|
ElectroSensitivity - Support ESS.
"The greatest challenge to the development of knowledge
is the comfort of dogmatism - the security provided by unquestioned confidence in a statement of truth, or in a method of
achieving truth - or even the shadow dogmatism of utter skepticism (for to be utterly skeptical is to dogmatically affirm
that nothing can be known)..." David C. Kolb, Experiential Learning
William Rea, MD
Past President, American Academy
of Environmental Medicine Founder & Director of the Environmental Health Center, Dallas says:
“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”.
Martin Blank, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University,
College of Physicians and Surgeons; Researcher in Bioelectromagnetics; Author of the BioInitiative Report’s section on Stress Proteins. makes clear:
“Cells
in the body react to EMFs as potentially harmful, just like to other environmental toxins, including heavy metals and toxic
chemicals. The DNA in living cells recognizes electromagnetic fields at very low levels of exposure; and produces a
biochemical stress response. 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.”
For ESGURU, latest NEWS on the BLOG, click here
Click here for Electromagnetic Health USA Citizens group
The above link is a new American citizens and scientists group website.
| We Are Of a Fundamentally ElectroMagnetic Universe |
|
|
| Galaxies, and our bodies too, all depend on EM forces |
Click here for up to date scientific news reporting on developments in the higher microwave non-ionising spectrum from Dr
Louis Slesin
| We are Normal |
|
|
| Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band |
Click here for expose of lobby bias and bad science reporting in The Guardian by Martin J Walker
| All the phone companies tell me its perfectly safe |
|
|
| Obviously then it must be |
We try to make the 'heavy science' a little light-hearted on these pages so you can enjoy and learn.
Or
phone 01353 775329 on weekday mornings for free live advice and support from this voluntary group.
Rod Read M.Phil
(Cantab, Dip Psych Couns, Cert.Ed. aka the ESGURU is here to help all individually. Many people we have learned, over several
years now, find this EHS issue confusing and mystifying. Maybe you feel tentative about your understanding and comprehension
because it is presented as a complex scientific problem for which you need a doctorate in physics. Well you do not, you know
what you feel, and when you feel it. You will eventually work out why, and then start taking common-sense care of your own
health and that of your loved ones. Massive environmental changes with this new electromagnetic pollution make this necessary.
For
many ignorant office/pub know-alls, and unfortunately for careless Guardian readers, it is apparently very simple:
"It's
all a load of tosh? No such thing as dangers from electrowhatever it is, invisible rays ha! Its all rubbish. Blaming mobiles
and computers and pylons for feeling sick, load of rubbish, BADscience to those who understand, scientists say so too, I read
about it, so that's the facts eh?
Lead! what's lead got to do with it..."
IS ELECTRO-SENSITIVITY A BLACK SWAN? The Black Swan theory refers to a large-impact,
hard-to-predict, and rare event beyond the realm of normal expectations. See Nassim Nicholas Taleb
It also has large consequences.
If the world’s favourite means of distributing energy has serious health implications,
which those familiar with biological mechanisms linking low level electromagnetic radiation with bad health reactions increasingly
find, we have large consequences alright.
We are at es-support@hotmail.com and if you find anything useful on this site let us know and hopefully
send us a fiver or whatever on the Paypal 'donate' button here. Keep us going, we have no other income and give our help voluntarily,
because it is needed in the present vacuum of no official responses.
We have a taped advice premium rate telephone line at 09040 841402 at £0.50 per minute, mobiles maybe more, over 18s,
with bill payers permission. For the price of a couple of coffees you can hear a short few minutes summary of warning signs
and health advice right now, any time of night or day.
|
|
| Unnatural EM fields are now everywhere |
|
|
| Our electromagnetic environment is way hyped up |
Extra-Sensitivity Electro-Sensitivity
www.electrosensitivity-support.com
We are all unique.
We recognise at ESS, as a simple fact, that there are considerable differences between us as individuals.
We are not all identical clones, we are visibly all different and function differently even to identical stimuli.
It is self-evident some of us respond differently to aspects of our environments, sometimes very dangerously differently.
Nuts for instance, when eaten, can quickly kill a very tiny minority of us, and have done. Asthmatics and others react to
engine exhaust gases, microscopic pollen grains and solvents. Others are extra-sensitive to the Sun's radiation, their epidermis
responds more reactively, they redden and burn easily and are more liable to suffer with skin melanomas and cancer. Others
we know react with unpleasant ill-health symptoms to other modern invisible pollutants, parts of the hugely amplified electromagnetic
environment, the electrospheres we now spend so much time in at home or in the office or even street. Proximity to the electromagnetic
fields generated wherever electric power is used, or by microwave emitters, affect a small percentage of extra-sensitives,
no doubt about it, they tell us.
Some folks, from another extreme, claim to be as impervious and tough as those proverbial old brick outhouses, with never
a day's illness; they look on with wondering condescension at us complaining sensitive sufferers. Many of course regard themselves
as 'normal', though quite what that is remains undefined.
We are normal (see Bonzo Dog Doo-dah band)
I put this in not just as a homage to an original and crazy sixties band but to make the point we all possess a facility
for detecting electromagnetism, just like cows and other critters, but some 2-5% of us are extra-sensitive.
But still
"normal and wanting their freedom" as the old song has it, not ill but environmentally sickened.
Recent books are testament to the conflict between science and newly emergent understandings of humanly created risks. Al
Gore among others has had to confront vested interests to wrestle 'the science' on climate change "An Inconvenient Truth"
to his way of thinking, as in his recent book 'The Assault on Reason'
Scientific understanding of the world and health impacts of new technologies is not a given consensual simple fact with
everyone in agreement. Science is an ongoing tussle with observations, evidence, methodologies, lines of inquiry, resources
and much more, including reality in the form of direct evidence from those who say clearly "This is hurting me" one
of the most devastating and undeniable facts we ever encounter.
WHY ARE HEALTH EFFECTS UNRECOGNISED?
Simply because, as with lead in the environment, the effects are widely distributed among millions of individuals. Unlike
lead we have no definitive tests as yet to show the toxic health consequences in physical bodies, but they are becoming found.
Conventional and traditional groups, especially of vested commercial interests vociferously deny effects, exactly as with
lead, (see below), and dispute research findings, particularly in the media, which show them.
LEAD POISONING, a recent parallel science story
No, not from the old cowboy western 'shootemup' method, but exposed by a kind of scientific vigilante nonetheless. This issue
of lead has the same history as ES of emerging slowly into recognition. It sets an example of commercial strength and interests
using science for defending dangerous poisonous technology over 40 years. Compliant governments and regulators figure too
with their self-justifying myths. Not all sheriffs or judges, never mind high grade government scientific advisors and committees,
have broad understanding and are honest fearless and upright. We are all human and often prefer agreement with the 'group
mind' of the prevailing orthodoxy and received wisdom, rather than uncomfortably sticking out. As the Chinese proverb goes
"it is the standing nail that gets the hammer"
Radio 4 Listen Again from July 14 2008 no longer available but mp3 audio file link is now added below, it concludes with Dr
Patterson's widow and son saying "Look at this work as a lesson, and not do it with other things"
"It was so obvious we had this huge massive problem on Earth and no-one was doing anything about it"
A penetratingly persistent Iowa man of Scottish descent, Dr Claire Cameron Patterson, worked in WWII on the 'Manhattan project'
for making the Atomic Bomb, later objecting to how it was used. After spending years establishing methods for the separation
and isotopic analysis of lead at microgram and sub-microgram levels he published his conclusions.
In the 1965 paper entitled
"Contaminated and Natural Lead Environments of Man". Patterson made his first attempt to dispel the then prevailing
view that industrial lead use had increased environmental lead levels by no more than a factor of approximately two over natural
levels. He maintained that the belief arose from the poor quality of lead analyses in prehistoric comparison samples in which
much of the lead reported was actually due to underestimation of blank contamination. He compiled the amounts of industrial
lead entering the environment from gasoline, solder, paint, and pesticides and showed that they involved very substantial
quantities of lead compared to the expected natural flux. He estimated the lead concentration in blood for many Americans
to be over 100 times that of the natural level, and within about a factor of two of the accepted limit for symptoms of lead
poisoning to occur, and they are horrible and devastating. Like reacting to EM radiation the toxicity accumulates in the body
over time.
R. A. Kehoe, a recognized expert and public health official! on industrial toxicology accused him of being "more
of a zealot than a scientist" in the warnings he had raised. Another leading toxicologist had just returned from a World
Health Organization conference where fifteen nations had agreed that environmental lead contributions to the body burden had
not changed in any significant way, either in blood or urinary lead contents, over the last two decades. He called Patterson's
conclusions "rabble rousing."(Just as we and others trying to raise the alarm on this issue are called "scaremongers")
Patterson shot back to his editor with
"My efforts have been directed to this matter for the greater part of a year with reluctance and to the detriment of research
in geochemistry. In the end they have been greeted with derisive and scornful insults from toxicologists, sanitary engineers
and public health officials because their traditional views are challenged."
He was eventually proved right and the blight of lead in petrol and everywhere else is now being removed from young
bodies especially and slowly from all of nature, even the Greenland snows. Read more on the hyperlink below.
From lead back to ElectroMagnetic Radiation, EMR.
We have no actual lead particles to point at, but we know
background levels of EMR have been expanding exponentially over the last hundred years. Called "fields" and "waves"
"beams" and even "rays", these are all inadequate and somewhat deceptive descriptive metaphors, so our case is
more difficult than with lead as we are dealing with an invisible pollutant. Also we have subjective individuals experiencing
largely invisible consequences and symptoms which could be due to other causes. But the toxic qualities of electromagnetic
radiation are well attested to, and they do not have to be from frequencies way up in the atomic resonances, just above microwaves,
but far lower down the spectrum. Ordinary everyday mains electricity at 50 or 60 Hertz causes effects on bodies and brains
immersed in the wiring looms surrounding us in offices and homes today.
See many further references here
and also hereDr Magda Havas dirty electricity.
Hospitals worldwide harness some human EM field effects and deliberate EMR exposures are used to assist bone knitting
in tens of thousands of therapeutic procedures per year. It is completely contradictory of present reality to deny there are
any present human health effects while such effects are therapeutically employed.
It is only possible with compartmentalised
thinking, good beneficial effects are harnessed, deleterious ones denied. A fine kettle of fish leaving e-sensitives in limbo.
See
EMR and diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis
In the huge and detailed research-reporting 'bible', (£200.00 worth in two volumes!) "Biological and Medical Aspects of
Electromagnetic Fields" (ISBN 10;0-8493-9538-0) the scientific state of play and lack of consensual scientific understanding
is laid bare. The preface states:
"The reader should be particularly aware that various theoretical models which are proposed for explaining how (EM) fields
interact with biological systems at a biophysical level, are distributed among a number of chapters. No one model has become
widely accepted and it is quite possible that more than one will in fact be needed to explain all observed phenomena."
Even more worryingly on page 23 we find:
"EMF cancer epidemiology studies continue to generate both positive and negative
results. When considered together, the results of these studies are insufficient to either support or refute the hypothesis
that exposure to EMF is a significant risk factor for human cancer."
See 'Biological and Medical Aspects of Electromagnetic Fields, Toxicity and Potential Oncogenicity'
I bet your local electricity supplier has never told you that in their voluminous sales literature or glossy advertising.
Nor do editors and journalistic commentators want to be "standing nails", contradicting the prevailing orthodoxy, when they
do comprehend. If they say too much too scientifically unconventional they are soon dumped on from a great height. They know
on which side of the toast their career is buttered and where the ordure threatens.
A counter argument is that in the face of huge increases of electricity applications and usage cancer deaths are falling.
Again the workings of scientific arguments need close attention. Treatments are much improved and some types of cancer rates
are dropping at the same time as Dr Robert Becker shows
"The overall incidence of cancer is slowly increasing year by year, and the relationship between field exposure and those
types of cancer that are on the increase is evident"(From Cross Currents p216 ISBN 0-87477-609-0)
As a detour,and FYI, Dr Patterson is a very important scientist, the man who first determined the age of the Earth. His biographer
comments:
"Patterson's reactions on being the first person to know the age of the Earth are interesting and worthy of note". He
wrote:
"True scientific discovery renders the brain incapable at such moments of shouting vigorously to the world "Look at what
I've done! Now I will reap the benefits of recognition and wealth." Instead such discovery instinctively forces the brain
to thunder "We did it" in a voice no one else can hear, within its sacred, but lonely, chapel of scientific thought"
There "we" refers to what Patterson calls "the generations-old community of scientific minds." From my observations "(says
his biographer George R Tilton), "he lived that ethic. To him it must have been an exercise in improving the state of the
"community of scientific minds." His attitude recalls the remark of Newton: "If I have seen farther than others, it is because
I have stood on the shoulders of giants"
Oh are there not historical changes in integrity and the worth of scientific knowledge? Dr Becker quoted above was another
who was unafraid of being a 'standing nail', probably forfeiting the Nobel Prize by bucking the scientific trend and conventional
scientific orthodoxy.
