California Rejects GMO Labeling, and why I approve

You may have missed it, but Barack Obama won re-election Tuesday in what the media wrongly called a very close race. While Mitt Romney was able to score over 70% of the vote in Utah, he failed to achieve either the popular vote nationwide or the only one that matters – the electoral college vote.

But what I found more interesting than the presidential election that was essentially pre-determined (at no point did Nate Silver’s 508 analysis give Romney a leading chance), was the array of ballot initiatives across the USA.

Obviously, I’m happy to see a number of states approve gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana. There were many more smaller ones though. For example, Florida voters rejected two proposals, one that would have made it legal for the state to give money to religious organizations and another that would have made it illegal to provide state funding for abortions. These results also make me happy.

I’m disappointed that California upheld the death penalty and probably have to read more about the failed Alabama proposition that would have removed racist language from the state constitution, which was opposed by black legislators (I think because it would have removed education as a right as well).

But today I want to talk about GMO labeling in California.

Continue reading California Rejects GMO Labeling, and why I approve

Someone take May’s shovel away

After 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.

Those kooky Greens

I’ve been considering running in the upcoming Vancouver municipal election and the thought of seeking a Vancouver Greens nomination had crossed my mind, but I think I don’t think I’m quite ready to sign on with them yet. Two news items today reminded me how prominent anti-science environmentalism is in the party.

First, the BC Greens have taken a strong stance against the introduction of Smart Meters in the province.

Smart Meters are a new kind of Wi-Fi power meter that supposedly allows better monitoring of power consumption, and is a part of upgrading the entire electric grid in the province. BC Hydro is fully behind the implementation as a way to modernize our grid.

Now, there are likely some legitimate concerns about the cost of replacing an entire province’s electric meters, but that’s not what the Greens have latched onto:

…wireless technology poses a potential risk to health and the environment and further research that is independent of industry funding is needed.

Where do the Greens go for a source for this claims?

Why, none other than Canada’s professional Wi-Fi fear monger, Magda Havas:

Magda Havas is Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University where she teaches and does research on the biological effects of environmental contaminants. Since the 1990s, Dr. Havas’s research has focused on the biological effects of electromagnetic pollution including radio frequency radiation, electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity, and ground current. She works with diabetics as well as with individuals who have multiple sclerosis, tinnitus, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia and those who are electrically hypersensitive.

Dr. Havas joins Jane Sterk, leader of the Green Party of BC in calling for cancelling implementation of the wireless smart meters. Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada and MP for Saanich supports this change. [emphasis theirs]

It’s never reassuring when their one source for this fear is a researcher who works with people who have an unverified and likely falsely diagnosed condition like electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Much like “wind turbine syndrome,” this ‘condition’ seems to be little more than a hypochondrial response.

People actually reading the words I write and quote here will notice that our lone federal Green MP stands behind this ban, which brings me to my second piece of disappointment from the Greens.

Jonathan Kay at the National Post blogs reports on a Twitter exchange that May had today:

Oh, but wait — here comes Green Party leader Elizabeth May, tweeting her way to ridicule this week with a Twitter message that declared: “It is very disturbing how quickly Wifi has moved into schools as it is children who are the most vulnerable.” She also Tweeted a message to our friend Colby Cosh at Maclean’s that the technology “is one prevailing theory re disappearance of pollinating insects.”

After a barrage of criticism, Ms. May used her Twitter account to defend herself, claiming that all of her claims were “evidence-based,” and suggesting that she is merely being cautious about an untested technology. But the fact that she Tweeted “So glad I don’t have Wifi at home” means she clearly has swallowed this nonsense and uses it to guide her own IT choices.

Well done Green Parties.

At least there’s one Skeptic among you.

Finally, to end with some good news, another study (which does seem a bit methodologically weak) out today adds to the growing evidence that cell phones do not pose any risk for brain cancer. In this case they looked solely at children and teenagers, finding no statistically significant link.

Canada: Banana Republic without Benefit of Fruit

There’s likely a good reason Elizabeth May’s editor adviser her against the title of “Canada: Banana Republic without Benefit of Fruit” (and not least of all because of our thriving institution of gay marriage) and opted instead for “Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy.”

The book is a well written insight into what plagues Canadian parliamentary democracy as we approach the prospect of the fifth election in four years with no clear end to minority-rule in site (which May doesn’t think is the worst possible outcome).

She stands up for electoral reform, public party financing (over corporate/union financing), coalition governments, abolishing the mass-media conglomerations and a host of reforms to the PMO and bureaucrats who run the government behind the scenes.

May stands up for herself and sets the record straight her position on “strategic voting” in the 2008 elections:

Media coverage int he 2008 election posited that I supported strategic voting, which in fact I never have. I was responsible for some of this confusion. I was (and am) unwilling to criticize citizens who are making a deeply personal and important choice about how they cast their vote… My refusal to condemn those who felt compelled to voe strategically led to my position being misreported…

I do not support any call to “vote strategically” because it encourages voting from fear and distrust. It calls on people to vote out of negativity. And, tragically, it leads voters to make the wrong choices, because it is impossible to know which vote is the “strategic vote.”

The book is a good read, and my only complaint (and I say this not being a Green party supporter), is that Elizabeth May should not have had the time to write this, as she should be a sitting MP, representing the 1 million voters who want her not in the House of Commons gallery looking down, but on the floor standing up to Stephen Harper.