Anyone consider whether LED cellphones are worse?
Locked
 
|
Maybe the fluorescense emitted from cellphone LED panels may make those
cellphones way more harmful than the older cellphones? Because LIGHT itself is radiation. While I myself am not a cellphone user, yet I *do* find the LED on my digital camera VERY irritating. P.S. Take this as a rhetorical post - over & out ;-) Minni
Electrostatically Yours,
Minni, Lysine4flu blog |
Re: Anyone consider whether LED cellphones are worse?
Administrator
|
minnimall wrote:
> Maybe the fluorescense emitted from cellphone LED panels may make those > cellphones way more harmful than the older cellphones? Because LIGHT > itself is radiation. I suspect that if you can still find a cellphone with a monochrome display, that this wouldn't be as bad as the more-common color displays. > While I myself am not a cellphone user, yet I *do* find the LED on my > digital camera VERY irritating. I didn't have any problem with the LCD screen on my old Canon A40 digital camera, but then when I got my Fuji F10 the (larger) screen caused me all sorts of problems. However, I then placed the camera on a large Springlife polarizer for a few days, and also on top of a Quantum Pro for a few days, and this permanently eliminated the problems I was having with this camera. Either that or I instantly got used to it... :-) Marc |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Minni
Hi all,
I'm curious if anyone here has had any luck with the use of Bentonite clay and reducing ES symptoms? I've taken some types of clay in the past, and with one brand I've had no apparent reaction (Arise&Shine), another I felt agitated (Terramin), and a third brand I'm just trying out today (Sonne's), so it's too soon to tell... Bentonite is supposed to be good for removing radiation and heavy metals from the body, and can be used internally or in baths. Marc |
Re: Anyone consider whether LED cellphones are worse?
|
In reply to this post by Minni
Hi Minni,
I would think the emissions from the device to be as likely a source of problems. Do you have a Electromagnetic Radiation Meter, like the Zap Checker? <a href="http://www.lessemf.com/rf.html#445"> It is much more sensitive than the Trifield meter. Almost as sensitive as I am. Just like using a Gauss meter to measure magnetic fields, it is equally revealing to measure the wireless range of emissions. It also allows you to compare different models and manufacturers, as each device IS different. Stewart minnimall wrote: > Maybe the fluorescense emitted from cellphone LED panels may make those > cellphones way more harmful than the older cellphones? Because LIGHT > itself is radiation. > > While I myself am not a cellphone user, yet I *do* find the LED on my > digital camera VERY irritating. > > P.S. Take this as a rhetorical post - over & out ;-) > > Minni > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
There is a yahoo group called eytonsearth that is about clays. I just started using clays again. I stopped when I heard how much aluminum was in them (except for the LL Clays which can't be used internally). I haven't beenusing them long enough yet to be able to say if they do anything for the electrosensitivity.
----- Original Message ----- From: Marc Martin To: [hidden email] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:36 PM Subject: [eSens] Bentonite, anyone? Hi all, I'm curious if anyone here has had any luck with the use of Bentonite clay and reducing ES symptoms? I've taken some types of clay in the past, and with one brand I've had no apparent reaction (Arise&Shine), another I felt agitated (Terramin), and a third brand I'm just trying out today (Sonne's), so it's too soon to tell... Bentonite is supposed to be good for removing radiation and heavy metals from the body, and can be used internally or in baths. Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
Well Marc... if you're interested in plowing thru it, below is the URL
to a very detailed testimonial I had posted long ago on the Eyton's Earth yahoo group. I should emphasize that the most effective sequence/strategy is to FIRST dip in Dead Sea salt water awhile FOLLOWED BY immersion in Dead Sea mud pool at least 10 min. or more WITH SUN BEATING DOWN DURING WARM MONTHS OF JUNE & JULY For all I know, maybe a similar effect can be obtained by immersing in Bokek bath salts at the same time that an InfraRed heater is focused on the tub... Then, there are those who are big fans of PCarx & Salt/C & Pycnogenol. I may try PCarx next - and may also try Horphag Pycnogenol. If I get around to it. http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/eytonsearth/message/882 Regards, Minni --- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@...> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm curious if anyone here has had any luck with the use > of Bentonite clay and reducing ES symptoms? I've taken > some types of clay in the past, and with one brand I've > had no apparent reaction (Arise&Shine), another I felt > agitated (Terramin), and a third brand I'm just trying > out today (Sonne's), so it's too soon to tell... > > Bentonite is supposed to be good for removing radiation > and heavy metals from the body, and can be used > internally or in baths. > > Marc >
Electrostatically Yours,
Minni, Lysine4flu blog |
|
Administrator
|
> Then, there are those who are big fans of PCarx & Salt/C &
> Pycnogenol. I may try PCarx next Do you mean PCA-Rx? I have a bottle of that, and found the side effects to be worse than NDF (both of these are heavy metal chelation supplements). PCA-Rx advertises itself as not having side effects, but I found that not to be not true in my case. Marc |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stewart A.
