Rachel's Precaution Reporter #75
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
From: Associated Press ...................................[This story printer-friendly]
January 26, 2007
BLAIR: WORLD MUST STAY COMMITTED TO IRAQ
[Rachel's introduction: "The fact is, just on the precautionary principle, it'd be sensible to act. And the truth is, if we don't act, and in a way that binds the main countries in... longterm prospects are bleak at best, and potentially disastrous." -- Tony Blair]
By John Daniszewski, Associated Press
Davos, Switzerland -- Making his third and last appearance at the annual World Economic Forum here as Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair says he has come because it is important for the world to act collectively to tackle problems -- and he does not mind the criticism at home.
In an interview with The Associated Press, he highlighted themes he would like to be remembered for: Africa, climate change and world trade. And he warned that the world must not shirk from its commitment to achieve success in Iraq, nor be discouraged by the "terrible pictures" it sees of violence in the country.
He backed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government in Iraq and President Bush 's immediate plans to increase troops there. He said he believes the Iraqi prime minister can meet the benchmarks the United States has set.
Blair was interviewed fresh from a speech appealing for greater help for Africa -- a session where his friend and political ally U2 musician Bono also appeared. Seated in an easy chair, he was chatting with Microsoft Corp. chairman and co-founder Bill Gates when reporters arrived.
His official spokesman had said earlier in the day that Blair's main goals for the conference were to rally momentum on the long-stalled Doha round of World Trade Organization talks and seek progress toward an agreement on a climate stabilization goal ahead of June's Group of Eight summit in Germany.
In an interview for the GMTV Sunday program on Friday, a Labour former minister, Frank Dobson, said Blair's influence is on the wane and there was no point in his going to Davos.
Blair chuckled when he heard about the criticism, and leaned in toward his questioner.
He missed seeing David Cameron, the youthful British opposition Conservative leader seeking to oust Blair's Labour Party from office. Cameron left Davos Friday having attended two sessions. Brown was also at Davos on Friday, but it was not clear if he and Blair had met.
Blair, who has said he will leave office this year, said that the world is already in a climate crisis and that he expects progress on global trade talks. "It'd be a fantastic thing for poor countries, but also good for us."
"The fact is, just on the precautionary principle, it'd be sensible to act. And the truth is, if we don't act, and in a way that binds the main countries in... longterm prospects are bleak at best, and potentially disastrous."
"The values that underpin all of these issues are the same values, which are about protecting our environment and justice for people, making sure that we create a world that is open and free for people to create the prosperity that they want and that is prepared to work with each other to take on global challenges. And that is my message really -- that we work in an interdependent world."
Blair said that the world shares certain values, "and the key thing is to turn that intent and purpose into action."
On trade talks, Blair said he was cautiously optimistic, because of the hard work that has been done in the last few weeks in discussions with Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
"I think we are prepared to move to make the compromises necessary to get this done in the greater good of all of us," he said.
An agreement on trade would be "fantastic" for the poorest nations, he said. "But it would also be a great thing for us, for the wealthy countries, because it would open new markets to our goods and services."
In Iraq, Blair said the important thing now is to support the Iraqi government in its fight against the violence, "which is being perpetrated by a small number of people against the wishes and the will of the majority."
He disputed that the violence there is a civil war "with blocs of people fighting each other. This is a small minority... often bolstered by outside extremists."
"The one thing that was very clear when I was in Iraq before Christmas was that if you talk to not just Iraqi leaders there, but, interestingly, talking to my own soldiers and people we have in Iraq, they will tell you the majority of people there want to live a peaceful life."
In any case, "What mustn't happen is a situation where as a result of terrorist activity designed to kill innocent people and the impact those terrible pictures make, that we lose our determination to stand up to these people and defeat them."
Asked whether Britain had offered only faint support for Bush's plan to increase troop strength in and around Baghdad, Blair replied, "No, we've got a very strong support of what we're doing in Iraq because it's essential to sustain the government. It is the first democratic government in Iraq, elected by 12 million people."
Blair would not say what he intends to do when he leaves office. "Do you think even if I had decided I would tell you? Actually, I am just getting on with the job as a matter of fact. The thing about this job is that there are new challenges and new decisions you have to face up to everyday so it is quite enough to keep you occupied."
His future is "something that will take care of itself in time," he said. "The thing is to make sure that in the time I am prime minister that I can get progress on the issues that I am passionate about, of which Africa, climate change and world trade are three."
