Faraday, cellar, etc.
Locked
 
|
A short update from me, inspired by recent posts regarding Faraday cage, cellar, etc.: Bill, I am unable to recall, but wasn't it you who a year back defended Faraday cages when I stated they don't work at subjective level, and that they even make worse, unbearable feeling?! Anyway... my experience with different cages matches other experiences and even peer reviewed experiments with mice (mice also avoid such cages, and have immediate massive neurological effects inside). Therefore before investing in cages (including canopies) please think twice. The issue is not related to reflection nor such stuff, as I have just demolished a cage room made of non-reflective material, preferring being radiated to staying inside. Indeed, as some say, one gets used to such cages, but the price is neurological depression... Andrew, as you have already experienced, there is no much use of shielding, it's a waste of money and energy until we have some revolutionary understanding of the circumstances. But that apparently applies just to classic Faraday cages, as we had spoken, I have a room 4 meters underground, where soil and concrete are a kind of a shield, there I don't have much problem. Also, that is not a full cage, as there is no much concrete overhead. Stephen, as I said, my stay underground matches your experience, I have this room for almost 10 years, and it is acceptable although not perfect. There are issues regarding humidity, ventilation etc. but that can be fixed... Also, re your inquiry, I had once made a very small experimental cage made of bottled water packages (still I have to drink some of them :-) ), but the effect was very similar to classic conductive cages. So as I keep pointing out, we must have in mind that we can not solely relate our discomfort to meter readings. That doesn't mean I stand for some non measurable "scalar waves", although that is one of rather possible hypothesis. Just I want to say that naive relating to meter readings is a mislead. Yesterday I tried a metal halide lamp, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_halide_lamp ) to see how it feels. Classic incandescent bulbs are the best for me, but if not beaming directly to body. Also, I can tolerate LED lightning. CFL and classic fluorescent tubes are a big problem, even in another room. But this MH is a nightmare! I felt it two rooms away! The issue is that there is nothing significant measurable coming out from that lamp even at a close distance... I say all this to support my standpoint that meter is just an orientation and sometimes misleading. By the way, how others of you rank different lightning technologies? Also, you might not be familiar with IR heaters, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater ) but they are one of the worst things even for non-sensitive. They are terrible even hidden behind some object... So again there is an issue what do they emit in such horrific extent. Not EMFs anyway, EMFs are rather small at a meter away. Not to mention that our "gadgets" do make effect, while most of them are not changing any field... By the way, I discovered a new "gadget" - plants! There was some discussion on the list regarding cacti as a way of protection, but none had supported such finding much, me neither. I myself had had some cacti, but never I was so happy like when I recently put a pine and two tropic trees in the room. Possibly - the bigger the better... Anyway, even my non-sensitive wife finds it soothing... That could be attributed to classic effects like air cleaning, but I think there is more to it... One more contemplation: Once I put on ceiling of that my underground room - a shield, to make the mitigation even better, but that was bad, and I removed it, despite it made the room additionally quiet at the meters. So it remained uncertain to me whether the conductive layers overhead, such as the one I put, themselves make discomfort, or that was due to some Faraday cage effect as mentioned above... Particularly, I suspect that shieldings might work if the top would be missing. That is still an unsupported and weird assumption, based only on subjective intuition, but hope to make such experiment soon... Looking forward to some reactions to my statements! Drasko |
|
|
Drasko
I did some measurements of body voltage with and without Faraday cage. I turned off several circuit breakers. I found body voltage in Faraday cage remains low if the Faraday cage remains in the area where body voltage is near 0. ***However, if any portion of the Faraday cage (cloth) reaches an area where body voltage is higher, e.g., due to wires which are energized even if the appliances themselves are off, then I also see higher body voltage inside the Faraday cage. Thus, the bigger the Faraday cage, the more chance of picking up electrical fields. So... as I mentioned in my last post, you should try turning off the electricity from the circuit breaker panel if you're going to use a Faraday cage. Even if nothing's plugged in the outlets, Romex wires are active. If only I had metal-clad wiring at home like offices have... Secondly, I found out that metal table legs can resonate with low frequencies from plasma TV and dimmer switches, as found with an AM radio on the right channel(s). Thus, you need to be careful to replace metal structures with wooden, although picking wood that doesn't have chemical irritants. You