I just finished scanning today's paper and by the time I reached Page 11, I realised that there was something nagging about a few of the articles I had looked at, so I went to the beginning of the paper and started again. This is what I found: Page 4. William Raspberry writes about "Positive news on the racial front.'' It is about African Americans' progression despite the many setbacks i.e.

racism, segregation, etc.

Page 7. "British minister in row of police racism. This report describes racism in the London police as pernicious and institutionalised. It recommends that the police should no longer be exempt from the Race Relations Act.

Page 8. "Policies called genocide.'' Here we find that Australia was guilty of at least three, possibly four acts of genocide against its indigenous Aborigines. The report goes on to say it was found that Australia's white settlers and government policies that removed Aboriginal children from their parents both breached the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The convention defines genocide as a systematic attempt to destroy a group's essential foundations (sounds familiar about another group of people).

Genocide was committed by settlers and police who killed indigenous people after white settlement began in 1788.

Page 9. "African Canadians take pride in their deep historical roots.'' Here we have the story of the descendants of Canada's black pioneers (they date back a few hundred years) still being asked, "So, where were you from?'' Page 10. "Dragging victim made vain attempt to save himself.'' This deals with a black man being dragged to his death behind a truck by a white man in Jasper, Texas. Needless to say -- there is not much one can do with a chain around your neck and that chain is hooked to the back of a pick-up truck! Page 11. Last but not least, "Into the heart of evil''. A bio about none other than the man who was spawned by the devil himself...the mentally deranged, ugly of face, heart, soul and spirit, adolf hitler (yes! lower case, and, we all know what he did).

What does the above tell us? It tells us that here in the 1999, we still have the problem of race -- correction, we still have too many people who have a problem with race. Take another look at the above and you will see that five out of six of the above articles concern black people. Consequently, I have to ask, "Why?'' Is it out of some sort of fear and ignorance, or, is it because some people are just plain evil! PAT FERGUSON Warwick Cellular towers are safe February 24, 1999 Dear Sir, In response to the reports that have been in the media recently concerning the safety issue with our cellular base station in Warwick, included is the contents of a letter produced by the Medical Health Officer in Vancouver, Canada. It is hoped that you will see fit to print this in its entirety as it will certainly illustrate that the concerns raised are not justified.

"Health Concerns With Respect to Cellular Phone Transmission Antennae'' The Medical Health Officer has been asked to comment on the concerns raised by citizens about health effects related to the installation and operation of cellular phone transmission antennae. The medical health officer relies on the expert advice of the Radiation Protection Branch of the Ministry of Health on issues related to electromagnetic radiation and health effects. The current position of the Branch (radiation Issue Note, February 1997 attached) is that "research studies conducted to date have shown that electromagnetic fields surrounding a cellular transmitter site do not cause cancer or other adverse health effects in the population.'' The note further states that the Radiation Protection Section has performed surveys and "worst-case'' calculations of radio frequency levels around cellular phone antennae and found all sites to be well below (more than 100 times) Health Canada's limit for exposure to the general public.

Cellular technology utilises the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum between 860-900 MHz (near the FM/TV, AM Radio bands and cordless telephone frequencies), often called the "microwave'' portion. The newer digital PCS technology utilises a band around 1800-2200 MHz. It is significant to note that microwave levels in the community from cellphone sites are significantly less than the safe level of microwave radiation normally detectable five centimetres in front of a microwave oven, a common fixture in modern homes.

As with many other "potential risks'', the science of radiofrequency (RF) radiation and impacts on health is constantly being augmented. Much has been made of a recent Australian study which exposed genetically cancer-prone mice to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields and found a moderate but statistically significant increase in lymphomas in these mice. The significance of these results to human populations is weak, but nevertheless the study has added to the knowledge base on interactions between biological systems and radio frequency radiation. Nonetheless, the general scientific consensus holds that the power from cellular base stations is far too low in the community to result in adverse impacts. The current Canadian and international standards provide significant safety margins for public exposure to RF.

