Terahertz

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.