Mobiles and tumors

I thought this correlation was rubbished years ago. The study says that the "risk of developing a parotid gland tumour is nearly 50% higher for frequent mobile phone users -- more than 22 hours a month." Though such tumors are non-cancerous and only lead to an increase in size of the gland, some could be cancerous.

I am sure most of us spend more than a day a month talking on the cell. And then we just started a few years back. How about the next generations who use the cell right from high school? Those whose livelihood depends upon these cellphones? A 50% higher risk could translate into a real big number. So are my days numbered?

Ahmedinejad vindicated

Now the US intelligence agencies believe that Iran is "not likely to have enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb until 2010-2015." The program apparently ran into technical problems after making significant headway in 2007 by installing gas centrifuges used to enrich uranium. The same report mentions that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 due to "international pressure." And yet the US National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley thinks that the reports findings confirm that "the US was right to be worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions."

For all the good that this finding might do, it puts the ball in Ahmedinejad's court. He has been asserting that Iran is not making a bomb, this reports simply vindicates him. There is nothing stopping him from saying "I told you so!" It makes Ahmedinejad look like the 'truthful' one. It can lead one to believe that his anger against the US is well-placed, justified.

I think I just pity Bush? Not only are his ratings abysmal, it is getting increasingly difficult to tell when he is lying and not.

Update: Iran's reaction - "Iranian state TV hailed the report as a "victory". It said Iran was "honest" and had been "vindicated", while it said the report demonstrated flaws in US intelligence."

The 'nuclear plot'

I think this would be a good story to look out for. With so much concern over the possibility of nuclear material being sold to terrorists, it would interesting to see how the media picks up on the alleged attempt at sale of nuclear material. Where did they get it from? Who were their potential buyers? Or probably it is just a hoax and the concluding piece is as small as this one.

Update: The Nuclear Threat Initiative gives a list of trafficking incidents so far.

Does he look evil to you?

On Pakistan

There has been a lot of criticism of Musharraf’s recent imposition of emergency. Or as I prefer a self-coup following in the tracks of men like Napoleon and Alberto Fujimori. Many have raised concerns over the increased activity in Pakistan’s eastern province, the possibility of increased terrorist activity through Pakistan affecting the war on terror, and a fear of instability in a nuclear-weapon state with a poor non-proliferation record. We have had columnists writing about Musharraf’s defiance of the US, and Bush’s inability to control him. They talked of looking at the reality of Pakistan and reviewing the arms aid ascending since 9/11.

C. Raja Mohan also asked India to take the opportunity to help Pakistan and improve relations. Though he makes a sound argument and I agree that it would be a prudent think to do, I do have some doubts. I am skeptical of the maturity of our relations. What happened with Indira Gandhi’s offer then could happen now. We might want to help, but is Pakistan ready to take it? Will they interpret it as help, or unnecessary interference with intentions of destabilizing or capturing Pakistan? In an ideal world our help would result in better relations with Pakistan, but there is nothing ideal when it comes to Indo-Pak relations. As much as I would love things to improve, I doubt if this is the right time and the right man to do it.

On a different note, T. R. Andhyarujina talks of how this coup is to check the courts. I agree with him. So how do we interpret this; a possibility of democracy in Pakistan due to an activist judiciary? Or another coup, only this time by the judiciary?

Well....

Today's TOI carries a headline, "US arms aid review to Pak relief for India." It took me quite some time to figure out what it meant. Not untill I had read the first paragraph of the story did I read it right. It is supposed to convey 'Review of US arms aid to Pak a relief for India.' I understand the constraints of a sub-editor, but it surely does not justify this!

Can someone please wake up Mr Karat?

What era is he living in?

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/235080.html

The Haitian

I find it very disturbing that a single person from Haiti could be instrumental in bringing the AIDS pandemic to the US. The BBC reports:

"With this data, they recreated a family tree for the virus, which they believe shows conclusively that the strain came to the US via Haiti - probably via a single person - in around 1969."

It raises questions about the sexual behavior of the US society. Rather about humans in general. If the general acceptance of monogamy, disdain of cheating is as widespread as it appears to be, a single person should have infected only a few dozen at the most. Even considering that his children passed it on and so forth, the person in question is believed to have entered US only in 1969. I am exaggerating no doubt, but is it really possible for a single person, or a few others from Haiti that came after him to have caused a pandemic?

I also fear if this would be used by some spiteful anti-immigration proponent to back his stance. I hope not!

Is it time up for ElBaradei?

The US has once again chosen to dismiss Mr ElBaradei's findings that there is no evidence that Iran is making a bomb. In fact it is years away from making a bomb. But the US thinks that the fact that Iran chose to enrich its own uranium instead of importing it, proves that it wants weapons.

