If scientists are truly "anxious to gather public support" over genetically modified foods (GMFs), Howard Bezar is going the wrong way about gaining support in his article in the April issue.

His needlessly extreme disparaging tone about people opposing uncontrolled use of the technology is likely to deepen the distrust many of them feel for the GMF industry. The reason for the distrust is that the industry has so far worked with stealth and deceit.

It is deceitful, for example, to claim that genetic engineering merely accelerates natural processes - with very few exceptions, genes are NOT transferred naturally between genera, and certainly there is no possibility of natural transfer of genes between animals and plants (eg. fish genes in strawberries).

It is deceitful to claim altruistic motives such as solving world food shortages, when commercial advantage is the only manifest outcome of blanket herbicide spraying of genetically modified, herbicide-resistant crops produced to go in manufactured foods for well-fed people.

In the past, genetically engineered organisms have been introduced illegally into the environment, eg. the "ice-minus" bacterium used to reduce frost damage in plants. Now, the GMF industry hopes to slyly slip its products into all manner of foodstuffs without the public knowing.

To conceal the content of a foodstuff by not labelling it accurately is hardly a "legitimate trade practice"! On the other hand, there is a growing market for naturally produced foods, and it IS a legitimate practice to benefit from that by truthful labelling.

Whatever their reasons, people have a right to choose between naturally and unnaturally produced foods - to select organically grown vegetables, free-range eggs, grass- and grain-fed beef, unsweetened soft drinks, and so on, if those are what they prefer.

To deny them the information on which to base that choice is not exactly a "triumph of science" - or engineering - but rather a cheat of the consumer and a failure of democracy. Geoff Gregory, Paraparaumu

I read Richard Fenwick's November article with interest.

I feel I must comment on the paragraph regarding reasons why overseas engineers have found it so hard to find professional positions in New Zealand. The article stated that 48 percent of applicants had been told that they lacked New Zealand experience. My own experience, and that of my husband, is that British, and therefore English speaking, immigrants have had no difficulty whatsoever in finding immediate employment. We have each been told on many occasions "if you can do that, you can do this" or "we want to tap your UK experience". I therefore suggest that the "no New Zealand experience" line is, in fact, a euphemism for "your English isn't good enough".

One of the qualifying criteria for immigration applicants is an ability to converse in English. There is no written test. This presents a major difficulty to employers in technical fields which is clearly not recognised by either the Government or the prospective immigrant. The net result is that the Government is approving visa applications only for them to be effectively vetoed by New Zealand employers. By that time, of course, it is too late and the immigrant is often financially crippled by the move down under.

It is therefore doubly alarming that the Government is preparing to relax the English language qualification further in an effort to encourage flagging immigration. While immigrants of all nationalities are, for the most part, welcomed by the general populace it would appear that this generosity is not shared by the professions. It is hardly surprising then, that non-European immigrants are leaving again in droves or are being subjected to the humiliation of signing on for unemployment benefit.

Perhaps it is timely that the Government surveys employers reasons for not taking on an engineer from the likes of Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka, Iraq or Russia. It is grossly unfair of the Government to give visa applicants the impression that New Zealand is the land of milk and honey (employment wise) only to put employers in the unenviable position of disillusioning a group of highly qualified, willing, vastly experienced and potentially hugely valuable professionals.

Viv Hardie (Mrs), Christchurch

Every so often engineers are told they should become more involved in public debates and matters of public interest, especially matters concerning technology and its applications in our society. However, it has to be a two way street. The public have to be both interested in what engineers may say, and have some serious interest in technological matters. It is not just that roads, drains and power systems are boring subjects to most people, there is a deeper underlying disinterest in technology, even distrust. In my view, our society, relative to other societies, does not put a high priority on effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of goods and services, and there is a low public awareness of the advantages of design and the systematic assessment and evaluation of alternatives.

The public response, or rather lack of it, to the power failure in the Auckland CBD, is symptomatic of this. It was no national disaster. Actually, to all but those directly affected, it was a bit of a laugh.

