Posted by
evie15422 on
URL: https://www.es-forum.com/Garth-I-have-more-now-tp1541394p1541447.html
Hi Garth,
I think you have misunderstood something somewhere. We have not embraced any representation of the term EMF, either way. I do not know enough technically to say whether Karen is correct or not in saying that everything has an EMF. That to untechnical me is meaningless, as it does not address my health issues. Nor do I take your word that Karen is wrong! I don't know! And I cannot see why you say others here are supporting this idea of Karen's (that everything emits EMFs) as I have seen no evidence of this and have not done so myself. What I HAVE said is (and I stand by this, btw) I react to various things--they create toxins or toxic reactions--which in turn cause ES symptoms as you all here know them. I have not ascribed these things as emitting EMFs. I ascribe these things as causing toxins. The toxins then cause me to react to EMFs. I see others like Snoshoe and Andrew saying the same thing. To be honest, I am not even sure that Karen ascribed everything as
emitting EMFs! But you say here that this was taken by others here as fact and reiterated numerous times. Maybe I missed something, but I did not reiterate this and I didn't see Andrew or Snoshoe or anyone else saying this, personally.
Diane
Garth Hitchens <
[hidden email]> wrote:
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.
SPONSORED LINKS
Health and wellness Health wellness product Health and wellness program Health promotion and wellness Health and wellness promotion Business health wellness
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "eSens" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[hidden email]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]