THE EDITOR:
THE proliferation of cell sites in Trinidad and Tobago has created considerable concern among citizens in this country.

The public generally believes that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the towers may be harmful and as a result, many have successfully agitated for the removal of cell towers from their communities while others have acted to prevent them from being introduced.

Citizens in communities across the world have raised similar concerns about the possible deleterious effects of cell tower radiation.

In response to this many cellphone companies, some international organisations such as the International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) and certain government bodies such as the UK expert committee chaired by Sir William Stewart claim that there is no scientific evidence that exposure to radiation below ICNIRP guidelines is harmful.

Despite these claims of safety, anxiety among citizens in Trinidad and Tobago and elsewhere remains.

Because of the likely health threat presented by the radiation from these towers, I have examined some of the vast literature on radiation and its effects.

I have found, based primarily on peer-reviewed publications, that there is a large and growing body of credible scientific evidence that cell site radiation is harmful to health and that the effects are similar to those found in biological and epidemiological studies on electromagnetic radiation conducted over the past 40 years.

These effects include cancer, particularly brain tumour and leukemia; cardiovascular problems including altered blood pressure; neurological effects including altered brain activity, sleep disturbance, learning difficulties, depression and headaches; viral and infectious diseases arising from reduced melatonin, DNA strand breakage leading to cell death and chromo-some aberrations.

These and other effects are summarised in a report that I have compiled and made available to the Association for Radio Frequency Emission Control in Trinidad and Tobago (ARFECTT).

The effects have persuaded over 3000 medical professionals and 50,000 others from across the world to sign the Freiburger Appeal in 2002 in which they identify radiation from telecommunications systems as having a deleterious effect on health and call upon governments to take action. Their recommendations include:

(i) Education of the public, especially of mobile telephone users, regarding the health risks of electromagnetic fields;

(ii) Ban on cellphone use by small children, and restrictions on use by adolescents;

(iii) Ban on cellphone use and digital cordless telephones in preschools, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, events halls, public buildings and vehicles (as with the ban on smoking); and

(iv) Creation of Mobile telephone and high frequency microwave radiation-free zones(as with auto-free areas).

Many scientists are now comparing this radiation hazard and the widespread lack of recognition of its potential danger, to epidemics of the past including tobacco, asbestos and mad cow disease.

In all these latter cases they believe many lives would have been saved if a more precautionary approach based on common sense was adopted.

In the case of cell site radiation, the evidence of its danger is overwhelming and therefore the general reluctance to act is inexcusable.

Cellular technology is important in today’s world as such technology enables mobile communication over large distances without the cost and inconvenience associated with wired systems.

Unfortunately the radiation emitted by cellphone base stations is dangerous to health and must be appropriately limited.

Based on the extensive scientific literature detailing the findings of numerous experts on the real dangers associated with cell site radiation, I believe that cell sites should be remote from where people live and work and away from hospitals and schools and that a standing committee on electromagnetic radiation and its dangers should be established to help formulate radiation standards for Trinidad and Tobago.

Cell site radiation is a major issue that demands urgent national attention.

THE EDITOR:
THE current issue of the CJ and the Executive is really troubling to all citizens of our country.

Since this matter became a major media item I have seen the story change and twisted in ways that is really incredible.

The lastest is the attack on the Attorney General who is clearly only doing his job.

The Attorney General addressed the nation and tried to give us the citizens a clearer picture of the matter.

Following the Attorney General’s address we saw a lot of legal wrangling bringing the Law Association into focus.

What is truly important in all of this is the fact that the two main people are not being mentioned anymore.

We must remember that the CJ issue came about because of Basdeo Panday.

And, Basdeo Panday is before the courts because of Ramesh L. Maharaj.

It is being alleged that the CJ tried to influence the Chief Magistrate to dismiss the case against Basdeo Panday.

Lest we forget, all of this turmoil began because of Basdeo Panday and Ramesh Maharaj.

These two men have been at the centre of many national issues which has caused hurt to our people and our nation.

Let us not blame the Attorney General, the prime minister or the judges who sit in our courts.

The culprits are well-known to everyone.

THE EDITOR:
RECENT articles in your newspaper contain errors of fact, the publication of which could have been prevented simply by consulting our local website or contacting us for clarification about our proposed smelter project in Chatham/Cap-de-Ville.

With regard to your article “Chinese Connection” in the August 4 edition of your paper, please note that while our proposed smelter is earmarked for Cap-de-Ville, the smelter to which you refer will be constructed at Union Estate, La Brea, and is in no way connected to ALCOA’s proposed smelter.

It is erroneous to state, therefore, that ALCOA’s smelter is being financed by a Chinese Bank at a cost of US$540 million.

In fact, costs in regard to our smelter and its related facilities are estimated to be at least US$1.5 billion, a fact that was noted in our July 17, 2006 correspondence to your publication.

With regard to the article, “Smelter Heat”, in the same edition, please note that hazardous waste from the smelter (in the form of spent pot lining) will be landfilled in Trinidad.

Our current plan with regard to the disposal of spent pot lining is to ship it to our processing facility in Gum Springs, Arkansas, which is in keeping with ALCOA’s commitment to adhere to the strictest environmental standards and laws as well as the Basel Convention, which enables properly permitted and safely managed transportation of such materials.

It will also still be safe to collect and use rainwater in the area near the plant.

As far as discharges of water are concerned, as with any emissions, the intention is to discharge as little water as possible.

Any water discharges from the facility will meet necessary quality standards, the water quality will be monitored, and the data associated with this monitoring will be made available to the public.