DEAR EDITOR: Three smelters multiply, by an unknown factor, all the risks of one, in an area comprising less than 150 square miles.

What are the risks of one smelter? The island of Trinidad sits on or near a critical fault line. Earthquakes can cause physical damage, as well as, serious explosions. As was seen recently, flooding seawaters can reach as far as one mile inland and it is possible they could go farther.

We have been fortunate so far in that these have not combined with storm flooding. Flooding could well follow a destructive earthquake event and there is nothing to prevent it coming first. Coming after, it would seriously hamper the emergency response and relief; but at least some contamination would spread by water.

Coming first, it would make immediate emergency action virtually impossible before the waters subsided, helicopter rescue excepted; meanwhile, no contamination control would be possible while the water prevailed.

Trinidad is not equipped or ready to handle any disaster, let alone disasters of those kinds. In addition, the reality is that there are no health services for the people, nor resources in ecological expertise, to provide care for chronic and inherited disease and remedy for the environment, if, in spite of the smelter’s technological advancement, safeguards and boasting, it turns out these are required at the necessary levels, because of some “non-disaster leak” (e.g. dock-side), etc., that is the case even before any disaster occurs. Will there be an agreement as to shutdown scenarios? Who will bear the various types of costs? How would starting up again be determined?

The radius of implication is not five miles and depending on wind and water currents, liabilities would arise to Venezuela, Guyana, Grenada and the balance of Trinidad’s 1,760 square miles, and its own fisheries would suffer.

The costs of losses, to people, land and sovereignty would far outweigh the benefits. Even if financial loss were “paid for” by the plant owners, that could never make up for the opportunity costs, especially in the foregone health, happiness and simplicity of the majority.

Comprising all land and sea uses and the water supply and forcing it on the populace, is against all planning principle, regardless of project. “Sacrificing” some agricultural land for that, does not make an exemption. It could never be a use-precedent for any land, let alone agricultural.

Clearly, adding to the over-industrialisation that has ruined the coast from La Brea to Couva, and overshadowed the Savonetta plain, will only make worse what was done and what could come to pass.
Elias Galy, Port of Spain

DEAR EDITOR: Thanks for the insightful article “Why Must our Children Pay” by Anthony  Beharrysingh of St Charles parish, Tunapuna in the Catholic News of October 29.

I too smile when I remember our lush green vegetation, forested areas and vast stretches of agricultural lands supplying our food. I too am fearful of what the future generations will experience if we are not good stewards of Mother Earth, and are damaging, diminishing or selling our natural resources.

History tells us how happy our Amerindian ancestors were in the land of Iere before the arrival of the Spaniards. Greed for the mythical El Dorado was the downfall of the Spaniards. They never recovered their might. Our ancestors were scattered and their freedom diminished.

Are we about to exchange our children’s birthrights for a pot of gold? Young people hear this. This is your native land to inherit, to live upon, to love and use wisely for future generations.

Do you want helter-skelter-smelters or do you want clean air and water and healthy bodies, including all the playing fields we can get. You are educated. Do your research and let the media and our leaders be informed of your opinions.
Jessie Clyne, Diego Martin