Once again we are forced to listen to The Cathedral's drone of religious music three times a day -- every day.

It is my understanding that this will continue indefinitely. Does the Cathedral have a permit to play music at such a loud volume? Does that mean other organisations will be able to do the same? Is it legal? Surely it is not legal to be forced to listen to religious music three times everyday from Monday to Friday.

Is it not religious persecution? Those of us who do not wish to be bombarded with the music every day tolerate it through the year, i.e. Christmas, Sundays and special occasions without complaint.

All I ask is moderation and respect for everyone's rights.

LISTENER City of Hamilton Jackson's list self serving Dear Sir, I am writing to express my disappointment with Louise Jackson's section on dance featured in your piece, "Singing and Dancing into Our hearts'' in the Lifestyle section on Thursday, January 6.

As a journalist visiting from New York and graduate student at Cornell University, I find the piece to be both tainted and self-promotional.

Furthermore, as an editor of a black arts magazine, I find the pieces to be a glaring example of ethical journalism gone awry.

It is simply tacky that the editors allowed Mrs. Jackson to be featured in her own story. Although the editors forewarn their readers by stating that Mrs.

Jackson was "nominated by other panelists,'' this appears more as a justification for the lack of her objectivity than as evidence of her exemplary status as one of the "top ten'' in this century are obscure, as well.

Mrs. Jackson's list is uncoincidentally (sic) supercilious. Of her "top ten'' of the last century, one third -- Barbara Frith, Cochita Ming, and Heather Shrubb -- are teachers at her school who have served her well for 30, 26, and 20 plus respective years.

It is less than uncanny that she credits these professionals, highlighting her school in each snippet. At first read through, her choice of Paul Leperq seems only a bit strange.

While his "generous financial and intellectual contributions'' are reasonably significant, he did not contribute to the profession of dance aesthetically.

Yet, while he was neither a dancer nor choreographer, it seems reasonable that any contributor of "generous'' scholarships enabling greater integration and opportunity in dance for boys is deemed worthy of such a gracious acknowledgement.

What Mrs. Jackson fails to mention is that the only "20-plus boys'' who benefited from Mr. Leperqu's scholarships were her own. Mr. Leperq was a private contributor to the Jackson School of Dance, rather than a philanthropist who made a far-reaching and real "impact on the arts.'' This choice in her "top ten'' both fails to exemplify the (obscure) aforementioned qualification of having made an "impact on the arts,'' as the editors tell us, and exemplifies her arrogance in the extreme. Within this context, Mrs. Jackson's paragraph for the "late'' Leperq reads like a eulogy.

In her unwillingness to paint a portrait of dance that lists the truly progressive -- old, young, and not all of her affiliation -- she foregoes a portrait that would most brightly colour Bermuda's dance innovations.

It is unfortunate that Mrs. Jackson's lens is so self-absorbing. Innovators such as Sal Hodson at the Somerset School of Dance and Suzette Harvey -- an astute, young businesswoman and undoubtedly among the most avant-garde, worthy, and successful -- were sadly passed by.

That the editors at The Royal Gazette allow for such a gratuitous display of self-serving promotion is both unethical and unfortunate. It has certainly served as a bad business decision: the paper could have profited well by charging Mrs. Jackson the standard advertising rate for her full page, self-serving story.

In a community as small and close-knit as this one, Mrs. Jackson's article appears particularly grievious. This lengthy feature in the country's largest newspaper speaks with authority, and the editors need to be more attentive to the very real ways in which consent, as well as public opinion, may be, as Noam Chomsky tags, "manufactured'' by the media.

Such articles as this promote unfair business advantage, and it should go without saying that there is more than one high quality dance school in Bermuda.

RACHEL ZELLARS Ithaca, New York Editor's Note: Mrs. Jackson was asked to select the ten people who had made the greatest contribution to dance in Bermuda over the course of the 20th Century based on her own long experience in dance in Bermuda.

As with other selectors who were invited to choose the top ten artists, musicians and so on, she noted the near impossibility of making a list which would include -- or please -- everyone.

The fact that she was featured in the story, while it may appear "tacky'', can be justified given the tremendous influence the Jackson School (which she founded) has had on dance. Nonetheless, given that the list was limited to ten people, it is not surprising that some people who have made major contributions were omitted.

The fact that Sal Hodson and Suzette Harvey are mentioned by Ms Zellars is to be welcomed; if the publication of a list of ten encourages further debate and discussion, then it has served its purpose in publicising the names of all the people who have contributed to the field over the years.

Walk in their shoes February 3, 2000 Dear Sir, It seems the new government has come in with the pre-conceived notion that businesses are going to break or bend immigration policies whenever they can.

If Government could only put itself in the shoes of the businessman/woman.

What is it that they want? Answer: to make a profit.

One of the ingredients to making a profit is to have the most qualified people in your company. If a qualified Bermudians exists, what business owner/operator would be so foolish as to look elsewhere? Government should shift some of its efforts to help ensure that Bermuda schools turn out people who have the skills, initiative and discipline to satisfy the requirements that the companies have.

JOE LINDO North Carolina Follow Toronto's lead February 4, 2000 Dear Sir, Your reporter Ahmed ElAmin is to be commended for his article on cell towers in your January 17 edition.

Exactly as CARE has been pointing out for more than a year now, the emission standards quoted by the Bermuda Telecommunications Ministry apply "only to acute, immediate exposure rather than long-term effects of low-level emissions.'' The report prepared by electrical engineer Mr. Choquette for Government, therefore, had little relevance to the safety of those living in the shadow of cellular towers.

Should anyone with to dispute this, they can take it up with US Environmental Protection Agency's Dr. Norbert Hankin who your reporter quoted as saying on the subject of the standards (adopted by Bermuda:) "They were not intended to address the situation that the public is most concerned about, and that is chronic exposure.'' What your reporter stopped short of concluding was, that faced with this deficiency in the standards, the position of the residents of Warwick who formed CARE, and that of literally hundreds of other groups around the world fighting similar battles, is not only understandable, but is logical and inevitable.

People do become concerned when many competent and distinguished scientists and health professional say there is cause for concern, no matter how many industry-aligned physicists claim precise knowledge of the long-term exposure effects and describe them as "minimal''.

CARE has, in the past, quoted the many instances around the world where standards and tower sitings are being successful challenged. For those of your readers who discounted these reports as foreign aberrations, perhaps the developments in Toronto will be more persuasive.

In 1998, Toronto City council requested that the Medical Officer of Health consider the adoption of a prudent avoidance policy on the siting of cell phone towers. This request was prompted by reports of potential health effects of the radio frequency (RF) emissions from cell phone towers.

In December 1999, the Board of Health gave their support to a prudent avoidance policy, which recommended that the levels of emissions from cell phone towers be kept 100 times below the Canadian federal guidelines. The Board of Health asked the Telecommunications Steering Committee to incorporate this policy of prudent avoidance in the proposed planning protocol for the siting of cell towers.

Toronto authorities are to be applauded for making a difficult decision, which they felt had to be made in the interest of protecting public health. If the Bermuda Government were to adopt the Toronto approach, many of the local towers would be out of business -- including the Warwick tower -- now operating on Canadian Pacific/Southampton Princess property at "Faraway''.

We invite the general public to the showing of a 60-minute documentary about the cellular tower controversy in the US and on cancer occurrences seemingly related to RF emissions. This will be shown at Christ Church Hall, Warwick tomorrow at 7.30 pm. Admission is free.

FOR CARE Warwick