Cell Phone Industry Beats Public Health Concern in MaineAnd 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. As Joel Moskowitz, PhD writes in his article Lobbying Madness: Wireless Radiation Label Bill Passes Maine Legislature Before Dying: The Maine Senate agreed and voted 21-14. 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: 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 publics 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: Youve 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 whats 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 theyve 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, were 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 youre 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 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 Additional source: 