Cellphone radiation fears
While the WHO cautioned the other day that radiation levels emitted from cellphones could put them in the same category as other cancer-causing agents such as lead and chloroform — otherwise known as carcinogens — it could take years before the long-term effects are actually known.
By then, most of us today will be dead — from natural causes.
To summarize the 20,000 screaming headlines that made their way around the Internet, the WHO reported that “over the past few years there has been mounting concern over the possibility of adverse health effects resulting from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields [REF], such as those emitted by wireless communication devices.”
Government officials and educators are now worried about this issue, too, especially in terms of how it affects junior-high and high-school students.
Readers might remember US lawyer Johnnie Cochran of O.J. Simpson fame, who passed away in 2005 at the age of 67 from a brain tumor. Now his daughter is saying she wasn’t surprised to hear about the alleged link between cellphones and cancer.
Noting that her father practically “lived” on his cellphone, Tiffany Cochran recently said her father’s neurosurgeon has always felt, and still believes, that Cochran’s cellphone use might have caused the tumor.
“My father’s doctor has always believed it,” she said. “And he’s always said it may be one of those things where research needs to catch up to societal use of the cellphone.”
DAN BLOOM
Chiayi City
I’m green and pro-nuclear
I am a bicycle-riding, clean air, anti-scooter activist, so people are often shocked when they learn about my pro-nuclear stance regarding the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. I say follow the global trend of using thorium-based reactor cores and fire that baby up! It is already built — let’s turn the damn thing on! If greens really want to be anti-nuclear, let’s focus efforts on preventing a plant No. 5.
Taiwan’s so-called “environmental” non-governmental organization, the Green Citizens’ Action Alliance (GCAA), recently protested against nuclear power when President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) visited the Wugu Wetlands (五股溼地), its members holding up a banner that read: “Mr President, abolishing nuclear power can reduce carbon emissions too.”
Really? I challenge the GCAA to produce any peer-reviewed science that backs up what I am calling out as a disingenuous, delusional and bogus claim.
What Taiwan’s ill-informed and reactionary anti-nuclear groups fail to notice is that Taiwan imports 99 percent of its energy needs, according to Bloomberg.
Although the proportions change on a month-by-month basis, Taiwan’s nuclear generators provide 13 to 24 percent of Taiwan’s electricity, while 26 to 37 percent comes from burning oil and gas and 29 to 41 percent from coal, according to statistics from the Taiwan Power Co.
If the GCAA is suggesting that we generate less electricity from nuclear and more from coal and oil, it is in fact going against the very eco-message it is trying to promote. Are the GCAA’s members trying to slow down man-made climate change, or not?
The Fourth Nuclear Power Plant would use advanced boiling water reactors and supply 6 percent of the nation’s electricity once it is up and running.
On the other hand, coal, according to eco-champion George Monbiot, is the most carbon-dense of all the fossil fuels and the primary driver of climate change.
Furthermore, Monbiot quotes an article in the Scientific American that indicates that fly-ash, an inevitable byproduct of coal-burning power plants, emits “100 times more radiation than a nuclear plant producing the same amount of energy.”
The GCAA wants more electricity from coal and less from nuclear? How is that protecting people from dangerous radioactivity?
According to official statistics from China, at least six people are killed in coal mines each day and rights activists believe that number would go up to 24 per day if the true human cost were tallied. Meanwhile, not one single Japanese has been killed as a result of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant reactor catastrophes.
Is the GCAA saying that it wants more deaths, chronic diseases and environmental degradation by promoting fossil fuels? Huh?
TORCH PRATT
Yonghe
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with