Everyone and their mothers now have the ability to build their own websites, and many are. Hosting and design sites provide free templates you can adapt for your purpose. If you want to build a more elaborate site, there are the open source WordPress and Drupal content management systems (CMS).

These are pretty easy for anyone to learn to set up and put on a server. WordPress is a cinch for setting up a quick and easy blog, while Drupal, my favourite, is a tougher nut to crack, but ultimately can be more powerful because of its contributed modules.

However, once you have bought your domain name, asks a reader in Bermuda, where do you set up your club's site? The person is looking for a hosting server service, which come pretty cheap these days, and in some cases are free.

The answer is: it depends on how much you are willing to spend, what features you want, and the complexity of your site. For many, a shared hosting site is the answer. You basically get a virtual server on which to host as many sites as you want for a fee.

My personal choice in this category, after much thought and checking review sites, is Hostmonster (www.hostmonster.com). It is a decision I have not regretted so far. Hostmonster costs about $6 a month with unlimited space. There are no hidden charges. Some sites charge you for traffic. Hostmonster does not, so you can never be faced with a huge bill if for some reason your site gets enormously popular.

Hostmonster has a wealth of features, the management interface is great and the help desk responds quickly. You could bang out a basic site in less than a day, even hours, if you have some experience.

There are some top competitors to Hostmonster, each offering more or less the same services. For example, you might consider Bluehost, which charges about $4 a month over three years. It is best to go to some of the top review sites to find out what other users say about their experiences, as a lot has changed in the year since I got on to Hostmonster.

You can read reviews of the top 10 web hosting services at Upperhost.com or you can go to online publications such as CNet.com and get reviews.

My top site for checking out how customers fare is Webhostinggeeks.com, which posts and averages out the ratings of users. Hostmonster gets very bad reviews from recent users. The reviews put Inmotion as the top web host, followed by iPage (which is rated highly on a number of other sites) and JustHost. Number four on the list is WebHostingPad, which goes for just $2 a month and is rated as a "cheap, reliable host".

A more expensive choice is to rent your own dedicated server from one of the hosting services. A dedicated server will set you back from $50 to hundreds of dollars a month, depending on your needs. The top ones listed by CNet include InMotion Hosting, HostMySite.com and the Planet. CNet has a pretty good interface that allows you to select options and compare the various offers. To find it, do a search on the site for "dedicated servers".

The most basic level, if you have no budget at all to spend, is to find a free host service. For example, Google Sites (http://sites.google.com) offers a pretty basic service, but it is easy to use and has intuitive interface so you never have to bother about knowing HTML or CSS or other means of creating a website.

Many of the free hosts survive by placing advertising on your web pages. You can find out which ones do and which ones don't by going to www.free-webhosts.com, which has them all listed in a comparison chart. You are also limited to a certain size and bandwidth (which translates into number of visitors per month). However, most basic and club sites will not exceed these limits normally.

***

Well, finally we have the world's largest study on cell phones and brain cancer and the results are, wait, hold your breath, inconclusive. This is a long running controversy due to the lack of long term studies. According to the many news reports on the study, Jack Siemiatycki, a professor at the University of Montreal and an epidemiologist at the University of Montreal Hospital Research Centre, has said the research was compromised by the restricted access to study participants.

The study was published this week by the International Journal of Epidemiology. "The findings of the Interphone Study are ambiguous, surprising and puzzling," he says. In the study, the Interphone International Study Group looked into whether cellular radio frequencies could be correlated to brain tumours. About 10,000 people took part in the study.

As one of the participating researchers Siemiatycki says the risks, if any, "are probably pretty small".

It looks like we will be hearing more on this subject for some time to come until the completion of other long-term studies underway. The jury is still out.