All I can say is that I have no doubt many people are like me and the
engineer in the PDF book Black On White (page 114 by Granlund-Lind). That engineer's job was to check out fields via Holaday meter. But (as is the case with so many others who debunked science when disproven by REAL-LIFE) he discovered the scientific instruments to be white elephants. Why? Because he was much more able to tolerate a smelting plant EVEN THOUGH the smelting plant registered high on his professional meter, yet he was MUCH LESS able to tolerate office environments which registered negligible on his meter. So - what do offices have that smelting plants don't? Fluoresent lights & fluoresent monitors. That's what! Thus my point - that FLUORESCENT LEDs on cellphones, i.m.h.o are what *exacerbate* cellphone dangers multifold. I'm not concerned because I don't use cellphones. Just consider me similar to the boy in the Emperor's New Clothes. Pointing out something which may not have occured to anyone. I thought it appropriate to warn people here, since that's what the group is about. End of story. --- In [hidden email], "S. Andreason" <sandreas41@...> wrote: > > Hi Minni, > > I would think the emissions from the device to be as likely a source of > problems. Do you have a Electromagnetic Radiation Meter, like the Zap > Checker? <a href="http://www.lessemf.com/rf.html#445"> It is much more > sensitive than the Trifield meter. Almost as sensitive as I am. > > Just like using a Gauss meter to measure magnetic fields, it is equally > revealing to measure the wireless range of emissions. > It also allows you to compare different models and manufacturers, as > each device IS different. > Stewart > > minnimall wrote: > > Maybe the fluorescense emitted from cellphone LED panels may make those > > cellphones way more harmful than the older cellphones? Because LIGHT > > itself is radiation. > > > > While I myself am not a cellphone user, yet I *do* find the LED on my > > digital camera VERY irritating. > > > > P.S. Take this as a rhetorical post - over & out ;-) > > > > Minni > > >
Electrostatically Yours,
Minni, Lysine4flu blog |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
Yes, that's what I meant PCA-Rx.
I guess I'd never know till I'd try it. I'm allergic to sulphur & acids, so if this would have anything like that it it, who knows... Minni --- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@...> wrote: > > > Then, there are those who are big fans of PCarx & Salt/C & > > Pycnogenol. I may try PCarx next > > Do you mean PCA-Rx? I have a bottle of that, and found > the side effects to be worse than NDF (both of these > are heavy metal chelation supplements). PCA-Rx advertises > itself as not having side effects, but I found that not > to be not true in my case. > > Marc >
Electrostatically Yours,
Minni, Lysine4flu blog |
|
|
In reply to this post by Minni
Hello,
materials like those may have an effect, but hey are only shortlived. Crystals like ozolite and benzolite do work, but only for a short time. Then they have sucked up the negative energy and start radiating that negeative energy. So beware. Don't fool yourself. Greetings, Charles Claessens member Verband Baubiologie www.milieuziektes.nl www.milieuziektes.be www.hetbitje.nl checked by Norton Antivirus ----- Original Message ----- From: "minnimall" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 06:55 Subject: [eSens] Re: Bentonite, anyone? > Well Marc... if you're interested in plowing thru it, below is the URL > to a very detailed testimonial I had posted long ago on the Eyton's > Earth yahoo group. > > I should emphasize that the most effective sequence/strategy is to > FIRST dip in Dead Sea salt water awhile > FOLLOWED BY immersion in Dead Sea mud pool at least 10 min. or more > WITH SUN BEATING DOWN > DURING WARM MONTHS OF JUNE & JULY > > For all I know, maybe a similar effect can be obtained by immersing in > Bokek bath salts at the same time that an InfraRed heater is focused on > the tub... Then, there are those who are big fans of PCarx & Salt/C & > Pycnogenol. I may try PCarx next - and may also try Horphag Pycnogenol. > If I get around to it. > > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/eytonsearth/message/882 > > Regards, > Minni > > > --- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@...> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I'm curious if anyone here has had any luck with the use >> of Bentonite clay and reducing ES symptoms? I've taken >> some types of clay in the past, and with one brand I've >> had no apparent reaction (Arise&Shine), another I felt >> agitated (Terramin), and a third brand I'm just trying >> out today (Sonne's), so it's too soon to tell... >> >> Bentonite is supposed to be good for removing radiation >> and heavy metals from the body, and can be used >> internally or in baths. >> >> Marc >> > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Minni
Measuring is a profession in itsself.
