MAILBAG - April 25, 2000

What’s unfortunate in the prelude leading up to the June 6 vote on

Measure A is the likelihood that nine out of 10 voters won’t bother

themselves to pick up a copy of the bond resolution or the facilities

master plan and give them a good hard study; won’t invest the mental

calories required to make an informed decision about an important issue.

And that’s too bad. Here’s why.

To his credit, Steve Smith has done what most of us won’t do (“Tossing

bricks at the list of school ‘repairs,”’ April 22). He’s studied the

issue. And it is clear he doesn’t like what he sees. By his subjective

measure, and it is subjective, he opines Measure A to be a pork-laden

litany of school repairs. Therefore, it’s worthy of defeat. It’s his

opinion. He’s entitled to it. But I sharply and deeply disagree with him.

To his discredit, Smith too readily dawns the mantle of mouthpiece for

the rest of the Newport-Mesa community. When he rights dubious statements

like, “This is not the bond you thought it was,” I’m wondering who “you”

is. It’s not me. And it may not be a lot of other folks if only they

studied the issue for themselves.

Which brings me back to my lead thought. That Steve Smith has access

to 25 inches of newspaper space each week to fire broadsides at Measure A

makes him an extremely influential voice in our community. But his is

only one voice.

My concern is that most folks will buy Smith’s reasoning because he’s

adroit at pushing nouns and verbs together; and they’ll do so without

having bothered to study the resolution and the facilities master plan to

form their own opinion. If Measure A succumbs because of the loud

albeit subjective voice of one newspaper columnist, and a gaggle of

people who buy what he says without their own investigation, that will be

a tragedy.

BYRON DE ARAKAL

Costa Mesa

Still safe to eat fish caught in bay

I would like to clarify a statement attributed to me regarding the

impact of insecticides and herbicides entering the bay (“What hazards lie

beneath the surface?” April 20). I was quoted as saying, “It takes 30

years of exposure to these chemicals before there is risk of cancer.”

I want to assure your readers that I do not believe there is any risk

of cancer to bay swimmers or residents eating fish caught in the bay.

Although low levels of the banned organochlorine chemicals such as DDT

and PCB still can be found in the sediments of the Rhine Channel and

several other locations of the bay, chemical analyses of fish samples

taken from Newport Bay and analyzed by Fish and Game in the lab in

Sacramento has not prompted any warnings to limit the consumption of fish

caught in Newport Bay.

Certain chemicals found in the sediments in very low amounts would

only cause cancer from daily occupational exposure of high concentrations

of these chemicals over many years.

Fortunately, monitoring of these banned chemicals by Fish and Game

have documented a reduction of organochlorine chemicals in the bay during

the last 10 years.

JOHN F. SKINNER

Newport Beach