DHEC unfairly targeted Relative to your guest column, "The Verdict is in: DHEC Needs Fundamental Changes", I want to thank you for publishing the column and thereby giving opposing views the opportunity to be heard. The vendetta against DHEC has been manifested in the form of a series of articles in The State newspaper. DHEC claims they tried to respond to some charges made by the paper but were unsuccessful in getting published. People interested in getting the DHEC side of the story can do so at their website under "The Full Story". My interest is in debunking misinformation about things nuclear and the authors of the guest column include folks who have some laudable goals regarding environment and conservation but choose to attack anything related to nuclear energy. They should not be taken lightly as they and others of like mind were successful in restricting operations at a perfectly safe and vital low level facility at Barnwell. They say the Savannah River is contaminated with radioactive material but reference no study that concludes that to be the case. One of them, on Sept. 10, co-authored a column that put forth a misleading rationale for saying no to nuclear reprocessing even though in August, 10 National Laboratory Directors, including Steven Chu signed a report endorsing nuclear reprocessing. Chu is President-elect Obama's choice to be Energy Secretary. The DHEC story deserves balanced reporting. DHEC is not a private environmental and conservation advocacy organization. DHEC does not make the rules. They enforce them. If they don't, a court may be petitioned to ensure that they enforce the rules. If someone doesn't like the rules there are ways to change that through legislation. With respect to issues at Barnwell they are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) not by the Environmental Protection Agency. In my career I have interfaced with DHEC on several occasions, and many of my colleagues had much greater interaction. My impression is they were tough, but fair, and were willing to try to find workable solutions. I am sure they are not perfect, but they consistently get high marks from the NRC for whom I have a high regard. Attempts to make "fundamental changes" in the agency should be viewed with caution until both sides have had the opportunity to make their cases. It is the public agenda that must be served, not just the agendas of the authors. Despite the catchy title, these authors do not represent the jury. Clint Wolfe Executive Director Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness Fix Southside traffic woes Unfortunately none of the options in your poll address the important issues faced by Aiken. The number one issue is the continuing problem of traffic on the Southside. Any money spent on other issues is window dressing until that problem is resolved. Widening the road into the downtown, sequencing the traffic lights, restricting commercial growth and providing alternate routes are the only things that will produce measurable improvements. Forget the rest - it's just a scam to avoid doing something useful. L. A. Heinrich Aiken