Not many people do know for instance that a good spectrumanalyser is a source for a lot of radiation. Greetings, Charles Claessens member Verband Baubiologie www.milieuziektes.nl www.milieuziektes.be www.hetbitje.nl checked by Norton Antivirus ----- Original Message ----- From: "minnimall" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 10:00 Subject: [eSens] Re: Anyone consider whether LED cellphones are worse? > All I can say is that I have no doubt many people are like me and the > engineer in the PDF book Black On White (page 114 by Granlund-Lind). > > That engineer's job was to check out fields via Holaday meter. But > (as is the case with so many others who debunked science when > disproven by REAL-LIFE) he discovered the scientific instruments to > be white elephants. Why? > Because he was much more able to tolerate a smelting plant EVEN > THOUGH the smelting plant registered high on his professional meter, > yet he was MUCH LESS able to tolerate office environments which > registered negligible on his meter. > > So - what do offices have that smelting plants don't? > Fluoresent lights & fluoresent monitors. > That's what! > > Thus my point - that FLUORESCENT LEDs on cellphones, i.m.h.o are what > *exacerbate* cellphone dangers multifold. > > I'm not concerned because I don't use cellphones. > Just consider me similar to the boy in the Emperor's New Clothes. > Pointing out something which may not have occured to anyone. > I thought it appropriate to warn people here, since that's what the > group is about. > End of story. > > > --- In [hidden email], "S. Andreason" <sandreas41@...> wrote: >> >> Hi Minni, >> >> I would think the emissions from the device to be as likely a > source of >> problems. Do you have a Electromagnetic Radiation Meter, like the > Zap >> Checker? <a href="http://www.lessemf.com/rf.html#445"> It is much > more >> sensitive than the Trifield meter. Almost as sensitive as I am. >> >> Just like using a Gauss meter to measure magnetic fields, it is > equally >> revealing to measure the wireless range of emissions. >> It also allows you to compare different models and manufacturers, > as >> each device IS different. >> Stewart >> >> minnimall wrote: >> > Maybe the fluorescense emitted from cellphone LED panels may make > those >> > cellphones way more harmful than the older cellphones? Because > LIGHT >> > itself is radiation. >> > >> > While I myself am not a cellphone user, yet I *do* find the LED > on my >> > digital camera VERY irritating. >> > >> > P.S. Take this as a rhetorical post - over & out ;-) >> > >> > Minni >> > >> > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > |
Re: Anyone consider whether LED cellphones are worse?
|
|
re: cellphones Have tried a meter at one time to try to locate cellphones that are "on" & when ordered a meter the lessemf.com sent me a meter that p/u "all " electrical signals & had asked the lessemf. is there a meter that can pickup cellphone dectection-that a cellphone is "on" , & when it is not in use? the " signal" reading of the cellphone being turned on, is what i'm wondering if there is a Meter for? does anyone know, since someone like myself supersensitive to anyone cellphone that is "on" (ringer maybe off as found in training class)still have a reaction to & seems like technology should have something that would detect this-thanks. Sheila --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by charles-4
How is this relevant to what the engineer said on the PDF book?
I suggest you attempt to contact him directly - via feb.se - if you seek the absolute truth. Because as I've said, there's theory, and then there's real-life experience which debunks science. Some people choose to remain die-hard scientists - it's their choice. Minni --- In [hidden email], "charles" <charles@...> wrote: > > Measuring is a profession in itsself. > > Not many people do know for instance that a good spectrumanalyser is a > source for a lot of radiation. > > Greetings, > Charles Claessens > member Verband Baubiologie > www.milieuziektes.nl > www.milieuziektes.be > www.hetbitje.nl > checked by Norton Antivirus > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "minnimall" <minnimall@...> > To: <[hidden email]> > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 10:00 > Subject: [eSens] Re: Anyone consider whether LED cellphones are > > > > All I can say is that I have no doubt many people are like me and the > > engineer in the PDF book Black On White (page 114 by Granlund- Lind). > > > > That engineer's job was to check out fields via Holaday meter. But > > (as is the case with so many others who debunked science when > > disproven by REAL-LIFE) he discovered the scientific instruments to > > be white elephants. Why? > > Because he was much more able to tolerate a smelting plant EVEN > > THOUGH the smelting plant registered high on his professional meter, > > yet he was MUCH LESS able to tolerate office environments which > > registered negligible on his meter. > > > > So - what do offices have that smelting plants don't? > > Fluoresent lights & fluoresent monitors. > > That's what! > > > > Thus my point - that FLUORESCENT LEDs on cellphones, i.m.h.o are what > > *exacerbate* cellphone dangers multifold. > > > > I'm not concerned because I don't use cellphones. > > Just consider me similar to the boy in the Emperor's New Clothes. > > Pointing out something which may not have occured to anyone. > > I thought it appropriate to warn people here, since that's what the > > group is about. > > End of story. > > > > > > --- In [hidden email], "S. Andreason" <sandreas41@> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Minni, > >> > >> I would think the emissions from the device to be as likely a > > source of > >> problems. Do you have a Electromagnetic Radiation Meter, like the > > Zap > >> Checker? <a href="http://www.lessemf.com/rf.html#445"> It is > > more > >> sensitive than the Trifield meter. Almost as sensitive as I am. > >> > >> Just like using a Gauss meter to measure magnetic fields, it is > > equally > >> revealing to measure the wireless range of emissions. > >> It also allows you to compare different models and manufacturers, > > as > >> each device IS different. > >> Stewart > >> > >> minnimall wrote: > >> > Maybe the fluorescense emitted from cellphone LED panels may > > those > >> > cellphones way more harmful than the older cellphones? Because > > LIGHT > >> > itself is radiation. > >> > > >> > While I myself am not a cellphone user, yet I *do* find the LED > > on my > >> > digital camera VERY irritating. > >> > > >> > P.S. Take this as a rhetorical post - over & out ;-) > >> > > >> > Minni > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Electrostatically Yours,
Minni, Lysine4flu blog |
|
|
Plants are fine antennas.
On: http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Pagina109.html I have placed the receiving sounds of some trees. So it is quite normal (?) that plants receive signals, although it may kill them. Many years ago a german farmer had a tree dying. He placed a big screw in it, connected a big wire to it, and connected the wire to an earth grounding rod farther away. The dying tree recovered completely. The roots became healthy and the humus around the tree wai in order again. Greetings, Charles Claessens member Verband Baubiologie www.milieuziektes.nl www.milieuziektes.be www.hetbitje.nl checked by Norton Antivirus ----- Original Message ----- From: "minnimall" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 16:58 Subject: [eSens] Re: Anyone consider whether LED cellphones are worse? > How is this relevant to what the engineer said on the PDF book? > > I suggest you attempt to contact him directly - via feb.se - if you > seek the absolute truth. > > Because as I've said, there's theory, and then there's real-life > experience which debunks science. > > Some people choose to remain die-hard scientists - it's their choice. > > Minni > > > --- In [hidden email], "charles" <charles@...> wrote: >> >> Measuring is a profession in itsself. >> >> Not many people do know for instance that a good spectrumanalyser > is a >> source for a lot of radiation. >> >> Greetings, >> Charles Claessens >> member Verband Baubiologie >> www.milieuziektes.nl >> www.milieuziektes.be >> www.hetbitje.nl >> checked by Norton Antivirus >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "minnimall" <minnimall@...> >> To: <[hidden email]> >> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 10:00 >> Subject: [eSens] Re: Anyone consider whether LED cellphones are > worse? >> >> >> > All I can say is that I have no doubt many people are like me and > the >> > engineer in the PDF book Black On White (page 114 by Granlund- > Lind). >> > >> > That engineer's job was to check out fields via Holaday meter. But >> > (as is the case with so many others who debunked science when >> > disproven by REAL-LIFE) he discovered the scientific instruments > to >> > be white elephants. Why? >> > Because he was much more able to tolerate a smelting plant EVEN >> > THOUGH the smelting plant registered high on his professional > meter, >> > yet he was MUCH LESS able to tolerate office environments which >> > registered negligible on his meter. >> > >> > So - what do offices have that smelting plants don't? >> > Fluoresent lights & fluoresent monitors. >> > That's what! >> > >> > Thus my point - that FLUORESCENT LEDs on cellphones, i.m.h.o are > what >> > *exacerbate* cellphone dangers multifold. >> > >> > I'm not concerned because I don't use cellphones. >> > Just consider me similar to the boy in the Emperor's New Clothes. >> > Pointing out something which may not have occured to anyone. >> > I thought it appropriate to warn people here, since that's what > the >> > group is about. >> > End of story. >> > >> > >> > --- In [hidden email], "S. Andreason" <sandreas41@> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Minni, >> >> >> >> I would think the emissions from the device to be as likely a >> > source of >> >> problems. Do you have a Electromagnetic Radiation Meter, like the >> > Zap >> >> Checker? <a href="http://www.lessemf.com/rf.html#445"> It is > much >> > more >> >> sensitive than the Trifield meter. Almost as sensitive as I am. >> >> >> >> Just like using a Gauss meter to measure magnetic fields, it is >> > equally >> >> revealing to measure the wireless range of emissions. >> >> It also allows you to compare different models and manufacturers, >> > as >> >> each device IS different. >> >> Stewart >> >> >> >> minnimall wrote: >> >> > Maybe the fluorescense emitted from cellphone LED panels may > make >> > those >> >> > cellphones way more harmful than the older cellphones? Because >> > LIGHT >> >> > itself is radiation. >> >> > >> >> > While I myself am not a cellphone user, yet I *do* find the LED >> > on my >> >> > digital camera VERY irritating. >> >> > >> >> > P.S. Take this as a rhetorical post - over & out ;-) >> >> > >> >> > Minni >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
So, I need a little more explanation for those recordings. I heard
voices. I don't think that trees talk, do they? :-) Were they receiving RF signals? How was the recording made? How tall were they? Ligure Quoting charles <[hidden email]>: > Plants are fine antennas. > > On: http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Pagina109.html > > I have placed the receiving sounds of some trees. > > So it is quite normal (?) that plants receive signals, although it may kill > them. > > Many years ago a german farmer had a tree dying. > He placed a big screw in it, connected a big wire to it, and connected the > wire to an earth grounding rod farther away. > The dying tree recovered completely. > The roots became healthy and the humus around the tree wai in order again. > > Greetings, > Charles Claessens > member Verband Baubiologie > www.milieuziektes.nl > www.milieuziektes.be > www.hetbitje.nl > checked by Norton Antivirus > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "minnimall" <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]> > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 16:58 > Subject: [eSens] Re: Anyone consider whether LED cellphones are worse? > > >> How is this relevant to what the engineer said on the PDF book? >> >> I suggest you attempt to contact him directly - via feb.se - if you >> seek the absolute truth. >> >> Because as I've said, there's theory, and then there's real-life >> experience which debunks science. >> >> Some people choose to remain die-hard scientists - it's their choice. >> >> Minni >> >> >> --- In [hidden email], "charles" <charles@...> wrote: >>> >>> Measuring is a profession in itsself. >>> >>> Not many people do know for instance that a good spectrumanalyser >> is a >>> source for a lot of radiation. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Charles Claessens >>> member Verband Baubiologie >>> www.milieuziektes.nl >>> www.milieuziektes.be >>> www.hetbitje.nl >>> checked by Norton Antivirus >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "minnimall" <minnimall@...> >>> To: <[hidden email]> >>> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 10:00 >>> Subject: [eSens] Re: Anyone consider whether LED cellphones are >> worse? >>> >>> >>> > All I can say is that I have no doubt many people are like me and >> the >>> > engineer in the PDF book Black On White (page 114 by Granlund- >> Lind). >>> > >>> > That engineer's job was to check out fields via Holaday meter. But >>> > (as is the case with so many others who debunked science when >>> > disproven by REAL-LIFE) he discovered the scientific instruments >> to >>> > be white elephants. Why? >>> > Because he was much more able to tolerate a smelting plant EVEN >>> > THOUGH the smelting plant registered high on his professional >> meter, >>> > yet he was MUCH LESS able to tolerate office environments which >>> > registered negligible on his meter. >>> > >>> > So - what do offices have that smelting plants don't? >>> > Fluoresent lights & fluoresent monitors. >>> > That's what! >>> > >>> > Thus my point - that FLUORESCENT LEDs on cellphones, i.m.h.o are >> what >>> > *exacerbate* cellphone dangers multifold. >>> > >>> > I'm not concerned because I don't use cellphones. >>> > Just consider me similar to the boy in the Emperor's New Clothes. >>> > Pointing out something which may not have occured to anyone. >>> > I thought it appropriate to warn people here, since that's what >> the >>> > group is about. >>> > End of story. >>> > >>> > >>> > --- In [hidden email], "S. Andreason" <sandreas41@> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi Minni, >>> >> >>> >> I would think the emissions from the device to be as likely a >>> > source of >>> >> problems. Do you have a Electromagnetic Radiation Meter, like the >>> > Zap >>> >> Checker? <a href="http://www.lessemf.com/rf.html#445"> It is >> much >>> > more >>> >> sensitive than the Trifield meter. Almost as sensitive as I am. >>> >> >>> >> Just like using a Gauss meter to measure magnetic fields, it is >>> > equally >>> >> revealing to measure the wireless range of emissions. >>> >> It also allows you to compare different models and manufacturers, >>> > as >>> >> each device IS different. >>> >> Stewart >>> >> >>> >> minnimall wrote: >>> >> > Maybe the fluorescense emitted from cellphone LED panels may >> make >>> > those >>> >> > cellphones way more harmful than the older cellphones? Because >>> > LIGHT >>> >> > itself is radiation. >>> >> > >>> >> > While I myself am not a cellphone user, yet I *do* find the LED >>> > on my >>> >> > digital camera VERY irritating. >>> >> > >>> >> > P.S. Take this as a rhetorical post - over & out ;-) >>> >> > >>> >> > Minni >>> >> > >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Yahoo! Groups Links >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > |
|
|
Trees are excellent antennas.
They receive all kinds of frequencies. What you hear are RF signals, radio plus some GSM. The fine side roots of the trees cannot manage that and will die. The humus around those trees is not what it should be. We use special meters with special contact-antennas. Greetings, Charles Claessens member Verband Baubiologie www.milieuziektes.nl www.milieuziektes.be www.hetbitje.nl checked by Norton Antivirus ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ligure" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 19:13 Subject: Re: [eSens] Re: Anyone consider whether LED cellphones are worse? > So, I need a little more explanation for those recordings. I heard > voices. I don't think that trees talk, do they? :-) Were they > receiving RF signals? How was the recording made? How tall were they? > > Ligure > > Quoting charles <[hidden email]>: > >> Plants are fine antennas. >> >> On: http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Pagina109.html >> >> I have placed the receiving sounds of some trees. >> >> So it is quite normal (?) that plants receive signals, although it may >> kill >> them. >> >> Many years ago a german farmer had a tree dying. >> He placed a big screw in it, connected a big wire to it, and connected >> the >> wire to an earth grounding rod farther away. >> The dying tree recovered completely. >> The roots became healthy and the humus around the tree wai in order >> again. >> >> Greetings, >> Charles Claessens >> member Verband Baubiologie >> www.milieuziektes.nl >> www.milieuziektes.be >> www.hetbitje.nl >> checked by Norton Antivirus >> |
«
Return to ES
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |