Posted by Garth Hitchens on
URL: https://www.es-forum.com/Garth-I-have-more-now-tp1541394p1541428.html

Yes, I know, I said I wouldn't write any more about this, but my name
keeps appearing in the subject line, and it >IS< an important topic,
and Marc solicited opinions on this issue, and there is
misrepresentation of what I said, again...

Andrew wrote...
> Regardless of how the person is injured, if the person has pain around
> EMF that to me qualifies as ES.
> ...
> Or, does this group want to be exclusively oriented towards those that
> believe their causative factor for their ES be only from electronic
> wiring and radio/microwave towers? We need a name change then from
> esens to "computers, power lines, cell phones, etc. related
> injuries."

I personally tried to make it very clear that I considered various
causes (including chemical causes) for ES are acknowledged and are
good for discussion. You might go back and re-read the posts.

At issue was the claim that "EMF is radiated by chemicals" or "EMF is
radiated by carbon". I made the point, which I stand by, that EMF
is not inherently emitted by chemicals nor by carbon*, and thus
unless there are true electromagnetic fields around we are talking
about chemical sensitivity, or some other kind of sensitivity, but
not electromagnetic sensitivity.

I do think people should offer their experience and knowledge, but I
was concerned that something is being offered as 'scientific fact'
from a reliable, knowledgeable source that is in fact just plain
wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, because we are talking about
things represented as scientific fact, and well-defined scientific
terms like "radiation of electromagnetic fields".

This is IMPORTANT, because the error was taken by others on the list
as "fact" and then repeated numerous times. This leads to people
with ES (but not CS) making decisions that based on misinformation
(such as avoiding halogen bulbs themselves, thinking they produce
high EMF, rather than avoiding fixtures with transformers, which >DO<
produce high EMF).

Beau did a great job of clarifying the scientific issues in his
(lengthy and very technically accurate) post earlier today. I agree
with what Beau said 100%, by the way. Thanks Beau.

Just to be super clear, I also have NO PROBLEM with people who
believe that there are chemical, spiritual or other causes for ES, or
who believe that they have some unique "mysterious energy" that
interrelates with electrical devices (or chemicals) in unusual ways.
I personally believe that some of my ES symptoms became much more
acute after some intense spiritual experiences I had last summer. I
also don't claim to be able to explain, define or quantify any of
that. I'm surprisingly open-minded about that.

But the fact that we have aspects of ES which we can't explain,
doesn't in my mind, justify our declaring as "scientific fact" things
which are clearly contrary any current scientific theory or
understanding. Or, if we do, I think we should expect to be
challenged on it.

It's one thing to say "I get these symptoms when exposed to this
substance, and they seem like ES symptoms, so maybe there's a
commonality to discuss". It's another to say "this substance
radiates an electromagnetic field, so all ES people should avoid
it". The first is clearly helpful, the second one is misinformation.

Ok, now I really will stay quiet on this (unless someone uses my name
in the subject line again again!)

Garth

Footnote: *except for blackbody radiation, which Beau described, and
which all substances emit equally assuming equal temperatures.