Reduce number of towers March 3, 1999 Dear Sir, We have documents to prove that people have been literally chased from their homes because of cellular towers. It is a fact that radiation from cellular towers can be heard and felt by individuals, who are `electro-sensitive' to certain frequency radiation waves. It is grossly unfair and morally wrong to subject people to these undesirable waves.

"Stop cramming these towers down people's throats.'' Thirty-eight towers in a small island is far too many. We have it on good authority that these towers in Bermuda can be combined and taller towers are safer than shorter ones. Why not site them on golf courses such as Ocean View and Port Royal? FORCING THE ISSUE IS WRONG Warwick Avoid `mad cow decision' March 4, 1999 Dear Sir, The full page joint statement in your paper of February 23, 1999 by the Ministry of Telecommunications and Cellular one, alleging that the proposed Warwick tower would be safe, emphasises the close relationship existing between these organisations.

The advertisement predictably accentuated the benign aspects of radiation equating it to "sunlight and the warmth from a fireplace''. It could, with equal truth, have reminded us of the deadly radiation from atom bombs and the dangers of laser beams and X-rays. The fact that it did not illustrate the perils of accepting at face value information from biased sources in trying to arrive at a balanced opinion -- even for a Minister.

A few years ago, in a similar situation, the Minister of Agriculture who was responsible for Britain's important beef industry was left to decide whether there was any risk to public health arising from "mad cow'' disease. In spite of a public outcry for caution and the warnings of many independent researchers, he accepted the advice of pro-industry scientists and lobbyists and declared `mad cow beef safe. He even appeared on television feeding it to his young daughter. But he had been tragically misled and after some time the slow-developing effects began to result in an increasing number of unpleasant deaths which are expected to rise as the diseases' long dormancy exposes more victims.

With hindsight, it is now conceded that the public would have been better served had the `mad cow' decision been left to the Ministry of Health who, not only had the necessary expertise but had no conflict of interest.

This concept of separating Ministerial responsibilities provides the "checks and balances'' of the American system. We recall how impregnable the tobacco industries defences had become against common sense prudence until the public's cause was championed by the Surgeon-General. Only subsequently did we learn not only of the vast sums of money the industry spent on sweetening politicians and pacifying the public but also of the criminal conspiracy to keep secret its researcher's discoveries of the harmful effects of smoking.

We, in Bermuda, should benefit from these experiences and make the Ministry of Health responsible for investigating and deciding on all matters involving our health. It is what they are paid to do, they have the necessary resources and contacts and are, or should be, free from conflict of interest.

In the current Warwick tower issue, the responsibility of government and the position of Canadian Pacific are very grave. Whereas the public could protect itself from the hazards of tobacco and "mad cow'' beef simply by abstaining from these products, our Warwick friends would be defenceless against round-the-clock radiation. Moreover, it is practically certain that, like taxes, radiation emissions would only increase as telecommunications demand rises and more gimmicks `essential to our economy' are developed and mounted on the proposed tower.

CAREFUL St. George's Tower study needed March 3, 1999 Dear Sir, Mike Bearden has made some valid points to the new "cancer telecommunications'' tower debate in his letter printed on March 3. What he has failed to see is that any resident of Bermuda can choose not to have dry cleaning and thus the "probable'' harmful products emissions that he stated would not be brought into their homes. When a company erects a new tower in a neighbourhood, the choice is taken away and the decision is now forced on them.

We put a "limitation'' ban on lobster licences and we banned fish pots. These were deemed harmful to the preservation of our ecology. Experts have alerted us to the detrimental health effects of electromagnetic radiation. Most Bermudians do not profess to be experts in science but we do care for our families and we have all seen what cancer can do to a loved one. Our new Premier promotes education. At least take the advice of the Hon. Pamela Gordon and research the topic more... educate all of us before you start construction on another tower.

R. L. ANDERSON City of Hamilton Follow Austrian example March 3, 1999 Dear Sir, In the report by Neil Roberts in today's Royal Gazette , the Minister for Telecommunications states that Bermuda has a stark choice between radiation and being cut off from the rest of the world. The Minister would appear to be receiving poor or partial advice. The stark choice, in fact, is between the cost of the telecommunications industry and radiation. In Salzburg, Austria, in an agreement with the telecommunications industry, a limit of 100 nanowatts/square centimetre was recently introduced and will be achieved. The FCC recommended limit which is quoted in Bermuda is measured in milliwatts/square centimetre One milliWatt is 1 million nanowatts. In other words the Austrian standard is 10,000 times lower than the FCC standard.

Suitably tall towers in as remote a location as possible such as the one on Ocean View golf course near Barker's Hill can be used in Bermuda. This will protect the public to as high degree as possible. Has the Government looked into this? SERIOUS BUSINESS City of Hamilton