Readers' letters from Friday 31 Jul 2009

Cost of war on all sides

WHEN I was an infantry soldier serving in Ireland we had roadside bombs as well as snipers. We had ‘Lannies’ – open-topped and unarmoured – as well as plastic-armoured and lumbering Humber ‘Pigs’ and Saracens. We also had flak jackets and helicopters, but best of all, we had our feet on the ground. Another generation on from the Second World War, we’ve all got risk-averse and don’t appreciate that to win a war, you have to be there.You have to dominate the ground and then (more difficult), you have to win hearts and minds. All this costs blood, toil, tears and sweat and our servicemen and women have always borne that cost nobly. We can’t be too surprised if people shoot at us – they think we are in their country. The rise of roadside bombs, as in Ulster, is a tribute to the effectiveness of our troops in battle. We hear of all our deaths and see pictures of grieving families and friends, but what is the kill rate on the other side? They all have families who also grieve and feel resentment.And Gordon Brown may not be such a tight-fisted fool in not being prepared to spend millions subsidising the arms companies for whom helicopters are a valuable commodity. For terrorists, helicopters are a wonderful target.Let’s support our troops and give them what they need, but my experience says let’s salute our dead, grieve for ALL those killed and give people a decent life.

‘Queensman’, Longsight

A lost cause

THE illegal war in Afghanistan cannot be won by force of arms, it is a guerrilla war.One minute they are fighters, the next they are farmers and there are millions of them.Our brave soldiers are dying because the Prime Minister hasn’t the intelligence or guts to call it a day. The Taliban would not be able to operate in this country if stricter controls were in place.

Former Bootneck, Heywood

Time to quit

IF, as reported, the government is contemplating talking to the Taliban, then as a life-long supporter of the Labour party, I must protest. The Taliban are not like the IRA. The Taliban are manipulating ignorant superstition and centuries-old religious brain-washing to convince people that it is acceptable to use children and mentally disabled people to be human bombs. Incentives will have little effect on this. It is time to remove the velvet glove and disengage now.

Dennis Jones, Gwent

Simple measures

WHEN I was a gunner and wireless operator on Comet tanks in the Forties, the lead tank was equipped with a flail – an adjustable length of chain to blow up roadside bombs. The MoD should be able to afford those.

Ray Burton, ex-5th Dragoons, Prestwich

How to take care

IN your I Love Me feature about HIV, an article said that ‘condoms may only be 50 per cent safe to sexually transmitted infections (STIs)’ and that ‘the best way to protect yourself is to be aware of your sexual health and have regular check-ups’. Readers should know that condoms are very effective against transmission of HIV and other STIs when used correctly. There is considerable evidence to suggest that consistent condom use decreases the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission by approximately 85 per cent. If you have sex without a condom, you have a much greater chance of getting an STI like chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhoea and HIV. Even if you are on the Pill, you still need to use a condom to prevent STIs. Many STIs don’t have any symptoms so you can be infected – and infect other people – without knowing. In the past 10 years, the number of people infected with chlamydia has increased by over 200 per cent and over 80,000 chlamydia screens were done in Greater Manchester last year. In some high-risk groups, such as gay men, the number of people infected with syphilis has increased by nearly 2000 per cent. In Greater Manchester there are 3,500 people living with HIV and we estimate that there are about another 1,100 people who are HIV positive and don’t know. HIV is treatable, but not curable, and the best way to protect yourself from STIs like HIV is to use a condom.

Dr Ashish Sukthankar, Greater Manchester Sexual Health Network

True picture of wind energy

THE argument against wind power put by W. Newham (Postbag, July 22) relies on misinformation and few facts.He points out, correctly, that wind power needs back-up generators but neglects to say that to cope with fluctuations in demand/breakdown, any form of generation needs back-up.He implies, by stating that wind generation only produces an average quarter of its capacity over a year, that more conventional forms run at 100 per cent capacity. But demand on the grid is much higher mid-winter (when many wind turbines will run at maximum output) than it is mid-summer. Without comparing average output of wind turbines with other forms of generation and linking it to demand, a quarter is meaningless, as no generator runs at maximum output for 12 months. As for Denmark stopping building wind turbines in 2002 – they still build them.More should be made of other renewable energy, but solar power output is highest when demand is lowest. Wind farms on hills are an eyesore, but imagine the Pennines clad in solar panels. Solar power may be more viable than wind power in California, but not dull, windy Britain. To oppose wind power, you need better arguments.

John Holden, Chorlton

We need more 'green' ideas

JAMES Alden (Postbag, July 25) complains of political double dealing on wind farms in the NW. He says the 26 turbines on Scout Moor generate 65 megawatts of electricity and save 162,000 tonnes of CO2 annually. According to the professional body for UK wind and marine renewables industries, turbines need wind speed of 4-5 M/sec to generate power and achieve maximum output at 15 M/sec. So they do not produce power all the time. Perhaps he means the farm can produce 65 megawatts if the wind blows 24x365 at four to 15 M/sec?He claims annual savings of 162,000 tonnes of CO2. This too assumes 24/365 production and 50 per cent better saving per turbine than industry claims. Scoutmoor’s web site makes more realistic claims.Before building more monstrosities, we must ask whether, at best, 25 per cent efficiency, is worth despoiling our countryside for, if we make enough of tidal/ wave power and if grants for wind farms are too generous?We need radical ideas that damage the environment less. Daylight saving all year? Minimum natural light standards in offices? Reduce street light times? Heat pumps in public buildings?

Peter Paddon