RE: US FTC Decides Not to Ban Nuclear Ads, New York Times Says

["Vollmer, Jeffrey S" <Jeffrey.Vollmer@MKG.COM>]

I saw that article also.  It probably goes to the argument about Nuclear
Power reducing Green House gases I assume.  I have never seen the Ads so I
think comment either way by me would be inappropriate.  As far as the
coalition goes I think their current lawsuit against Missouri trying to keep
Highway Money from Missouri Until Missouri complies with Clean Air laws will
ultimately do more harm to air quality in the region than will bring good.
The Highway money is needed for road improvements that will reduce
congestion aiding in air quality.;  I also noticed that you have a St.
Peters address so I guess you are part of the Urban Sprawl problem that they
talk about.  I do agree that Urban Sprawl is a problem but what do you do
about it.  I am a Libertarian politically and do not believe in laws to
correct these type of problems.  I also think it is extortion the way the
government trys and force states to comply with its rules by withholding
money that is rightfully theirs. I have known about the Missouri Coalition
for many years and listen to Earth Worms and have watched Green time to see
what they are talking about.  I also attend the Earth Day festivities every
year and visit their stand.

Keep up the Correspondence,
I enjoy e-mailing with you,

Jeffrey S. Vollmer 
> ----------
> From: 	GlennACarlson@aol.com[SMTP:GlennACarlson@aol.com]
> Reply To: 	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: 	Wednesday, December 22, 1999 6:49 PM
> To: 	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: 	Re: US FTC Decides Not to Ban Nuclear Ads, New York Times
> Says
> 
> In a message dated 12/22/1999 7:33:53 AM Central Standard Time, 
> sandyfl@earthlink.net writes:
> 
> << Subj:     US FTC Decides Not to Ban Nuclear Ads, New York Times Says
>  
>  US FTC Decides Not to Ban Nuclear Ads, New York Times Says
>   
> Washington, Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Federal Trade Commission ruled
> 
> that while industry advertisements made unsubstantiated claims about the 
> benefits of nuclear power, the ads shouldn't be banned because they are 
> political speech protected under the First Amendment, the New York Times 
> reported.  The FTC agreed with the Better Business Bureau and the Natural 
> Resources Defense Council that the ads by the Nuclear Energy Institute -- 
> published in the New Republic, the Atlantic Monthly, the New York Times,
> Roll 
> Call and the Hill -- made exaggerated claims about the environmental 
> advantages of nuclear power, the paper said. 
>   >>
> 
> <<Subj:  FW: Missouri Coalition for the Environment
> Date:   12/21/1999 1:29:55 PM Central Standard Time
> From:   Jeffrey.Vollmer@MKG.COM (Vollmer, Jeffrey S)
> To: GlennACarlson@aol.com ('GlennACarlson@aol.com')
> 
> [text deleted]  I find it hard to believe that an organization that
> distorts 
> facts and information is credible at all.  So even if they are on the
> right 
> side of some issues since I know they lie and distort information, I can't
> 
> trust them to be truthful on other issues.
> 
> Jeffrey S. Vollmer[, RSO
> Mallinckrodt Inc.
> Jeffrey.Vollmer@Mkg.com]
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> 
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html