What a great interview.
And how very sad.
That's a great summary from Dave Hansford. Thank you.
Did you read this more recent piece in the Spinoff? I thought it was quite bleak - he describes the problem very clearly but he seems pretty stumped about solutions.
And Steven - you might be thinking of ionising radiation..
I can't disagree with you on any of that, Rosemary, and I've no doubt that Sue Grey is an effective campaigner for medicinal cannabis reform.
As for the second youtube thing, yes it's true that the WHO have classified non-ionising radiation from mobile phones as a Class 2B carcinogen. This means 'possibly carcinogenic'. Other Class 2B substances include coffee, kava, pickled vegetables and aloe vera extract. The WHO classification was based on the IARC review that I mentioned above, and was a precautionary approach (appropriate I think) based on weak and limited evidence of an increased glioma risk in heavy mobile phone users. The sensible thing to do here is to limit the amount of time you have your mobile phone pressed to your ear.
Rosemary, finding one 'expert' to back up your views is not the same as scientific consensus. If you want an expert consensus view on RFEMR hazards to health, go to the IARC monograph here: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/mono102.pdf
Sue Grey is fond of citing this one, though needless to say she doesn't represent its findings honestly or accurately.
Respectfully, Rosemary, this comment shows a lack of understanding of what science is about and how it works.
Science is a robust contest of ideas. Most scientists I know have strong critical thinking skills that they don't hesitate to use on their own work. I can tell you that presenting your work at a scientific conference is not a comfortable place at all. If your evidence for your claims is unconvincing, you'll get shot down in flames.
Talking about 'science being irrefutable' is a bit of a straw woman, as scientists don't claim this and I certainly wasn't. It's more useful to think in terms of scientific consensus, where the evidence piles up over time and a picture starts to emerge. Like on climate change; for practical purposes we should proceed as though the science were settled as the evidence is strong and compelling.
Note that there's a famous saying that it only takes one ugly fact to slay a beautiful hypothesis.
Also: the precautionary principle is only really useful where the evidence is too limited to be useful for decision making. By all means it should be used for new pesticides etc, but 1080 is extensively studied and well understood, and there are costs to not using it, as the PCE's report made clear.
As for Sue Grey: well, she does represent those with a different viewpoint, I'll give you that. But she also blatantly misleads people and misrepresents scientific evidence. I don't see anything to celebrate in that.
This is an interesting read: Justice Churchman's judgment on the BVCG vs the BWSTrust. Their case was pretty crappy.
I'll get in behind Jacindamania. Closely followed by #metoo.
Spooky, Izogi, I was just about to post something similar. Sue Grey is also vocally anti-vax, anti-community water fluoridation and anti-1080 use. Oh, and anti-RFEMR (ie non ionising radiation from mobile phones, mobile phone towers, wifi etc). In other words, anti-science. She promotes material produced by the Graf brothers (you can read about them in Dave Hansford's excellent book "Protecting Paradise'). As a small example of how she rolls, she recently posted a link to an article on 1080 poisoning bees, while neglecting to mention that when the article was published, in 1991, a 1080-jam bait formulation was used that was attractive to bees. This formulation was discontinued in 1995.
And yes, everything you said about the BVCG. She operates as if she were above the law.
I remember being pretty freaked by the threat of nuclear annihilation as a child. That, and fears of a tsunami from White Island wiping out Opotiki. Turns out we were worrying about the wrong thing.