The West Australian
Why are you so keen to print Charles Landry's ideas on Perth architecture?
His main contribution seems to be the objection to no turn right signs, even though they save you from entering a one way street the wrong way.
In the latest article, we supposedly need help "to engage with its water". Well, I engage with river. I come by train to Esplanade station, and walk round the river, either all the way, 10 km, or come back on the ferry from South Perth. Will that still be possible with those buildings in the river?
I have cycled from Fremantle, I have attended flying displays at Langley Park, and here I have seen youth playing organised games.
How many people turn up for the fireworks?
I like it and "engage with" it the way it is. Please leave it alone!
I hope someone invokes the "Queen's chain", i.e. no building within 22 yards of the water (coast or river). And I hope someone sends Charlie packing.
W. T. sustituted: An issue that was largely ignored with canals being offered was GM food.
Whereas I would not be worried about eating it, I do have worries about interfering with nature.
GM food should not ever be allowed. There is a clear risk that the plant could mutate into a super weed or, even worse, the day of the triffids could become a reality.
And who do manufacturers think they are stopping people collecting the seeds? Even by accident!
Keep this insidious idea out of Western Australia.
(The Day of the Triffids )
I would like to answer Don Spriggins letter (Arsonists are not the real culprits, 22 January).
His point is build up of fuel would lead to fires with or without arsonists. And the point is very well put.
But why oh why does it have to be burnt? Wood stoves are still being sold, and if they were not,
there are still power stations burning solid fuel. So fallen wood can be burnt! This is the best way
to burn it of the three alternatives. (Controlled burn, bush fire or fuel).
Any understory causing danger can be cut back and mulched. The mulch could be used locally and if not I'm sure the farmers would like it.
If we get together on this, we can have a win win win situation. The alternative is for history to repeat itself.
Our Swan River
Our beloved Swan river is dying and due to actions of us humans.
We wash our cars and our clothes, we have septic tanks, we fertilise our lawns, and our farmland.
Meanwhile, we build on our wetlands and prevent some natural filtration taking place.
But what to do? If you could stop putting it in, how long would it take to come good?
I say why decide which polluters to concentrate on. Take the "pollution" out. It is nutrients after all, and therefore valuable. I would rather have Swan River mud on my garden than sewerage sludge with its heavy metals.
Why can't we get a suction dredge working and revers the harm done over the last 100 years?
I guess L Self is like me, having time and concern to read in and write to the Wanneroo Times, so perhaps we should both "get a life" as was so rudely suggested.
I presume L Self is a polluter with a backyard incinerator or worse. I have been informed that backyard incinerators are not allowed in Victoria and S.A. and the Selfish attitude displayed in the letter would indicate we need this rule here in W.A.
We pay a fortune to reduce vehicle pollution, and more is being spent to reduce it further. We have people with asthma wanting to ban wood heaters, even if used more responsibly with dry wood. etc.
A better public attitude is required towards the pollution problem. L Self's yard is a good place to start.
Did you report in your paper on the talk by Dr David Harrison on Greenhouse Emissions Trading at the Institution of Engineers, Australia on 6th April?
It has an important effect on fuel price.