Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 Electro-Sensitivity and RightsI just came across a fascinating article:The woman who needs a veil of protection from modern lifeby VICTORIA MOOREDaily MailApril 27, 2007This poor woman gets allergic reactions to microwaves. From what I am able to determine, she is a mix of real and psychosomatic symptoms. Obviously this problem represents an array of problems, not just one. On a personal level, when I was younger, I used to break out in a cold sweat at traffic lights. One day this happened when a person used a dog whistle near me and after mentioning the same reaction at traffic lights, he informed me that they emit a high frequency beyond human hearing. I don't know if they still do. I have not had this reaction in years. (Maybe the alcoholism and drug addiction I lived through did some good after all! )Here is an organization (and the UK branch) that deals with this problem.Electrosensitivity.orgElectroSensitivity-UKMany interesting links are provided on these sites.Apparently the Daily Mail is reporting on this as a minor issue. Below is an article dated February 20, 2007.Allergic to electricityAll this leads to a highly interesting question of clashing rights (property and life). What will happen if it is discovered that cell phones, for instance, cause real health damage to a small number of people without them using the phones? The Objectivist position has been that the airwaves, most specifically frequency ranges, is property just like anything else. Yet, like smoke in the air, since airwave frequencies cannot be isolated from entering the body without special filters, where does one draw the line?Talk about a borderline case!At this point in time, I am of two minds. I find the prospect of eliminating an enormous good like airwave technology simply a horror. And I also don't think human sacrifice—especially the few for the many—can ever be justified for volitional acts. One only does that without it being evil in outright emergencies where no alternatives are present.I want them both.This needs a lot of thought because, despite the present small size of the problem, I see it as an issue that will impact mankind far more than fundamentalist environmentalism ever will. (Fundamentalist environmentalism will eventually go away after the science becomes simplified enough for laypeople to easily grasp.) Here, with the growing body of studies, cause and effect will be very hard to ignore and that will be used as a banner for those against modern technology.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now