Came across an article the other day about PG&E;'s plans for construction of high-voltage power transmission lines through San Mateo county. The focus of the article was the growing data suggesting a connection between living in close proximity to such lines and various serious diseases. What really struck me in this article, though (and by "struck", I mean in the pissed off kind of sense) was the language used by a representative of the California Public Utilities Commission: "... EMF exposure may increase the risk of certain health effects".
Now, by "health effects", am I to suppose that he really means "illhealth effects" and is just too chickenshit to tell it the way it is, or is he actually trying to suggest that the "effects" in question - such as childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig's Disease, and miscarriages - may be considered either positive or negative? Just depends on your perspective, eh? Might he argue that it is, in fact, technically correct to use the neutral term "effect" in lieu of the more loaded term "negative effect"? Then, according to this dementeed kind of spinfuck language, one might consider being layed off, unemployed, or destitute as "wealth effects".
Heck, when you call it a "wealth effect", it almost sounds desirable. Like you might just wanna go get you some of them "wealth effects". And why not start referring to depression under the umbrella term "happiness effect"? As in: "Exposure to traumatic and stressful events while performing military duty in Iraq may increase the risk of certain happiness effects". One could say that this chap's contortion of the English language got me rather peeved. I am left to wonder just who's pocket he's in...