Dear Sir, There has been much discussion revolving around the proposed seatbelt law -- loss of personal freedom (though operating a vehicle is deemed to be an earned privilege and not a human right), the added expense (though Bermuda is at the top of the world heap in terms of income) and need (as we have yet to determine how many lives lost or shattered are too many.) One issue, beyond the realm of studies and statistics, appears not to have been addressed.

There are hidden advantages to legislating seatbelts or restraint seats for children in our care. By ensuring that our babies are safely fastened in, we demonstrate by our time and effort, that we love and value them. This lesson in concern and consideration for their welfare, aside from providing immediate protection, could have long term benefits. Our responsible actions would surely enhance our children's sense of self-worth and through example, assist them in making healthy life choices as they grow into adulthood.

With every baby born, Bermuda and its citizens have a fresh opportunity to get it right. Of course, seat belts are only part of the equation. But by adding this simple yet effective device to a mix of unconditional love, equal opportunity for first-rate education and child care and the truest sense of community involvement, we would allow our children to enjoy their childhood safe and unfettered, achieve their God-given potential -- and not end up in a disturbing photograph in the daily paper.

WEASELGUARD Devonshire Protest is a scare tactic February 10, 1999 Dear Sir, I have never in my life seen a better example of mass hysteria than this latest row over the proposed cellular antenna in Warwick, of which my house is right next to. The seemingly well-meaning people involved in the CARE organisation really should not use scare mongering to promote their personal and not quite so hidden agenda. If you do not want an antenna spoiling your view, reducing your property value, etc. say so. Do not hide behind speculation and hyperbole that is not supported by either the scientific community or relevant governing bodies, such as the FCC.

If they had bothered to do any serious research on this subject, they would have surely stumbled on a treatise by the FCC's Office of engineering and Technology entitled Information on Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields from cellular and PCS Radio Transmitters, January 1998. It quite specifically details the particulars of radio frequency transmission from these types of antenna and can be found online at http:/www.fcc.gov et fsafety ellpcs.html It quite clearly states, backed up by scientific analysis, that "Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS installations have shown that ground-level power densities are well below limits recommended by RF icrowave safety standards.'' The "typical'' tower they refer to is a 63 channel antenna with an Effective Radiated Power (ERP) level of 100 watts per channel. An ERP of 100 watts corresponds to an actual radiated power of 5-10 watts, dependent on the antenna's directional characteristics. The proposed BDC tower is a 10 channel unit, meaning that it will have a total power output of one-sixth a normal cellular antenna.

It goes on further to unequivocally state'' ...the FCC's RF exposure guidelines recommend a maximum permissible exposure level of the general public (or exposure in "uncontrolled'' environments) of about 580 microwatts per square centimetre (uW.cm2), as averaged over any thirty-minute period.

This limit is many times greater than RF levels typically found near the base of typical cellular towers or in the vicinity of other, lower-power cellular base station transmitters.'' Then, to erase all doubt, they describe a worst case scenario: "Calculations corresponding to a "worst-case'' situation (all transmitters operating simultaneously and continuously at the maximum licensed power) show that in order to be exposed to levels near the FCC's limits for cellular frequencies, an individual would essentially have to remain in the main transmitting beam (at the height of the antenna) and within a few feet from the antenna. This makes it extremely unlikely that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of these guidelines from cellular base station transmitters.'' The reputable medical community also agrees. John E. Moulder, Ph.D. and professor of Radiation Oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin has put together a comprehensive report of studies as well, last revised November 1998. It can be found online at http: ww.mcw.edu crc op ell-phone-health-FAQ oc.html It is very clear. When asked: "Are there health hazards associated with living, working, playing, or going to school near a cellular phone or PCS base station antenna?'' the answer is a resounding "No. The consensus of the scientific community, both in the US and internationally, is that the power from these base station antennas is far too low to produce health hazards as long as people are kept away from direct access to the antennas'' This is backed up by scientific data and analysis detailed in the report.

I think that CARE may find themselves to be on the fringe of science and logic. Dr. Moulder concludes "Is anyone seriously concerned about possible health risks from cellular phone and PCS base station antennas? Not really.