need to be careful that whatever you plug on wires doesn't have harmonics, as it can be carried along wires and in the air. Speaking of IR heaters, remember IR is in similar wavelength as microwaves, hence.... Yes, incandescent is better than halogen (high magnetic field) and CFL (high intermediate frequencies/harmonics). Still, I plug it into a switch outlet to completely shut off the electricity on the lamp wire when I turn it off. BTW, I think the silver color static shielding roll from ULINE blocks microwave but I think the surface doesn't conduct electricity. Might be a good cheap lining? However, I found that if I use it to shield electricity, it makes body voltage lower directly on it, but higher around it. I.e., the electrical field has to go around it to get to the ground, so areas outside of it which were previously low become higher. I think I read somewhere that electrical shielding is difficult. Thus, turning off the circuit breaker seems the best alternative. Check this resource: http://www.emfrelief.com/emf.html --- In [hidden email], "cvijovic" <cvijovic@...> wrote: > > > A short update from me, inspired by recent posts regarding Faraday cage, cellar, etc.: > > Bill, I am unable to recall, but wasn't it you who a year back defended Faraday cages when I stated they don't work at subjective level, and that they even make worse, unbearable feeling?! Anyway... my experience with different cages matches other experiences and even peer reviewed experiments with mice (mice also avoid such cages, and have immediate massive neurological effects inside). Therefore before investing in cages (including canopies) please think twice. The issue is not related to reflection nor such stuff, as I have just demolished a cage room made of non-reflective material, preferring being radiated to staying inside. Indeed, as some say, one gets used to such cages, but the price is neurological depression... > Andrew, as you have already experienced, there is no much use of shielding, it's a waste of money and energy until we have some revolutionary understanding of the circumstances. But that apparently applies just to classic Faraday cages, as we had spoken, I have a room 4 meters underground, where soil and concrete are a kind of a shield, there I don't have much problem. Also, that is not a full cage, as there is no much concrete overhead. > Stephen, as I said, my stay underground matches your experience, I have this room for almost 10 years, and it is acceptable although not perfect. There are issues regarding humidity, ventilation etc. but that can be fixed... Also, re your inquiry, I had once made a very small experimental cage made of bottled water packages (still I have to drink some of them :-) ), but the effect was very similar to classic conductive cages. > > So as I keep pointing out, we must have in mind that we can not solely relate our discomfort to meter readings. That doesn't mean I stand for some non measurable "scalar waves", although that is one of rather possible hypothesis. Just I want to say that naive relating to meter readings is a mislead. > > Yesterday I tried a metal halide lamp, > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_halide_lamp ) > to see how it feels. Classic incandescent bulbs are the best for me, but if not beaming directly to body. Also, I can tolerate LED lightning. CFL and classic fluorescent tubes are a big problem, even in another room. But this MH is a nightmare! I felt it two rooms away! The issue is that there is nothing significant measurable coming out from that lamp even at a close distance... I say all this to support my standpoint that meter is just an orientation and sometimes misleading. By the way, how others of you rank different lightning technologies? > > Also, you might not be familiar with IR heaters, > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater ) > but they are one of the worst things even for non-sensitive. They are terrible even hidden behind some object... So again there is an issue what do they emit in such horrific extent. Not EMFs anyway, EMFs are rather small at a meter away. > > Not to mention that our "gadgets" do make effect, while most of them are not changing any field... By the way, I discovered a new "gadget" - plants! There was some discussion on the list regarding cacti as a way of protection, but none had supported such finding much, me neither. I myself had had some cacti, but never I was so happy like when I recently put a pine and two tropic trees in the room. Possibly - the bigger the better... Anyway, even my non-sensitive wife finds it soothing... That could be attributed to classic effects like air cleaning, but I think there is more to it... > > One more contemplation: > Once I put on ceiling of that my underground room - a shield, to make the mitigation even better, but that was bad, and I removed it, despite it made the room additionally quiet at the meters. So it remained uncertain to me whether the conductive layers overhead, such as the one I put, themselves make discomfort, or that was due to some Faraday cage effect as mentioned above... Particularly, I suspect that shieldings might work if the top would be missing. That is still an unsupported and weird assumption, based only on subjective intuition, but hope to make such experiment soon... > > Looking forward to some reactions to my statements! > > Drasko > |
Re: Faraday, cellar, etc.
|
|
In reply to this post by Drasko Cvijovic-2
Drasko:
I have a room 4 meters underground, where soil and concrete are a kind of a shield, there I don't have much problem. Also, that is not a full cage, as there is no much concrete overhead. S: Well seems logic to me you don't have much side effects from an underground room (other than humidity,...), concrete doesn't reflect much (it rather blocks I suppose) compared with shielding material used in Faraday cages... When I'm very ES to emf (depending on area), then I feel much better in a concrete building, even one that's not underground... Combination of underground and a lot of concrete: Subway area, felt better there when in London lately! --- In [hidden email], "cvijovic" <cvijovic@...> wrote: > > > A short update from me, inspired by recent posts regarding Faraday cage, cellar, etc.: > > Bill, I am unable to recall, but wasn't it you who a year back defended Faraday cages when I stated they don't work at subjective level, and that they even make worse, unbearable feeling?! Anyway... my experience with different cages matches other experiences and even peer reviewed experiments with mice (mice also avoid such cages, and have immediate massive neurological effects inside). Therefore before investing in cages (including canopies) please think twice. The issue is not related to reflection nor such stuff, as I have just demolished a cage room made of non-reflective material, preferring being radiated to staying inside. Indeed, as some say, one gets used to such cages, but the price is neurological depression... > Andrew, as you have already experienced, there is no much use of shielding, it's a waste of money and energy until we have some revolutionary understanding of the circumstances. But that apparently applies just to classic Faraday cages, as we had spoken, I have a room 4 meters underground, where soil and concrete are a kind of a shield, there I don't have much problem. Also, that is not a full cage, as there is no much concrete overhead. > Stephen, as I said, my stay underground matches your experience, I have this room for almost 10 years, and it is acceptable although not perfect. There are issues regarding humidity, ventilation etc. but that can be fixed... Also, re your inquiry, I had once made a very small experimental cage made of bottled water packages (still I have to drink some of them :-) ), but the effect was very similar to classic conductive cages. > > So as I keep pointing out, we must have in mind that we can not solely relate our discomfort to meter readings. That doesn't mean I stand for some non measurable "scalar waves", although that is one of rather possible hypothesis. Just I want to say that naive relating to meter readings is a mislead. > > Yesterday I tried a metal halide lamp, > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_halide_lamp ) > to see how it feels. Classic incandescent bulbs are the best for me, but if not beaming directly to body. Also, I can tolerate LED lightning. CFL and classic fluorescent tubes are a big problem, even in another room. But this MH is a nightmare! I felt it two rooms away! The issue is that there is nothing significant measurable coming out from that lamp even at a close distance... I say all this to support my standpoint that meter is just an orientation and sometimes misleading. By the way, how others of you rank different lightning technologies? > > Also, you might not be familiar with IR heaters, > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater ) > but they are one of the worst things even for non-sensitive. They are terrible even hidden behind some object... So again there is an issue what do they emit in such horrific extent. Not EMFs anyway, EMFs are rather small at a meter away. > > Not to mention that our "gadgets" do make effect, while most of them are not changing any field... By the way, I discovered a new "gadget" - plants! There was some discussion on the list regarding cacti as a way of protection, but none had supported such finding much, me neither. I myself had had some cacti, but never I was so happy like when I recently put a pine and two tropic trees in the room. Possibly - the bigger the better... Anyway, even my non-sensitive wife finds it soothing... That could be attributed to classic effects like air cleaning, but I think there is more to it... > > One more contemplation: > Once I put on ceiling of that my underground room - a shield, to make the mitigation even better, but that was bad, and I removed it, despite it made the room additionally quiet at the meters. So it remained uncertain to me whether the conductive layers overhead, such as the one I put, themselves make discomfort, or that was due to some Faraday cage effect as mentioned above... Particularly, I suspect that shieldings might work if the top would be missing. That is still an unsupported and weird assumption, based only on subjective intuition, but hope to make such experiment soon... > > Looking forward to some reactions to my statements! > > Drasko > |
Re: Faraday, cellar, etc.
