• The ‘silver bullet’: Our own actions
• Flu vaccine controversy
The ‘silver bullet’: Our own actions
It is clear that our community concern over electricity costs has once again come to a boil. We are all frustrated with the apparent lack of progress at Kauai Island Utility Cooperative.
Many people feel that we need to find a way to move past all the endless dialogue and planning and more definitively into action. These sentiments were well articulated by Walter Lewis in his column “A plan to reduce power costs,” A Better Kaua‘i, Nov. 15.
After all, what many of us want is a solution to this problem, right? We don’t want to know how difficult it is, how expensive, how many regulations there are, nor do we want to be told that idea after idea is infeasible or implausible or impractical. What we want to hear, to steal a phrase, is “Yes, we can.”
In that spirit, I deeply appreciate the efforts being but forward by Lewis, Jose Bulatao, and others who have chosen to vigorously endorse the WRE project to attempt to convert garbage into electricity. Although I think burning garbage is a terrible idea, I am 100 percent in agreement that we need to take an insistent approach to this problem, to take a stand, and to refuse to back down until we achieve a satisfactory resolution.
Our situation is a perilous one. Not only must we make definitive choices, but we must also make correct choices. We can absolutely not afford to obligate ourselves to tens-of-millions of dollars in future contractual obligations just so we can say we did something.
Due to concerns I had with the WRE proposal being advocated for by Lewis, and many other well intended individuals, I contacted him and challenged the assertions because I believe they are seriously misleading. The basis of my concern was that his recent commentary, and other materials being circulated, give the impression that the WRE project will (almost certainly) save ratepayers substantially.
A part of his response is as follows:
“No reliable assessment can be made as to the user savings that might occur if a WRE supply contract were made. The variables include: the time when WRE output would commence; the price of oil at the time; the scope and terms of the WRE contract; and the accounting changes for KIUC if it ceases to be primarily a power generating utility. However, some range estimates could be permissible. Since the saving could be material, the public ought to be informed.”
This is quite different from his statement in the commentary that “the benefits would be dramatic.”
The reason I am taking the time to write this detailed account is because, as I suspected, people are already joining in to endorse this proposal without due consideration, as in the letter Nov. 17, “Renewable energy plan a winner.”
Such uninformed opinions, taken collectively, are in fact dangerous. In this critical moment, it is imperative to recognize that we need discipline as much as we need action.
As this is an opinion page, and we are certainly in need of solutions, I would like to offer one.
It is not solar, or wind, or biomass (although I do like the potential of hemp as a fuel). It is not the Small Wind Ordinace being proposed by Councilman Tim Bynum (although that’s certainly a good step in the right direction).
I would assert that we should all be capable of reducing our own electricity usage, through conservation and efficiency, by 50 percent. Now that would be a “silver bullet,” and would allow us to practice both discipline and action. I’m not there yet myself so I’m off to get to work on it.
And I promise to write in once I’m closer …
• Ben Sullivan, Lawa‘i
Flu vaccine controversy
Thank you, Kurt Rutter, for your rebuttal letter (“Do vaccinate,” Letters, Nov. 14) to my letter on the flu vaccine (“Flu vaccine: Hope or hype?” Letters, Nov. 13). I can appreciate your point of view, considering the job you have at Wilcox Memorial Hospital. I understand that we should not overstate the importance of one single study. However, I still feel that the one study I cited on the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine in children is better than presenting no studies at all to the contrary. And it raises some valid concerns.
You may have your own opinion, based on the CDC recommendations and what you see at your work, but the question remains: “Where is the science that shows that the flu vaccine actually works?”
It may be true that the particular study cited was done during a two year period in which matches to viruses were not the best. But that brings up a very good point: the vaccine is virus-specific. That means it only works on one particular strain. Every year scientists have to guess at which strain they will encounter in order to make the appropriate vaccine. But each year, the viruses continue to mutate, so that the vaccine has less of a chance of being effective.
There are other flaws in the flu vaccine theory. Apparently, the shot works by triggering the body’s immune response to make antibodies against the particular virus.
But what happens if the person’s immune system is already weak, like in the elderly or the very young? Aren’t those the exact same people the CDC is pushing to receive the vaccine?
Besides, exposure to the virus causes one to develop a natural immunity, which is superior to the temporary immunity offered by the vaccine.
Problems with the vaccine itself can also be a risk. In 2007, the FDA found problems with Medimmune, the manufacturer of the vaccine, due to bacterial and fungal contamination. And let’s not forget the fiasco in 1976, when the flu vaccine caused hundreds of cases of paralysis and death from Guilliane-Barre Syndrome, a rare disease which attacks the muscles and nervous system.
The long-term effects of putting toxins such as aluminum, phenol and themerosal (mercury) into our children is unknown. The link between thimerosal and the increase of autism in our children is still one of much debate. And we do not know what the accumulated effects are of receiving multiple shots over consecutive years.
Although the risks of side effects may be small, we must decide whether the benefits of the vaccine are worth the potential risks involved. Millions of people get the flu every year, and most of us get over it. If the worst cases you’ve seen of the flu in kids required an IV to treat dehydration, then it seems that that’s something easily remedied. Personally, I’d rather stay home with my grandson for a day than worry about how he may react to toxic chemicals injected into his system.
The last time I was at Wilcox Memorial Hospital was after the birth of my grandson. I was shocked when a nurse came in the room to give this beautiful one day old boy his Hepatitis-B injection. I asked her to give us a few minutes so his parents and I could talk about it. She seemed appalled that I would question the hospital’s procedure. Hepatitis-B is a disease which is transferred through sexual activity or use of a contaminated hypodermic needle. Since my grandson was neither a drug-user, nor involved with anyone sexually at the time, I didn’t feel the shot was necessary. His parents agreed.
I think we need to be smarter health care consumers. We cannot simply depend on the CDC or the FDA to protect us. Although medicine can be very valuable to us in the right situations, we only need to remember the recall of Vioxx a couple years ago to realize that problems do occur. There may be many good people working in those organizations, but it doesn’t take much to realize that decisions can be tremendously influenced with so much money at stake.
In the meantime, I think we need to rely more on science and common sense than fear.
• Bob Swiryn, Kapa‘a
