Bioinitiative
From Aug./07 Bioinitiative Report (mentioned in prior blog post), from Section 1, SUMMARY FOR THE PUBLIC AND CONCLUSIONS:
"Human beings are bioelectrical systems. Our hearts and brains are regulated by internal bioelectrical signals. Environmental exposures to artificial EMFs can interact with fundamental biological processes in the human body. [...] Several decades of international scientific research confirm that EMFs are biologically active in animals and in humans, which could have major public health consequences."
"Not everything is known yet about this subject; but what is clear is that the existing public safety standards limiting these radiation levels in nearly every country of the world look to be thousands of times too lenient. Changes are needed."
"New approaches are needed to educate decision-makers and the public about sources of
exposure and to find alternatives that do not pose the same level of possible health risks, while there is still time to make changes."
"standards are far from adequate to protect public health"
"Other scientific review bodies and agencies have reached different conclusions than we have by
adopting standards of evidence so unreasonably high as to exclude any conclusions likely to lead to new public safety limits. Some groups are actually recommending a relaxation of the existing (and inadequate) standards. Why is this happening? One reason is that exposure limits for ELF and RF are developed by bodies of scientists and engineers that belong to professional societies who have traditionally developed recommendations; and then government agencies have adopted those recommendations. The standard-setting processes have little, if any, input from other stakeholders outside professional engineering and closely-related commercial interests. Often, the industry view of allowable risk and proof of harm is most influential, rather than what public health experts would determine is acceptable."
"Vested interests have a substantial influence on the health debate."
"Safety limits for public exposure to EMFs need to be developed on the basis of interaction among not only scientists, but also public health experts, public policy makers and the general public."
"The clear consensus of the BioInitiative Working Group members is that the existing public safety limits are inadequate for both ELF and RF."
"Even a small increased risk for cancer and neurodegenerative diseases translates into an enormous public health consequence."
"In the last few decades, it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that bioeffects and some adverse health effects occur at far lower levels of RF and ELF exposure where no heating (or induced currents) occurs at all; some effects are shown to occur at several hundred thousand times below the existing public safety limits where heating is an impossibility."
"It appears it is the INFORMATION conveyed by electromagnetic radiation (rather than
heat) that causes biological changes - some of these biological changes may lead to loss of wellbeing, disease and even death."
"The existing standards have been proven to be inadequate to control against harm from low-intensity, chronic exposures, based on any reasonable, independent assessment of the scientific literature. It means that an entirely new basis (a biological basis) for new exposure standards is needed."
"unprecedented levels of artificial electromagnetic fields that now cover all but remote areas of the habitable space on earth"
"thermal limits are outdated"
"tissue free radical interactions with magnetic fields may extend to zero field levels"
"There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us. Until we know if
there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not
occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue “business-as-usual”
deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF exposures, particularly
involuntary exposures."
- Daryl Vernon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
more from same Bioinitiative section
"People who have used a cell [or cordless] phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. It is worse if the cell [or cordless] phone has been used primarily on one side of the head." [see GPC blogger Drina Read's originating blog post of over two years ago at http://greenparty.ca/node/2337 ]
"The current standard for exposure to the emissions of cell phones and cordless phones is not
safe considering studies reporting long-term brain tumor and acoustic neuroma risks."
"There is strong evidence that longterm exposure to ELF is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease."
"There is little doubt that electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones and cell phone use
affect electrical activity of the brain."
"The consequence of prolonged exposures to children, whose nervous systems continue to
develop until late adolescence, is unknown at this time. This could have serious implications
to adult health and functioning in society if years of exposure of the young to both ELF and
RF result in diminished capacity for thinking, judgment, memory, learning, and control
over behavior." [see Canadian Institute of Wellbeing reference regarding children in my current originating blog entry on this urgent topic at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-16/it-takes-green-dangers-wir... ]
"the body of evidence at hand suggests that bioeffects and health impacts can and do occur at exquisitely low exposure levels: levels that can be thousands of times below public safety limits."[neither long term nor high intensity is needed to cause harm and great public cost, see US Governors' recognition of "Electromagnetic Sensitivity" at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-16/it-takes-green-dangers-wir... ]
"Both ELF and RF exposures can be considered genotoxic (will damage DNA) under certain
conditions of exposure, including exposure levels that are lower than existing safety limits."[consider widespread reports of male fertility decline, eg also at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-16/it-takes-green-dangers-wir... ]
"Very low-level ELF and RF exposures can cause cells to produce stress proteins, meaning
that the cell recognizes ELF and RF exposures as harmful[...] at levels far below the existing public safety standards."[time to agitate for regulatory revision NOW, Canadian permissive standards are dangerously high, many other countries have acted to reduce exposure from antennae, see reference to stringent Liechtenstein initiative at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-16/it-takes-green-dangers-wir... ]
"There is substantial evidence that ELF and RF can cause inflammatory reactions, allergy
reactions and change normal immune function at levels allowed by current public safety standards." [application of Green precautionary principle alone warrants action on this basis alone]
"Medical conditions are successfully treated using EMFs at levels below current public safety
standards, proving another way that the body recognizes and responds to low-intensity
EMF signals. Otherwise, these medical treatments could not work. The FDA has approved
EMFs medical treatment devices, so is clearly aware of this paradox."[where is Health Canada in all this? -- see on escape from responsibility via lack of jurisdiction at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-16/it-takes-green-dangers-wir... ]
"No one would recommend that drugs used in medical treatments and prevention of disease
be randomly given to the public, especially to children. Yet, random and involuntary
exposures to EMFs occur all the time in daily life."[as put at that same repeated link, "the reckless spread of perhaps the greatest epidemiological experiment ever"]
Pain in the neck, pain all over
Another strange salivary gland cancer &
Another well-known music person impaired by wireless
It's awful to have to wait for people already in the public eye to suffer, like these two apparently well-known music people, to get serious attention directed at a grave problem. Notice how the first article shies completely away from associating the obvious. Compare this Israeli study. If the latter article is right about 2% "allergic" to "electrosmog"-- I've seen more commonly 3%, and "sensitives" are the tip of the iceberg -- what on earth is obstructing sensible public health policy but blinkered & blinding vested interests? Blinkered into aggressive "progress", blinding a generation from realizing they can do quite well without their cell phones. Where have we been through this all before, enticement through advertisement, obscuring health risks?
"responsibility to act"
From recent Alternatives Journal issue (35:3), closing the piece by Stephen Bocking (Trent U.), "Skewing Science: Four new books expose how government and industry maipulate science to fit their needs"
"...two challenges of environmental policy. One is to avoid defining political questions as matters of science, because that implies that unrealisitic standards of proof are needed before action can be taken, while also privileging those who are able to buy expertise. The second relates to making decisions in the context of uncertainty. Acting in a complex world means gathering information, evaluating the weight of evidence, taking precautions and adapting to change. Too often, the chosen approach has been to wait for absolute proof -- with the consequence being a toxic environment and loss of life. Even uncertain knowledge implies a responsibility to act."
learned warnings published
[warnings culled from article abstracts of the the current issue of the learned journal, Pathophysiology]
"Electromagnetic fields (EMF), in both ELF (extremely low frequency) and radio frequency (RF) ranges, activate the cellular stress response, a protective mechanism that induces the expression of stress response genes"
"Induction of the stress response involves activation of DNA, and despite the large difference in energy between ELF and RF, the same cellular pathways respond in both frequency ranges."
"While low energy EMF interacts with DNA to induce the stress response, increasing EMF energy in the RF range can lead to breaks in DNA strands. It is clear that in order to protect living cells, EMF safety limits must be changed from the current thermal standard, based on energy, to one based on biological responses that occur long before the threshold for thermal changes."
"the electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phones alters the permeability of the blood–brain barrier (BBB)"
"increased BBB permeability immediately and 14 days after exposure" "We conclude that current standard for exposure to microwaves during mobile phone use is not safe for long-term exposure and needs to be revised."
"Studying effects of mobile phone base station signals on health have been discouraged by authoritative bodies like WHO International EMF Project"
"Two ecological studies of cancer in the vicinity of base stations report both a strong increase of incidence within a radius of 350 and 400 m respectively."
