Sir, – Newton Emerson (“Compulsory Irish in a united Ireland? Unionists won’t like that”, May7th) raises a very valid point about the language and if – and whether – it should remain compulsory in any new political entity on this island.
There is a larger issue, though, and that is the cultural colonisation of the public realm by Irish. The Official Languages (Amendment) Act 2021 strengthens the Official Languages Act 2003 to enhance public services provided through Irish.
This has now manifested itself in a plethora of advertising in Irish by public bodies and more visibly in the use of exclusively Irish names of official bodies.
None of this in itself is objectionable, and no doubt is acceptable to most citizens of the Republic.
READ MORE
It hardly bothers them, after all. And where it matters – reaching the customer – you’ll notice that the private market doesn’t do much of it.
It isn’t costless, of course, and it would be interesting to know what that cost actually is.
Of more significance is its effect on those whom we wish to entice into a united Ireland. One of the significant and valuable commonalities we possess is our use of English as the island’s lingua franca.
And we’re good at it – our writers, actors, poets and commentators bear witness to our prowess. That’s common to north and south.
We have enough borders on this island without erecting a linguistic one, too. – Yours, etc,
IAN D’ALTON,
Naas
Co Kildare.
Going nuclear
Sir – Gavin Daly in his letter (May 5th) supports a factual debate on whether Ireland should go nuclear, which seems eminently sensible.
As I write, on an early summer’s day with sunshine and a light breeze, EirGrid is currently supplying us all with 3.4GW of power. In the winter this will rise as high as 7GW. As we add more electric vehicles this will rise even higher.
Fifty-six per cent of this is being generated from carbon fuels and 22 per cent is being imported, largely from carbon fuels.
To get away from being carbon junkies – and we can see how expensive our habit is getting – we need to do something, even if it takes a decade or so.
More windmills would be great, but we don’t seem to be able to get them past the planning stage.
More batteries are part of the plan, but they are heavily dependent on rare earth minerals which in years to come will surely become bargaining chips just like oil.
So surely nuclear is an obvious option to add to the mix.
Daly rightly states that Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are currently all the rage, but I would challenge that they only exist as unproven prototypes.
The first SMR was launched in 1954, as the power train of the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear submarine, using a Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR).
Over 70 years later this scale of submarine reactor type has seen many decades of safe service in extreme conditions, so it is no prototype.
We don’t know how much it will cost, or how long it will take, but could we not at least start to try to do something?
Because if we do nothing, it will cost the Earth. – Yours, etc,
NEIL VAUGHAN,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – In large part, the opposition to “going nuclear” is driven by memories of accidents, such as those that occurred at Three Mile Island, Fukushima and Chernobyl.
Three Mile Island killed one person. Fukushima killed one years after the disaster (the other deaths were caused by the tsunami and from a panicked evacuation). Chernobyl killed 31 in the accident and perhaps several thousand from cancer.
However, if one looks at the data, nuclear power is safer than fossil fuels. Smoke from burning coal kills more than half a million people per year.
Dam failures, gas explosions, and oil train crashes all cause deaths, sometimes in large numbers.
Not to mention the numbers of people killed as a result of climate change, which is primarily caused by burning fossil fuels.
Several eminent climate scientists, having crunched the numbers, have warned that there is no credible path to climate stabilisation that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.
There are well-documented risks that come with nuclear power, for example, regarding the disposal of nuclear waste, the risks of explosions, terrorist and cyberattacks, but do these risks outweigh the risks associated with climate change, energy insecurity, and continuing to burn fossil fuels (presuming we cannot achieve 100 per cent energy generation from renewables)?
Renewables, particularly wind, must obviously form part of the solution, and due to the historical taboo surrounding nuclear power in Ireland, probable political resistance and inevitable planning delays, nuclear energy will not form part of the solution to our short term energy needs. But is there a role for nuclear energy in Ireland’s energy mix in the longer term, for example, in the form of small modular reactors, to complement renewables? If not, why not?
I am not advocating for nuclear, but there needs to a proper discussion around this issue.
If there is to be no role for nuclear energy production in our energy mix, we need to know why, and what the alternative long term plan is. – Yours, etc,
ROB SADLIER,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
Climate change
Sir, – How refreshing it was to read Paddy Woodworth’s clear and simple explanation of climate change, its causes, impact and necessary solutions (Opinion, May 6th).
He would do us all a great service by copying the article to every TD and councillor. The penny might drop when they read such a clear and graphic article.
Unfortunately for us all, politicians, and not only in Ireland, have chosen to ignore the scientifically proven consequences of climate change for over 50 years.
I do, however, take issue with one point he made in stating that most EU states avoid taking the radical actions needed to reverse the current dangerous trends. That implies some states are taking the radical actions needed.
I am certainly not aware of any radical state actions to date.
Let us hope that they do so shortly for everyone’s sake and future generations in particular.
Failure to do so means the ecological tipping point will be totally shattered and that will be on our generation. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL STARRETT,
Glendine Road,
Kilkenny.
Battery life
Sir, – I sincerely hope the Government turns its deafest ear and sharpest tongue on Technology Ireland, a lobby group which represents the “tech industry”, in the group’s efforts to be exempt from new rules that will require products, such as smartwatches and fitness trackers to be fitted with easily replaceable batteries (“Smart-watch makers seek exemption from battery rules,” Jack Power, May 6th)
This battery issue pertaining to wearable technology should only be a starting point in tackling wider battery powered technology, aimed at the individual, such as smartphones, laptops, tablets and headphones etc. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL GANNON,
Kilkenny.
