Call the harmful technologies by their true names
One of the points I make in my lectures has to do with the naming of things by what they are or what they are not, 'False-negative names".
NOTE: Always pay close attention when something is named by what it is NOT! This occurs when the namer has something to hide and is engaged in sleight-of-mind, a mental trick, against the public.
Why would a corporation call energy it promotes "nonionizing radiation" when it could call it more accurately "radiofrequency radiation"? Why would a group describe RF absorption levels "nonthermal" when there IS heat deposition, and they could call the levels more correctly "microthermal"? Why would one call weapons "nonlethal" when they were more properly called "direct-energy" or "electromagnetic" weapons?
Here's why: because public relations firms advised the corporations promoting these technologies to do so, in order to convey SAFETY to the public mind, SAFETY that is actually HARM.
When engineers and others read "nonionizing" and other false-negative names, they don't even QUESTION whether the technologies might be harmful! When the suggested mechanism of harm is denied even in the name of a thing, engineers can't even think that there might exist another mechanism of harm.
When you see these false-negative names, always turn it around and call the harmful technologies by their true names!
Susan Clarke
NOTE: Always pay close attention when something is named by what it is NOT! This occurs when the namer has something to hide and is engaged in sleight-of-mind, a mental trick, against the public.
Why would a corporation call energy it promotes "nonionizing radiation" when it could call it more accurately "radiofrequency radiation"? Why would a group describe RF absorption levels "nonthermal" when there IS heat deposition, and they could call the levels more correctly "microthermal"? Why would one call weapons "nonlethal" when they were more properly called "direct-energy" or "electromagnetic" weapons?
Here's why: because public relations firms advised the corporations promoting these technologies to do so, in order to convey SAFETY to the public mind, SAFETY that is actually HARM.
When engineers and others read "nonionizing" and other false-negative names, they don't even QUESTION whether the technologies might be harmful! When the suggested mechanism of harm is denied even in the name of a thing, engineers can't even think that there might exist another mechanism of harm.
When you see these false-negative names, always turn it around and call the harmful technologies by their true names!
Susan Clarke
rudkla - 15. Mai, 09:21