Was the Government's response to become concerned about the management of complex technological systems in our society? No, they just told the affected parties to sue! They have now set up an inquiry, and it does have an engineer on the inquiry committee, although as usual it is chaired by a lawyer who knows nothing about the matter to be investigated, and by his own admission has no idea why he was asked. Why was he? And what is he trying to find out?

Meanwhile the general public shows little interest. There have been relatively few letters to the editor in newspapers and magazines, while letters that have been written are not published. I wrote to both the Dominion and the Listener. In spite of being non-technical in style, and trying to be at least somewhat provocative, neither published it. At the time there were masses of letters to the Dominion on the "Virgin in a Condom", which the newspaper was clearly encouraging by publishing so many letters, and day after day. Why does this display, whether seen as blasphemous or just provocative, generate such a massive response, when a major breakdown of the power supply to the commercial heart of Auckland is hardly an issue worth discussing.

In Japan people would, literally, commit hari-kari, if the power supply to a major city centre failed. It would be a national disgrace. Similarly in continental Europe. But in New Zealand, as part of our British heritage, we are less concerned. It's the she'll be right, bring out the number eight wire syndrome. New Zealanders do not hold technical experts in high regard, and do not have high expectations of technological systems and structures. It is all part of the same attitude. If something goes wrong, then we'll get by, and fix it up somehow. It is this lack of regard for technical quality, and the attitude of anyone can do it, that gave rise to the Cave Creek structure failure. In spite of what the Judge said in his inquiry, certain people had a clear responsibility because of their disregard for basic requirements when building public structures, of seeking appropriate advice, and following plans of action.

In the inquiry about the Auckland CBD power failure, an engineer may well be found responsible, because at the end of the line he or she makes the operational decisions. At the direct cause and effect level, technological systems fail because of operational decisions. But what was the context of those decisions, the corporate and managerial requirements and pressures. What were the constraints on the operational staff?

It will be interesting to see if the inquiry addresses these matters, and looks at the wider issue of the position of engineers in the overall management and operation of such sophisticated technical systems. What does society expect of us engineers, and when and how do we assert engineering quality and reliability requirements? How have the recent changes in management approaches and attitudes, as well as in government institutional arrangements, affected the position and role of engineer?

In a society that does not highly value technical quality - and gives little thought to the management of technological systems - how do engineers promote concern for quality, and an appreciation of the merits of professional engineering involvement? When will an engineer be asked (for no apparent reason, as Hugh Rennie was!) to chair a Ministerial inquiry?

The recent (Stent) report on a Christchurch hospital highlights the same issues of a disregard for technical quality and proficiency. This though was to do with Health - a real trigger of public response - and government Ministers were falling over themselves to apologise. Did I somehow miss the Ministerial apologies for the Auckland power failure?!

Cave Creek, Auckland CBD, Christchurch Hospital - as these failures continue, maybe someday people may start to question their attitudes to technology and its quality requirements, and engineers may get beyond talking just to themselves about these issues.

Gary Williams, Otaki

Why the outcry when Contact raises its asking price for peak load electricity generation above $2.00 per kWh? If it costs that to generate from these peak stations, customers should be seeking a similar sum for forgoing their right to receive energy. The days when a power company's customers will respond to public pressure are fast disappearing, especially when it affects profits. There should be mechanisms to compensate for reducing load. If they can cut their connection entirely by using diesel back-up generation, then they should have negotiated either a substantial network charge discount, or meaningful compensation for non-supply.

Let's not muddle the customer's right to receive the product, with how they manage that product. Yes, in many cases customers can reduce consumption, but if they are managing their costs properly there should be little room for further savings.

With current market forces, the days of the public responding to requests to voluntarily forgo their electricity supply, especially in industries which cannot operate without it, will soon be a memory of the regulated past. The most profitable electricity users will be those who have successfully negotiated the best deal, sharing the risks of non-supply and high spot prices with their preferred suppliers. They will have worked closely with their energy and network service providers to optimise the cost benefits of:

• Back-up generation, or even export to the local power company

• Purchasing increased reliability from their network provider by way of duplicate transmission facilities, etc

• Controlling load to an acceptable minimum to keep them operating in a crisis, and to other appropriate levels at other times

• Taking a share of the risk incurred by their supplier when costs rise for any reason.