Loving the Liffey water
Sir,- Joan Burgess (Letters, May 7th) casts doubt on the accuracy of Denis Kenny’s recollections from 40 years ago, of drinking from the river Liffey at the Strawberry Beds, without suffering any ill effects, and suspects the involvement of rose-tinted glasses.
In support of her argument she cites the evidence provided by Bagatelle in their well known song Summer in Dublin, where they refer to the malodorous waters of the river. I can remember myself how unpleasant the Liffey in Dublin city centre smelled at that time.
However, had the members of Bagatelle eschewed the distinctly unadventurous choice of simply “jumping on a bus to Dún Laoghaire”, but had, instead, leapt into the river Liffey and swam a few miles upstream, they would have reached the Strawberry Beds, where Mr Kenny used to stop for refreshment and which are mentioned in the well-known Dubliners song The Ferryman, where they sing about “Where the Strawberry Beds sweep down to the Liffey,” etc.
At that point the members of Bagatelle would have noticed a distinct improvement in water quality and, like Mr Kenny, could have taken a refreshing drink without coming to any harm.
For my part, I have no doubt that Mr Kenny’s recollections are accurate and that if, indeed, he happens to possess a pair of rose-tinted spectacles, he was not wearing them on this occasion. – Yours, etc.
KATHERINE QUIRKE,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
Covid and closures
Sir, – As commentators from Michael McDowell to Dr Mike Ryan and Prof Anne Scott, with various letter writers, have recently expressed opinions on our Covid strategy, some factors influencing international variation warrant consideration (Letters, May 6th).
The insight of economist Thomas Sowell – “there are no solutions, only trade offs” – was especially true at the start of the pandemic. The threat posed by the novel virus was unknown in morbidity or mortality terms, but it was real. So a balance reflecting Irish values had to be struck.
Firstly, comparing our strategy to that of Sweden, as Michael McDowell did, is unhelpful (“We must never repeat the colossal damage we inflicted on ourselves during Covid-19”, Opinion, April 29th).
About half of Swedish households contain one person. Hence the joke that (appropriately) went viral there when two metre social distancing was announced- “ok, but hopefully when this is over we can all go back to our usual five metres”.
In Ireland three generation households are common. Thus to keep schools or colleges open would have seen children returning home risking infection of grandparents.
Fairer comparison can be made with the UK, with which we share a land border. We had a far lower death rate from Covid than the UK, where the NHS, after years of struggle, buckled under the stress of the pandemic.
More generally, states vary in how libertarian or “nanny” they are. Irish people do not merely expect the Government to provide everyone with education and healthcare.
A popular belief is that they should provide homes and, lately, even control oil prices.
While the United States has much in common with us, it is much more libertarian – lower taxes mandate workers to provide for themselves. People there often chose not to wear masks or isolate, incurring a higher rate of death from Covid than Ireland. Few blame the Government.
Thirdly, Ireland is a very litigious country. Compensation is now sought by many bereaved during the pandemic for those losses, while various workers experiencing long Covid pursue redress. With a less restrictive approach to the pandemic, we would now be facing much bigger claims than we are.
The trade-off we were forced to make as the virus hit was of short term quality of life against longer term quantity of life.
Whatever was done in elsewhere, the Irish seems consistent with the values of a people who listen to their elected representatives and the best evidence.
Consequently we had one to two thousand fewer deaths per million than the UK or USA (data from Covid Worldometer).
That came at a cost to our quality of life, perhaps most acutely to those at formative stages in life. I’m not sure I agree with the approach taken but it will be a brave administration that opts for a higher risk one in a future crisis. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Co Cork.
Abortion and women’s rights
Sir – John O’Donovan (Letters, May 8th) adds to the “so many” Irish women debate. Your letter writer has a long list of women’s rights, with which I agree.
Rights also confer duty. There was no mention of the duty of women to control their fertility to avoid pregnancy. Nor of the right of a child to live, once conceived.
We don’t kill our elderly people at the end of their lives. Why do we kill babies at the beginning of their lives? – Yours, etc,
KATHLEEN KELLEHER,
Co Wicklow.
Investing and taxation rules
Sir, – I have read in detail the first couple of issues of “How to Invest” by Fiona Reddan.
While enthusing about spreading risk, by investing in ETFs or other well spread investment funds, nowhere does she mention the harshness of the “deemed disposal” regime operated by the Revenue Commissioners and devised by the Department of Finance.
Briefly the “deemed disposal” rule makes it mandatory to pay tax every eight years, even though the holder has no intention of cashing in.
Added to that is tax at a higher rate than selling shares. And finally, there are no allowances against losses, as is normal with shares
Maybe Irish investors have realised that the oppressive regime operated by the Government make it attractive to hold their savings in bank deposits. – Yours, etc,
ALAN McCARTHY,
Ranelagh,
Dublin 6.
The FAI and Israel
Sir, – A letter has been sent to the FAI which many people in Irish soccer have signed, calling for the match between Ireland and Israel in October to be stopped.
It seems to be getting a lot of traction on social media with people voicing support but then anti-Israel campaigns in this country always do.
In this century Ireland have played China, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran in soccer, all countries with abysmal human rights records and countries that have been involved in well-documented colonisation and ethnic cleansing.
I don’t remember a single campaign to prevent those matches from going ahead.
Perhaps the signatories could explain why Israel deserves to be singled out?
Perhaps they could also explain why they seem to be fine with Ireland playing a friendly this year with Qatar which funds and hosts Hamas? – Yours, etc,
PAUL WILLIAMS,
Kilkee,
Co Clare.
