public. And the media in both countries know this very well. They are complicit in the big lie in both cases.

John Francis Lee

Chiang Rai

-------------

N-power study will whitewash drawbacks

We hear that over Bt1 billion (US$33 million) is earmarked largely for a feasibility study to see whether nuclear energy is appropriate for Thailand. Apparently, the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand and some entity called the Energy Conservation Fund will be paying for it.

That's a lot of money; roughly Bt50 for every Thai man, woman and child. Where does that money come from? Tax-payers? Big business?

We already know that Egat wants nuclear power plants, so it appears it is paying for a feasibility study that has a foregone conclusion. We're told that nuclear specialists will be called upon to give their opinions. You can bet the specialists will agree with Egat. After all, Egat will be paying the specialists for their opinions, so it's a no-brainer that it will pick people who agree with its pre-ordained policy.

Here's just one of several reasons why nuclear is bad idea for Thailand: the price of refined uranium, known as "yellowcake", has risen over 1,700 per cent in the past five years. In that time it's jumped from $7 to $130 per half-kilo without declining once. With a bit of maths, it's easy to see how yellowcake could go to $2,000 or more per half-kilo by the time the reactors are built.

Currently there is a 65-per-cent shortfall in yellowcake, and that gap will likely get bigger in the coming years. A main reason: there are many steps to obtaining refined uranium, and if any one step is awry, then there are supply problems. Two of the biggest uranium mines in Australia are having operational problems, and more of the same is expected.

Combine the astronomical rise in the cost of yellowcake with the fact there's already a shortfall in supply - and it doesn't paint a pretty picture.  The supply problem will likely exacerbate when dozens more reactors come on line. Thailand will have to compete with China (which plans 30 additional plants), the US, Japan and EU countries for the dwindling supply of ever-more-expensive fuel. None of those countries mentioned have their own domestic supplies of fuel.

These are the types of issues that Egat's Bt1 billion feasibility study will either try to avoid or will gloss over. Instead, you can bet it will do all it can to get its hired experts to paint a picture of safety and lowered power bills.

However, all is not bleak, and there is a much better option for generating power. It's a five-letter word that starts with S and ends with R - but you probably won't hear much about that in Egat's feasibility study.

Ken Albertsen

Chiang Rai

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com

The Nation