One Reason I Didn’t Vote for the Green Party

Elizabeth may tweet

Because it’s green-as-fashion, not green-as-science. Take Elizabeth May’s tweet, where she’s worried about electromagnetic radiation from wifi. Too bad she sent it from her BlackBerry, which emits non-ionizing radiation at frequencies in the same ballpark (wifi is typically 2.4GHz, mobile phones are in the 1.7 – 2.1GHz range).

I see that the National Post has caught this too. When the Post and I agree, strange things are afoot!

I’ll let Batman have the final word:

Enough of this hippie garbage

7 replies on “One Reason I Didn’t Vote for the Green Party”

If we didn’t have all this tech, she would be going after Indians (First Nations) for their irresponsible use of smoke signals.

Money quote that closes the article: “[The Green Party is] like the NDP for people who read new age books about magic healing crystals.”

Disappointing position, to be sure, but such things are rare from Elizabeth May. On most issues (and especially environmental issues) she’s quite scientifically literate.

Jorge, I’d have to respectfully disagree. Assuming she had something to do with writing the party platform, she clearly doesn’t possess an ability to tell the difference between science fact and pseudoscientific woo (see page 71 and page 73, where they specifically advocate for homeopathy to be covered by public healthcare). The way she backs up her anti-WiFi fearmongering is further evidence for this.

Good point. But I said on most issues, not all. I’d be much happier if the homeopathy stuff weren’t in the party platform, for sure, but I think it’s peanuts with respect to what the party is about and the issues that actually matter for our society—on almost all of them, I think the party platform is adequate.

Webseraching around to see the blog effect of May’s foray into the dangers of wireless, I see many sites, like this one, crying foul re science, but apparently completely uninformed about the science she was moved to base her dissent on.
How could so many be so in the dark? There is a TON of research out there to condemn the regulatory status quo. Did any of you glance at he Bioinitiative Report she used in part for back up? She is not as informed as she should have been before wading, but good that she was brave to do so. And what about the smart meters the main episode was about? What about the august political advisory backing she refers to in the Council of Europe doc at her blog? What is with you all — have none of you heard of past travesties in public health, with science withheld from public view, or swamped by industry-connected study?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *