To the N.H. Department of Energy, Concord, N.H.:
Dear Sirs,
On behalf of Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) and our approximately 300 members throughout the Seacoast region of New Hampshire, I’d like to submit the following comments in regard to your “Nuclear Roadmap” process.
In considering an energy “roadmap,” I thought of a famous essay in Foreign Affairs, by energy expert Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute—which was published 50 years ago this year. In it, he posited two paths to our energy future—50 years on—dubbed “hard” and “soft,” and you can likely guess which is which. While the soft path was mostly neglected over the ensuing decades, Lovins was mostly right about the actual changes in energy use across our country in that time. Instead of the 300 percent envisioned by the Nixon administration and their reckless—and doomed—proposed development of one thousand nuclear plants by the year 2000, we saw more like a 30 percent actual increase over fifty years, just about as Lovins projected, and with very few new nuclear plants actually built—with Seabrook being the last of that generation ever completed.
His title, “Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken”—no doubt referencing one-time New Hampshire resident Robert Frost—seems particularly apt for the current discussion. A road map is normally used to get to a destination, but in the case of our state’s energy use, what is it? Our state has not had an updated energy plan for about a decade now, so we have to question what the state’s broader objective is in the current context. Most people would look to sustainability, or energy independence, or more mundanely/immediately, energy “affordability.” In the case of nuclear, all available evidence negates these goals as attainable with this approach. The goal just seems to be to attract a few business opportunities or offer “boutique” power for data centers, crypto-mining and the like. Where’s the broader public interest in this?
The proposed nuclear development presented so far in this roadmap process seems to proffer none of these larger goals. Projected capacities of “small modular reactors” won’t likely replace fossil fuels any time soon, won’t make use of local energy sources, and won’t even be likely to be close-to-affordable without massive government subsidies. Beyond that, this approach appears to have all the markings of putting a “thumb on the scale” of economic development, of the state choosing winners and losers—an effort anathema to the “New Hampshire Way” of governing.
In contrast, other New England states are pursuing offshore wind and other renewables as well as industrial scale battery storage in growing quantities—power sources that are indigenous and increasingly affordable and resilient. With Vineyard Wind in particular, MA PUC expects to save ratepayers $1.4 Billion over other possible sources, over the life of the wind farm, and it has already proven to be capable of reducing winter “peaking power” demands and resulting exorbitant financial costs. Can any proposed nuclear facility make a similar claim?
In a bit more recent history, in October of 2019, Joe Doiron of N.H. DOE said “Offshore wind is going to be a big player, and we love this.” In January 2020, Gov. Sununu said—in an executive order—that “New Hampshire has an unprecedented opportunity in that offshore wind in the Gulf of Maine is an abundant source of renewable energy that can be generated at scale.”
So what changed since then—could it be just a shift of the political winds rather than any objective change in the viability of offshore wind? This came along coincidentally with obsessive and illegal attempts at interference from the federal administration, which New Hampshire was alone among Northeast states in neglecting to counter on legal grounds.
So I expect you will complete a great roadmap for potential nuclear development, but any useful map should include alternate routes in case the preferred one doesn’t pan out. I urge everyone as we go down that road to consider more sustainable, practical and affordable alternatives, because we—that is N.H. utilities on our behalf—aren’t buying nuclear now (see any recent “disclosure labels” from those utilities, posted on the DOE website), and we ratepayers and taxpayers won’t buy “new and improved” nuclear in the future.
Governor Ayotte has signed the relevant legislation (H.B 1775 and H.B. 1738) enabling N.H. utilities to purchase or invest in existing and future nuclear plants, and she will no doubt approve your roadmap to smooth the way to nuclear development in the Granite State. But future politicians will rue the day when we neglected common sense and sustainability in renewed pursuit of the shiny but costly object that “advanced nuclear” represents.
Respectfully,
Doug Bogen
Executive Director
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League
Doug:
New Hampshire Republicans have long been willing to run roughshod over the citizenry while they throw money at entrenched interests.
Abandoning an abundant source of renewable energy because they’re too cowardly to resist a petulant toddler is a new low, though.
The Editor
–=≈=–
No More Arms For Netanyahu
To the Editor:
I got more C’s than A’s in law school, but one of my A’s was in International Law, where I studied the law of war. It is a well-established war crime to shoot at innocent civilian children while trying to get at enemy combatants—hands down, no exceptions. That is what Netanyahu’s IDF forces have been doing in Gaza for two years and it has not stopped. Many thousands of children have been killed. That is why he has been indicted by the International Criminal Court and is subject to arrest in 93 countries—but not inTrump’s America.