With respect to the particular installation and the specific request to the Board of Variance to institute a moratorium on cell phone antennae sites in the vicinity of schools and day cares, the benefits of a moratorium are at best questionable and at worst non-existent. Given the typical radiation patterns from cellular antennae, there is normally a "radiation shadow'' directly beneath the antenna structure with very low levels (well below 1mw/cm2) of radiofrequency radiation. Most of the antenna power is directed outward horizontally (within a 10 degree cone y 100 feet) usually commencing at a height of several stories above ground level.

The practice of "prudent avoidance'' in this instance does not result in any increased level of protection as might be the case in requiring buffer zones next to high voltage transmission lines (where both magnetic and electric fields are present as opposed to RF fields). It would be difficult, if not impossible, to "prudently avoid'' some level of exposure to RF fields in an urban setting, whether it be from AM, FM, TV or cellular phones. The Medical Health Officer concludes that there is no public health benefit in practising prudent avoidance with respect to cellular phone transmission antennae. He will endeavour to stay current with the scientific knowledge on this issue and provide updates when necessary.

MEDICAL HEALTH OFFICER Vancouver/Richmond Health Board July 16, 1997 BERMUDA DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

City of Hamilton Ignorance, not concern February 26, 1999 Dear Sir, I am writing in response to the letter printed February 24 entitled "Totally out of Touch'' written by the hysteria-ridden organisation incorrectly called CARE (Community Against Radiation Emissions). I say incorrectly called CARE because if they were truly against radiation emissions, none of the members would have a TV set, radio, cell phones or most other electronic devices as they all use or produce these demonic, evil child-endangering waves of doom (by the way, light is also radiation).

Seeing as the spokesman for the group is a cellular phone customer I can only assume this is not really their agenda. I wonder if the cellular towers that the CARE members utilise while using their cell phones have caused cancer in any children, or are those cellular towers special? They should be ashamed of themselves for such traitorous behaviour! Or at least for their "not in my backyard'' attitude. But anyway, on to the content of their letter, which was as usual, devoid of any real fact or information and was only a pathetic attempt to further obfuscate the issue.

CARE states in its letter that I am "unaware of the support that their case has from well respected non-aligned scientist and health professionals.'' Well, who are these mystery experts of renown that support your so far questionable viewpoint? Where can we find their published material? What recognised scientific organisations, agencies or universities are they associated with that support their conclusions? I eagerly await your reply.

They further write that I am "welcome to contact CARE for technical responses which we shall not take up valuable space in your newspaper to repeat. We addressed these issues, at least in part, in previous letters to the editor....'' First off, after having worked for the United States military on radar-based weapons guidance systems and advanced military communication systems with the highest security clearance for a number of years, the last people I need to get "technical responses'' from on the issue of radiation emission are the members of CARE. They have already shown they do not understand the basic principles involved.

Second off, is not this "valuable space'' intended for members of the public to propagate useful information to the public in the form of opinions and facts? Obviously you deem your opinion worthy of this space, but not your facts.

Thirdly, you have failed to address any of the issues at hand. The only thing CARE has done is to disseminate unsubstantiated opinion posing as fact. Please refer to the second paragraph of this letter and explain why the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology is wrong and you are right.

CARE further attempts to blur the issue at hand by suggesting that I have a financial or other personal stake in their dispute with Bermuda Digital Communications (BDC). I will state unequivocally for the record that I have no financial gain to be obtained by the success of this tower or BDC, nor does any member of my family.

The only possible personal gain from this tower will be improved cellular service, which the members of CARE should know could use some improving, since at least one of their main members is utilising cellular antennae as a cellular phone customer.

The motivating factor behind my letters to the Editor is that few things irritate me more than ignorance parading as concern, combined with blatant manipulation of the public for personal reasons/gain by people spouting nonsense as if it were truth while avoiding putting their "facts'' where their mouths are and causing others grief while they are doing it. Is that enough of an answer to your "Just a question?'' MIKE BEARDEN Warwick