There are numerous areas around our shoreline, far from any golf course, like Devonshire Bay and Gibbits Island, where dozens of golfballs have been deliberately hit into the sea. These balls tend to collect in depressions in the reef and roll back and forth banging the coral, but even if they are deemed to be "harmless'' they do not belong in the ocean and represent just another form of people-produced pollution.

Please golfers restrict your practice shots to the driving ranges! JUDIE CLEE Flatt's Village Karting race marred March 1, 1999 Dear Sir, When are Bermudians going to learn? I'm talking about their attitudes and the fact that they think they can go where they want, say what they want and do what they want. On Sunday, February 28 the Bermuda Karting Club held the first ever Grand Prix races through the City of Hamilton. The Club Committee and members put a great deal of work into trying to make this big day a safe and successful day for themselves and the Bermudian public. We did not know that the response was going to be so big. We were pleasantly surprised. All we asked for in return from the public was a little cooperation where safety was concerned, for us as well as themselves. We had a pit area where access was restricted to pit crew and drivers. We had the two gates for No.1 shed for access in and out of the pit area for the crews and karts. The handful of members who were on the gates that day were verbally abused and physically abused by members of the public who did not want to hear that they weren't allowed in those restricted areas. They were sworn at, pushed and shoved and totally ignored.

Bermudians are always crying for entertainment. On February 28, they got some.

Why do they have to ruin it for future events? Please respect these events and their rules in the future. I, for one, am fed up. You have to realize you can't always go where you want, when you want and do whatever you please to whom ever you want.

KARTING MEMBER Pembroke Letter on towers flawed March 4, 1999 Dear Sir, This is following on Dr. Carpenter's published letter February 8, 1999 sent to Steve Thompson of CARE, titled `Society Must Be Cautious.' I am concerned that Carpenter's letter, although well-intentioned, may have misled the public, and Mr. Thompson. I am particularly concerned that the Gazette has given credence to Carpenter's opinions by stating, uncritically, that "a range of other experts, including State University of New York Professor David Carpenter, say it would be `irresponsible' to position the towers near young children or in residential areas.'' (Hotel Chiefs Join Fight to Halt Tower's Construction, Gazette 2/Mar/99). This should not have been done.

First, let us examine Carpenter's credentials. Yes, he has expressed views very similar to those in his letter several times before, although as I understand it he has previously confined his opinions to power line fields, not RF. However, he has never published any scientific research of his own to support his claim. In fact, he has published very little of anything on the subject for some time, although he was active in the 1980's and early 1990's.

This shows in his letter. His facts are out of date. In addition, Carpenter has never claimed to have studied the relationship between low level frequency fields and cancer, or RF and cancer.

Next we have Carpenter's letter. Among other things, Carpenter said that "there has not been much attention to the higher frequencies of electromagnetic fields that are used in cellular phones, but in general these phones are of higher energy levels, and on that basis one might expect that they would be more hazardous.'' This is incorrect. There has been a huge amount of research on higher frequencies. For example, the 1992 American national Standards Institute's standard, which is widely used and respected in the US and elsewhere, is based on review of 321 papers from the peer-reviewed literature. I note that none of the sources quoted by Carpenter date much later than 1990, apart from the one reference to Elder (1994). I should mention at this point that the Elder reference comes from a book that Carpenter himself edited; what Carpenter did not mention in his letter is that Elder only devoted two paragraphs out of the entire book to the problem of epidemiology, (Elder spends a bit more time on animal studies with RF), and that Elder did not support Carpenter's opinions. In other words, Elder did not find any connection between RF exposure and cancer. With respect to Carpenter's contention that since `these frequencies are of higher energy levels' and might therefore be expected to be more dangerous, I must point out that energy levels have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I am at a loss to know whey Carpenter mentioned them. The only criterion of any use is the RF, or the radio frequency.

Carpenter goes on to say that `there are four reports from human populations.' As mentioned earlier, this is out of date. Carpenter further states that "Milham (1982) and Coleman et al.(1983) reported elevations in leukaemia incidence among ham radio operators and electricians.'' In fact, Milham did not find any significant increase in leukaemia, while Coleman never studied RF exposure at all. Carpenter also mentions that `Smigielski et al. (1988) reports positive associations between RF exposure and cancer.'' While Carpenter is correct to say this, Carpenter neglects to mention that Smigielski's research is not considered convincing by his peers. Smigielski's research has never been published in the epidemiology literature, and his dosimetry is questionable.

Finally, Carpenter makes much of a "recent research report from Australia,'' which report, "coming from the laboratory of a skeptic,'' provides support for Carpenter's thesis. Carpenter leaves out several important facts. First, the Australian study used intensities that were far above the normal for cell phone stations. Second, the mice used in the experiment were specially bred to be cancer-prone. Even under those conditions, only lymphomas, and not any other kind of tumor, developed. Finally, this experiment has recently been replicated with normal mice, and it has been shown that normal mice do not develop lymphomas under these conditions.

These are the errors of fact made by Carpenter. While they are grievous, it should also be remembered that Carpenter has used misleading language to support his claim. For example, he says that "there is significant exposure to individuals who are in close proximity to cellular towers,'' which sounds impressive until you reflect that Carpenter has not said what "significant'' means. I can walk outdoors for five minutes and be exposed to a significant amount of sunshine. That does not mean that I automatically run a serious risk of skin cancer. Carpenter has also deliberately ignored or understated most of the relevant cell studies, animal research and other research on this issue, and not once has he considered the issue of dose, or amount of RF needed to pose a health risk.

Under the circumstances it is regrettable that Mr. Thompson has proffered Carpenter's expert opinion to us. It is even more regrettable that the Gazette has given credence to Carpenter's views, and on the front page of the paper to boot.

ADAM GUANTLETT Sandys Parish Don't gamble with health February 26, 1999 Dear Sir, In October of 1998 a conference attended by scientists and medical experts was held in Vienna, Austria. Participants of the highest calibre came from Canada, USA, Germany, New Zealand, Poland, Belgium and Sweden. The meeting title was "Workshop on the possible biological and health effects of RF electromagnetic fields''. The US Environmental Protection Agency was represented by Dr. Carl Blackman while Dr. William Leiss of Queen's University was the representative from Canada. Their joint concluding "resolution'' was that the existence of biological effects from low intensity Radio Frequency (RF) electro-magnetic radiation, as emitted by cellular phones and towers, is "scientifically established''. (These effects are not addressed by the FCC standards, which have been adopted in Bermuda). It was further concluded that currently available data are "inadequate to establish reliable exposure standards'' and that "public participation in the decision (limits, siting etc) should be enabled''.

Their conclusion fully endorses the statement of Dr. David Carpenter, February 1999, that given the strong suspicions of serious harmful health effects, including cancer, caused by EMF in the RF range, the siting of cellular towers where children can be exposed for long periods is "totally irresponsible''.

Dr. Neil Cherry, an epidemiologist with the highest credentials, who was a contributor to the Vienna workshop, came to the same conclusion in a scientific paper, February 1998, saying that "cell phone base stations (masts/towers) should be located at a considerable distance from residences, worksites, schools, preschools and hospitals'' and that cell phone companies should bear the cost of siting "their base stations well away from public access places where people spend more than 4 hours per day''. Elsewhere he defines "well away'' as being 100s of metres.

Is this advice, and the demonstrated inadequacy of the FCC and other industry-influenced national standards, being heeded by responsible authorities? Yes, in New South Wales Australia a standard of 0.001 microwatts (NOT Milliwatts) per square centimetre has been adopted and in Salzburg Austria a standard of 0.1 microwatts per square centimetre was recently adopted. These standards range from hundreds to a million times lower than those being quoted in Bermuda.

The Bermudian Government's latest stated position allows for exposure, at the Warwick site and probably elsewhere, well above those permitted in jurisdictions where the consensus of expert scientific opinion is being taken seriously and the health of the citizens is not being gambled with.

WHY ARE WE WAITING City of Hamilton Hard to find summer jobs February 16, 1999 Dear Sir, As a young Bermudian student who in recent years while still at Bermuda College, but more recently and more critically since travelling abroad to university, it has become more apparent that summer employment in Bermuda is difficult to find. In talking with many other students, whether studying abroad or not, all too often the story is the same. This is particularly true for students like myself who have chosen not to major in a "business related'' discipline.

Since we the students of Science, Mathematics, Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, the Arts and the like confront this problem on an annual basis, despite the numerous resumes we send out and applications we fill out, it is only natural that contempt towards our island home is our reaction. All too often this leads to one of the following scenarios: 1) a change of major to a discipline that is by Bermuda's standards "business related'' as part of a usually successful attempt to attain employment, 2) working in a field totally unrelated to your studies and interests or 3) remaining unemployed for three or more months. To make a long story short, holistically Bermuda suffers.

Bermudians such as myself and others with similar ideologies, believe that this problem can be directly linked, among other things, to the ways in which the exempted companies in our country are being ALLOWED to operate. Without knowing all the facts involved but willing to learn them if they truly do exist, it seems to some of us that an insufficient amount of political pressure has been put on these companies to serve Bermuda and its people. Yes, in saying this, Bermuda must take exempted company-focused legislative measures to ensure that students are employed when on summer, winter and spring breaks, REGARDLESS of students' areas of concentration. In doing so, Bermuda would essentially be informing exempted companies from inception of one of our more important requirements, which they must agree to follow before company setup can occur. With the huge financial savings that come with operating out of Bermuda, this should not be a difficult law for international businesses to abide by. Furthermore, they would be directly assisting Bermudian citizens, which is more than most can say to date.

From a larger perspective, this would teach Bermudians and foreigners alike about the importance of well-rounded societies. In reference to the corporate sector specifically, employing Bermudians with varied specialities ultimately serves companies considerably as well as Bermuda on a whole. After all, contrary to popular belief, a large percentage of Bermuda's most recent problems have been and continue to be more sociologically, psychologically and anthropologically based than "business related.'' Those of us concentrating in these and similar disciplines could assist in rectifying these problems, both in the workplace and in the wider Bermudian society. Instead, we continue to be dismissed by corporate Bermuda and fellow Bermudians simply because of our decision not to follow the masses in our attempt to become "educated.'' P.S. Meanwhile, your employer's undergraduate degree is in Theatre. Check it out!!! What I have expressed above is by no means intended to undermine the larger issue of Bermudianization (or the lack thereof) for full-time workers, but rather an example of the same issue on a smaller scale.

NICOLE A. STOVELL Toronto, Ontario Appalled by bad driving March 5, 1999 Dear Mr. Editor, I have read with absolute disbelief of a man who notched up six traffic offences in one day, received fines totalling more than $2,000 from Snr.

Magistrate Will Francis and was ONLY banned from driving all vehicles for 12 months! We certainly appear to need some draconian laws with respect to flouting our traffic laws. He should have been banned for at least 5 years and not to run concurrently.

Obviously Mr. Shawn Albouy has no respect for any other road users as his licence had expired and he was uninsured! What would have happened had he knocked someone down whilst driving at 65 kph! It surely is time for cars to be taken away from irresponsible drivers for at least the period for which they have been banned -- no matter that it might be an inconvenience to other members of their family. Maybe that thought of inconvenience to their family might be a deterrent? MARGARET BARNES Smith's Parish Where's the consistency? March 3, 1999 Dear Sir, Who is fooling who, Mr. Editor? The US Government says that marijuana is dangerous. That marijuana is bad. That marijuana is harmful. Yet Mr. Editor, the same US Government, according to information off the Internet, grows marijuana and distributes it to at least 8 medical patients.

But Mr. Editor, when the rest of society smoke it or use it for medicinal reasons, like alleviating the daily stress of this oppressive and backward society, they turned them into criminals.

So I'll ask you again Mr. Editor. Who is fooling who? DR. CLARK GODWIN Kindness made our day! February 24, 1999 Dear Sir, Bermuda has been our favourite distinction for over ten years and each time we have returned home (Toronto) with a good feeling for your Country and the warmth and friendliness of your people.

Yesterday, February 23rd, will be the highlight of this year's vacation. After spending an enjoyable time at the Bermuda Golf Academy, we were waiting on Middle Road for a bus, when a car stopped and a kind gentlemen offered to take us to Dockyard. He explained that he was going there to meet his son for lunch at the Freeport Restaurant.

What a pleasant trip it was with conversation flowing back and forth.

Thank you, kind gentleman, for your generosity. You made our day! PAULINE & BRUCE MCGREGOR MARY AND LORI WATSON Toronto, Ontario, Canada