And an opportunity presents itself…
In a case study of political influence over science and a concern for public health, the following story stands near the top.
The dangers of Wi-Fi and the electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phones and various “smart” devices are quickly becoming a non-debate to anyone who has investigated the reams of studies available.
For starters, please see “34 Scientific Studies Showing Adverse Health Effects From Wi-Fi,” then have a look at “First Study on 4G/LTE Cell Phone Radiation Shows It Affects Brain Activity.”
No doubt it was the type of information presented in these two articles alone that has led to pressure from concerned citizens in Maine.
On March 11, 2014, the Maine House House of Representatives passed an amended version of “The Wireless Information Act” on a vote of 83 to 56. The bill, LD 1013, requires that any manufacturer’s information relating to radio-frequency exposure must be plainly visible on the outside of the cell phone’s product packaging or the packaging must contain a label with the following warning for all cell phones sold in the state that have manufacturer’s safety warnings:
“RF EXPOSURE: To find information relating to radio-frequency exposure, refer to information supplied by the manufacturer and language directing consumers to the page or pages of the owner’s manual or other insert or location where the radio-frequency exposure guidelines or instructions or general information may be found.” (Source)
The Maine Senate agreed and voted 21-14.
So there it was, (in its own roundabout way) to be presented for all to see that it’s been at least acknowledged that cell phone exposure is something consumers should be examining more closely.
However, much like the fiasco surrounding GMO labeling, the decision to pass a cell phone radiation label requirement is itself a half measure. Those who fundamentally oppose GMO assert that the right to know that you – if you read the label then still purchase; or those who never read the label – are being widely poisoned is not much of a right at all. Nevertheless, it was a small step toward making the poisoning more obvious to those who might still be in the dark about the existence of any threat at all.
Until cellular industry lobbyists entered the picture, which is when we again begin to see parallels to what has been happening with GMO activism.
Moskowitz explains what happened next:
Before a bill goes to the Governor for approval in Maine, it is returned to the originating body for enactment, usually a routine matter. However, on March 20, the bill died in the Maine House of Representatives as the House failed to enact it on a 77-60 vote. Cell phone industry lobbyists killed the bill by co-opting the Democratic House leadership to switch their votes from approval to disapproval. Several other states, including California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Pennsylvania, have tried to adopt cell phone warning label laws but have been blocked by intense lobbying by the cell phone industry. The industry does not want consumers to read the microwave radiation safety warnings that cell phone manufacturers bury in cell phone user manuals, nor does it want cell phone users to take simple precautions to reduce their risk of harm. The industry has argued before the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that consumers will panic if they are informed about the risks from exposure to cell phone radiation that have been reported in the scientific literature. (emphasis added)
And panic they should. Whenever we see a lobby of this size come in and immediately cause a reversal of position by those who should be representing the public’s interest, we will find that a genuine threat exists.
This is one small example that should demonstrate that half measures cannot be successful. Perhaps additional exposure and pressure will get the cellular lobby to capitulate and force them to embrace more obvious labeling. But returning to the GMO example, it would be wise to begin a campaign straightaway that tells the whole truth.
Here is an example provided by Jon Rappoport of a more aggressive strategy that should be employed by anti-GMO activists:
Suppose you had this TV ad: a mother and her little child stand on their lawn in front of the camera. The mother says, “See the rashes and lesions on my son’s body? Do you know where he got them? From the weed killer we sprayed out of a bottle. It’s called Roundup. It’s made by Monsanto. Do you want this for your child?”
You’ve got the beginning of a powerful and true piece of information, delivered in a way that goes beyond the impact of any poll question about chemicals and food.
Unfortunately, the men who bankrolled Prop 37 and 522 in CA and WA took the poll data at face value. They settled for “the right to know what’s in your food” and stopped there
They thought they had a winner, the only winner.
They need to go back to the drawing board. They have to knock off those bland TV ads they ran in CA and WA and realize they have the opportunity to achieve something much greater.
They can show people the truth about Monsanto and cause the kind of outcome they’ve been hoping for.
If they have the courage for that kind of fight.
GMO labeling alone is not going to add up to a victory in the struggle against Monsanto. Some proponents of labeling admit this. They say, “But you see, we’re educating people about GMOs in the process.”
Well, do you want to really make an impact on people or do you just want to mess around? If you’re serious, forget the polls and the pollsters. Start producing TV ads that bite. Bite hard. (Source)
TV ads showing the dangers of cell phone use, especially in children, might look a bit like the image presented at the top of this article by artist/activist David Dees. Or this one:
Ads that show the direct link between radio frequencies and the human brain and body. Ads that highlight the carcinogenic effects of cellphone radiation, damage to DNA and damage to fertility. Ads that expose that cell phones themselves are constructed with with toxins like mercury, chlorine, and cadmium. Ads that remind people of what they might have missed in U.S. corporate media, like the fact that a Supreme Court in Rome ruled definitively that cell phones can cause brain tumors.
Ads that might even demand a thorough re-examination of where this technology came from and what it was really designed to do. Ads that suggest that just labeling will never be enough. Ads promising crippling class action lawsuits directed at any company who knowingly promotes products that cause suffering and death, with special effort against those who advertise such products to children.
Hat Tip: Take Back Your Power
Recently by Kevin Samson: