A Closer Look
The new "reformulated" oxygenated fuels which are now being widely distributed are supposed to clean the air. But a closer look reveals that they have little effect.
A study done by D. Simanaitis (Road & Track, March 1993) indicates that the new fuels have little if any effect on the emissions of cars with catalytic converters.
All cars built since the late 1970s have been required to have catalytic converters. In older cars that don't have the converters, the new fuel has a significant effect, but not all good.
If the older cars are well-tuned, the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons emissions are reduced drastically. However, if the cars are not well tuned, the emissions get worse. So the overall effect on emissions is questionable at best.
According to M. Wald in the New York Times (Nov. 9, 1994), the new fuel has a lower energy content than regular unleaded gas.
This is evident in gas mileage. An average car currently uses about 600 gallons of gas per year. This is 12,000 miles at 20 miles per gallon, 18,000 at 30 mpg, or 24,000 at 40 mpg.
Since the new fuel contains less energy, my mileage has decreased by 10 percent. I will now be using 667 gallons per year of the oxygenated fuel.
The new fuel supposedly costs 5 cents per gallon more than the current formula. A 5 cents per gallon increase, if the energy content were the same, would cost $30 per year. The truth is that the new fuel will cost $110 per year ($30 plus 67 gallons at $1.20/gallon).
The additional fuel consumption also means that more carbon dioxide will be produced, a negative environmental effect.
The winners: Federal and state governments, which collect significant additional revenues from gas taxes and the producers of MTBE (the oxygenating additive).
The losers: Drivers, who have to pay more for less, and the environment, which faces more carbon dioxide.
Everyone wants clean air, but oxygenated gasoline clearly is not the solution and may be compounding the problem.
Michael J. Lazarus
Abingdon
The writer is secretary, Engineering Council of Maryland.
Neglected School
Baltimore County has responded quickly to the tragic loss of the school in Sparks. It is fortuitous for us that Cockeysville is under capacity and is welcoming us so graciously.
But now in the flurry of excitement over our new location, we must not forget that the county neglected us in our historic old building.
A vastly smaller amount of money spent on maintaining that 80-year-old building could have kept it safe and possibly prevented the trauma to our children and to our community.
A generation of children must now school in guest quarters, and their teachers struggle to deal with the loss of a lifetime of resource material.
I am angry that years of county neglect are now water under the bridge, because we are suddenly tragic victims of a major crisis.
Baltimore County should have maintained its obligation to keep our school safe and not ignored our pleas for basic repair work.
Let's hope that the outpouring of county support for us will continue, and a new school built for us with great speed, so that we will not remain displaced victims of years of county unattention and penny pinching.
Laura Wilke
Monkton
Be Prepared
Kathy Lally's article about the once-feared Russian army (Jan. 15) brought back memories of our own Army in June 1950.
Understrength and poorly trained units of the American Army were suddenly thrust into South Korea. The first results of American ground fighting there were as disastrous as the first results of the Russian units in Chechnya.
In many ways the cause of our poor preparedness then was similar to the problems the Russians have today.
Kathy Lally quotes Pavel Felgenhauer, defense editor for Russia's Sevodnya newspaper, who wrote, "The Russian army was designed to fight a nuclear war, and therefore it doesn't meet with much success in conventional fighting."
This was the same situation which confronted our own military forces after World War II. America's defense budget dropped from $350 billion in 1945 to $12.3 billion in 1949.
Our military thinking was much like the Russians' as our own forces were designed to fight a nuclear war. Our army, which had the most men, had a budget equal to that of the new air force.
These budget limitations had reduced all army units in Japan and Okinawa by one-third. Infantry divisions with a normal full strength of 18,000 men were reduced to 12,000 men.
Tanks were rare, and those few light tanks that existed were not able to stop the Russian-made North Korean T-34 tank.
An example of introducing poorly trained troops into combat was the experience of the 29th Infantry Regiment that was stationed on Okinawa.
This regiment had only enough men to fill two infantry battalions instead of the normal three. As the unit was loading on board ship to go to Korea, 400 new recruits arrived. They were loaded without being given time to even fire their new weapons.
When the unit arrived in Korea, the commanding officer of the unit begged Eighth Army headquarters to give him a brief time to allow the new men to fire their weapons and adjust to their unit.
Instead the unit was quickly rushed to the front. West of Chinju on Hadong Pass the 3rd Battalion of about 800 men was ambushed. Half the men became casualties, while most of the officers were killed.
Later, when American units finally recovered the pass, they found the bodies of 313 men of this unit who had been captured and slaughtered by the North Koreans.
The dismal showing of the Russian army in Chechnya should serve as a reminder that the United States needs to remain prepared for conventional warfare and not forget our early mistakes in Korea.
D. Randall Beirne
Baltimore
O.J. Simpson's Trial
I read with dismay the article by Douglas Colbert (Perspective, Jan. 22) about the O. J. Simpson trial.
I say with dismay because I have been a prosecutor for most of my 20 years of law practice and could not disagree more with my colleague's premise that a fair trial can only be had by the wealthy and those that are celebrities.
I have tried many cases throughout the United States and many in the courts of Maryland. I have appeared against public defenders, appointed counsel and those privately retained.
In a case similar to the Simpson trial, in which a man killed his nephew, I tried a multi-week trial against two appointed counsel during which my co-counsel and I encountered all of the strategies and tactics that the Simpson defense team is using.
We had lengthy suppression hearings about forensic evidence and a trial with a strategic defense that was worthy of any defense conducted by anyone.
My experience in that case has been replicated over and over again when I have appeared against the public defenders, both on the federal and state levels.
I believe when justice is not done in a case, it is less the class of the defendant that matters than the commitment of those involved in the process to see that justice is done.
On a daily basis I hear from people, like Mr. Colbert, who believe that only money can buy an aggressive defense.
That is not true. An aggressive defense, like an aggressive prosecution, is dependent on the will of the individuals involved. Money can't buy that commitment.
Lynne A. Battaglia
Baltimore
The writer is United States Attorney for the District of Maryland.
Re "What if Simpson Had Been -- Poor?" (Perspective, Jan. 22):
It's about time someone stripped the clothes off that blindfolded woman with the scales and sword.
From the moment I saw that Bronco followed ever so politely by all those police cars, I've been jealous. Very few criminal defendants ever receive such generous treatment from our legal system.
There is no equal justice under the law. There is only justice equal to the amount you can afford to pay.
Thanks for having the courage to print what most of us already knew.
Rommel T. Crabtree
Abingdon