- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / Lounge / daily mail 3/7/15 article the women l'allergic' to electricity
Author Message
ES
# Posted: 5 Jul 2015 16:25
Reply 


Have you seen the DailyMail article about electrohypersensitivity?

She is actually sensitive to WiFi

Poor lady!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3148311/The-lady-allergic-ELECTRICITY-Woman -50-dons-protective-suit-veil-outside-claims-Wi-Fi-kill-her.html#ixzz3f1Vb7HWm

sizzle
Member
# Posted: 6 Jul 2015 05:32
Reply 


ES, I've seen another woman wear a similar outfit. Don't know if it helps any to dress up in hijab. Sure, you're supposedly blocking out EMFs, but you're also blocking out the beneficial rays of the sun. They say don't use your cell phone in an elevator because that will cause the cell phone to emit higher levels of radiation in order to function and because the radiation that gets in will be absorbed by the people in it. As for silver, how does it reduce and increase static electricity? I don't get it.

http://www.cnet.com/news/motion-powered-smart-fabric-could-charge-your-electronics/

But who knows? If we start getting increasingly sensitive due to overexposure, we might all end up wearing things like this.

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 6 Jul 2015 15:03 - Edited by: ericgeneric
Reply 


Round and round we go...

Articles like this crop up every few months, and change nothing. They're just a sop to the anti-EMR crowd, but always make sure they portray the problem in a way that allows the status quo to continue. And then the hateful abuse in the comments sections kick in.

We've had years of this nonsense.

EG.

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 6 Jul 2015 17:58
Reply 


ericgeneric,

99% of the comments on that article are nothing but cyber-bullying.

Its not just for kids.

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 6 Jul 2015 21:57 - Edited by: ericgeneric
Reply 


Exactly, Henrik. I want to know why it is acceptable to troll and cyber-bully people with some form of EHS, or how the very concept that anyone with it is fair game for hateful abuse, when today's society claims to be clamping down on "malicious communications" via websites.

I want to know why nobody kicks up a fuss about how this outrageous attitude, outdated and driven by blatant industry plants, is allowed to flourish on a regular basis.

I want to know who decides to keep running these almost identical "news stories" about (usually middle aged) women who are "allergic" to electricity/wi-fi/modern life. Is it the media companies, working to some agenda that requires them to trot out one every X months to satisfy someone? Is it the likes of ES-UK whose grasp of the media appears to be woefully naive and unable to counter the more sinister elements of the writers behind these hatchet jobs, who misquote them at every turn?

I want to know why the idea of EHS being an "allergy" is not strongly questioned and rebutted by people in the pro-EMR camps - do the media simply operate a total blackout on any coverage except this sort of repeated watered-down drivel?

Years and years go by, and the debate is kept at square one.

EG.

agnes
# Posted: 7 Jul 2015 01:12
Reply 


Sizzle.
There was quite a similar story in the UK newspapers some years ago.
The woman in the story was Sarah Dacre, she wore a beekeepers hat with a antistatic veil and antistatic clothing.

Energetic.
It seems to be in the interest of the Newspapers and for that the rest of the media to do "Sob-stories" as they seem to stupid to fathom, that they could tackle the Real Problem head on without loosing out on the adverts, as "Where Else Would The Wireless Industry get noticed but by daily whole page adverts in the newspapers"?
The newspapers get loads of advertizing money from the Wireless Industry, so Out of the window goes the scrutiny of an Environmental Pollution Factor which is Invisible.
Best regards.
Agnes

sizzle
Member
# Posted: 7 Jul 2015 05:35
Reply 


Agnes, yes that's the one.

"I want to know why it is acceptable to troll and cyber-bully people with some form of EHS, or how the very concept that anyone with it is fair game for hateful abuse, when today's society claims to be clamping down on "malicious communications" via websites."

EG, didn't you know? Bullying is actually "constructive criticism" when it involves a topic deemed "off limits." These stories are just there to elicit taunts and jeers--to get the public to dismiss real health concerns as being imaginary symptoms experienced by eccentric hypochondriacs. They could do more stories of kids who have difficulty concentrating, insomnia, migraines, etc. from WiFi exposure; but for some reason, they prefer the lone, "kooky" beekeeper lady stories. Could it be because the former causes people to take the issue of electrosensitivity seriously, while the latter tends to do the opposite?

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 7 Jul 2015 11:49
Reply 


Well, just in time then:

BBC: "New Zealand is making trolling illegal"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33409220/new-zealand-is-making-trolling-illegal

excerpts:
--------------------
"New Zealand is making cyber bullying a specific crime."

"The country's Harmful Digital Communications Bill has been approved by parliament last week and is expected to come into effect on Monday."

"It means people could be fined or sent to prison for using deliberately harmful, threatening or offensive language."

--------------------

Bring this to the UK and you can ship off 99% of Daily Mail commenter's to Sing-Sing.

Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.
 

These forums are running on online community software miniBB™ © 2001-2020