|
|
In reply to this post by Drasko Cvijovic-2
Drasko wrote:
I had once made a very small experimental cage made of bottled water packages (still I have to drink some of them :-) ), but the effect was very similar to classic conductive cages. Stephen writes: I'm surprised with what you write here, I would think water doesn't reflect at all, it may not be perfect, but I would think there are not much negative side effects... (Dr Dietrich Grün tested with electro-acupuncture that water is a good shield for emf) --- In [hidden email], "cvijovic" <cvijovic@...> wrote: > > > A short update from me, inspired by recent posts regarding Faraday cage, cellar, etc.: > > Bill, I am unable to recall, but wasn't it you who a year back defended Faraday cages when I stated they don't work at subjective level, and that they even make worse, unbearable feeling?! Anyway... my experience with different cages matches other experiences and even peer reviewed experiments with mice (mice also avoid such cages, and have immediate massive neurological effects inside). Therefore before investing in cages (including canopies) please think twice. The issue is not related to reflection nor such stuff, as I have just demolished a cage room made of non-reflective material, preferring being radiated to staying inside. Indeed, as some say, one gets used to such cages, but the price is neurological depression... > Andrew, as you have already experienced, there is no much use of shielding, it's a waste of money and energy until we have some revolutionary understanding of the circumstances. But that apparently applies just to classic Faraday cages, as we had spoken, I have a room 4 meters underground, where soil and concrete are a kind of a shield, there I don't have much problem. Also, that is not a full cage, as there is no much concrete overhead. > Stephen, as I said, my stay underground matches your experience, I have this room for almost 10 years, and it is acceptable although not perfect. There are issues regarding humidity, ventilation etc. but that can be fixed... Also, re your inquiry, I had once made a very small experimental cage made of bottled water packages (still I have to drink some of them :-) ), but the effect was very similar to classic conductive cages. > > So as I keep pointing out, we must have in mind that we can not solely relate our discomfort to meter readings. That doesn't mean I stand for some non measurable "scalar waves", although that is one of rather possible hypothesis. Just I want to say that naive relating to meter readings is a mislead. > > Yesterday I tried a metal halide lamp, > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_halide_lamp ) > to see how it feels. Classic incandescent bulbs are the best for me, but if not beaming directly to body. Also, I can tolerate LED lightning. CFL and classic fluorescent tubes are a big problem, even in another room. But this MH is a nightmare! I felt it two rooms away! The issue is that there is nothing significant measurable coming out from that lamp even at a close distance... I say all this to support my standpoint that meter is just an orientation and sometimes misleading. By the way, how others of you rank different lightning technologies? > > Also, you might not be familiar with IR heaters, > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater ) > but they are one of the worst things even for non-sensitive. They are terrible even hidden behind some object... So again there is an issue what do they emit in such horrific extent. Not EMFs anyway, EMFs are rather small at a meter away. > > Not to mention that our "gadgets" do make effect, while most of them are not changing any field... By the way, I discovered a new "gadget" - plants! There was some discussion on the list regarding cacti as a way of protection, but none had supported such finding much, me neither. I myself had had some cacti, but never I was so happy like when I recently put a pine and two tropic trees in the room. Possibly - the bigger the better... Anyway, even my non-sensitive wife finds it soothing... That could be attributed to classic effects like air cleaning, but I think there is more to it... > > One more contemplation: > Once I put on ceiling of that my underground room - a shield, to make the mitigation even better, but that was bad, and I removed it, despite it made the room additionally quiet at the meters. So it remained uncertain to me whether the conductive layers overhead, such as the one I put, themselves make discomfort, or that was due to some Faraday cage effect as mentioned above... Particularly, I suspect that shieldings might work if the top would be missing. That is still an unsupported and weird assumption, based only on subjective intuition, but hope to make such experiment soon... > > Looking forward to some reactions to my statements! > > Drasko > |
Re: Faraday, cellar, etc.
|
|
In reply to this post by Drasko Cvijovic-2
Drasko wrote:
By the way, I discovered a new "gadget" - plants! There was some discussion on the list regarding cacti as a way of protection, but none had supported such finding much, me neither. I myself had had some cacti, but never I was so happy like when I recently put a pine and two tropic trees in the room. Possibly - the bigger the better... Anyway, even my non-sensitive wife finds it soothing... That could be attributed to classic effects like air cleaning, but I think there is more to it... Stephen writes: Maybe these plants are great microwave absorbers? I'm curious to what big plants like that could do in Faraday cages or shielded rooms, wouldn't they be great absorbers there and althus compensating the negative side effects from the reflection inside? A bit in the same way as to what the wood canopy may have done in SmithandJones room? --- In [hidden email], "cvijovic" <cvijovic@...> wrote: > > > A short update from me, inspired by recent posts regarding Faraday cage, cellar, etc.: > > Bill, I am unable to recall, but wasn't it you who a year back defended Faraday cages when I stated they don't work at subjective level, and that they even make worse, unbearable feeling?! Anyway... my experience with different cages matches other experiences and even peer reviewed experiments with mice (mice also avoid such cages, and have immediate massive neurological effects inside). Therefore before investing in cages (including canopies) please think twice. The issue is not related to reflection nor such stuff, as I have just demolished a cage room made of non-reflective material, preferring being radiated to staying inside. Indeed, as some say, one gets used to such cages, but the price is neurological depression... > Andrew, as you have already experienced, there is no much use of shielding, it's a waste of money and energy until we have some revolutionary understanding of the circumstances. But that apparently applies just to classic Faraday cages, as we had spoken, I have a room 4 meters underground, where soil and concrete are a kind of a shield, there I don't have much problem. Also, that is not a full cage, as there is no much concrete overhead. > Stephen, as I said, my stay underground matches your experience, I have this room for almost 10 years, and it is acceptable although not perfect. There are issues regarding humidity, ventilation etc. but that can be fixed... Also, re your inquiry, I had once made a very small experimental cage made of bottled water packages (still I have to drink some of them :-) ), but the effect was very similar to classic conductive cages. > > So as I keep pointing out, we must have in mind that we can not solely relate our discomfort to meter readings. That doesn't mean I stand for some non measurable "scalar waves", although that is one of rather possible hypothesis. Just I want to say that naive relating to meter readings is a mislead. > > Yesterday I tried a metal halide lamp, > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_halide_lamp ) > to see how it feels. Classic incandescent bulbs are the best for me, but if not beaming directly to body. Also, I can tolerate LED lightning. CFL and classic fluorescent tubes are a big problem, even in another room. But this MH is a nightmare! I felt it two rooms away! The issue is that there is nothing significant measurable coming out from that lamp even at a close distance... I say all this to support my standpoint that meter is just an orientation and sometimes misleading. By the way, how others of you rank different lightning technologies? > > Also, you might not be familiar with IR heaters, > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater ) > but they are one of the worst things even for non-sensitive. They are terrible even hidden behind some object... So again there is an issue what do they emit in such horrific extent. Not EMFs anyway, EMFs are rather small at a meter away. > > Not to mention that our "gadgets" do make effect, while most of them are not changing any field... By the way, I discovered a new "gadget" - plants! There was some discussion on the list regarding cacti as a way of protection, but none had supported such finding much, me neither. I myself had had some cacti, but never I was so happy like when I recently put a pine and two tropic trees in the room. Possibly - the bigger the better... Anyway, even my non-sensitive wife finds it soothing... That could be attributed to classic effects like air cleaning, but I think there is more to it... > > One more contemplation: > Once I put on ceiling of that my underground room - a shield, to make the mitigation even better, but that was bad, and I removed it, despite it made the room additionally quiet at the meters. So it remained uncertain to me whether the conductive layers overhead, such as the one I put, themselves make discomfort, or that was due to some Faraday cage effect as mentioned above... Particularly, I suspect that shieldings might work if the top would be missing. That is still an unsupported and weird assumption, based only on subjective intuition, but hope to make such experiment soon... > > Looking forward to some reactions to my statements! > > Drasko > |
