Letter: Fireworks Costly, Dangerous & Toxic

Letter to the EditorPrint Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

I wrote the paragraph below on the Williamstown Facebook page regarding this year's fireworks plans. My comments are just as applicable to every town in the county and every city across America that plans a fireworks display.

The experience of Canadian forest fires' smoke-filled air blocking out the otherwise sunny sky above should give us all pause about how we have historically celebrated the 4th with fireworks. Everything about life as we had come to expect it is now in flux: hotter summers, warmer winters, more frequent and more severe weather, rising sea levels, worsening air quality, more global pandemics. We are a caring, educated and progressive community and, as such, as we observe the disruptions to the planet that human activity is causing; isn't it time to ban the use of fireworks due to the smoke and noise pollution as well as the toxins including lead that are released into the air and which then enter our lungs, enter the ground and our water both surface and underground.

The Mount Greylock wells were contaminated by the annual fireworks displays that used to be held there. Now the college is hosting fireworks at the Taconic Golf Course. Surely the damage being done is hardly worth the expense or the hour of thrills (?) the few who attend experience. There are better totally safe and more enjoyable ways to celebrate such as a light show. The Chamber (supported by local businesses and our taxes) and the Select Board (using our tax dollars) which are paying for the show should make this the last year for fireworks and plan on a healthy, responsible, planet-friendly alternative in the future.

It is my hope that readers will recognize this appeal is to our better selves. It is not anti-American, it is pro-health, pro-environment, and pro-gressive (time for change).

I am hoping readers throughout the county will join in the effort and movement to end the costly, dangerous, and toxic displays. Many household pets are terrified of the sound and of course the wildlife in our surrounding forests are as well but they have no voice. If they could speak, they would say how damaging it is to their sensitive hearing, how terrifying for them and their young, and how badly it smells that they forage and eat plants and drink water that have been contaminated from the fallout.

What of some of those who have fought in wars for our freedom and come home with PTSD? Some of them find the loud noise and bright lights bring back traumatic memories.

In other words, there is probably only a small minority of citizens who actually enjoy the fireworks and thrill to the sounds and light. There are safe alternatives. We should honor and celebrate in a manner that doesn't add to the harm being done to the planet, wildlife, and even ourselves.
 

Paul A. Harsch III
Williamstown, Mass.

 

 


Tags: fireworks,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Letter: Vote No on 'Jungle' Primaries

Letter to the Editor

To the Editor:

They don't call them "jungle primaries" for nothing.

Question 3 on the November ballot would trash two-party primary elections and replace them with California-style, chaotic — and extraordinarily costly — "jungle" primaries that would destroy the very political parties that have kept America stable since Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison created them in the 1790s.

Jungle primaries put all candidates, regardless of party, on one ballot with the top two vote-getters facing off in the general election — even if they're from the same party. That would create chaos, but the real issue is money: Jungle primaries give a distinct advantage to candidates backed by corporate money and the super wealthy. In short, jungle primaries move our primaries from the ballot box to big donor meetings long before campaigning even begins.

When something this radical is proposed, you have to look at who's behind it, who's funding it, and ask "why" they are doing it.

Their philosophical guru is Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor who ran for governor in 2022 but couldn't get 15 percent of the Democratic Convention vote to win the party's endorsement.

The money behind this extreme attack on small "d" democratic politics tells us more. With over $5 million in the bank as of Aug. 28, this is a very well-funded campaign — the lion's share of which came from wealthy Boston-area private equity individuals.

Twenty-two private equity executives gave $3.99 million, or 77 percent of all the money from individuals. Current and former Bain Capital executives contributed $1.92 million, and Berkshire Partners executives put up $1.32 million. In short, 22 rich people put up nearly $4 million to change how five million of us vote. Yes, it seems the ultra-wealthy want to destroy the two-party system that has kept our politics stable for 200 years.

View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories