There’s a woman in West Sussex who has just spent £5000 on anti-radiation paint applied to the outside of her house. She claims to suffer from electrosensitivity, and that the merest hint of wi-fi around her gives her headaches. She’s had her windows wi-fi proofed too. She claims to feel ill while shopping, on the bus, and while in her garden. Her family and friends are banned from taking mobile phones into the house, but I doubt this is much of a problem, since I’d wager somebody this batty doesn’t have many friends clamouring to be allowed into her house.
It’s worth pointing out that the woman has not been clinically diagnosed with electrosensitivity. There’s a lot of medical scepticism about the very existence of the condition, and even countries where there’s some acceptance of it, such as Canada and Sweden, there’s a lot of wrangling going on.
This eccentric, and I suspect misguided, woman goes further. ‘I don’t touch the internet or email; it’s not safe.’ Oh please, come on. Presumably she doesn’t have mains electricity, nor a microwave, nor a television, nor a radio., nor a telephone landline, nor fluorescent lighting of any kind. If she’s still living in the era of oil lamps and open fires, no wonder she doesn’t get visitors.
Even assuming she really does suffer from wi-fi sickness, I find it highly unlikely that 5000 quid’s worth of paint will make a scrap of difference, which suggests to me some chancer said ‘Here’s another sucker,’ rubbed his hands in glee, and got the ladders set up. His chancer mate sold the unsuspecting dupe a radiation meter. I sometimes have a sneaky admiration for conmen, despite the huge damage they can inflict. Five gees is a relatively small sum. Government security agencies spend a heck of a lot more than that, but at least they know their measures actually work.
I may sound cynical here, and I am. It’s not that long ago we had another ‘I’m allergic to the modern world’ story, with some hapless idiot claiming everything made them ill. Invariably, included in the list was plastics. Oddly enough, the ‘victim’ had to live in a plastic bubble to exclude the outside world. Also, when things got really tough, they needed oxygen. Again, oddly, this was administered through intranasal tubes made of, guess what? You got it.
While I’m banging on, let me debunk the whole idea that honey is somehow healthier than other sources of sugar, in particular sucrose. Funnily enough, honey is sweet because it contains fructose and glucose, which just happen to be the metabolic breakdown products of sucrose, which is allegedly more addictive than tobacco. That claim is such arrant nonsense it doesn’t merit a comment, because if you really believe that obvious falsehood nothing I say will convince you otherwise. I’m not saying that sugary diets are healthy, not at all, but you won’t make it healthier by using honey as a sweetening agent. Paradoxically, the UK health quango NICE is recommending schools bring in toothbrushing lessons, because of increasingly sugary diets. How can that be, if people are turning to honey? Also, New Zealand Manuka honey can set you back 27 quid for 370g.
As for the much vaunted antibacterial properties of honey, while it’s true that it has been used successfully in the treatment of some abscesses, many natural honeys are a rich source of Staphylococcus aureus.
See what I mean about one born every minute?