Reason and "science"
Since the Enlightenment we depend upon reason and evidence to be our guide, not some belief system. But currently an aggressive
Corporate Lobby (see Martin J Walker Quacks and quackbusting )directs considerable firepower in polemics against any 'alternative' interpretations of understanding, like homeopathic
remedies, or the importance of nutrition. It does this as if "science" as presently constituted was fully in agreement with
itself, monolithic, and had a hegemonic and unique understanding. Dangerously, in the UK this 'lobby' as Martin Walker names
it, has now constituted a London "Science Media Centre" to respond to current scientific debates in the media with its own
singularly arrogant 'take', as if there was no argument or disagreement.
This is convenient for the attention span of
busy journalists, a godsend for the lazy among them, and a disservice to truth seekers wandering in the arcane and specialised
sub-divisions which today constitute science.
Often there is no consensus on various issues, indeed vicious disagreements and turf wars break out. No-one knows the answers,
nor do committees advising legislators, it is an Heraclitean flux, with, paraphrasing the late Sir Karl Popper the great philosopher
of science pointing out, little islands of foundation knowledge in the great marsh of our ignorance, see below for more on
Popper and the philosophy of science in context.
As in all the best TV courtroom dramas, "We rest our case M'lud".Despite naysayers,ES is real.
Scourge of the Lead Industry
Clair Patterson Lead Pollution
Dr Magda Havas dirty electricity
|
This site is still under construction for this not-for-profit organization of scientists and electrosensitives. We provide
information, explanation, contextualizing, help, support and counselling for those with bad health consequences from electromagnetic
radiation, EMR, exposure.
The electrosensitive, ES, reaction is a physical reaction to non-ionising, low level, everyday electromagnetic radiation exposure,
electropollution. It is a poorly understood emerging reaction to our modern city ambient EMR levels.
These symptoms range from minor muzzy heads, aka 'brain fog', short term memory loss, skin tingling and joint pains
to breathing and cardiac disturbance. A small minority are cumulatively affected over time, maybe more, but detection is obstructed
by lack of recognition. Indeed there is positive resistance to recognising what may require the imposition of safety limits
to protect us from excesses.
Without practicing EMR avoidance e-sensitives often worsen from sensitivity to hypersensitivity as many hundreds have unhappily
discovered and told us.
WHO IS NORMAL?
It is not a very helpful question if we all differ. We see 'normal' as including a large range of individual differences,
physically and physiologically as well as psychologically and socially. We all pick up 'cues' or signals from the environment,
some differently or more sensitively than others.
Medical authorities and researchers often seem to disapprove of this profusion of individual variations of response. It would
be much tidier and easier for them were we identical units, then hard cause and effect linkage chains would be identifiable,
drug dosages could be calibrated more effectively and concomitant treatments graded neatly to fix discrete health problems.
Hmmn?
Perhaps, in some ideal or mechanistic world, maybe. We take a more organic, wholistic view, of 'wellness' relating
to the entire ongoing complete person and personality.
Our experience, my, me Rod's experience as a founder of specialist charity electrosensitivity-uk , 1103018, then manager over
5 years, is in dealing with over 500 individuals reporting the health-damaging effects of low-level electromagnetic radiation,
EMR. Sometimes relationships conducted during lengthy contacts and over years, also in often excruciating detail. But some
scientists claim this reactive sensitivity does not exist, and there is no need to be concerned about widespread environmental
Electropollution.
The Sunday Times however in 2005 was gracious enough to credit me, Rod Read, with 'inventing'(!!)
a whole new form of Global pollution under that name, great! It is often now called 'electrosmog' by those aware of it and
when it is concentrated in locally highly polluted invisible 'electrospheres'.
| Blinkered company scientists. Headless racehorses? |
|
|
| PhDs all, but brains reined in and course set by bosses |
Science and reality.
