Government belittles science

The Sunday Insight section included two views of science under the Trump presidency, and both began with one story about the pesticide chlorpyrifos (“Divided by science,” Star-Advertiser, Insight, July 9).

One of the writers, Angela Logomasini, has a Ph.D. in government and works for a conservative think tank.

She used only the one example throughout her entire column to argue that it was inappropriate to use only one example to determine policy.

The other writer, Andrew A. Rosenberg, has a Ph.D. in biology and works for the nonpartisan Union of Concerned Scientists.

He used the anecdote to open up an array of examples from different fields showing how science is being stifled or overtly ignored in many ways.

The anti-science, anecdotal format of the non-scientist column is itself a good example of how the underlying principles of science are being ignored by this administration.

Lana Turner

Downtown Honolulu

—

‘Junk science’ deserves criticism

As an engineer, I appreciate that the paper tries to present two sides to today’s issues (“Divided by science,” Star-Advertiser, Insight, July 9).

Angela Logomasini gave a very convincing argument with detailed technical references on why the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos was flawed. She convinced me the president had rightly attacked “junk science” in this example.

Andrew A. Rosenberg briefly mentioned the chlorpyrifos ban, but went on to give a very convincing but opinion-based argument on the president’s attack on science.

So is the president attacking “junk science” or all science? Or is he attacking sciences that don’t fit his politics? Isn’t this what every president does?

Sam Gillie

Hawaii Kai

—

Rail money could be better used

City Councilman Joey Manahan could use a basic course in Economics 101.

In his recent commentary, he omitted a concept called opportunity cost (“It’s crucial to fund, finish rail — for all,” Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, July 9). Basically it means that if you use limited resources to fund one opportunity, then you are giving up the ability to fund others.

Honolulu is using present and future available funding sources to build a wildly expensive and over-budget $10 billion rail system. In order to do this, the city is giving up other projects Honolulu citizens might desire or need even more for a basic quality of life, such as:

>> Moving homeless off the streets and into treatment;

>> Improving infrastructure such as roads, sewers and parks;

>> Increasing police, fire and lifeguard protections;

>> Repaving Honolulu’s worst roads;

>> Engineering and constructing real solutions to Oahu’s traffic congestion.

Instead, Manahan believes building a 19th-century transportation system will magically improve Honolulu life. He deserves a failing grade.

Pam Smith

Ewa Beach

—

Loss of Kim, Park disappointing

What was the point of Lee Cataluna’s “Hawaii Five-0” column (“Kim, Park will hear ‘book ‘em’ again soon,” Star-Advertiser, July 7)?

Was it that equal pay and diversity don’t matter because it’s just TV, and technology has made TV irrelevant? Is it that fairness and representation are unimportant because Grace Park and Daniel Dae Kim are talented enough that career-wise they’ll be fine in the long run — so “separate but unequal” is OK?

Neither carries the show as much as Alex O’Loughlin, but both have been with the series since the premiere and are as critical to its success as Scott Caan, whose whining has not been funny since Season 3.

Yes, it’s only a TV show, but it was important that women and minorities were portrayed in roles that showed them as competent, equal team members.

“Hawaii Five-0” was a real leader in showcasing diversity, and that was what made the show so enjoyable — to see faces on TV that looked like my world. I’m disappointed in the producers of the show and I don’t know if I’ll still watch.

Kris Matsumoto Wong

Kaneohe

—

Bottle law keeps people on streets

The state has put an unfair burden on the people of Hawaii with the bottle law. The costly and inconvenient strategy for recycling has created a street-level economy for scavengers, allowing them to sustain their homeless lifestyle while putting a burden on social services and our way of life.

Take away money for recyclables and watch homeless levels return to what they were before the bottle law was enacted.

Eric Phillips

Kapahulu