Letters & E-mails
A Biological Problem
Christopher Ketcham’s recent cover story makes a compelling case that electro-hypersensitivity exists (“Warning: High Frequency,” Winter 2012). Too many people report identical symptoms from low-level exposures that are not supposed to be happening according to standard physics models. But biology is far more complex than simplistic physics models. Plus, any safety standards in place at regulatory agencies are for high-intensity, short-term acute exposures, not the low-level chronic ones common today. And no one takes into consideration the cumulative effects from the myriad wireless products used today. And as with us, so with other species. Some species are fantastically sensitive to low-level EMFs. Environmentalists, take note – there is a wealth of information on adverse effects to wildlife. Please consider some of it before continuing to microchip pets, which can develop deadly sarcomas around the chips.
Tell us what you think:
Complete a reader’s survey
Letters to the Editor:
B. Blake Levitt
Author, Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide,
Citizens Speaking Out
The story about the 2009 fish kill at Dunkard creek is new to many of us here in southeastern Pennsylvania (“What Killed Dunkard Creek,” Winter 2012).
More and more people in Pennsylvania are discovering the facts about the natural gas industry that is drilling in the Marcellus Shale. Although York is not in shale country, we are well aware that we are downstream of the drilling. Many people here are concerned that Pennsylvania allowed the industry to rush in without appropriate preparation. Many new groups are forming to collaborate on education events and actions to demand a moratorium on drilling while more impact studies are done. As awakened citizens, we do have a voice and we will be heard!
Barbara Sheffer Rooney
Make Friends, Not Foes
I sympathize with Kathleen Dean Moore and Michael P. Nelson’s idea that we should make a moral case for protecting the environment (“It’s Wrong to Wreck the World,” Winter 2012). But I believe that this one-sided approach is counterproductive. Why? Because American laws and environmentalist campaigns pit environmental values against economic interest.
Business provides our food, livelihoods, housing and transportation, and will be central to addressing global climate change. Will vilifying economic motives gain advocates here? Not likely. Now consider Germany and Sweden. Both nations are international environmental leaders and also have robust industrial sectors that play cooperative and essential roles in environmental progress. How is this possible? Because both nations integrate environmental and economic considerations. Prosperity makes investment in green development practical. As long as the environmental movement in the US is hostile to the concerns of industry, we will continue to consume our energies in battle.
Frank T. Manheim
Our Winter cover story, Warning: High Frequency, misidentified the source of a paper on electromagnetic effects published by Henry Lai and B. Blake Levitt. It appeared in 2010 in Environmental Reviews, a peer-reviewed publication of the National Research Council Press.