Readers writer (June 4): Cellphones, Medicare, clergy sexual abuse, altruism

It seems that every few years we get front page news announcing that the World Health Organization is warning of a potential link between cancer risk and cell phone use ("Cellphones may increase cancer risk," June 1).

It always states "there is no definitive link between the two, but limited scientific evidence exists of a possible risk." Then a year or so later we get a story inside the paper reporting that no risk exists. Do we blame the news media or the World Health Organization for these constant "wolf" cries?

No, we go on using our cell phones, because we don't care.

Unlike cell phones, many other safe products are destroyed by constant announcements of possible cancer links despite no credible scientific evidence backing up the claims. Millions of dollars are spent on converting to a "safe alternative," which is often no better or worse. It's time to stop this nonsense.

PHIL VAN SCHEPEN, MAPLE GROVE

* * *

Your editorial on Medicare lied when it claimed "shared sacrifice is the only solution to addressing the demand for expensive care" ("Medicare's hard truths," June 1). A better solution would be to allow those under age 65 to purchase Medicare coverage and adjust their premiums to help sustain the program for those who are over 65.

• • •

The editorial left out a key truth that has not yet been acknowledged. Since Medicare helps to pay health care employee salaries, Medicare isn't just an expense but a revenue source as well.

Some percentage of Medicare expenses comes back to the federal government in the form of income taxes, Social Security taxes -- and even Medicare taxes.

So Medicare isn't a system where all the money goes out and none of it comes back. The same can be said for Medicaid.

MARK HOCHHAUSER, GOLDEN VALLEY

Your reference to demagoguery in the editorial led me to my 1979 Webster's Unabridged dictionary. "Demagogue" and its variations seem to have universal application, at least in theory. The powerful and the less powerful can and do "demagogue."

The economically and politically powerful have the advantage going in, and can demagogue in what seems to be more respectable ways, like criticizing others' demagoguery.

There's a lot of need for truth-telling on Medicare and other major political issues. If it's to be called demagoguery, so be it. Just remember that anyone who accuses someone else of demagoguery should be suspect.

DICK BERNARD, WOODBURY

* * *

Certainly the church made gross errors in its handling of the whole tragic situation. It's paying severe penalties for the mistakes. There's no question about it.

But the editorial reviews the history of this horrible era without any mention of the steps taken by the church to prevent abuse in the future. Church leaders have spoken publicly of their actions and are committed to zero tolerance of further problems.

PIERRE LAFRANCE, PLYMOUTH

• • •

Thank you for writing such a concise critique on the recent report issued by the John Jay College concerning causes of the Catholic clergy sex abuse crisis. As the editorial explained, the main flaw of the study was in relying only on data provided by church leaders. Professionals from disciplines including sociology, anthropology, forensics and law, would know that this isn't an objective method of data collection.

This is but one example of a recent case. So how in blazes can the John Jay report conclude that the problem is now over and was due to the promiscuous culture of the 1960s and not clericalism? Indeed, the problem of clergy sex abuse of children in the church hasn't been solved.

SUZANNE SEVERSON, MINNETONKA

* * *

You don't have to win every ball game to be considered a winner. Ask the 218 people who came to breakfast with Michael Cuddyer, Glen Perkins and Jim Thome last week.

Before going to another signing session and playing a baseball game, these Twins got up early to show their support for Cheerful Givers, a local nonprofit that provides birthday gifts for less fortunate kids in Minnesota.