Seventeen international organizations have declared the Israeli massacre of Palestinians to be genocide. Why does it continue? Why does Congress still vote to send arms to Netanyahu? Why has this all but disappeared from the mainstream media? Because of the big money from AIPAC and allied corporate donors, who will eviscerate anyone who even tries to oppose it, by first labeling them as “antisemitic,” if they’re a candidate, spending millions to slander and defeat them. The last time I brought this up in a letter to the editor, the next issue published another excoriating me as an “antisemite,” despite my being the only non-Jew in my childhood neighborhood. I went to so many Bar Mitzvahs growing up that I can recite the prayers verbatim. Anyway, most of the donors to these PACs, like AIPAC, are in fact not Jewish, and according to polls published in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, most Israelis oppose Netanyahu’s war crimes.
The most egregious result of this genocide is that over 4,000 child amputees are among those victims who survived. Most of those were done without anesthesia, which was rarely available due to the IDF’s blockade of relief supplies. When I hear “arms for Israel,” I see the image of all the little arms that Palestinian children have already sacrificed on account of Netanyahu.
Every one of our current New Hampshire federal delegation takes such PAC money, votes to arm Israel, and is thus complicit in these crimes. The ones up for election in 2026 have opponents in their Democratic Primaries who pledge not to take such tainted money. I, personally, can no longer live with myself supporting any of these incumbents. I will vote for their opponents who oppose genocide. No more arms for Israel—and no more little arms!
Theodore Bosen
Berlin, N.H.
Theodore:
Why do we never hear the question, “do Palestinians have a right to exist?”
The Editor
–=≈=–
Vote, People
Dear Editor:
In mid-July of 2021, the new Biden administration passed the American Rescue Plan, expanding tax credits for children, returning $15 billion dollars to families of 60 million children. Every D.C. Republican voted “no.” For one year it helped one in seven children living in poverty. Families did not stop working, as critics predicted. Pres. Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act of July, 2025, passing without a single Democratic vote, gave $4.5 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthy and to corporations, while cutting more than $1 trillion from social welfare programs. I pass this on from Heather Cox Richardson’s “Letters from an American.”
In lead-up to September 8th primary voting, and then November 3rd voting, candidates mail to us, perhaps poll us, put TV ads before our eyes. Our priorities? Choose for the people we live among?
Ask candidates questions. What solutions do they offer for health care expansion rather than reduction? What solutions for childcare affordability? Can everyone have a fair shot at adequate housing? Our state fails in our taxation system with current state government (Republican dominated) shifting costs to property taxation as their “solution.” Costs are real. (An old bumper sticker now—“Think education is expensive? Try ignorance!”) We have, with voting, chance to correct wrongs. Don’t just dream for better—vote in caring Democrats. Love America. Party is not just a label.
Lynn Rudmin Chong
Sanbornton, N.H.
–=≈=–
Meet Cyclospora, Brought To You By…
Dear Editor:
As a result of another assault on public health by the Trump administration, and especially HHS Secretary RFK, Jr., the nation is now experiencing a huge outbreak of a serious parasitic infection. The parasitic disease outbreak caused by cyclospora has spread to 29 states, including Michigan which has seen over 1,000 cases. The disease causes explosive diarrhea and can lead to dehydration and serious complications, especially for the very young, older people, and immune-compromised individuals.
Because of budget cuts made by RFK, Jr. to the CDC, funding for a program called FoodNet eliminated surveillance for six of eight diseases, including cyclospora in July, 2025. Also eliminated from the surveillance program were shigella, listeria, campylobacter, vibrio and Yersinia. All of these diseases pose serious health risks. However, as a result of these haphazard, dangerous and counterproductive decisions by RFK, Jr., we are at greater risk from uncontrolled outbreaks. The surveillance network to monitor and quickly control outbreaks has been eliminated. A list of CDC talking points reported by NBC News last summer clearly blamed lack of funding for the reduction of the FoodNet program’s surveillance, stating, “Funding has not kept pace with the resources required to maintain the continuation of FoodNet surveillance for all eight pathogens.”
The American people are now at greater risk from serious preventable diseases as a result of decisions being made by unqualified individuals with little or no public health or medical experience. The results speak for themselves.
Rich DiPentima, RN, MPH
Portsmouth, N.H.
Rich:
Apparently true patriots are able to transcend petty concerns such as explosive diarrhea, and focus instead on mythical advances in abstract concepts such as “greatness.”
