Dear Editior,

Building a pier extending into the open ocean has questionable wisdom! The wave action balancing off the solid walls of the pier will have an effect on the land and beaches of Bimini, you can be sure.

I could respond to many of the articles regarding dredging at Bimini, the most interesting point made has been that we are exchanging "Quantity for Quality". If it is true we are to have dominion over all things, it is our responsibility to protect nature and God's creatures, including the ocean's corals which are living animals.

I thought, as usual, we were sacrificing nature for the benefit of the people who seem to believe that nature is a resource to be exploited for profit to feed and clothe one's self. What I found most interesting in the "Quantity for Quality" article to the editor, was the demographic of the people coming to Bimini in the future would not necessarily increase the profits Bimini presently generates for the people.

This would mean the sacrifice of destroying nature for the benefit of the people would be pointless.

As scientists have stated, it is well known the silt will remain in the marine environment for many years to come and will continue to kill the corals. The dive industry will suffer due to our waters being no longer "gin clear", which The Bahamas is well known for. Although, there may be incidences of relatively clear water diving days in the future, during extended periods of calm, as soon as the weather becomes stormy those sentiments will again enter the water column. It has already been said, the ship's propellers will kick up sentiment in the channel and turning basin for years to come.

The original approval of the removal of 220,000 cubic yards of seabed, we are now told, has been expanded to 874,000 cubic yards! 400% more silt and environmental impact will be the result. I cannot help wonder if this may have been the plan all along.

It is not clear if the original environmental studies take into account the 400% increase in damage to the environment. The technology today, such as, using silt curtains (that were recently in the news washed to shore) is just a token effort of the industry to lead the public to believe that they are making every effort to be environmentally correct.

In truth, silt curtains do very little and designed for only calm weather.

The Catch 22 is, if we do the right thing at this late date, we may make our government liable for giving approvals they could not deliver. It would be unthinkable to expect the environmentalists, "those protecting God's creations", to pay the losses of a developer due to delay or inability to complete.

With all things considered one has to ask, who will come to the rescue of the sea and its inhabitants; when will we learn from our previous mistakes and when will we realize that other life forms have as much of a right to life as we do.

Christopher Hartley