Anti-technology bias? Hardly

Jim Davies’ recent letter contained several misleading statements. This response is to the implication of anti-technology bias in the headline “Brady continues long line of demeaning successful technologies.” I don’t especially like drawing attention to my technological background, but it seems almost mandatory here. At 18, I was an electronics technician primarily responsible for maintaining all of a U.S. destroyer’s radar equipment.

At 19, I was selected for the U.S. Navy Enlisted Scientific Education Program through which I obtained a degree in chemical engineering. Later, I taught at the U.S. Navy Nuclear Power School and then obtained advanced degrees at MIT in mechanical engineering and in naval architecture and marine engineering. I used that education in the design and construction of new U.S naval vessels. After leaving the Navy, I continued in the ship propulsion system engineering field with the GE aeroderivative gas turbine business.

A significant part of my career at GE involved helping bring the new aeroderivative technology to ship propulsion. I feel others were more deserving, but the American Society of Naval Engineers recognized my efforts with its 1995 Gold Medal Award. The award citation reads in part, “The U.S. Navy movement to gas turbines … represents a major sea change in ship design, with profound effects on warship mission capability, crew size, ship design parameters, endurance and warfighting capabilities. This has been in large measure the direct result of the leadership and technical excellence embodied by Carl O. Brady.”

Obviously I embrace new technology. But, it must be appropriately applied. Weather dependent wind and solar power without adequate storage is not appropriate. It is dangerous. If it continues to increase unabated, as many political leaders currently urge, it will lead to major disasters with significant loss of life during future winter storms.

— Carl Brady, Frederick

Editor’s note: The editor places headlines on letters.