The Editor
–=≈=–
Urrutia is Right about Genocide in Gaza
To the Editor:
Christian Urrutia, a Democratic candidate for Congress in New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District, has stated that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and that the United States should not be subsidizing Israel’s military.
That conclusion is supported by the findings of numerous Holocaust and genocide scholars, including Israeli historian Raz Segal, who cites explicit statements of genocidal intent, mass killing of civilians, deliberately destroying life-sustaining conditions, and the systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure.
On June 23rd, a United Nations Commission reported that the Israeli military continues to commit genocide in Gaza by deliberately targeting children, causing “unprecedented death, injury and trauma.” The report details attacks on hospitals, schools, and orphanages, as well as torture and sexual violence against children in custody, concluding that “the essence of childhood has been destroyed.”
Yet there remains a striking lack of urgency among members of Congress when it comes to protecting Palestinian lives. As Jewish American scholar Judith Butler has observed: “The Palestinians have been labeled as ungrievable. That is to say, they are not a group of people whose lives are being considered as worthy of value, of persisting, of flourishing in this world. If they are lost, it is not considered to be a true loss.”
Congress must confront this moral failure and comply with U.S. law. The Leahy Law states: “No assistance shall be furnished to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.” Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has introduced an amendment to eliminate $3.3 billion in military aid for Israel from the federal budget, showing that Congress does have the power to condition assistance.
Anything less is a choice to accept the ongoing destruction of Palestinian life.
Terry Hansen
Grafton, Wisconsin
–=≈=–
WTF?
To the Editors:
Who does this? From where’s it come? On the way to work. Three-year old daughter watching. Terrifying moment you are suddenly overtaken by masked riders. I tried to pull over. A social security number no longer needed. Body left on ground five hours. Quotas to meet. Not who they were looking for. Change the story. Walk away, enjoy the sun. Kiss your girlfriend.
William Trently
Stratham, N.H.
–=≈=–
It’s Time for a Massive Pushback
To the editor;
J.D. Vance, before his conversion to loyal stooge, described Trump as “America’s Hitler.” Although some believe that the analogy is unnecessarily inflammatory, Trump’s second term provides ample examples for comparison. Recently, he has appointed unqualified lickspittles as Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence. If the appointments pass the Senate, Trump will consolidate control over the federal agencies that provide federal law enforcement and coordinate intelligence gathering by 18 agencies. This will add to his previously acquired power, yielded through the sycophants that he has appointed to his Cabinet and other regulatory agencies. Additionally, he has built his own personal Gestapo in the guise of ICE, which he sees fit to deploy as he wishes.
Although Trump has amassed a great deal of power over Executive agencies, he realizes that the ultimate arbiter of power in a democratic society is the voter. Consequently, he has sought every opportunity to influence or discredit the election process to ensure that he and his minions retain power in upcoming elections. His speech on July 16th was an attempt to energize his base, gin up support for his flagging voter restriction bill (Save America Act) and generally debase the validity of the election process. It included stale lies, discredited conspiracy theories, and provided no information that would demonstrate that election outcomes have been affected by either foreign or domestic actors. For any rational American, the speech was an embarrassment, but it served as a red herring for MAGA loyalists and provided a possible pretext for future action. The speech may represent Trump’s attempt to recreate Hitler’s Reichstag Fire moment. The burning of the Reichstag in 1933 provided the pretext for Hitler and the Nazis to assume authoritarian powers. Blaming the fire on Communist agitators who were portrayed as an existential threat to the Weimar Republic, Hitler persuaded Hindenburg to give him wide-ranging powers which included the suspension of civil liberties and other legal restraints. Hitler used the powers to eliminate political opposition. Thousands of Communists and Socialists were arrested, and the Communist Party was banned. This period marked the beginning of the end to the Weimar Republic and the transition to totalitarianism.
It is not a far-fetched idea that Trump would justify emergency action to interfere in future elections based on the bogus contention that the election process is corrupt. It is not unusual for him to act peremptorily, taking actions outside his legal authority. Tariffs and harsh immigration control using ICE are recent examples. He interfered in the 2020 election by instigating an insurrection to overturn the result and calling the Georgia Secretary of State to find the votes necessary to overturn the election in that state. Trump has set the stage for future election intervention by claiming that a compromised election process is a threat to American democracy. His July 16th speech now provides a reference point for interference in the upcoming midterm elections. Courts have restrained Trump’s initiatives in many cases, but what their response may be in the face of an emergency declaration or the imposition of martial law is uncertain. Moreover, given the glacial judicial process, could they act quickly enough to prevent the takeover of state elections? Moreover, what means do the courts have of enforcing any ruling after the action has become a fait accompli? Congress, currently under the control of Republican sycophants, is not likely to provide any meaningful pushback and indeed may support Trump’s takeover.
