【推荐1】Japan's government announced Tuesday, April 13, 2021 that it would start releasing treated radioactive water from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean in two years.

It's a move that's fiercely opposed by fishermen, residents and Japan's neighbors.

15 April, the first meeting of the China-ROK dialogue and cooperation mechanism of maritime affairs was held. The two countries urged Japan to fully consult with international institutions and neighboring countries, and cautiously handle the issue on the basis of participation by relevant countries and international institutions. This is the common position of the two sides. To protect the health of their own people and international marine environment, China and the ROK, as Japan's close neighbors and stakeholders, expressed grave concerns and strong dissatisfaction. This is perfectly natural and justified.

Assessment report of the IAEA experts says that the treated water from the Fukushima nuclear plant contains other radionuclides apart from tritium. According to Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the nuclear wastewater contains a total of 62 radionuclides. In August 2018, environmentalists found by analyzing data released by TEPCO that iodine-129 levels went off the chart for 60 times in the year 2017. The amount of strontium in the water is also well above the limit. It is reported that Canada has detected radioactivecaesium-134 in salmon from its west coast. In waters near Hawaii, the amount of radioactive materials is twice it was before. These are signs that nuclear pollution from Fukushima may have already spread to North America.

The oceans are not Japan's trash can; and the Pacific Ocean is not Japan's sewer. Japan should not expect the world to pay the bill for its treatment of wastewater. The lesson from Japan's Minamata disease is not far behind us. It should reevaluate the issue and control releasing the wastewater before reaching agreement with all stakeholders and the IAEA through full consultations. China reserves the right to make further reactions.

【推荐3】Social media companies are often compared to tobacco companies, for they both market harmful products to children and design their products for maximum customer loyalty (that is, addiction), but there’s a big difference: Teens can and do choose, in large numbers, not to smoke. Social media, in contrast, applies a lot more pressure on non-users, at a much younger age and in a more unnoticed way.

Once a few students in any middle school open accounts at age 11 or 12, the pressure on everyone else to join becomes intense. Even a girl who consciously knows that Instagram can foster beauty obsession, anxiety, and eating disorders might sooner take those risks than accept the seeming certainty of being out of the picture and excluded. In this way, social media unlocks a remarkable achievement: It even harms adolescents who do not use it.

A recent study in the University of Chicago illustrated the effects of the social media trap precisely. The researchers asked more than 1,000 college students how much they would need to be paid to deactivate (停用) their accounts on Instagram for four weeks. On average, the students said they would need to be paid roughly $ 50. Then the experimenters told the students that they were going to get most of their friends to do the same, and then asked, Now how much would you have to be paid to deactivate, if most others did so? The answer, on average, was less than zero — most students were willing to pay to have that happen.

Most students are on social media only because everyone else is too. This is the textbook definition of what social scientists call a collective-action problem. It’s what happens when a group would be better off if everyone in the group took a particular action, but each actor is discouraged from acting, because unless the others do the same, the personal cost outweighs the benefit. Cigarettes trapped individual smokers with a biological addiction. Social media, however, has trapped an entire generation in a collective-action problem.

【推荐1】Web 1.0 is often referred to as a “read-only Internet”. All its content was created by webmasters. Users could not interact with the content or add content themselves.

In the age of Web 2.0, the Internet became interactive. Websites allowed users to communicate with each other. So Web 2.0 is also known as the Social Web. Web 2.0 led to a big jump in technology development. It changes the way we work, socialize, create and share information and ideas. In Web 2.0, while users can create content, they don’t own it and cannot control it. The platforms can easily block or remove the content without the permission of the creators.

So Web 3.0 is coming. Web 3.0 is a concept of a new generation of the Internet. In contrast to Web 2.0, where most of the data is stored in corporations, such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, etc., Web 3.0 data will be decentralized (分散). Web 3.0 will create platforms that nobody controls but everyone can confirm.

Let’s see what important changes we may expect. No third party is required. For instance, the use of cryptocurrencies (加密货币) ends the need for banks because all financial deals take place directly between the two parties using cryptocurrency. In addition, Web 3.0 will make it much more difficult for Internet attackers to access sensitive information. Besides, Web 3.0 makes businesses directly accountable to their consumers. Businesses may apply this openness to their consumers to develop relationships of trust and loyalty. Plus, the information is accurate since data saved on blockchains (区块链) cannot be changed.

The new Internet promises to build a “global village”, a world focused on interpersonal interaction throughout the world, which will contribute both to the development of technology and business, and the promotion of personal happiness.