"With four exceptions the industry-funded Interphone studies found no increased risk of brain tumors from cellphone use, while the Swedish studies, independent of industry funding, reported numerous findings of significant increased brain tumor risk from cellphone and cordless phone use [...] Interphone studies have all 11 [serious study design] flaws [...] the Swedish studies are consistent with what would be expected if cellphone use were a risk for brain tumors, while the Interphone studies data are incredulous. If a risk does exist, the public health cost will be large. These are the circumstances where application of the Precautionary Principle is indicated, especially if low-cost options could reduce the absorbed cellphone radiation by several orders of magnitude."
"There is now evidence that two relevant biological processes [...] are influenced by high long-term ELF [extremely low frequency] MF [magnetic fields] exposure that may lead to Alzheimer's disease. There is further evidence that one of these biological processes [...] may also lead to breast cancer. Finally, there is evidence that exposures to RF [radio frequency] MF and ELF MF have similar biological consequences."
"EMFs disturb immune function through stimulation of various allergic and inflammatory responses, as well as effects on tissue repair processes. Such disturbances increase the risks for various diseases, including cancer. These and the EMF effects on other biological processes (e.g. DNA damage, neurological effects, etc.) are now widely reported to occur at exposure levels significantly below most current national and international safety limits. Obviously, biologically based exposure standards are needed to prevent disruption of normal body processes and potential adverse health effects of chronic exposure."
"existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health, and that new public safety limits, as well as limits on further deployment of untested technologies, are warranted"
"Phone masts located in their living areas are irradiating continuously some species that could suffer long-term effects, like reduction of their natural defenses, deterioration of their health, problems in reproduction and reduction of their useful territory through habitat deterioration."
"microwave and radiofrequency pollution constitutes a potential cause for the decline of animal populations and deterioration of health of plants living near phone masts"
"Existing safety standards are obsolete because they are based solely on thermal effects from acute exposures."
"failure to take immediate action to reduce risks may result in an epidemic of potentially fatal diseases in the future [...] taking action to reduce exposures is imperative"
call for ban
Swedish epidemiologist calls for outright ban on mobile phones etc.
Hallberg's conclusions [see earlier references to his work posted here]:
"1. The Environmental Minister must take full responsibility for the fact that so far nothing has been done to stop these negative trends. The ministers for Social welfare and Public health should also feel concerned.
2. The Radiation Safety Authority is responsible for still allowing continuous exposure of the population to manmade radiation levels up to ten billions times higher that levels having biological effects
3. The National Board for Health and Welfare are responsible for not reacting on negative trends in their reports but always explain these by ”aging population” or ”improved diagnostics” etc.
4. The mobile phone industry is product responsible and must compensate injured people for damages that the industry’s products have caused them.
The mobile telephony in its present technique, WiFi, wireless home lan networks, DECT-phones and similar equipment need to be prohibited and must be replaced by safer products.
Those, who are responsible for the worsening public health of today, must take this responsibility and instigate corrective actions. If that is not started immediately, responsible people will, in due time, be taken into court and charged according to relevant law paragraphs."
You must examine his graphs at the link provided, showing marked & serious increase in numerous ill-being indicators since mass deployment of cell telephony there in 1997.
another word from this leading researcher
"A Telecom strategy"
by Örjan Hallberg
"When I was working at Ericsson as Environmental Manager for the two largest business areas, Fixed and Mobile Systems, I had to consider all environmental aspects of our work. With the exception for one: the influence from electromagnetic radiation. This specific area was dealt with by specially appointed experts who always told the management what they wanted to hear. Radiation was harmless to the health."
Read the rest, on how to get away with..., at:
http://mobilstopp.nu/PDF/A%20Telecom%20strategy.pdf
experts speak of danger
“Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging health problem of the 21st century. It is imperative health practitioners, governments, schools and parents learn more about it. The human health stakes are significant.” - W. Rea, American Academy of Environmental Medicine
"The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to power lines, cell phones and the like, or risk the known consequences. The science is very strong and we should sit up and pay attention." - M. Blank. Columbia U.
