It also has a significant public good component, being used by Coastguard, police and others for operations including rescues, recoveries and surveys. This alone justifies the capital cost of resurfacing the ramp.
There are no extraordinary ongoing costs associated with managing this slab of concrete -- unlike other assets to which the ratepayer contributes huge money each year just for basic operating and maintenance.
The way I see it, there are no user-pays facilities in Whanganui. Users simply make a minor contribution per visit and the ratepayer funds most of the operating and maintenance cost, which of course provides no incentive to manage the facility efficiently. So why apply user-pays to the boat ramp with a high public good component, which needs no operating and very little maintenance?
Council needs to rethink the bullish, woolly and ad-hoc approach to user-pays exhibited during council discussions around the ramp. If user-pays is going to be applied, it needs to be fairly, justifiably and consistently applied to facilities across the whole district.
The community will either embrace user-pays or tolerate rates but will not do both.
BILL SIMMONS
Whanganui
Fluoride queries
Should we go with the flow about fluoride?
Government is poised to pass an act that will remove the existing right of local authorities to act on local opinion and valid science-based concerns regarding the addition of fluoride to drinking water.
Pro-fluoride lobbyists argue that a rational decision can only be achieved through centralised legislation but this is propaganda and/or ignorance. Many leading European countries do not add fluoride to water for very good reasons.
That fluoride is labelled as a dangerous poison just before dilution in drinking water is an irrefutable fact, so the onus is on the pro-lobbyists to prove their case, not the other way around. Fluoride was added to people's water for nefarious reasons long before dentists starting advocating it.
Our acceptance of fluoride is largely due to complacency through historical usage rather than scientific proof that it was ever good for us -- and, more importantly, it has never been proven to be safe in the same way that would be required if we were to use if for the first time today.
Pro-fluoride lobbyists lack the mountain of supporting health and safety information that is normally required in these situations. Instead, pro-fluoride lobbyists cherry-pick scientific studies, completely ignore other scientific studies and then have the temerity to claim that they have a monopoly on rational scientific argument and that local people are just too emotional to be rational about fluoride.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
DR ROBIN WAKELING
Wellington
Origin theories
A Ellery responded to a letter from Russ Hay (March 15) in which he defended the accuracy of the Bible. I agree with him regarding the lack of understanding on the part of people who look superficially at the Bible and often fail to understand the context of some parts of it.
I would also like to add to his comments regarding science. Science investigates the physical world in which we live. It says nothing about why we are on this earth, how we should live (what moral code we should live by), and what happens to us when we leave this earth. These are philosophical questions.
However, I must take issue with some of the comments A Ellery makes about science. He cites lethal weapons, and fraud on the part of evolutionists as reasons to not trust science.
We should never criticise any area of expertise by its abuse. Good scientists who are trying to help humanity do not deserve to be criticised for what bad scientists have done.
Also, we should understand that evolution says nothing about origins. We simply do not know, from a scientific standpoint, how DNA and the first cells came into existence.
It would appear that something supernatural was involved.
I also want to expand on the age of the Earth in relation to the biblical creation account. Russ Hay may be surprised to learn that a lot of Christians do not believe that the Earth was created in seven literal days.
For a start, Genesis 1 verse 1 has no time limit. When creation starts, there is water present. It must have taken millions of years to reach that stage. Also, God is outside time. I believe that the "days" in the creation account refers to long periods of time.
The fact is none of us were there. As a result, there are a number of theories regarding creation.
DAVID GASH
Whanganui
Primitive view
Russ Hay's suggestion that thought has somehow progressed from primitive to advanced as a result of atheism would be funny if it were not so sad.
Across history, advancement of living conditions, hygiene, healthcare, schooling, science, the arts (pretty much every discipline) has been achieved by those with a strong faith in a real, omniscient and omnipotent creator who has an interest in the way we choose to live.
Slavery was abolished in England and America as a result of the efforts of those who believed that all people are created in the image and likeness of God, with the right to be free.
It is still believers who are at the forefront in combating human trafficking/slavery.
Just as I am sure the editor of this paper does not support all that is recorded in it, the Bible does not support slavery; it records that slavery did and does exist.
MANDY DONNE-LEE
Aramoho