"We create our own reality", US vice-president Dick Cheney, (or was it Donald Rumsfeld?) boasted of his powers.
We proclaim ourselves, ESS, a rational, science based organisation. What is the alternative? It would seem to be to espouse
irrationality, illogicality, and reject cause and effect connections. This would mean denying evidence and necessitate claiming
metaphysical or divine connections, having some other superior knowledge, insight or mumbo-jumbo, to allow and enable interpretations.
How else could we validate our position in claiming the genuine nature, the reality, of health effects from low level radiation,
microwaves EM fields and so on but by relying on science?
So I have to square the circle in my own reasoning and also on behalf of the 500 ES sufferers whose cause I champion against
the deniers. For those who have inquired of me:
"What is going on Rod? I can no longer go near a computer, my dishwasher switches on and hurts me as I lean on it, mobiles
give me headaches, my GP asks me about any other delusions".
I am not alone in this dilemma of confronting apparent scientific denial of the ES condition yet turning to science for illumination
ourselves, not self-indulgently wallowing in unreason. There are also the aforementioned 500 we know of, and the countless
undiagnosed or misdiagnosed other ES sufferers. These tell me of their despair at their inability to comprehend what has and
is happening to their bodies and lives. They tell how it is to suffer acutely from depression and frustration resulting from
the inexplicability of their debilitating ongoing symptoms; their inchoate floundering for explanations and causes, which
when tentatively arrived at, others with apparent authority then confidently reject.
"There are no health effects from mobile phone technology"
says Dr Michael Clark of the Health Protection Agency, HPA.
"There are no proven effects" he revises this to when we prod him, and personal experience of ES is, he claims, unacceptable
evidence, as it is merely anecdotal. Ho hum.
Or as George Monbiot says "We all have our self-justifying myths" (Guardian 22.07.08)
Arrogantly, at times, we are tempted to say, claims are made upon science refuting the solid personal experience of hundreds
of individuals. Yup, some make their own reality. And we do not have the millions and resources necessary to counter them,
with expensive research.
| Too much lead and you feel fuzzy like this |
|
|
| How could you know lead in the environment hit you? |
Click here for Video
Video about 610 page multi-scientist Bioinitiative Report
Introduction from Bioinitiative Report
"You cannot see it, taste it or smell it, but it is one of the most pervasive environmental exposures
in industrialized countries today. Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) or electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) are the terms that broadly describe exposures created by the vast array of wired and
wireless technologies that have altered the landscape of our lives in countless beneficial ways.
However, these technologies were designed to maximize energy efficiency and convenience; not
with biological effects on people in mind. Based on new studies, there is growing evidence
among scientists and the public about possible health risks associated with these technologies.
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. In some cases, this can cause discomfort and disease.
Since World War II, the background level of EMF from electrical sources has risen exponentially,
most recently by the soaring popularity of wireless technologies such as cell phones (two billion
and counting in 2006), cordless phones, WI-FI and WI-MAX networks. Several decades of
international scientific research confirm that EMFs are biologically active in animals and in
humans, which could have major public health consequences."
Back to us at ES-support
We have scientists
of our own, such as JR, with fifty-two years mainly Government service researching communications including microwaves for
them and British universities and commercial communications companies. He is now angrily suffering with the "politically
inconvenient" electrosensitive reaction himself.
On just one part of the electromagnetic spectrum he makes his forthright opinions and frustrations clear on the state's culpability,
continuing in retirement with pursuing his own experiments too.
"Dear All,
I have I am sure mentioned it before, but due to the latest news, re: low energy bulbs being mandatorily required, in place
of incandescent, I feel it worth mentioning yet again. Should sickness, incapacity or death occur as a result of the use of
all or any of these products: mobile phone receivers or transmitters, 'Wi Fi', 'Wi Max' etc. and/or other proposed new microwave
technologies and/or light bulbs, then surely the blame for such folly should be laid fairly and squarely at the doors of the
following organisations.
In no particular order: The World Health Organisation; The old NRPB, now the Health Protection Agency, HPA; The Medical Research
Council and last but by no means least our very own Ministry of Defence.
Why so?
Well for at least the past fifty years the radio spectrum between 9ooMHz and 6GHz has been known in official circles to contain
frequencies that are biologically hazardous to the health and well being of both animals and humans.
