Truth without bias
I was dismayed to read your syndicated news report, “Medical Professionals Say Yes to Farmed Salmon,” in the issue published Nov. 23, 2006. More and more, the lines between the news and advertisements are being blurred. This article features the biased opinion of Salmon of the Americas president Rafael Puga, who boasts the medical benefits of farmed salmon to everyone, including pregnant mothers, while completely disregarding the proven hazards that farmed salmon poses to our health.
Sure, the Journal of the American Medical Association recently conducted a study of the health benefits of seafood when consumed one to two times per week. Mr. Puga unscrupulously uses these findings to boost the sales of his product. Of course, he doesn’t mention that when compared to wild salmon, genetically engineered farmed salmon contains more heavy metals and PCBs, which are toxic environmental pollutants. Nor does he want people to know that farmed salmon contains toxic byproducts, cancer-causing contaminants and antibiotics used to fight diseases and parasites that are rampant on farms. The only reference that your article gives to these serious health risks is one sentence in which Mr. Puga alleges it all to be mere “media hype.”
In fact, it is the responsibility of the media to inform the public of the truth without bias. I would expect The Peninsula Beacon to uphold a higher level of ethics in clearly outlining all of the facts. Instead, we were presented with a blatant advertisement that twisted medical findings in order to convince people to buy a particular product. At least your publication had the morality to put this article in the Business and Services section. I call upon The Peninsula Beacon to take a stand in the future and separate journalism and marketing, putting them both in their proper place.
Elyssa Page, Ocean Beach

Secret meeting angers residents
Concerning the Navy’s town hall meeting on the fuel plume Dec. 7 at the Portuguese SES Hall (“Navy contains fuel plume, identifies its boundaries,” The Beacon, Dec. 14, 2006) and Capt. Mark Patton’s statement that the low turnout was “probably a combination of the holidays and the fact that, hopefully, the public has confidence in what the Navy is doing with this issue,” I’ve heard from several La Playa and Rosecrans Street residents who are quite upset about such assumptions by the Navy. It was pointed out to me that a small blurb in the Dec. 7 issue of The Beacon was the only notice of the meeting for most who were interested. Many close to the village would not have been able to access a Beacon issue until Dec. 8, the day after the meeting. (EDITOR’S NOTE: In fact, a news brief was published in both the Nov. 30 and Dec. 7 issues of The Beacon.)
The article states, “While the information provided at the town hall meeting was abundant, the attendance was poor, with less than 30 people present at the Portuguese SES Hall in Point Loma. The first widely publicized meeting on the subject in March drew a crowd of nearly 300.”
Based on calls I have received from many in the community, this meeting appears purposely set up with little to no advance notice just before Christmas so that few interested community members would attend. While we understand that there may be time required for analysis of the data collected, it is difficult to understand that information about it could not have been provided earlier and with wider publicity. Such incomplete noticing has occurred before with previous administrations on important issues, resulting in wide community distrust with any government organizations. As a community group, we hope this type of incomplete communication will not be repeated again. We expect, as an elected local planning board, to receive specific messages to send out to community members. Using one point of contact is not sufficient for an issue such as this, having the potential to affect not only the health concerns of residents, workers and visitors here but existing and future property values as well as the personal and business decisions of those in our community.
Patton’s assumption that the attendance of only 30 indicates community satisfaction with the Navy’s response is wrong. Some in our community consider this another secret meeting and are furious. Perhaps this meeting needs to be repeated with sufficient notice to this community.
Cynthia Conger, Chair, Peninsula Community Planning Board