"It is clear something serious has happened and is happening [...] I strongly advise all governments to take the issue of electromagnetic health hazards seriously and to take action while there is still time. There is too great a risk that the ever increasing RF-based communications technologies represent a real danger to humans, especially because of their exponential, ongoing and unchecked growth.." - O. Johansson, Karolinska Inst., Sweden
"Based on the existing science, many public health experts believe it is possible we will face an epidemic of cancers in the future resulting from uncontrolled use of cell phones and increased population exposure to WiFi and other wireless devices. Thus it is important that all of us, and especially children, restrict our use of cell phones, limit exposure to background levels of Wi-Fi, and that government and industry discover ways in which to allow use of wireless devices without such elevated risk of serious disease. We need to educate decision-makers that ‘business as usual’ is unacceptable. The importance of this public health issue can not be underestimated" - D. Carpenter, State U. of N.Y. (Albany)
"In the case of telecommunications equipment, such as cell phones, wireless networks, cell phone antennas, PDAs, and portable phones, the science is being ignored. Current guidelines urgently need to be re-examined by government and reduced to reflect the state of the science. There is an emerging public health crisis at hand and time is of the essence." - M. Havas, Trent U.
"Electromagnetic radiation is a very serious human and environmental health issue that needs immediate attention" - W.N.Seymour, Natural Resources Defense Council
"Ambient man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs), across a range of frequencies, are a serious environmental issue. Yet most environmentalists know little about it [...]It turns out that most living things are fantastically sensitive to vanishingly small EMF exposures [...] Humans are not the only species being affected. The health of our planet may be in jeopardy from this newest environmental concern—added to all the others. Citizens need to call upon government to fund appropriate research and to get industry influence out of the dialogue. We ignore this at our own peril now." - B.B. Levitt, former N.Y. Times journalist
"There is no question EMFs have a major effect on neurological functioning. They slow our brain waves and affect our long-term mental clarity. We should minimize exposures as much as possible to optimize neurotransmitter levels and prevent deterioration of health." - E. Braverman, MD
"The key point about electromagnetic pollution that the public has to realize is that it is not necessary that the intensity be large for a biological interaction to occur. There is now considerable evidence that extremely weak signals can have physiological consequences. These interactive intensities are about 1000 times smaller than the threshold values formerly estimated by otherwise knowledgeable theoreticians, who, in their vainglorious approach to science, rejected all evidence to the contrary as inconsistent with their magnificent calculations. These faulty estimated thresholds are yet to be corrected by both regulators and the media.
[...]
Here the public’s continuing exposure to electromagnetic radiation is largely connected to money. Indeed the tens of billions of dollars in sales one finds in the cell phone industry makes it mandatory to corporate leaders that they deny, in knee-jerk fashion, any indication of hazard."- A.R. Liboff, Florida Atlantic U.
"There is an urgent need for governments and individuals to take steps to minimize community and personal EMF exposures." - S. Milham, MD
"As wireless technology evolves, ambient background levels increase, creating electrical pollution conditions which are becoming ubiquitous and more invasive. We strongly encourage consumers, manufacturers, utility providers and policymakers to reduce, eliminate and mitigate EMR exposure conditions and to support biologically based standards." - L. Kelley, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts
"The public needs to wake up politicians and public officials to the need for updating the decades old EMF public health standards." - J.S. Turner, attorney
"I grieve for people who needlessly suffer these illnesses and hold out the hope that our government leaders will become more cognizant of the role electromagnetic factors are playing in disease, health care costs and the erosion of quality of life and productivity" - C. Rees, Wide Angle Health
"There is every indication that cell phones cause brain tumors, salivary gland tumors and eye cancer. Yet, because the cell phone industry provides a substantial proportion of research funding, this reality is hidden from the general public. The Interphone Study, a 13-country research project, substantially funded by the cell phone industry has consistently shown that use of a cell phone protects the user from risk of a brain tumor! Does anything more need to be said? It is time that fully independent studies be funded by those governmental agencies whose charter is to protect its citizens so that the truth about the very damaging health hazards of microwave radiation becomes clear and well known." - L.L. Morgan, Central Brain Tumor Registry
"A federal research strategy to address these very serious inadequacies in the science on which our government is basing health policy is sorely needed now." - J. Newton, EMR Policy Inst.