Under this scenario, there is only one sin that Contact can be accused of, and that is underestimating the traditional response to pleas to reduce consumption, and thus failing to get some much needed revenue for the taxpayer, as owners, when the opportunity has arisen.

All customers should take the opportunity to put the old "take it or leave it" contracts from regulated monopoly suppliers where they belong, and demand better service. If they aren't getting the service, they may ultimately need to relocate to get a better network deal, but the possibility of using an alternative energy supplier is becoming available for more and more customers.

The time has come for all customers to take the lead, and start driving the industry for a change!

Roger J Loveless, Odyssey Energy, Hamilton

John Blakeley's article "Energy Gap Possibility is Receding" (NZ Engineering, February 98) needs some careful examination lest its errors adversely influence our long-term policy on energy use - assuming any such policy exists!

1. It would be wonderful if those estimates of natural gas reserves, based mainly on the top estimate for Mangahewa, were correct - but reality must suppress the sublime optimism. According to Fletcher Energy, the Mangahewa estimates vary over a range of 10 to 1.

2. Concentrating on natural gas, there is no emphasis on the contribution that coal can make to our future energy needs. Maybe that springs from the greenhouse fallacy which would exclude coal from any such consideration. Reliable estimates indicate that NZ's coal reserves are about 40 times as great as these over-estimated, natural gas reserves.

3. The wishful claims for underground gasification of coal are just not on. UGG is a dead duck; with NZ's faulted seams, the duck is deader.

4. Surely, new hydroelectric schemes should be considered.

5. Kapuni seems to offer the most certain supply of our future natural gas. In the early days, when information was more readily available, it was common knowledge that the raw Kapuni gas contained 50 percent carbon dioxide - this is removed in processing plant at the well-head. Kupe gas also requires such processing, and the association of Mangahewa with "Kapuni sands" suggests that CO2 will similarly be discharged to the atmosphere by the processing plant. The originally stated 50 percent CO2 in the raw Kapuni gas, destroys the spurious greenhouse argument for the use of natural gas - if only because the total CO2 emission from the raw gas is greater than that from coal.

6. Finally, New Zealand differs from most western countries in that the phenomenally-low price of electricity had always prevented the development of a traditional town-gas industry, before Kapuni and Maui gas appeared. But, without such an industry, and aided by the take-or-pay arrangements, we have disposed of nearly all the Maui gas, without having developed a substantive household-gas industry as is so important overseas and as New Zealand sorely needs now.

Gasification of (mined) coal can provide a substitute natural gas at a thermal efficiency of about 75 percent, and the coal used thus will go about twice as far, in the home, as that used in power generation. The only problem is one of chickens and eggs - a large scale of operation (which might have developed over the past twenty years of surplus natural gas) would be required to make the gasification process economic. However, it is not too late for such a large scale of household-gas use to be achieved, using the natural gas remaining - albeit with some adjustment of market forces.

Even if we are lucky enough to find so much natural gas that we never need to gasify coal for this purpose, the argument for the development of a large household-gas industry still remains - natural gas used directly in the home will go three times as far as that gas converted to electricity.

The logic seems so straightforward to me. If I'm wrong, I hope someone will explain my error.

Peter A Toynbee, Wellington

Sustainable Sky Towers

Could we please have some relief this year from articles or photographs of the Auckland Sky Tower? I refer in particular to the main sponsor's advertisement in the programme for "The Sustainable City" conference showing the Sky Tower dominating the Auckland skyline. We can only wonder what on earth it has to do with sustainability. We all know it's an impressive piece of "gung-ho" technology, but hardly an inspirational symbol for this Institution which is (supposedly) trying to establish itself itself at the forefront of sustainable development and green technologies.

D H Peacock, Gisborne