There are some reasons to be concerned about human health effects from the hand-held cellular and PCS phones themselves (although it is not certain that any risks to human health actually exist). These concerns exist because the antennas of these phones can deliver large amounts of radio frequency energy to very small areas of the user's body. Base station antennas do not create such "hot spots'', so the potential safety issues concerning the phones have no real applicability to the base station antennas.'' Could CARE be confused as to concerns about phones versus antenna? Or are they advancing an agenda? Either or, they are way off base. The sky is not falling, Chicken Little.

MIKE BEARDEN Warwick Sand problem is real February 4, 1999 Dear Sir, After reading with some disquiet the letter printed in your newspaper regarding "Centre to try to stop dust'', dated January 26, 1999. I will not elaborate on this matter too long, because when you do you tend to receive all sorts of opinions. However, I would like to say to Mr. Donald Lines that perhaps if a representative from the National Sports Centre were to come and visit the immediate residence homes, that have been subjected to the sand and dust, then you would be able to see and understand the situation.

Incidentally, part of the problem was also due to some of the truckers that trucked from the site, their trucks were not covered with tarp, therefore sand was always being dropped in the entrance from the gate and along the roadway, the other incident was a part of our boundary wall was left with a large crack and this was not the first time this has happened. My neighbour's wall which is also cracked and a chunk knocked off the top, to date has not been fixed.

There are photographs to prove all of the above statements.

From inception, when the "Roberts Avenue'', construction activity project started the roadway should have been constructed first because of the narrow roadway. There seems to have been no thought given in particular to school children, pedestrians, and how truckers would negotiate the entrance from the site going north onto the roadway, as they were using this route daily.

One final note, Mr. Chairman, you have stated that the prevailing winds only blow from the west, it may surprise you that whenever, the residents have sand and dust to clean up, the wind is blowing from the "southeast''.

I do recognise that this site project has to be completed and that you are doing everything to ensure that this problem does not persist. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your consideration and assistance to this matter.

I would also note that since the publicity surrounding the sand problem was reported, the gate on the Roberts Avenue side has been closed and this has made a temendous difference. In addition, the recent rain has kept the sand wet and reduced the amount of sand blowing onto the immediate residents' homes.

THE SIMMONS FAMILY Devonshire Plea for postcards January 26, 1999 Dear Sir, This will be the fourth year since my family moved to England, for medical reasons. However we only intended to stay for six months initially, and now our son Robert has all but forgotten the island. Recently the Bermuda Tourism representatives in London sent us a sample of their new handout for gearing up the numbers of tourists, and although we thought it was an excellent product, it has given us cause to wonder why we are crazy enough to be putting up with the weather over here. But here is where we will remain for the foreseeable future, and one thing we have decided to do is help the RSPB by setting up bird feeders and nest-boxes to help the native birdlife and... House Sparrows, of all things! Anyway, I would like Robert to be reminded of his heritage and see what he is missing. Hence I beg your kind readers to send picture postcards of beautiful Bermuda, the sand and sea, to him at the above address so that we can have them framed and hung on the wall. Many thanks! TOMMY OUTERBRIDGE 11 Lower Road Stoke Mandevile Aylesbury HP22 3XA England Burgess needs to choose February 4, 1999 Dear Sir, Mr. Derrick Burgess' executive position as President of the Bermuda Industrial Union is in direct conflict with his political position as a Government Member of Parliament. This is evident from his misguided public attack, last month, on his own Government colleague, Home Affairs' Minister Paula Cox, and confirmed with his equally embarrassing retraction that he did not agree with Bermuda Telephone Company CEO Lorraine Lyle's suggestion to accept a nine-day working fortnight pay-package, when we all know he did! Mr. Editor, you can't fly the plane and take care of the passengers at the same time. You need a pilot and you need a steward or stewardess. Mr. Editor, Mr. Burgess needs to decide which he would like to be, Member of Parliament, the pilot of our destiny, or BIU President, the steward or stewardess taking care of the needs of the people.

DR. CLARK GODWIN City of Hamilton