-- -- -- -- 123
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: EADT24 ..............................................[This story printer-friendly]
January 26, 2007
SIZEWELL 'DEFENSIBLE' AGAINST SEA
[Rachel's introduction: Charles Barnett, chairman of the Shut Down Sizewell Campaign, said: "No-one can foresee what will happen in the future and, in line with the precautionary principle, we should not allow the building of any more nuclear power stations on our coast."]
By David Green
British Energy insisted yesterday that the Sizewell nuclear [power plant] site is defensible against the sea -- despite a Met office forecast that "surge" levels could rise by 1.7 metres on the Suffolk coast by the end of the century.
According to an interim report in a study of the impact of climate change on the UK's nuclear sites, the sea level is likely to rise higher at Sizewell than at any other site.
However, British Energy said yesterday that the study was a "worst scenario" and that the situation would continue to be monitored for Sizewell B and taken into account for any future Sizewell C.
The Met Office findings are based on a range of scenarios, including continuing high global carbon dioxide emissions, daily average temperatures 5-6C higher than at present, rainfall increases of 30-35% in winter (but 40-60% lower in summer) and winds 10% stronger in winter.
The highest predicted increase in sea surge levels in the UK was a 1.7 metre rise at Sizewell while the lowest was a 0.9 metre rise at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
The findings are the first stage of a study which will now move on to a further assessment of coastal vulnerability -- by an engineering consultancy.
David Norfolk, a member of British Energy's strategy team, said the situation at Sizewell B had been regularly monitored by a multi-agency "framework" group since consent was given for the power station and this would continue to be the case.
Mr Norfolk said the impact of global warming on sea level rise would continue to be assessed and, if necessary, the defences in front of the nuclear site could be strengthened.
If a Sizewell C was proposed, the sea defence situation would be assessed at that time but, even under the worst scenario studied by the Met office, the power station could be designed with sea level rise in mind and successfully defended.
"We understand the importance of climate change, and we're committed to environmental responsibility," Mr Norfolk said.
"That is why this study is important in keeping our knowledge of the potential impacts on our sites fully up to date.
"Although considerable rises in sea level are predicted by the end of the century in the most severe scenario, a mix of measures including coastal defences, flood protection and plant design would ensure our sites are well-protected from the effects of sea level rises."
He added: "We work in consultation with a number of agencies with an interest in sea defences across the UK to develop a long-term strategy for these sites that would take us forward into the decommissioning phase, as well as into potential new build."
Charles Barnett, chairman of the Shut Down Sizewell Campaign, said: "No-one can foresee what will happen in the future and, in line with the precautionary principle, we should not allow the building of any more nuclear power stations on our coast."
The full report into the impact of climate change on nuclear sites is expected to published by British Energy in February.
Copyright 2007 Archant Regional
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Associated Press ...................................[This story printer-friendly]
January 25, 2007
CALIFORNIA BANS DIRTY POWER SOURCES
[Rachel's introduction: California bans purchase of energy from coal- burning power plants, taking precautionary action without mentioning precaution. "It represents a significant milestone in our ongoing efforts to address the challenge of climate change," said Michael Peevey, president of the Public Utilities Commission.]
By Terence Chea
San Francisco (AP) -- California regulators on Thursday banned the three companies that supply most of the state's power from buying electricity from high-polluting sources, including most coal-burning plants.
The rules are aimed at reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. While there are almost no coal-fired plants in California, about 20 percent of the state's electricity comes from coal plants in other Western states.
"It represents a significant milestone in our ongoing efforts to address the challenge of climate change," said Michael Peevey, president of the Public Utilities Commission.
But the three investor-owned utilities regulated by the commission say that little of their electricity supply now comes from coal, and that they support the new emissions standard.
Coal makes up only 1 percent of electricity at Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in San Francisco, 7 percent at Southern California Edison in Rosemead and 3 percent at San Diego Gas and Electric, which is owned by Sempra Energy.
The Public Utilities Commission voted 4-0 to prohibit the utilities from entering into long-term contracts with sources that emit more carbon dioxide than a modern natural gas plant.
California's municipal utilities are not regulated by the commission and will not be directly affected by its decision. Those utilities supply less of California's power, but a greater share of their electricity comes from out-of-state coal plants.
The California Energy Commission, which regulates those utilities, is drawing up similar rules expected to be issued by July.
Municipal utilities in Anaheim, Los Angeles, Pasadena and Truckee ran into strong opposition when they tried to secure long-term contracts with out-of-state coal plants before the emissions standard takes effect.
The new standard is aimed at encouraging investment in cleaner energy sources such as wind and solar, while discouraging the use of coal and other high-polluting fuels.
Coal is cheap and plentiful but releases high levels of carbon dioxide, a gas blamed for trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere and raising temperatures worldwide.
The rule is expected to take effect Feb. 1.
Landmark global warming legislation Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law last year required the commission to adopt emissions standards for utilities.
Environmentalists praised the decision, saying it could encourage other states to adopt similar rules.
"Other states may look at it and decide that they also want to transition from dirty coal power to cleaner, green power," said Jim Metropulos of the Sierra Club.
Luke Popovich of the Washington-based National Mining Association said restricting emissions would drive up energy costs and have little effect on global warming unless other countries adopt similar limits.
"We don't think it makes sense for the United States to unilaterally deny itself use of its most abundant energy source, which is coal," Popovich said.
Copyright The Associated Press
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #891 ..........[This story printer-friendly]
January 25, 2007
PART 2: REGULATORY FAILURE IN THE GREAT LAKES
[Rachel's introduction: Scientists studying the Great Lakes have recently learned that chemicals are taking a far greater toll on humans and wildlife than previously realized. But the corporate polluters are organizing to maintain business as usual.]
By Peter Montague
Last week we began describing a new report from the International Joint Commission (IJC) that says regulation of toxic chemicals has failed in the Great Lakes, and a precautionary approach is needed. The IJC is the bi-national (U.S.-Canada) governmental body responsible for water quality in the Great Lakes. Here we continue describing the IJC's report (6 Mbyte PDF), especially chapter 5 ("Human Health"). [In our text, numbers inside parentheses refer to pages in the IJC report. Words inside square brackets represent our clarifications or comments.]
1. Harm to Great Lakes wildlife is very widespread and fundamental
A 1991 basinwide assessment of the health of herring gulls nesting in 11 colonies representing all five Great Lakes, relative to two reference colonies outside of the basin, revealed widespread DNA damage and chronic... inflammation of the liver and... inflammation of the kidney. (pg. 117)
"Great Lakes gulls suffered from hypothyroidism [insufficient thyroid hormone] and had enlarged hyperplastic thyroid glands [meaning thyroid glands with growths or nodules]. These toxipathic responses were most frequently associated with PCBs.
"Studies of pre-fledgling herring gulls in 1994-1999 in lakes Huron, Erie, and Ontario revealed marked suppression of T-cell-mediated immune function and altered antibody production.
"Studies of herring gulls in colonies in the Detroit River, western Lake Erie and Lake Ontario 2001-2004 revealed that biochemical, thyroid, and immune effects still persist. In addition, there were effects on corticosterone secretion and, at some sites, the plasma of males contained vitellogenin, suggesting they were exposed to biologically significant concentrations of estrogens. Similar biochemical effects were seen in male snapping turtles, and thyroid effects were seen in snapping turtles and fish. Vitellogenin was also found in the plasma of male fish and snapping turtles. (pg. 117)
Comment: insufficient thyroid hormone is a serious problem for wildlife, as it is for humans. Thyroid hormone controls an animal's metabolism, and is crucial in early development of the nervous system. The immune system of course protects against infectious diseases and cancers. The presence of vitellogenin in male fish and turtles indicates that the males are being turned into females by exposure to the waters of the Great Lakes. Obviously, these are all signs of widespread serious trouble.
2. Living near a contaminated site can cause human illness and death
In the early 1990s, the IJC identified 43 "areas of concern" (AOCs) in the Great Lakes. These are harbors or rivers or discharge points that are severely contaminated. These areas were supposed to be cleaned up rapidly during the 1990s, but that did not happen.
Now we learn that simply living near one of these areas can make people sick -- even if they eat no fish from the Great Lakes:
"In 1998, Health Canada [roughly the Canadian equivalent of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] reported on retrospective epidemiological evidence for each of the 17 Canadian AOCs. They used mortality, hospital admissions/separations, and cancer data for 1986-1992 to calculate morbidity, mortality, and incidence rates. The data suggested that there was increased morbidity and mortality for a variety of health effects associated with residence in these AOCs relative to the Province of Ontario as a whole. Also, residence in a particular location was found to adversely affect health independent of whether Great Lakes fish is consumed." (pg. 120)
"The Health Canada studies for the various Canadian AOCs found increased incidence of genital-tract disorders, thyroid disease, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma." (pg. 120)
"These findings led investigators at the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany to test a series of hypotheses based on the assumption that these health end points are associated with place of residence. Using a variety of available health data collected in the 1990s, they tested these hypotheses for individuals living near the nearly 900 contaminated sites identified in New York state, including AOCs.
"They found convincing evidence that a number of chronic and acute diseases occur more commonly in patients who reside near hazardous waste sites and AOCs containing priority pollutants, especially persistent organic pollutants such as PCBs. The elevated incidence is not accounted for by socio-economic status or lifestyle factors such as smoking, diet, or exercise. These findings imply that inhalation is a major route of exposure." (pg. 120)
Got that? Inhalation is a MAJOR route of exposure. This is new information.
The IJC report goes on: "Effects documented include adverse impacts on reproduction and development, metabolism, and endocrine and immune functions. In addition, studies suggest that increased risks of heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes are associated with residence near AOCs and hazardous waste sites.
"A recently published study has also shown a strong association between ambient air pollution and respiratory hospitalization in the Windsor [Ontario] AOC.
"Inhalation can be a major route of exposure. The health of large numbers of people in many communities in the Great Lakes basin may be compromised by multi-media exposure to the contaminants in their environment," the IJC report concludes. (pg. 120)
Comment: For a second time the IJC report says inhalation can be a MAJOR route of exposure.
3. Basic Toxicity Information is Missing for Many Chemicals
"Derek Muir described his search strategy to identify potential chemicals of concern among the approximately 100,000 chemicals in commerce, approximately 70,000 of which are on the Toxic Substances Control Act list created in 1976, and 5,200 that exceed a production volume of 1,000 tonnes/year [2.2 million pounds per year] according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Of these 5,200 chemicals, 43 percent had no toxicity data available as of 2004." (pg. 123)
Furthermore, "... less than 10 percent of high-volume industrial chemicals have been evaluated regarding their bioaccumulation, environmental fate, and toxicity." (pg. 125)
4. Mixtures of Chemicals Have Potent Effects
"It is known that the combined effects of a mixture of dioxin-like compounds are additive when adjusted for potency.... Recently, investigators discovered that the same holds true for estrogenic chemicals [meaning industrial chemicals that mimic the female sex hormone, estrogen]. Crofton et al. (2005) dosed young rats with a mixture of two dioxins, four dibenzofurans and twelve PCBs. The mixture was formulated to reflect typical concentrations measured in breast milk, and in fish and other foods. None of the concentrations in any of the doses exceeded the LOELs [lowest observed effect levels] for the constituent chemicals. The mixture reduced serum thyroxine [thyroid hormone] levels at concentrations that were at least an order of magnitude [a factor of 10] below their LOELs. The effects on thyroxine were cumulative (additive) at low doses and synergistic at higher doses. (pg. 124)
This is extraordinarily important information. The IJC is saying that the researcher (Kevin M. Crofton) was able to diminish thyroid hormone levels in the blood of laboratory animals by exposing them to very lox levels of a combination of chemicals. The individual chemicals were administered at levels at least 10 times as low as the amount that is known to cause effects in exposed animals, and the levels of exposures were selected to mimic levels that a human baby would receive from breast milk. The COMBINED exposure caused thyroid hormone levels to decline in the exposed animals. In human babies, sufficient thyroid hormone is essential for early brain development.
5. Summary
The IJC report sums up the new information that has come to light in the last few years:
1. Legacy chemicals are not declining rapidly, if at all, and they are still present at levels that make Great lakes fish unsafe to eat:
"In this biennial cycle [in the last two years] it became clear that our understanding of health hazards associated with 'legacy' contaminants has increased much more rapidly than their levels are currently decreasing. PCB and mercury levels in fish are many times greater than values protective of human health. PCB concentrations in fillets of some large lake trout from Lake Michigan exceed by 40 fold the level which would allow unrestricted consumption." (pg. 128)
2. Fish consumption advisories don't work:
"Despite consumption advisories, many individuals are exposed unnecessarily, and often unconsciously, to toxic contaminants through their diet." (pg. 128)
3. People are being exposed and harmed by breathing the air:
"We have also learned that air transport is an important pathway of exposure and that living near highly contaminated areas increases one's exposure." (pg. 128)
4. A new set of toxic chemicals is now being measured in the Lakes:
"In addition, we have become aware of 'emerging' chemicals that were not previously detected." (pg. 128)
5. Exposure to Mixtures of Chemicals is Harmful:
"There is also a growing awareness of a larger range of developmental and functional health impacts associated with exposure to mixtures of chemicals, including the persistent 'legacy' contaminants and the 'emerging' chemicals." (pg. 128) [The term 'functional health impacts' includes things like kids struggling to keep up in school, or, in the case of fish at least, males taking on some of the characteristics of females.]
"Many 'emerging' chemicals affect the same target organs and/or systems as the 'legacy' chemicals and will contribute to the cumulative toxicity." (pg. 128)
6. A single chemical can have many effects on many parts of the body
"It is now clear that a single chemical can have an impact on multiple-organ systems via several exposure pathways and a number of modes of action, and that those impacts can be expressed in multiple ways." (pg. 128) [Comment: In the good old days (the entire 20th century) a chemical was accused of simply causing cancer or harming the liver or contributing to heart disease, but modern science now reveals that this old view was hopelessly inadequate for describing the how a single chemical (not to mention mixtures) can affect many different bodily systems in many different ways. In a sense, our knowledge has grown rapidly but what has grown most rapidly is our understanding of how little we actually understand about the complex interactions between chemicals, health and behavior.]
The Great Lakes are extraordinarily important because they contain 20% of the world's fresh surface water and 80% of the fresh surface water in North America. That we have contaminated the lakes so thoroughly is an astonishing feat of industrial hubris and stupidity.
The authors of the IJC report understand that only the people who live around the Great Lakes can make the necessary changes to save themselves from an unfolding health disaster. The report asks,
"What evidence of human-health effects will be sufficient to create the political will to clean up the areas that continue to make major contributions to system contamination?" (pg. 128)
And, the report says, "If sufficient resources to support remediation and required protection efforts are to be committed, Great Lakes citizens must understand the risks and demand accountability under the [Great Lakes Water Quality] Agreement for long-term progress and implementation strategies that are protective of human and wildlife The Great Lakes are extraordinarily important because they contain 20% of the world's fresh surface water and 80% of the fresh surface water in North America. That we have contaminated the lakes so thoroughly is an astonishing feat of industrial hubris and stupidity. health and 20% of the world's fresh surface water." (pg. 128)
So there you have it. Basically, to save the Great Lakes from continued decline, citizens have to develop enough clout to overwhelm the political influence of corporate polluters, to force government to adopt a precautionary approach to protect the Lakes.
Last December, citizen groups from around the Great lakes published a report outlining what needs to be done. They agree with the IJC report, that chemical regulation has failed and the proper remedy is to implement a precautionary approach.
However, the Council of Great Lakes Industries, which represents chemical companies and coal-burning utilities, has staked out its position, claiming that even the weak current system is burdensome, oppressive and nightmarish for industrial polluters. The Council says it "fears a more aggressive water quality pact will bring costly new regulations and stifle the regional economy." Furthermore, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has already "created a bureaucracy and a governance nightmare that is very difficult to maneuver around."
We are wondering if some communities around the Great Lakes might want to consider a new strategy, directly challenging the "rights" of corporations to continue destroying this national treasure.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: ITbusiness.ca .......................................[This story printer-friendly]
January 25, 2007
CANADIAN CITIES WARNED: WATCH FOR WI-FI HEALTH RISKS
[Rachel's introduction: A conference on municipal wireless networks revives the debate around radiation coming out of Wi-Fi hotspots. Experts consider whether the industry is ignoring another "inconvenient truth."]
By Kathleen Sibley
Toronto -- Instead of trumpeting free Wi-Fi zones, municipalities should post signs advising citizens of the locations of Wi-Fi-free zones, said the president of Lakehead University at this week's Wireless Cities Summit.
"People should be given a choice," said Fred Gilbert. "We're talking about ubiquitous deployment of wireless. We're talking about exposure whether you want it or not."
Gilbert spoke on the panel with a Trent University professor, a Health Canada director and a supervisor from Toronto Public Health on a topic that differed radically from other presentations at the summit, most of which focused on how to build and fund municipal wireless networks, how to maximize political support for them and how to ensure a return on investment.
He warned there are other considerations beyond convenience and cost to take into account when contemplating implementing a municipal wireless network.
"There is the potential for future class action suits against the municipalities that have made the decision to deploy a technology that may in the future be determined to have detrimental biological consequences," said Gilbert. "All we need to do is look at the analogues (such as smoking and asbestos exposure) and you understand what that means both to the politicians that have made those decisions and to the (companies) with which they have made those decisions.
"My advice is the cities that are deploying Wi-Fi should at a minimum acknowledge that there is a reference base related to potential health effects and provide Wi-Fi-free zones. Such areas should be posted and the hotspots identified. This is the only way to give freedom of choice."
Gilbert's name made the news across Canada and around the world last year when he responded to a student's queries as to why Lakehead would not offer wireless on campus. His answer then was the same as it is now: because it's not necessary, and exposure to electrical and magnetic fields could pose a health risk to students and staff. And until there's conclusive evidence stating otherwise -- or mitigating technologies emerge -- that's the way it will stay.
Lakehead, he said, is a highly advanced institution when it comes to technology. It was among the first to deploy voice over IP and still serves as an alpha site for Nortel, he said. It's home to an enhanced learning environment with a virtual reality lab, and is connected to Ontario's high-speed research networks via fibre optics.
"Our students have over 8,000 access points that allow them to connect to that pipe," he said. "There are issues with security, speed and cost with going to a wireless network, but we felt the overriding component of this was because there are potential health impacts we felt we should be employing a precautionary principle with respect to this technology on our campus. We view the technology as a convenience, not a necessity on our campus."
His viewpoint was backed up by Magda Havas, an associate professor in Trent's environmental and resource sciences, who outlined a host of studies conducted over the years that point to at the very least increased electrical sensitivity among people exposed to electrical emissions, particularly those generated by cell phones and cell towers, and brain tumours and birth defects at the other end of the impact spectrum.
Referring to Al Gore's recent documentary on global warming titled An Inconvenient Truth, Havas said research points to "another inconvenient truth and it's about our exposure to radiation. I think if there's any myth, it's that this technology is completely safe."
Humans have been exposed to radio frequency emissions since the early 1900s, she said. "When radar was first invented in World War ll we found many radar workers came down with radar sickness, which is what we would now classify as electrosensitivity."
Havas also argued Canadian standards determining safe levels of exposure to electrical and magnetic fields are too lax.
But Robert Bradley, director of consumer and clinical radiation protection at Health Canada, disagreed.
"The documents we've produced are well founded," he said. "They deal with the full body of research that goes back quite a number of years.
"The bottom line is at this point in time, the body of science does not support the issue of health effects related to wireless communication devices, and as long as the networks and the devices respect the standards of Industry Canada, there should be no negative effects."
At the same time, though, he said, "Where there are suspicions or ongoing research it is prudent to keep an eye on them. You don't want to put anyone at undue risk, so where you have choices, apply them."
That's the City of Toronto's policy, said Ronald Macfarlane, supervisor, environmental health assessment and policy in Toronto Public Health. Macfarlane said the city has had a policy of prudent avoidance with respect to cell phone towers since 1999.
TPH was asked when Toronto Hydro announced its plans to build a Wi-Fi network in downtown Toronto whether or not the public health body would have a concern, he said. Its research indicated that would not be an issue.
"We feel it is not necessary to take additional measures to limit exposures," said Macfarlane. "I hoped to have a report finished that could have addressed Wi-Fi specifically because we have been asked to do that and also to report back on the community impact. We are in the process of reviewing the health evidence since 1999 when we developed the policy of prudent avoidance, and we have also been asked to consider the increased exposure due to the proliferation of wireless devices.
"It is true when we look at overall exposures radio and TV are still the biggest exposures in our community, but the others are becoming more and more important."
Despite Havas' litany of research pointing to the evils of electrical fields exposure, audience members weren't so easily convinced. Given that all the research was related to exposure to cell phones, rather than wireless networks, asked one audience member, shouldn't the concerns be focused on the health impacts of cell phone use?
"I don't think anyone's going to deny the difference in the strength of radiation, but the critical thing is not that there's 100 times difference between the two," said Gilbert. "The critical thing is the biological effects -- that doesn't mean there isn't a biological effect with Wi-Fi."
Havas agreed. "There has been very little research on the effects of Wi-Fi because it hasn't been around long enough, so we have to look at technology that is similar to give us the answers as to how concerned we should be about the effects of this technology," she said.
At the same, time, though, she added, she's not advocating banning the technology -- just limiting on its uses.
"When we first discovered X-rays... they were also used to discover whether a child's shoes fit properly," she said. "That was a very inappropriate use. What I'm suggesting is this technology is not going to go away. I'm recommending we use it for essential uses for things like police and ambulance services, but not to have young children sitting for hours on wireless computers or cell phones."
Copyright 2007 Transcontinental Media Inc.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Wi-Fi Network News .................................[This story printer-friendly]
January 26, 2007
LAKEHEAD DUMBHEAD RESURFACES
[Rachel's introduction: As the evidence increases linking electromagnetic radiation to cancer and other harm, some people in the wireless computer networking industry are starting to sound desperate, denying the evidence and attacking anyone who advocates a precautionary approach.]
By Glenn Fleishman
The president of Lakehead University spreads poor information disguised as prudence: In Toronto, at the Wireless Cities Summit, Lakehead president Fred Gilbert repeated the bad science that led him to block wireless networks from being used at his university. On the panel with him was Magda Havas, who is an associate professor at Trent University, and another person who plays fast and loose with microwave studies. Gilbert is quoted as saying, "there are potential health impacts we felt we should be employing a precautionary principle with respect to this technology on our campus." Which is fine if there were a shred of evidence to back that view.
To see how specious Havas's reasoning is, here's her explanation of an earlier problem with microwaves: "When radar was first invented in World War ll we found many radar workers came down with radar sickness, which is what we would now classify as electrosensitivity." Which is totally incorrect. Electrosensitivity, which one study recently showed was non-existent in their testing, has been primarily used to refer to a reaction that some individuals have to electromagnetic fields that contain energy far below the threshold of affecting human tissues or nerves.
Radar sickness -- I can't find citations for this precise term related to WWII -- could have been the result of exposure to massive amounts of microwave radiation, which is a known problem. In fact, I advise that no one stand near active Wi-Fi or wireless transmitters that use high- gain antennas. These are typically mounted on towers and rooftops, and there's a body of research that shows that at certain thresholds, you can get cellular disruption and long-term health problems. But those levels are well characterized and several orders of magnitude above Wi-Fi and cell phone output. The only study I could find looked at Korean War radar technicians, who had below-average mortality compared to control subjects. (Another reference to radar sickness I find refers to illnesses caused by handling or being near radioactive elements used in Cold War radar installations.)
Havas later compares Wi-Fi use to the use of X-rays to determine a child's shoe fitting as an analogy -- the radiation type is vastly different in effect -- but it shows her intent to conflate.
Gilbert demonstrated more specious, non-empirical logic when asked by an audience member why, if the studies are all about cell phones, shouldn't the focus be on cell phones? Gilbert responded that "the critical thing is not that there's 100 times difference between the two. The critical thing is the biological effects." Which would mean he believes that there's a magical, perhaps homeopathic property in electromagnetic radiation that affects people regardless of whether the energy passing through someone is below the level necessary to shunt electrons out of their paths.
Havas backs up Gilbert by noting, "There has been very little research on the effects of Wi-Fi because it hasn't been around long enough, so we have to look at technology that is similar to give us the answers as to how concerned we should be about the effects of this technology." Right. And we can extrapolate based on two facts: First, that there are no credible cell phone studies that show long-term or short-term health effects; and second, that Wi-Fi operates at levels far below cell phones, and at greater distances, further reducing any potential effect.
Now before you say -- wait, what about that new glioma study that was covered today? Let me stop you. That study, which involved subjects with particular cancers matched against control subjects, and relying on retrospective data (relying on recollection, to boot) can't hold a candle to the other recent study that looked at actual cell phone bills for calling behavior, and had 425,000 subjects with 56,000 using a cell phone for 10 years or more.
As noted in other studies, relying on recollections for sidedness in cell phone use is invariably biased by the subject, suffering from cancer as they are, being more likely to associate the side with the tumor with the side they formerly favored.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?
We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.
Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.
Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:
Full HTML edition: join-rpr-html@gselist.org
Table of Contents edition: join-rpr-toc@gselist.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::