To the editor:

Thanks to all of you who directed me to where I could find the text of the "State of the Union Address 2007." It is there on the Internet for all to see that Mr. Bush made no mention of nuclear energy being renewable. In this speech, Mr. Bush stated that nuclear power, along with many other sources of power, is clean and safe. I know very little about nuclear power, but from what I have witnessed at the Seabrook plant over the past 20 years, this appears to be the case.

However, further research by some of your readers reveals that Mr. Bush did state, in a previous speech concerning financing power alternatives, that nuclear power is a renewable energy source. No legislative body has yet included nuclear energy under any legal definition of "renewable energy sources," but it appears that the jury is still out on the classification of nuclear power as renewable since the technology for recovery of uranium from seawater has reached the stage of demonstration for practical use.

In 1983 the physicist Bernard Cohen calculated the useful lifetime of nuclear power in the billions of years, longer than the life of the sun itself ( which ultimately powers other renewables), remarking that this should qualify it as a renewable resource, too. Nuclear has also been referred to as "renewable" by David Sainsbury, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to The House of Lords. So, Mr. Bush and I will respect Ms. Grinnell's right to believe all of her claims against nuclear energy ("Nuclear power is not a renewable energy, Feb. 7) if she will respect our right to believe that it is renewable.

Now that we have uncovered the facts on this easily verifiable statement, let us take on some of the other questionable statements that have appeared in the "letters" lately. As recently as Feb. 12, "This is no winnable war in Iraq" letter asks if this war based on lies and subterfuge is justified in winning. There have been many other letters that refer to Mr. Bush's lies especially about WMDs in Iraq. Here, I would like to ask if anyone can present one shred of hard evidence that Mr. Bush had any knowledge other than that which made everyone else in the world believe that the most ruthless dictator in the world since Adolf Hitler had WMDs at his disposal. It would be interesting to know how he could have had this information when the vast majority of the U.S. Congress and the other world leaders were not aware of it. Where are the facts that Mr. Bush had any or this information?

In a Feb. 16 letter about "Kidding ourselves," D. Philip writes, "By our acts to incite extremists to take desperate measures to throw off the brutal yoke of western oppression." If this is not the pinnacle of "the pollution and waste we spew off every day" that he or she alludes to, I do not know what is. D. Philip should thank God that he or she lives in the greatest country in the world that will tolerate such a blatantly subversive statement. Please explain this brutal yoke of Western oppression that would justify the brutal killing of civilian men, women and children on 9/11.

JACK GRUNDSTROM

Rowley