"we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant exposure standards are developed" - L.Giuliani, Camerino U., Italy
"There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments. Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives." - J. McGlade, European Environmental Agency
"numerous research reports have confirmed that non thermal fields from cell phones, tower transmitters, power lines, and other man made sources can significantly affect various tissues and physiologic functions [...] All communication in the body eventually takes place via very subtle electromagnetic signaling between cells that is now being disrupted by artificial electropollution we have not had time to adapt to[...] This gigantic experiment on our children and grandchildren could result in massive damage to mind and body with the potential to produce a disaster of unprecedented proportions, unless proper precautions are immediately implemented."- P.J.Rosch, Royal Society of Medicine
[culled from http://electromagnetichealth.org/quotes-from-experts/ ]
"the world is beginning to understand"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6805895.ece
"Electrosensitive refugees from wireless technology head for Drôme"
"invisible pollution of modern life"
"blighted their lives"
"physically tormented by modern wireless technology"
"scandal of our time"
"“All those who hid the truth from the people will have to give account before justice.”"
"“When someone in a train telephones behind me, I feel it like being stabbed in the back”"
[I've always felt it as prickles on face & scalp, & flee from obvious intuited sense of danger -- too late for some I know who were unaware or neglected the signs for too long]
"“I can feel the masts before I see them”"
[I did a test a few weeks ago going southbound on Hwy. 400 in Ontario, and could predict when the next mast would appear, the effect stronger the longer the exposure --- a useful map at http://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html , do you know where your nearest masts are? Certainly their radiation level is not made public, which should be one of several priorities for a Green attack on this.]
The article goes on to mention "psychosomatic conditions". How about we compel Bell, Rogers, Telus & co. to post lists of local psychiatrists at the base of each cell mast?
The question is, is the level of worldwide sickness high enough yet for the monstrous-minded behind the unrmitting mass deployment? Many "bullet holes" don't appear until some ten years' exposure -- better wait out the ten, eh? How about we throw in dangerous adjuvant-laden swine flu vaccine to boost things some?
Bravo, Liechtenstein; puis en France
At a legislative review a year after they compelled local telecom giants to comply with a drastically reduced radiative output, despite strong challenge from those giants, they renewed their stance, threatening to set up a nationalized network if the giants fail or quit.
Now French Senators have put forth legislation to drastically cut back youthful & occupational exposure. A start. We'll see how this develops.
"Cette question des champs électromagnétiques suscite des doutes et des inquiétudes grandissantes au sein de la population. En tant que médecins, nous l'observons de plus en plus au cours de nos consultations"
voir http://www.actualites-news-environnement.com/21639-telephone-portable-As...
Backward laggard Canada. Where are our Greens? No greater urgent readily concretely addressible widespread health & environmental risk exists.
Fr. nat. env. & health body: cut back on radiation
http://www.afsset.fr/index.php?pageid=415&newsid=497&MDLCODE=news
"15 octobre 2009
Les radiofréquences : mise à jour de l’expertise relative aux radiofréquences, L’Afsset recommande de réduire les expositions."
French govt. body, following French Senate commencement of legislative action, weighs in too tentatively in assessment of danger, but nevertheless comes down on decisively enough on environmental basis recommending reduction of public of exposure to microwaves.
"Le rapport de l’Afsset met en évidence l’existence d’effets des radiofréquences sur des fonctions cellulaires, rapportés par une dizaine d’études expérimentales considérées par l’Afsset comme incontestables"
more action in France
a refuge for "electrohypersensitive" and drastic test reduction of radiation in some localities
http://www.lematin.ch/flash-info/sciences-environnement/drome-offre-fran...
SOS to WHO
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21179713/An-SOS-From-South-Africa
read it whole!
"An SOS From South Africa"
physicist goes through WHO-catalogued research into dangerous health effects near cell masts & finds WHO emits exactly the opposite to what is unanimously indicated in the articles ('02-'08)
"Why does WHO have an interest in actively promoting acceptance of microwave technology? How is this part of WHO's brief as a public health body?"
what a surprise
WHO study of around 13,000 over some 10 years finally on the brink of informing the hoodwinked world of a major increase in head cancers connected to cell phone use. (Scoop in Hebrew, relying on British newpaper contacts, at http://www.calcalist.co.il/internet/articles/0,7340,L-3365117,00.html ;
take note, that it is rare for a North American newspaper to have the bravery or sense of independence to break such momentous news, only daring to report secondarily; I recall that momentous US House of Representatives pre-election first vote last fall against the bank bailout bill, which via the Senate was eventually bullied through, and I was monitoring internet news services almost minute by minute after hearing that they actually might have the gumption to vote it down following mass outraged opinion of constituents, which they actually did, an extaordinary possibly world-changing event, and an Israeli paper I noticed was I believe the first worldwide to report the stunning affair right after it occurred, stunned mainstream media taking I think it was a half hour or so to pinch themselves then write about defiance of the ultimately powerful; it is worse in Canada.) Still, the only expected WHO recommendation regards children's use of cell phones. Expect no comment on the dangerous ongoing effects from cell masts, nor on the exposure to all kinds of such microwaves altogether.
