George Vor
When public broadcasters become the mouthpiece of the industry
Unfortunately, one has to realize again and again that public media reports in the spirit of the industry, especially when it comes to the topic of electrosensitivity and problems caused by electrosmog.
The Bavarian Broadcasting Corporation reported on March 15.03.2024, 6 at 00:XNUMX a.m. in the Radio World, “Faktenfuchs” series, “Electromagnetic fields do not trigger “electrosensitivity”
… Supposedly sick from electromagnetic fields | But there is no evidence of a connection Protective clothing in everyday life is not necessary | But there is a suspicion of a trigger – the “nocebo” effect…
Once again it is claimed that there is no evidence of any damage to health below the limit values. Those affected only imagine the connection between their complaints, which are at least recognized as real and worthy of treatment, and the electromagnetic fields - the “nocebo” effect...
“…Scientifically speaking, there is currently no evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between the fields and the reported complaints…”
What kind of science is this?
A physicist (Alexander Leymann) from the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) is given as a reference - There is also no mention of the fact that the "experts" of the BfS only represent the thermal dogma that there would only be damage caused by excessive heating due to electromagnetic radiation Radiation, and the current limit values would protect against that. – By the way, the German limit values are by far the highest in the world…
– And just taking warming into account contradicts any scientifically systematic approach. This is a bit like measuring radioactivity with just a thermometer – pure amateurism…
Unfortunately, this federal office has repeatedly made itself the mouthpiece of the industry; as the name suggests, the radiation is protected, but not the population. So the BfS unfortunately cannot be recognized as a credible source...
The journalists didn't even ask doctors or biologists - how does something like this reconcile with thorough research?
In terms of scientific evidence, only provocation studies are listed, which unfortunately only have limited significance here, as most problems arise from long-term exposure. What is typical here is that the test subjects are repeatedly irradiated for a short time without their knowledge and then they are asked to say whether they feel something or not.
At least you can give yourself a “scientific appearance” in order to suggest credibility and seriousness to the average citizen.
Other studies that examined longer-term effects, such as the Naila study, the Reflex study, the NTP animal study or the Ramazzini study, to name just a few, were studiously ignored.
What about all the animal studies, like... the cattle studies from 2000/2001? It can hardly be assumed that the animals are just imagining this and that they become ill just by looking at the transmitters and that deformities in newborns only occur due to psychosis.
Or the examinations by Dr. Krout with her llamas? - The animals' pulse increases and their heart rhythm changes - just like with people, as soon as they come into range of a transmitter... - Are they just imagining it?
Or why is electrical sensitivity recognized as an environmental disability and a functional impairment in Sweden and those affected can count on help and support from the public sector? – Only in Germany are these people left alone with their problems, not because of big words about inclusion, but instead they are met with ignorance and social coldness – poor Germany…
Then there is gossip about the economic interest of providers of (allegedly unnecessary) radiation protection clothing and other shielding measures, but the economic interest of tech companies and mobile phone providers in the further expansion of mobile phone technology is kept quiet...
Instead, the industry's mantra is uncritically propagated:
“…Humans cannot perceive magnetic or electromagnetic fields in strengths typical of everyday life. There is no evidence of increased sensitivity called “electrosensitivity” or “electrohypersensitivity”…”
Conclusion
It is very convenient to simply dismiss the problems of those affected as “psychological”; then you can carry on as before, as long as the ruble keeps rolling. Whether more and more people are being harmed is negated - for a public broadcaster that lives off people's (compulsory) fees, this is actually an embarrassment, since such stations are obliged to provide neutral reporting in return according to the Broadcasting Act!
In any case, discriminating against those affected is definitely the wrong approach! – Where does the word “lying press” come from?
A clean journalistic work looks different - Did the author want to express his personal opinion here? Does the broadcaster want to represent the interests of its advertising customers? – In any case, this is not neutral and factual reporting!
Interestingly, on April 02.04.2024nd, XNUMX there was an article and a panel discussion about fake news on BR alpha. A viewer called for drastic penalties for spreading false news...
But who decides what is fact and what is fake? What is tolerated and what is punished?
Strictly speaking, posts like these should be punished as targeted false reports in the economic interest of the industry.
.
Article on option.news
Discrimination against EHS sufferers on public TV
Sweden is showing the U-turn in education
The arrogance of power as breeding ground for conspiracy theories
Who or what do the limits for mobile phone radiation protect?
.
Provided by:
Vocal receiver: Hartono on Pixabay
This post was created by the Option Community. Join in and post your message!
