Letters to the Editor: Hospital Doors Are Open to All

I read with interest The Daily Californian article that references an East Bay man's attempt to receive care and lodge complaints at Alta Bates Medical Center ("Patient, Hospital in Dispute," Nov. 27). While I cannot discuss any person's private medical or legal issues, I feel the need to respond to the article because it left the misleading impression that patients with legitimate concerns cannot access care at our facility. That is untrue.

Contrary to the article, we happily serve some of the most medically and socially complex people with HIV in the Bay Area. Our two clinics serve more than 1,000 patients of all ethnicities, genders and sexual orientation. More than 50 percent of our clients have co-existent psychological or substance use issues.

We love our patients and we relish in the diversity and complexity of their lives that they share with us on a daily basis. We are used to the struggles and difficult adjustment issues inherent in living with HIV and we have ample staff to help patients through these difficult times.

Patients with concerns or complaints are welcomed and assisted through the process of grievance. Although we will routinely "bend-over-backwards" for patients, the only line we ever draw in the sand is actual or threatened physical violence. We must do this for the protection of our other clients and our staff.

In the future, I hope the Daily Cal will more aggressively seek out the facts before reporting biased information. As they have been for 14 years, our doors remain open to all those with HIV and AIDS who non-violently seek care.

Stephen O'Brien

East Bay AIDS Center, co-direcetor

Reporting Ignores Movement

The Daily Cal has knowingly omitted and distorted the truth about the protests against the ban on affirmative action which were held at the Nov. 15-16, 2000 UC Board of Regents meetings ("News Analysis: While Less Visible, Regents Still Active," Nov. 27).

The Daily Cal knew in advance of the Regents meeting that the ASUC had unanimously voted to endorse and send vans full of Berkeley students to UCLA to demand that the regents reverse the ban on affirmative action in the UC system. The Daily Cal knew that there were pickets, rallies and a march against the ban on both days of the meeting, events that were covered by UCLA's student paper.

On Nov. 16, contributing writer Andrea O'Brien, who attended the meeting, wrote two articles about the meetings, in which she was silent on these events. Now, two weeks later, O'Brien boldly states in her "analysis" that only "a few students waiting for the board to hear their views attended the meetings."

O'Brien's disparaging comment that only three students called for reversing the ban at the regents meeting ignores the fact that 15 additional students had signed up to speak, but were denied the right to address the board. Dozens of students packed the room to hear them speak. Dozens more were not allowed into the room, and stood outside, demanding to be admitted. Defend Affirmative Action Party senator Hoku Jeffrey presented over 8,000 petitions demanding that the regents reverse the ban now.

Instead of printing the truth, which Berkeley students have a right to know, the Daily Cal chose to pretend that the movement wasn't present.

The Daily Cal supported the ban on affirmative action in 1995, when virtually the entire campus and the entire UC system, except for the regents, opposed it. During the 1998 walk-outs against the ban on affirmative action, the Daily Cal split, printing two opposing editorials, one for and one against the walk-outs and reversing the ban.

O'Brien's article is dishonest, anti-affirmative action, pro-Regents reporting. It's time for the Daily Cal to catch up to the rest of the campus, the majority of whom support integration and reversing the ban on affirmative action.

Andrea Wilbon

BAMN member

Nuclear Energy is a Necessary Option

I disagree with Maria Papia's statement that "nuclear energy is not clean and... incredibly dangerous" ("Students Cross Globe Hoping to Save Earth," Nov. 28) In fact, nuclear fission is a clean and safe energy source that can and should be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I should say "relatively clean" and "relatively safe," because there is no perfect energy source. In the case of renewable energy sources, a variety of drawbacks, such as intermittency and low energy density, undermine the ability of these sources to provide reliable energy in bulk.

In contrast, energy from nuclear fission is the world's largest source of emission-free electricity, producing no controlled air pollutants, such as carbon dioxide. Globally, fission generates about 17 percent of all electricity, displacing hundreds of millions of tons of pollutants from our environment every year.

Every power source takes a toll - thousands die every year from the use of fossil fuels. Three Mile Island, which was successfully contained with insignificant amounts of radiation released, stands as the only major nuclear power accident in the United States. Since then, significant improvements in reactor safety have been made. New nuclear plant concepts promise to be inherently safe, more efficient, and more economical than the current crop of reactors.

No single source of energy, be it solar or nuclear, can fully meet our energy requirements. Therefore, a diverse portfolio of non-carbon energy sources must be maintained to ensure energy security and environmental stability; it would be unwise to preclude our nuclear option.

Lance Kim

UC Berkeley student

Tags: