Electronic Pollution. The Hidden Dangers
From television and radio waves to mobile phone emissions and a thousand and one other sources we are being bombarded by a constant stream of electronic pollution. But is this pollution harmful? Issues surrounding the phones (transceivers) themselves, including the regulation of radio-frequency (RF) energy emissions from the phones, are discussed only indirectly
Although environmental pollution is largely thought of in terms of toxic gases and dangerous substances, we believe there is now another more insidious source of pollution which can be added to this list. Yet unlike pollution created by exhaust fumes orfactory waste, this pollution can neither be seen nor smelt. As such, its effects are hard to determine, yet logic alone should be enough to assess its potential hazards.
1. We are talking here of the threats to health posed by the burgeoning number of radio signals and electronic emissions, particularly from the incredible rise in mobile phone usage. The reality is that the atmosphere around us is swamped by hundreds of thousands of these emissions. We are being bombarded by them every moment of our lives, and it seems the height of naivety to imagine this electronic chatter is having no effect on us.
2. A look at the wide range of such emissions gives a sobering insight into the problems we are creating. As well as millions of new mobile phone subscribers, the air is also saturated with radio, television, and satellite broadcasts. The number of stations and channels is growing by the day. Then add to this signals from TV remote controls, microwave ovens, as well as computer games, faxes, photo copiers, scanners, and printers, and you have an environment that is already overloaded with electronic emissions.
3. The bewildering thing is there are no plans to curb this pollution; just a chillingly complacent attitude that what cannot be seen cannot do damage. This, it must be recalled, was the attitude to nuclear energy. Initially it was looked upon as clean and safe, and when voices of protest were raised, these were dismissed as extremist. Yet the trouble with electronic pollution is that so far, apart from us, no one has yet appreciated the future hazards. Even worse is that by the time this problem is identified it will be difficult if not impossible to tackle.
4. We believe the effect of electronic pollution will be apparent in a large number of ways. Predominantly these will be manifested in a growing list of psychological complaints including confusion, panic, paranoia, strong mood swings and violent and aggressive behaviour. Complaints of this nature have already seen a marked rise in incidence, and we believe that in the coming years this trend will escalate quite dramatically. Electronic pollution may also cause benign and malignant tumours as well as a wide number of physiological complaints that will be hard to account for.
5. The fact is that this is a situation we should have never been faced with. Proper research should have eliminated the possibility of harmful electronic effects. But then with so much money involved, it was always inevitable that such concerns would be carelessly brushed aside.
|
a. Swamped by emissions
b. Carelessly ignored
c. Growing problem
d. Inevitable symptoms
e. Future hazards
|
b).
Genetic Engineering
When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in1859, the Bishop of Worcester’s wife was most distressed. “Let us hope it is not true”, she remarked. “But if it is, let us pray that it does not become generally known!”
Supposing that we had been alive a hundred years ago, would we have been repelled by the suggestion that humans and apes may have had a common ancestor? And had our ancestors been born in modern times, would they have been similarly repelled by the thought of ‘designer’ babies? I suspect that the answer to both questions would be in the affirmative!
I have tried (1) ______ rationalise my own response (2) _______ genetic engineering. I personally feel that (3) _______we were supposed to be perfect, we would have (4) _______ designed that way. Surely experimenting with genes is (5) _______ invasion of the human self? On the (6) _______ hand, can we honestly say that the human self is to (7) _______ found in our genes?
From the medical point (8) _______ view, genetic engineering has opened up exciting possibilities for the treatment (9) _______ genetically related disorders. However, the real problem (10) _______ this new science is that it threatens to undermine the categories through (11) _______ we understand our world: our moral and social codes.
(12) _______ the Bishop of Worcester’s wife, the anti-science lobby wishes to shut out the facts that might upset its moral universe.
Yet, if morality had originally been based (13) _______ reason, our attitudes might (14) _______ been justifiable. Unfortunately, morality has (15) _______ origin in prejudice, ritual and habit, and, (16) _______ a result, the possibilities afforded by scientific advance are increasingly constrained.
|
Questions:
1. Can there be any purpose in a war? What war can be justified? Think of some examples from the history of Russia or other countries to prove your point of view.
2. How does each type of war characterise the population of the countries fighting in the war?
3. Is it possible to live without wars? What should people change in their behaviour to reach this ‘warless’ state? Is such a state possible in the modern word? Why?
4. What do you think about military operations in different countries at the moment? Pick up a couple of cases and analyse them.
|
“The Thin Red Line” and a “Balaklava Hat”