The WHO has its reasons for acting unreasonably. Apart from what must be grossly undue influence at the highest (immoral) level on what is supposed to be an agency to protect human health, particularly among the more vulnerable poor & less educated, where apart from the mostly bottled-up cell phone radiation controversy, we have concurrent complicity & even promotion by the WHO of a dubious worldwide flu vaccine campaign; apart from what must be undue financial & other threatening influence over the judgement and actions of health professionals, as must be the case with Health Canada seeing its poor judgement & lack of leadership on these issues, there is probably the intended benefit at the UN to knowingly allow even dangerous technological proliferation because of other benefits, including in public health enabled by connecting the world's poorest, at least as in public health supposedly benefiting from overall reduction in poverty. This benefit of the doubt however is easily retractable in the gross context of other influences, as well as the copious information already damning allowance of mass exposure to such radiation.
Had GPC taken my strongly put advice to vigourously promote PR in the federal election campaign, instead of trying to play a more mainstream game of appealing to Canadians, which certainly failed considering the millions spent, the % increase attainable by other means and not even demonstrably ascribable to the massive $ misspent on things like TV; had my advice been taken, there would have been a sharp edge of noticeability to the party, and it especially could have had a salutary effect on what was a possibly momentous BC PR referendum, now failed for insufficient airing of the positive side to PR. That was a failure of GPC judgement at ability to benefit its own political prospects, even had the referendum failed it would not have been so devastatingly so and given the relatively generous press (never properly enough, of course) afforded GPC last campaign a loud GPC on PR would have had an effect. Now I have been for as many months hammering away at an issue that has belatedly gone successfully political internationally, to the political benefit of Greens elsewhere yet again, with even tiny buds of success poking out in sleep-bound Canada. That issue is the outrageously dangerous proliferation of cell telephony and other wireless applications, where GPC having already spoken meekly but positively to the issue, could have loudly gotten out front in Canada to its own political benefit. Now that this WHO study story is about to be influentially broken in a British newspaper (Telegraph likely), GPC will have failed in judgement again at seizing a real political opportuntiy to increase its eventual support. It is of some use to point to Greens' having been there first elsewhere, and to point to GPC actually having spoken positively about the Bioinitiative. But it is nowhere near as valuable as doing something even pushy to put itself in the public spotlight as leading on, in this case, trying to protect the public. Now I believe, as with the referendum, it is too late, other parties will pick this up & run with it. For all the technical overfocus on trying to elect a single Green in the House of Commons, GPC has failed again to take good advice about how to be noticeably on the political cutting edge. Canada, GPC, go back to sleep, if you've even made it this far to read this my lament at poor judgement.
A final note back to the original expected decisive news item. It would be interesting to watch financial market indicators to see if there are hints of part of why there has been gross delay in reportage, so insiders can position themselves. This was famously the case prior to 9/11, where some airline stock saw massive bailing out just before that fateful date. Although this story is likely to be minimized, especially in the North American press, owned as it is largely by consortia involving telecommunications giants, to lead to merely prescribing against children's use. Today there is supposed to take place yet another demonstration in Montreal against the dangers of cell phone masts, to which I have privately urged GPC principals to send at least one party rep, for various reasons including of course albeit small political benefit. If I receive a report that at least one GPC-er indeed did show up in support & self-benefit, there will be for me a glimmer of hope of eventual big-picture better political savvy to GPC central. I know that my efforts have had some positive influence over the past couple of years, or I would not have continued as I've done here online to try to help Greens, even if it has otherwise been a good exercise for me and some fun. I do need more signs of hope at his point, on this and other crucial matters, to not lose heart and figure I'd best redirect my efforts elsewhere. If I do that, my vote will almost certainly still go Green, what else can I do. But I will have been sadly still too forcefully ahead of the game at thinking & playing "green", events will swallow up even GPC-ers' best efforts before enough of them acquire that bravery & sense of independence.