Someone take May’s shovel away
Ian | 28 July, 2011 | 19:10After erupting on Twitter yesterday, Green Party leader Elizabeth May is trying to defend her comments on her blog.
She repeatedly falls back on the “precautionary principle,” stating that if we don’t really know if Wi-Fi is safe, then we should be careful.
Never mind the similarities between this and the “teach the controversy” or “climate change isn’t settled” arguments, let’s actually dig into the text of what she says.
First, she starts with some comparisons of past technologies that seemed innocuous at first.
I was worried about things like Agent Orange. Health Canada wasn’t. I was concerned about lead in gas, but it was hard to get the government to act. I worked to get certain pesticides banned, but they were “safe” right up to the day they were banned.
Citation needed? While Canada allowed leaded gasoline between the 1970s and 1990s, I don’t see where we decided Agent Orange was “safe”, in fact, everyone seemed in agreement that it was pretty nasty shit (exactly why the Americans wanted to use it in Vietnam). It was tested in remote parts of our giant country, which raises ethical, not science (which was settled), issues.
But more importantly, on each of these examples, mechanisms of how the toxicity works can be proposed. Chemicals can build up in your body and kill you. When we consider electromagnetic radiation, there are no mechanisms for low-intensity microwaves to harm us. It’s not as easy as saying “scary radiation”. These waves are of the wrong frequency to excite electrons in any atoms and lack the intensity to cause any noticeable effects.
She also repeatedly cites the self-published Bio-Initiative Report and mentions a report that she read that can’t be found online (maybe it was redacted?).
Finally, she finishes with how she justifies her seemingly hypocritical use of a Blackberry:
Our stance is simple and responsible. Exercise the precautionary principle. A risk of a health problem requires a cautious approach until the science is settled.
For me personally, that translates into using my blackberry, but not carrying it in my pocket. I do not hold it up against my head. I prefer land lines. Do I occasionally use cell phones? Sure. Do I want high speed internet in my house? Yes, and I have a cable. Am I happy to latch onto a signal in the airport by Wi-Fi? You bet.
It is a matter of knowing there are unanswered questions and taking reasonable precautions. If you have Wi-Fi in your home, turn it off when you are sleeping. Locate the router away from where your kids are sleeping. Urge your kids to text more than talk with the phone to their head.
I really want to know when May will consider the science settled. I have a hunch, like creationists and climate change deniers, the science won’t really be “settled” until it agrees with her point of view.
I don’t personally care what May believes on the issue but it does bug the hell out of me that she is not stating that this is her view not GPC policy. Many of the people ragging her out over the tweets were party members displeased with her statements and rightly so. She should clear up who’s belief this is and apologize to members for over reaching her authority. A GPC leader is the spokesperson for party policy set out by members, She is not the party just our tool, A tool that perhaps needs sharpening.
The GPC does want tighter rules in line with European standards but has no policy against wireless technology, nor has even passed a motion demanding more studies. Most greens I know are tech savvy not Luddites, most dismiss the weak science of the wifi/cellular issue as well as Turbine noise complaints.