Trump has shown himself to be a threat to democratic processes since day one. In a well-functioning democracy, he would have been consigned to the dustbin of history long ago, yet he has been able to steadily amass power, over both the Executive Branch and the Republican Party. We are at the point that a massive grass roots pushback by voters may be the only means for preserving American democracy.
Robert D. Russell, PhD
Harrisburg, Pa.
Robert:
Somehow it is both reassuring and unsettling to find someone as measured and judicious as yourself reaching the same conclusion we have.
The Editor
–=≈=–
2026 Hungarian Revolution 2.0
To the editor:
Seventy years ago, in October, 1956, Hungarians rebelled against Russian domination of their country, but that Hungarian Revolution failed resulting in many deaths and refugees leaving the country. Both of us were young children at the time when our families became refugees, and came to the U.S.A. becoming American citizens.
Today we are overjoyed to celebrate a successful second Hungarian Revolution against Russian influence in that country. With an almost 80 percent voter turnout, the opposition won 70 percent of the seats in the parliament in the April 12th elections. This did not only impact the residents of that country, but sent political aftershocks worldwide. Prime Minister Victor Orban seemed invincible after 16 years of authoritarian rule. But Peter Magyar, leader of the opposition TISZA party, campaigning in-person for two years, while being blocked from using public and private media outlets, defeated Mr. Orban and his allies.
TISZA’s message was simple to understand. First, he affirmed the rights of all citizens which he pledged to protect. But he also stated what everyone already knew: Hungary was one of the poorest and the most corrupt members of the European Union, and everything in Hungary was becoming less affordable for Hungarians. Magyar pointed the finger at the massive corruption and favoritism of the Orban family and his government, saying this is the cause of your affordability crisis.
The losers of this election were: Mr. Orban, Orban’s family and friends, Mr. Putin, President Trump, Vice-President J.D. Vance, the Chinese government, and Republican and religious admirers of Mr. Orban. But winners were: the Hungarian people, the European Union, NATO, Ukraine, democracies worldwide, and resistance to President Trump.
Mr. Orban’s 16-year authoritarian rule started by taking over the media. Friends of Orban’s purchased most media and later made donations to a “non-profit foundation.” He attacked the universities and other institutions that were not supportive of his government and made the public school curriculum more government friendly.
He formed alliances with other authoritarians including Netanyahu, Trump and the previous anti-EU government in Poland, as well as conservative governments in Slovakia and Slovenia while alienating former allies. The Hungarian government consistently voted against European Union (EU) and NATO initiatives and supported Russian interests.
Sanctioned oligarchs and criminally indicted foreign officials migrated to the safety of Orban’s Hungary. It became a country for the wealthy and the corrupt.
In 2024, Peter Magyar, a former member of Orban’s party, broke with the party and spoke out about the corruption within the party.
Almost immediately, the government media attacked him, but the citizenry believed him, particularly the youth.
He spoke not only about corruption, but also about delivering solutions to everyday issues and vowed to hold criminals accountable for robbing the country. The new Prime Minister is not wasting any time. He reversed prior oppressive directives, asked for and demanded resignations, and moved to reconnect with the EU and old allies. The new Hungarian government is pushing constitutional changes to block Viktor Orban from ever returning to power.
Many oligarchs and possible criminals quickly fled with their families and their ill-gotten money to welcoming places like Dubai, Saudi Arabia and, notably, the United States after the election. Also, a fugitive Polish official left one day before the swearing-in ceremony with the assistance of the U.S. State Department.
While this year marks the 70th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising, it also marks the 250th anniversary of the United States, with the dream of freedom from tyranny; a country where all men are created equal; a free people accepting of immigrants who share these ideals.
April 12th shows us that an overwhelming vote of the people can defeat an invincible authoritarian. Election results are not the end but the beginning.
Peter Somssich is a former N.H. State Representative, a 1956 Hungarian refugee, and resident of Portsmouth N.H.
Annamaria Szendroi, is a 1956 Hungarian refugee, lover of freedom, and a resident of Black Canyon City, Arizona
Peter and Annamaria:
Magyar won, you say, by “delivering solutions to everyday issues and vowed to hold criminals accountable for robbing the country.”
What a concept! Wonder if that would work in the U.S.…
The Editor