|
|
In reply to this post by emraware
I measured an IR heater, made by Edenpure a couple months ago. Dad
insisted on trying one, so I got the opportunity to measure it. <:S The magnetic field (EMF) bubble extended out 9 feet at the worst, and was very high closer in. The experience was bad enough for him to return it, and get a nice Delonghi heater like mine. I added that to the new page I have been building, measuring indoor appliances. http://seahorseCorral.org/ehs2.html Stewart emraware wrote: > Speaking of IR heaters, remember IR is in similar wavelength as microwaves, hence.... > >> Also, you might not be familiar with IR heaters, >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater ) >> but they are one of the worst things even for non-sensitive. They are terrible even hidden behind some object... So again there is an issue what do they emit in such horrific extent. Not EMFs anyway, EMFs are rather small at a meter away. >> |
Re: BMW / Mobile phone Radiation Shielding pockets for there jackets
|
|
In reply to this post by stephen_vandevijvere
BMW have added a Radiation Shielding phone pocket to there motorbike jackets! Now if there is no problems with phones, why would BMW spend money on this part of a jacket? This was one of the first signs for me coming down with ES was the chest Paaluptations from my mobile phone in my chest pocket of my motorbike jacket. A phantom text message in your Jeans pocket is the same thing. Best Giles UK Im waiting to hear back from BMW why they have added this to there jackets. http://www.bmw-motorrad.co.uk/media/pdf/catalogue_ride_2011_GBE.pdf No [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Re: BMW / Mobile phone Radiation Shielding pockets for there jackets
|
|
BMW does NOT deny that emf could be harmful (in contrary to the rest of the world: politicians/scientists/medicine world!).
In 2004 BMW decided to throw out all dect-phones and wifi in their offices and factories to lower the emf-emissions for their personnel. Read the 3 sources below on this: 1. ...10 nW/cm2 (1/100,000 of the German UMTS limit): In an exemplary manner, German carmaker BMW has set this limit for all offices & factories around the globe... http://www.amanita.at/Interessantes/Gastartikel/detail.php?id=18565 2. ...High measured levels of radiation in the workplace can be a problem for victims. The request for screening often meets with resistance from the side of the firm's management. Here we recommended the advice to the automobile company BMW. They had recognized the problem of mobile phone technology in good time and, they had worked together with scientists to produce acceptable solutions for protecting the health of colleagues [workers]. The maximum permitted levels for DECT-telephones was established at the BMW-company at 100 nw/m2 in co-operation with Prof. Käs (German Army Radiation Protection Expert). This level is therefore lower than the permitted maximum level by a factor of 100,000, so it is altogether an exemplary model, which we wish many would desire to imitate. (Source: http://www.izgmf.de/Aktionen/Meldungen/Archiv_04/BMW_DECT/bmw_dect.html)... http://www.google.be/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEEQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avaate.org%2FIMG%2Fdoc%2Fraum_zeit_for_Eileen.doc&ei=JpheTczOLcrrOdeqobEN&usg=AFQjCNHQpGhjIz4Xyf8iiJwGgAvnTU0ojw 3. In German more details: http://www.izgmf.de/Aktionen/Meldungen/Archiv_04/BMW_DECT/bmw_dect.html --- In [hidden email], Christina Steils <csteils@...> wrote: > > > BMW have added a Radiation Shielding phone pocket to there motorbike jackets! > Now if there is no problems with phones, why would BMW spend money on this part of a jacket? > This was one of the first signs for me coming down with ES was the chest Paaluptations from my mobile phone in my chest pocket of my motorbike jacket. > A phantom text message in your Jeans pocket is the same thing. > Best > Giles UK > Im waiting to hear back from BMW why they have added this to there jackets. > http://www.bmw-motorrad.co.uk/media/pdf/catalogue_ride_2011_GBE.pdf > > No > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > |
