MH17 theories
Alan Davidson is correct (Chronicle June 6), Ukraine shot down a Russian airliner over the Black Sea in 2001, for which Ukraine apologised and paid compensation.
In terms of who shot down MH17, it is the conclusion of the Dutch, after years of painstaking reconstruction and investigation, that it was Ukrainian-Russian separatists.
They have gone as far as identifying the Russian military operative who, they believe, moved the missile launcher from Kursk, in Russia, and back.
As far as building a case that it was the Americans who shot down MH17, it would be useful to know what Alan's references are.
Having once shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, America certainly has form, but one would need more than an internet conspiracy website to take the US to the International Criminal Court - which it doesn't recognise anyway.
Fred Frederikse
Whanganui
Illegal dumpers
There I was, a week or so ago, sitting at my window, minding my own business, when I spied a gray ute creeping into the northern most end of the mown, Castlecliff beach reserve. It paused, then scampered into a gap in the scrubby wattle towing an orange tarp covered trailer.
"Ullo, Ullo," says me, they are up to mischief. So I picked up my less than useful binoculars to take a squizz. The ute emerged after a few minutes with the tarp rolled back and the trailer empty. The driver paused then sped off down Seafront Rd.
I have a message for whoever that was: "Only scurrilous, cheapskate mongrels dump their rubbish in our reserve. Do the right thing and dispose of your rubbish responsibly. Don't crap in our backyard".
Denise Lockett
Whanganui
Contradictions
Any remaining fluoride supporters could usefully read Kate Stewart's "crazy contradictions" column (June 2) which included "... and fizzy is cheaper than milk or water ...".
The first primary schools going water-only are reporting large drops in tooth decay, yet the fizzy gut rot remains fixed in the top five of sales at supermarkets.
The Government is pushing ahead with plans to dose all our water with toxic fluoride. But will they address the tide of sugar eating our children's teeth? Good example of the near insane contradictions of this world extensively canvassed by Ms Stewart.
Peter Russell
Whanganui
Choice of Life Bill
Stan Hood's garbled attempts at logic on the subject of the End of Life Choice Bill make little sense.
On the one hand, he rails against those he disagrees with by stigmatising them as 'political loonies and religious nutters' but on the other hand he uses his own religious position to support the bill.
Hood claims the New Zealand constitution guarantees him the right to practise his religion - true, this is enshrined in the Bill of Rights Act 1990. However, this does not help his position.
Firstly, requiring another New Zealander to kill you is no recognised part of any religion. It may be something Hood believes in personally but it could not be described as a religious tenet.
Secondly, even if it were, the Bill of Rights Act is not supreme and its general provisions would be overridden by the specific provisions of the Crimes Act in this case, which forbids the assisting of another person's suicide.
Hood makes other obvious errors of fact and inference.
What he calls his 'final journey' may well not be 'quick' or 'free of pain'. Significant numbers of those who receive euthanasia endure complications such as regurgitating the drugs (25 known cases in Oregon) or suffering lingering deaths (up to 104 hours in Oregon). These figures come straight from the Oregon Public Health Division's data summary as at 2017.
Hood also claims that his death, however it happens, 'will not make the slightest difference to those left behind'. Such wilful ignorance of the inter-connectedness of social ties is not just absurd, it is frankly dangerous.
Legislating on this basis is a sure recipe for disaster for our already fractured society.
D J Scott
Waitakere