There is no doubt that Iran, with its belligerent President Ahmadinejad is a risk to world security. We need to be vigilant of what it does with its nuclear capabilities. The recent resignation of Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Mr Larijani is disturbing as he believed in negotiating with the West to settle the issue, while Ahmadinejad considers the case closed. However, does that justify rubbishing the IAEA's findings? If ElBaradei's reports, his intelligence is fit only to be dismissed repeatedly, I see no reason why the position should exist. The IAEA could be scrapped of its duties as the nuclear watchdog of the world, and Bush appointed in its place. His intelligence is always so much more accurate!

I really fear that Bush might want to go to war with Iran. There is a lot of opposition from all possible quarters, ample evidence to prove how difficult it will be for Bush to go to war. But his Iran rhetoric is disturbing. He dismissed ElBaradei's report about Iraq, and now he doing it for Iran. I desperately want to be an optimist, but can't help fearing the worst.

Tehelka does it again

The recent Tehelka sting operation that caught Narendra Modi’s conspiracy on tape is as appalling as it could get. The vivid descriptions of how the massacres were committed, without any remorse but instead pride make you wonder what these men are made of.

I had a talk with one of my friends about it. He was angry at the guts of those men, their inhumane killings, and the probability that the BJP would be voted to power again in Gujarat.

And then he committed the fallacy every one of us does. Castigate Islam as a religion when a suicide bomber attacks. Castigate Hinduism for what those men did. As appalled as I was by those heinous acts, I have lived my 24 years knowing Hinduism to be nothing but good. I have known about the atrocities committed by the Hindus during the riots in Mumbai, in Gujarat, the riots at the time of independence. I hated those who did it as much as I respected my religion. And when he attacked that faith my first reaction was to defend it. I asked him to not extrapolate about either Hinduism or Hindus. Because by doing so I felt like perpetrator of the crime.

He was appalled that at such a time when he was expressing his anger at the genocidal nature of those crimes, all I could think of was defend my religion. I did not jump the wagon and go Hindu bashing with him. I did not express with as much passion the anger I felt at those men. So why did I not? You might think I am being inhumane too. But do you not jump to defend if a part of your identity is attacked. The impact of the tapes, the anger my friend felt and expressed, the shame I felt that the crimes were being committed in the name of the religion I identify with, the sudden flash of similar atrocities during riots, they all attacked my sense of identity that I derived from being a Hindu. They were trying to take away an identity I did not want to give up. Most of my ideals, beliefs, actions, and ethics come from this identity. I was born and brought up in a family that believed in it with all its heart. That voted for the Janata Party and the BJP. Because of the severity of the crimes of those men, when he attacked Hinduism I wanted to protect it even more. In that one moment he had not only attacked my identity as a Hindu, but also my upbringing, my parents. It was like pointing fingers at all of us. At all those people I consider to be some of the most gentle and humane.

Probably I am taking it too far. Trying to rationalize my appalling reaction to his attack on Hinduism. But that is where the reaction came from. I would have reacted the same way if I were a Muslim and he had attacked Islam. It is not the religion that is in the wrong, it is the men who did the act. This is probably one of the easiest escapes to it all. But it is the truth. That is why it is easy for fundamentalists to gather support. They play upon the fear of possible loss of identity that people feel when their religion is attacked. It is a fact of life that most people identify themselves with some religion and put a lot of faith in it. It is no wonder that when you ask someone who they are they answer as being a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian. They react the sharpest when that identity is attacked. It is no wonder that during riots, in spite of ample evidence of what their fellow men are doing, the Hindus back the Hindus and the Muslims back the Muslims.

If you think about any conflict situations you have been in, you will find that every time you react with anger, or get defensive it is because the other person is threatening one of your identities. Your identity as a good manager, a good wife, a righteous person… anything that you hold dear. Every time you succeed in dealing with a difficult person it is because you have someway taken away the threat to his identity. That is why almost all arguments will have someone saying things like “why are you taking it so personally?”

The Tahelka has done a good job at unmasking Narendra Modi and the BJP. They will suffer if there are midterm elections. But as my friend pointed out Modi might win again in Gujarat, due to the support for his economic policies. The perpetrators will go scot-free, even more confident that they can get as brutal as possible, as no one can touch them. Questions will be raised about India’s democracy. Where the country is heading politically and morally. How it will affect our international image. Weather we will be able to keep the Islamic fundamentalists from wanting revenge. And thanks to our short term memory, everything will be forgotten until someone again threatens our sense of identity.