Letters to the editor

Questions remain in park issue

To the editor:

Mayor Marks and Council are to be congratulated for shelving, albeit reluctantly, plans to install artificial turf in Westmount Park. However, they have remained mute on what other changes to the playing fields they are still contemplating.

The aim of all three options presented to area residents in October 2006 was to create a soccer complex – two very large fields divisible into four for children's games – on what is now public parkland. Trees would have to be cut down or moved to accommodate this facility, a giant net would be strung north-south to catch stray balls, and access would likely be restricted by means of fences and permit requirements.

Artificial turf was certainly not the only aspect of the project that alarmed Westmounters, and many of us are still concerned. Despite their multiple uses, the playing fields held up well until they were poorly resurfaced several years ago. The solution to their current state could not be simpler: plant hardier grass, improve drainage and maintenance, remove goals after the spring soccer season and make better use of other Westmount fields.

A single-purpose sports facility out of all proportion to its surroundings and to any demonstrated need would not be an admirable legacy. Surely preserving something precious is a greater achievement than building something unnecessary.

Brian McCordick

Melville Avenue



Prostate not most common cancer

To the editor:

Raising money for cancer research is obviously an important and useful activity, but your article “Match against Prostate Cancer” contains several unfortunate but common errors:

First: Prostate cancer is NOT ‘the most prevalent cancer in Canadian men’ – skin cancer is far more common though usually not serious; lung cancer kills almost four times as many men as PCa does, and colo-rectal cancer is about level with PCa.

Second:The test to which Pat Ifrah-Stein refers as ‘a simple blood test that detected it’ (ie the Prostate cancer) is probably the PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) test which does NOT detect the cancer – it is merely, as its name implies, a measure of certain proteins in the blood. A rise in PSA can be caused by a non-cancerous infection (‘Prostatis’), a non-cancerous enlargement of the prostate (BPH) which is common in men as they age and does not lead to cancer: a rise in PSA may lead to further tests such as Ultrasound, but the only definite test for cancer is a biopsy of the prostate which involves needle samples taken of the prostate via the rectum. The PSA is a very poor screening test – men with low PSA can have cancer and those with high levels may not. Many oncologists do not now recommend PSA screening.

Third: ‘the disease will affect one in eight Canadian men during their lifetime’ is sort of true – but quite misleading. The facts are that many men life – and die – without knowing that they have a malignant prostate. A very large study of autopsies of men carried out at Stanford showed that, of men over 50, 40 per cent had malignant prostates, but only 8 per cent had any symptoms, and only 3 per cent died of Prostate cancer.

I should probably add that I was diagnosed with PCa more than nine years ago and was offered surgery: “there’s a 50 per cent chance of impotence and 25 per cent of incontinence …” This did not seem an attractive proposition – I began an intensive reading program, and am still healthy and free of symptoms – though I do have a tumour. I expect to die of something else – but not just yet!

Richard Lock

Lansdowne Avenue