"Electrohypersensitivity: State-of-the-Art of a Functional Impairment"

Hi all,

Here is a PDF of a new paper by Olle Johansson:

http://ufoseries.com/es.pdf

Marc

This is an interesting paper. I don't understand why mobile phones
and their masts are allowed to keep being used and put up when there
is so much evidence that they are not safe. If there is evidence that
5 or more years of regular use increases the chances of a brain
tumour, I'm amazed that so many people use them.


BTW I've posted part of an article below and I was wondering what is
causing his symptoms from the battery operated near infrared device.
Is it the frequency of the device? The reason I'm asking is because
i'm guessing a battery operated device would not have a magnetic
field and would not have a very powerful electric field. And it's
obviously not the light shining into his eyes that's causing it.


http://www.freewebs.com/eclectives/monitorpain.htm


Another clue which points to moderation as best solution (I.E.
dim/small/thin laptops) is that, in general, light radiation causes
various reactions. For example, in neonatal hospital wards, when
jaundiced preemies are placed under BLUE fluorescent lamps for
treatment, nurses in the vicinity get headaches and feel nauseous.
Update as of Aug.2006: I have just started experimenting with NEAR
INFRA-RED LED pocket-size massager. It operates on two AA batteries,
& it's potent at 60,000 mcd total, and 660 nanometers. Interestingly,
it causes my teeth to throb, as well as eye irritation & dryness,
despite that I shut my eyes tight & keep them covered with my arm.
So... what's my point? My point is: This is proof that LIGHT is the
culprit, rather than Alternating Current, Refresh Rates, etc.

(mcd is the measure of the total brightness of a light source)



--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here is a PDF of a new paper by Olle Johansson:
>
> http://ufoseries.com/es.pdf
>
> Marc
>

There are a number of possibilities "why"...
1) The profit potential is so great that it doesn't matter to
corporations and those greedy enough to run them.

2) The global elite know it causes health problems and are funding it
and encouraging within governments with plans like the "Global 2000
Report" because they want to rid the Earth of approximately 3 billion
entities for this would be an economic move that would leave a kind of
paradise for those remaining,
"The Global 2000 Population Reduction Plan officially began during the
Carter Administration - the current plan stems from the "Global 2000
Report" to the President., an 800 page study submitted by the State
Dept. and the Council on Environmental Quality to Carter (first printed
in Great Britain in 1982) However, the mass-genocide idea was
originally started about 10 years ago by members of the Club of Rome
according to the Spiral Report Volume 111, #3 - March, 1982.

3) Mind control http://educate-yourself.org/mc/

I believe there are a lot of good people just trying to make a living
my following their orders to keep their jobs. Above them is another
story. I believe there are some that really do want to control us all
with advanced technology, social controls, and economic leverages.

If you want more more info/evidence, please contact me directly and not
over the list.
thank you,
Andrew

On Jan 25, 2007, at 8:30 AM, richsurf77 wrote:

> I don't understand why mobile phones
> and their masts are allowed to keep being used and put up when there
> is so much evidence that they are not safe. If there is evidence that
> 5 or more years of regular use increases the chances of a brain
> tumour, I'm amazed that so many people use them.

richsurf77 wrote:
> This is an interesting paper. I don't understand why mobile phones
> and their masts are allowed to keep being used and put up when there
> is so much evidence that they are not safe. If there is evidence that
> 5 or more years of regular use increases the chances of a brain
> tumour, I'm amazed that so many people use them.
>

Because the "evidence" is just becoming conclusive enough to turn heads.
It takes time for dangers to be recognized, especially when it takes
Years to Feel any effect.

Because they can't feel anything when using them.
It's only amazing after it affects 'you' personally.

>
> BTW I've posted part of an article below and I was wondering what is
> causing his symptoms from the battery operated near infrared device.
> Is it the frequency of the device? The reason I'm asking is because
> i'm guessing a battery operated device would not have a magnetic
> field and would not have a very powerful electric field.
I disagree. Battery powered devices can include cel-phones, etc. But
you're asking about a magnetic field... I would point out that batteries
themselves can cause discomfort, expecially car batteries. They put out
a large DC magnetic field. The only battery type that is bio-compatible
is lithium batteries.

DC motors do put out magnetic fields. A battery operated electric shaver
certainly puts out a field.


> Update as of Aug.2006: I have just started experimenting with NEAR
> INFRA-RED LED pocket-size massager. It operates on two AA batteries,
> & it's potent at 60,000 mcd total, and 660 nanometers. Interestingly,
> it causes my teeth to throb, as well as eye irritation & dryness,
> despite that I shut my eyes tight & keep them covered with my arm.
> So... what's my point? My point is: This is proof that LIGHT is the
> culprit, rather than Alternating Current, Refresh Rates, etc.
>
What about devices on the 'other' side of a wall? By definition, visible
light doesn't go through walls.
I think there is more to the picture, but your point is well taken.
Certain light may be a causative factor.

Stewart

--- In [hidden email], "S. Andreason" <sandreas41@...> wrote:
>
> richsurf77 wrote:
> > This is an interesting paper. I don't understand why mobile
phones
> > and their masts are allowed to keep being used and put up when
there
> > is so much evidence that they are not safe. If there is evidence
that
> > 5 or more years of regular use increases the chances of a brain
> > tumour, I'm amazed that so many people use them.
> >  
>
> Because the "evidence" is just becoming conclusive enough to turn
heads.
> It takes time for dangers to be recognized, especially when it
takes
> Years to Feel any effect.
>
> Because they can't feel anything when using them.
> It's only amazing after it affects 'you' personally.
>


Yeah I think you are right about it having to affect alot of people
personally before they take notice, but I'm amazed that with science
being taken so seriously these days, that the evidence that mobiles
are dangerous isn't taken alot more seriously.


> >
> > BTW I've posted part of an article below and I was wondering what
is
> > causing his symptoms from the battery operated near infrared
device.
> > Is it the frequency of the device? The reason I'm asking is
because
> > i'm guessing a battery operated device would not have a magnetic
> > field and would not have a very powerful electric field.
> I disagree. Battery powered devices can include cel-phones, etc.
But
> you're asking about a magnetic field... I would point out that
batteries
> themselves can cause discomfort, expecially car batteries. They put
out
> a large DC magnetic field. The only battery type that is bio-
compatible
> is lithium batteries.
>
> DC motors do put out magnetic fields. A battery operated electric
shaver
> certainly puts out a field.
>
>
> > Update as of Aug.2006: I have just started experimenting with
NEAR
> > INFRA-RED LED pocket-size massager. It operates on two AA
batteries,
> > & it's potent at 60,000 mcd total, and 660 nanometers.
Interestingly,
> > it causes my teeth to throb, as well as eye irritation & dryness,
> > despite that I shut my eyes tight & keep them covered with my
arm.
> > So... what's my point? My point is: This is proof that LIGHT is
the
> > culprit, rather than Alternating Current, Refresh Rates, etc.
> >  
> What about devices on the 'other' side of a wall? By definition,
visible
> light doesn't go through walls.
> I think there is more to the picture, but your point is well taken.
> Certain light may be a causative factor.
>
> Stewart
>