Not only in official circles, but in engineering circles also. For example an issue of the well respected journal 'Electronics
World' in the 1990's carried a specific warning about the use of 2.45GHz ie one of the very frequencies now in common every
day usage for mobile phone communications. I have seen these warnings in other U.K. journals also and it was part of my training
as a government microwave technician and also later as a fully qualified engineer.
So why all the denials by the above named government departments?
One is somehow left with the conclusion that it is either basic ignorance or wilful, and that the above named departments
all have something to hide. We must go on and on questioning this, over and over again if necessary, until hopefully we get
some truthful answers and not the feeble disengenuity in half truths offered to us by the HPA through the public comments
of Dr's Michael Clark and Jill Meara.
Best Wishes from J.R."
It could well be a consequence of the importance of these technologies to security
and the defence of the realm that such contortions are athletically achieved. Certainly much early research went forward with
those aims in mind. Perhaps then we shall never know the truth, perhaps even illogical denial is deemed necessary, perhaps
its that simple...perhaps..ad infinitum...
| Not a true likeness of our old JR |
|
|
| But merrily jaunty and equally impecunious |
| A most learned judge it seems. |
|
|
| With excellent taste. Who wrote 'ME'!? |
|
|
| The planet glows with electromagnetic radiation |
|
|
| A hundred years ago there was virtually none |
Why is ES ignored?
In this group we are familiar with ES (or EHS, electro-hypersensitivity as some think it should be called) and its intermingling
with other related sensitivities, like nutritional, stress, allergy reactions and other ongoing chronic conditions. This informs
us and it tallies with other's experience that the real world is messy, complex and entangled. The science on understanding
this ES condition is lagging simply because no well funded companies or bodies, especially the state, consider their interests
to be advanced by probing too effectively. Indeed the whole direction of commercial exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum,
for which the treasury received 25 billion pounds from mobile Telecoms' companies in one auction alone, rests on there being
no side effects or health hazards. Tightly controlled and carefully aligned research is, we are afraid, quite easily massaged,
especially statistically, and by careful selection of participants. It then indicates sufficiently the case they want to make,
at least well enough for busy uninquiring media, it makes valuable PR, if not probed too closely methodologically.
The difficulties extra-sensitives confront is compounded and significantly worsened in our C21 context when, unlike with say
cancer, it is not sympathy and a desire to assist which is typically invoked from others without the ES reaction, but systematic
denial the distressing ES reaction exists. Sometimes the dismissal extends to unconcealed contempt from the truly ignorant,
or those with an axe to grind or in the pay of or desirous of a future career with lobbyists with an agenda to impose on reality.
We can easily lose ourselves in the silly and deceptive marshes of 'conspiracy theories' once we start fingering 'the military'
or 'the security services' for having a rigidly controlling agenda on this topic. Until there is evidence of this, a somewhat
unlikely event, we need to continue to assume we are dealing with the normal (historically shown) lagging conservatism, the
footdragging inherent in scientific developments. Those who studied and
qualified decades ago do not want to hear their understanding is now outdated. Plus this time around it suits enormous corporations,
and governments. They have a huge stake in obstructing all explanations threatening the present unregulated extreme competition
exploiting the electromagnetic spectrum like a giant gold mine.
Electromagnetism is THE fundamental force of the universe controlling galaxies stars suns planets and the cosmos. We fiddle
with it like intelligent apes with a new toy, making big atomic bangs and loads of useful energy. But fully understanding
all its ways we do NOT, and some are learning this at great personal cost in their everyday lives.
 |
| We know you are absolutely not affected by EMR |
|
|
| No, No! You cannot possibly be feeling pain, its just a delusion |
| From NASA, Cosmic explosion 2 |
|
|
| We toy with these fundamental ElectroMagnetic forces |
| From NASA , cosmic explosion 1 |
|
|
| Yup! Those EM forces don't half go!! |
| White Dwarf from "NOAO/AURA/NSF" |
|
|
| "Dwarf" is a relative term, ha. |
|
|
| "FACTS" do not float free awaiting "discovery" |
|
|
| For some scientists the 'problem' is to 'prove' safety |
Knowledge, i.e. 'scientific facts', are constructions built out of the processes Popper outlines
in this diagram. NOT unrelated solid items plucked out of the ether by 'discoverers' through research.
From The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy we find:
Stanford University
Sir Karl Popper
First published Thu Nov 13, 1997; substantive revision Mon Oct 9, 2006
"world scientists are rarely aware of the work of philosophers; it is virtually unprecedented to find them queuing up,
as they have done in Popper's case, to testify to the enormously practical beneficial impact which that philosophical work
has had upon their own".
And
"that scientific theories are often retained even though much of the available evidence conflicts with them,
or is anomalous with respect to them."
For Popper accordingly,
"the growth of human knowledge proceeds from our problems and from our attempts to solve them.
These attempts involve the formulation of theories which, if they are to explain anomalies which exist with respect to earlier
theories, must go beyond existing knowledge and therefore require a leap of the imagination.* For this reason, Popper places
special emphasis on the role played by the independent creative imagination in the formulation of theory. The centrality and
priority of problems in Popper's account of science is paramount, and it is this which leads him to characterise scientists
as 'problem-solvers'.
Further, scientists begin with problems rather than with observations or 'bare facts' because bare
facts do not exist. Popper stresses this is simply “because there are no 'pure' facts available; all observation-statements
are theory-laden, and are as much a function of purely subjective factors (interests, expectations, wishes, etc.) as they
are a function of what is objectively real."
The 'problem' requiring solution, from those scientists whose salary depends on finding it, is showing mobile phone networks,
and other electromagnetic/RF radiation sources, do NOT affect people's health. It is not about finding out IF and WHEN they
do, and HOW they do.
It should be, those affected maintain.
* Our contention is that earlier theories of physical effects from electromagnetism, claiming that only thermal or heating
effects matter, does not explain the fact of hundreds of electrosensitives. This is the anomaly requiring a "leap of the
imagination" in order to "go beyond existing knowledge". BUT and it is a large but, this threatens the organisations,
companies and industries, even governments who are promoting and employing the hazardous technology. So a constant lobby denies
any such effects, so then claim they cannot need investigating. It is all mere delusion, psychological or 'nocebo' nonsense,
even when hundreds complain.
We at ESS know different.
Nicholas Lezard in the Guardian Review of 14.06.08, (to whom I am indebted) in a piece on "The Threat to Reason" recently
published in paperback by Dan Hind, comments on its attractive subtitle "How the Enlightenment was hijacked and how we
can reclaim it". (Isbn-13:978-1-84467-253-0, Verso 2008) Immanuel Kant, one of the two most important figures in the Enlightenment,
says Hind:
"does not seek to describe Enlightenment as one side of a confrontation between reason and unreason. Instead, he defines
it as an individual's decision for personal autonomy, the decision to become intellectually adult".
According to Lezard, what has happened for Hind though is that what defenders of the enlightenment in claiming science is
on their side now do "is not much more valid than saying yah-boo to soft targets, while ignoring or glossing over the worst
offenders". What can be softer than homeopathy as a curative approach, or deluded cranks 'mistakenly' blaming electromagnetic
rays for their illness. And worse according to those commentators like those claiming our case is made of 'bad science', some
columnists say those who, like me and our group make claims which accommodate to and profit from unreason and employ absurd
notions. We stand accused of deluding and pandering to easily lead, weak-minded, sick people by the hundred, profiting from
influencing them away from 'proper' medical diagnoses as to the cause of their problems. Lovely! Play the person not the ball,
a very old technique as Dr Patterson found when confronting entrenched interests.
Lezard summarises Hind as pointing out "it is all very well to say that alternative medicines are fraudulent, but too easy
to forget that pharmaceutical companies (and we would add giant telecoms corporations) have great vested interests
in tilting research their way. They're not as scientific, or rational, as they claim. The bigger the entity, the larger its
untruths and the biggest liar is the state.
In "The Threat to Science" chapter of Hind's "The Threat to Reason" we find p88:
"...the most serious threats to science in the public interest do not necessarily come from its irrational enemies. Attempts
to intimidate or discredit scientists whose informed view is commercially inconvenient must surely qualify as a "threat to
reason."
And further on p94:
"Only a particularly naïve researcher can now imagine that their findings will be welcome if they threaten powerful institutional
interests. As universities and regulatory agencies move closer to business, scientists will come under increasing pressure
to accommodate their new 'partners'; concerns about public health cannot automatically win out over commercial considerations.
In such circumstances prudent scientists must be tempted to avoid looking at aspects of reality where powerful institutions
have a vested interest. Seeing colleagues who stand by inconvenient findings suddenly lose status, reputation and even livelihood
serves to warn other scientists that objective truth is all very well most of the time, but shoudn't be allowed to ruin a
promising career. A little bit of sophistication, a certain way with the data, and perhaps the results aren't quite as conclusive
as they might seem to those determined to create obstacles to progress. This threat to individual scientists comes from within
the scientific institutions themselves, and is much more likely to destroy the innocent curiosity of the researcher than any
real or imagined tide of unreason outside".
Any scientist whose work provides evidence and scientific backbone to the arguments of "us cranks and preyers on the gullible"
like us at ES-Support gets in the no funding/firing line (literally in employment usage).
This is exactly what is happening to the commercially inconvenient science from Dr Olle Johansson on dermatological effects
from EMR at the Karolinska Health Institute in Sweden, and Dr Henry Lai with health effects from mobile phone type frequencies
at the University of Washington in Seattle. Also a long list of other researchers muzzled and blanked, as was the pioneering
environmental work of Claire Patterson above in a different field. We all know about asbestos and tobacco too.
So we are not alone in our perspective, and nor are ES sufferers, but we are alongside Rosa Luxembourg, who Lezard/Hind quotes
as stating "The most revolutionary thing one can do is to proclaim loudly what is happening". Even if those who should
be explaining how and why this situation can be are looking the other way, or worse, actually denying it can be happening.
| The GURU of the ElectroSphere says MySpace |
|
|
| Terrifying! Obviously a Maniac Messiah. |
HELP FOR EHSsers
As few doctors and others have training or experience of dealing with the difficulties raised by being extra-sensitive to
electromagnetic forces we have set up this organisation and website. It is free to users, all our efforts are given voluntarily
and we try to make it not too sombre and doomy!
It is a job of work for which we shall need necessary resources, somewhere along the line eventually. We have no funds behind
us. We stand on our own two feet having been financed to set up by donations from those helped in the past. These are mainly
serious EHS sufferers and those scientifically anxious over the treatment/denial of this issue who want to help put the risks
and dangers 'out there.
Initially I, Rod, shall try to reply personally to all phone calls at 01353 775329 on weekday mornings (including the rather
panicky ones as happens on this issue) also e-mail requests, with subject line "puzzled". I have been doing that for over
five years.
It is difficult conveniently to serve, in large numbers, those without the ability to use electronic communications, though
we shall try to support them as they can be the most severe cases! So if someone e-mails me at es-support@hotmail.com details
on their behalf, or they write in to ESS Office, Bury Lane,
Sutton, Ely, Cambs CB6 2BB, I will do what I can by snail mail, as isolation is a dreadful and regrettable consequence of
this unrecognised condition.
The support we offer is firstly the definite reassurance you are not nutty or deluded, as some felt in their isolation of
the early days in puzzlement and confusion. Along with that, we have assembled from other’s often bitter experience
with EHS, some valued practical
suggestions and palliative measures, tips too. The shocking reality, and one quite properly difficult to accept for many,
is that there is no cure or magic bullet, or often, uniquely, even sympathy and willingness to help...
This ES condition
is an ongoing reaction to the still worsening saturated electromagnetic environment many of us inhabit, as far as some sensitive
humans*, and animals especially birds*, are concerned. No one wants to step up and acknowledge responsibility, it is easier
for all to ‘Carry on Denying’. Some one should make a black comedy film of it, because not many are laughing.
Some sensitives do definitely improve their situation thank
goodness.
*See new book by Donna Fisher, “SILENT FIELDS, The growing cancer cluster story. When Electricity Kills" at
emfacts
*See Alfonso Balmori at Starweave
ES-support is a voluntary organisation of electrosensitives and concerned scientists for helping
those extra-sensitive to the massively increased electromagnetic radiation polluting our environment.
Rod Read M.Phil (Cantab), Dip Psych Couns, Cert.Ed. aka ESGuru
Call 01353 775329 for free support on weekday mornings.
For short summary taped advice, any time night or day, call
09040 841402. 0.50p per minute, mobiles maybe more, 18+ with permission,
or email to es-support@hotmail.com
|
|
