One question I often ponder is: How can we stand unified as a global community if we all have different names for the condition that we share in common?
A few examples off the top of my head are:
Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance Attributed to Electromagnetic Fields (IEI-EMF)
Electromagnetic Field Intolerance Syndrome
(A sizeable list only covering the English language)
Every time a new name is chosen to represent our condition it not only fractures our community and knowledge base, but it also "memory-holes" relevant "legacy" scientific studies and research.
Think in terms of a search engines... What term when searched, returns the most relevant results while eliminating the noise? The truth is most people who search for information on this condition do not use Boleyn techniques to refine their searches.
How many high schools fall under the acronym EHS?
Electrical Sensitivity, Electromagnetic sensitivity, EMF/EMR/EMI Sensitivity as search terms are much more likely to return the bulk of results from the field of Electrical Engineering with a dash of "debunking articles" (all with similar headlines that end with a question marks).
I personally don't know the answer to this but its a conversation we definitely should have if we want to improve our visibility, unify our community and knowledge base. My vote would be for one, uniquely defined word with no hyphens or acronyms. I think its also imperative that our most credentialed researchers, journalists and advocates also commit to adopting this naming convention moving forward.
When this group was created, 14 years ago, I did a search on the various names, and "Electrical Sensitivity" was the obvious choice, with many more search results than any other name. Since then, the terms "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity" and "EHS" have gained popularity, and now have surpassed those terms. But they weren't really in use back when the group was created.
EHS is good., ande ES We hope the world of respecters of truth - including the scientific community - can grapple with the gritty and unbendable reality of how things are- and not be foxed or put off or misled by labels and debates about meaning. "EHS" has lots of drawbaks too . It is not electricity I am more sensitive too, it is specifically microwaves . Also why is somebody allowed to say it is "hyper" sensitive? Since microwaves destroy all life on the planet - apart from mushrooms and viruses and bacteria -, when man-made , my extra sensitivity should not perhaps be regarded as in any way a curse or even a disability or illness. .......... In genereal though, we need the degree of accuracy and precision that suits the circumstances. Very often too much precidsion and accuracy (or the attempt to realise these where it is not a good idea to try) itself leads to problems. We need accuracy and precision when in the pursuit of chanis of causes and the way things are in the world - not to adjuciate better shades of meaning to commincate between us when we know perfectly well already what is meant. Also To try and please the predilections of something as umnintelligent as a search engine may have its own unforeseen price and costs - even if it works initially., Sylvan.
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM NoRadiationForYou [via ES] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes, this is a big issue.
EHS and ES are wildly used, while I feel that Microwave-Radiowaves sickness is better.
In Hebrew, I started to use the term "(RF-EMF-NonIonising)Radiation Injured".