Re: AW: "Radiation free zones" etc/Paranoia

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 09/16/2002 3:45:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lists@richardhess.com writes:



> I think most of us think this hypersensitivity is at least over-blown if 
>
> not bunk. BUT, from a compassionate standpoint, how do you come to 
>
> understand what these people are feeling? I'm perhaps more sensitive to 
>
> this TYPE of thing as I have a son with very bad food allergies--tallest in 
>
> his class, but food allergies nonetheless.


I think that we can all acknowledge that some people are more sensitive to certain things than others.  The question is, do we as a society expend our resources on protecting our most vulnerable, especially where we do not currently even take care of the simply and non-exotically poor and sick?


As a society, I think it is more important to try to ensure meaningful primary and secondary education programs, vaccination programs, well-baby programs, and addiction treatment programs than to expend money trying to eliminate hazards that may effect only a very, very small percentage of our population.  I know that many people are offended by such a perspective, but we do not have infinite resources.  We cannot protect everyone from everything.  We have to make reasonable decisions on how to expend what we have.


We still sell peanuts, though an allergy to them may cause death.  We do not irradicate the bee population, though the sting to many will be fatal as well.  Why not?  Because the overall benefit to society at large is, on balance, more significant than the harm to the very few at risk.  I think the same is true for those electro-magnetically sensitive folks, whether or not their sensitivity is physical or psychological.


Barbara