Re: BMW / Mobile phone Radiation Shielding pockets for there jackets
|
|
Hi, Stephen!Thank you very much for this info. Very interesting.BestGiles & Christina
--- On Fri, 18/2/11, stephen_vandevijvere <[hidden email]> wrote: From: stephen_vandevijvere <[hidden email]> Subject: [eSens] Re: BMW / Mobile phone Radiation Shielding pockets for there jackets To: [hidden email] Date: Friday, 18 February, 2011, 16:57 BMW does NOT deny that emf could be harmful (in contrary to the rest of the world: politicians/scientists/medicine world!). In 2004 BMW decided to throw out all dect-phones and wifi in their offices and factories to lower the emf-emissions for their personnel. Read the 3 sources below on this: 1. ...10 nW/cm2 (1/100,000 of the German UMTS limit): In an exemplary manner, German carmaker BMW has set this limit for all offices & factories around the globe... http://www.amanita.at/Interessantes/Gastartikel/detail.php?id=18565 2. ...High measured levels of radiation in the workplace can be a problem for victims. The request for screening often meets with resistance from the side of the firm's management. Here we recommended the advice to the automobile company BMW. They had recognized the problem of mobile phone technology in good time and, they had worked together with scientists to produce acceptable solutions for protecting the health of colleagues [workers]. The maximum permitted levels for DECT-telephones was established at the BMW-company at 100 nw/m2 in co-operation with Prof. Käs (German Army Radiation Protection Expert). This level is therefore lower than the permitted maximum level by a factor of 100,000, so it is altogether an exemplary model, which we wish many would desire to imitate. (Source: http://www.izgmf.de/Aktionen/Meldungen/Archiv_04/BMW_DECT/bmw_dect.html)... http://www.google.be/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEEQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avaate.org%2FIMG%2Fdoc%2Fraum_zeit_for_Eileen.doc&ei=JpheTczOLcrrOdeqobEN&usg=AFQjCNHQpGhjIz4Xyf8iiJwGgAvnTU0ojw 3. In German more details: http://www.izgmf.de/Aktionen/Meldungen/Archiv_04/BMW_DECT/bmw_dect.html --- In [hidden email], Christina Steils <csteils@...> wrote: > > > BMW have added a Radiation Shielding phone pocket to there motorbike jackets! > Now if there is no problems with phones, why would BMW spend money on this part of a jacket? > This was one of the first signs for me coming down with ES was the chest Paaluptations from my mobile phone in my chest pocket of my motorbike jacket. > A phantom text message in your Jeans pocket is the same thing. > Best > Giles UK > Im waiting to hear back from BMW why they have added this to there jackets. > http://www.bmw-motorrad.co.uk/media/pdf/catalogue_ride_2011_GBE.pdf > > No > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Re: Faraday, cellar, etc.
|
|
In reply to this post by Drasko Cvijovic-2
Drasko wrote:
Particularly, I suspect that shieldings might work if the top would be missing. That is still an unsupported and weird assumption, based only on subjective intuition, Stephen writes: What Bill just posted made me think of this, Not shielding the ceiling (in case you don't shield the floor) would have 2 benefits: -no reflection from the earth/Schumann waves -less reflection from outside emf Disadvantage: -less shielding from outside emf ! Well it always seems the more you shield with metal (or similar reflective material) the more you have to absorb on the inside... --- In [hidden email], "cvijovic" <cvijovic@...> wrote: > > > A short update from me, inspired by recent posts regarding Faraday cage, cellar, etc.: > > Bill, I am unable to recall, but wasn't it you who a year back defended Faraday cages when I stated they don't work at subjective level, and that they even make worse, unbearable feeling?! Anyway... my experience with different cages matches other experiences and even peer reviewed experiments with mice (mice also avoid such cages, and have immediate massive neurological effects inside). Therefore before investing in cages (including canopies) please think twice. The issue is not related to reflection nor such stuff, as I have just demolished a cage room made of non-reflective material, preferring being radiated to staying inside. Indeed, as some say, one gets used to such cages, but the price is neurological depression... > Andrew, as you have already experienced, there is no much use of shielding, it's a waste of money and energy until we have some revolutionary understanding of the circumstances. But that apparently applies just to classic Faraday cages, as we had spoken, I have a room 4 meters underground, where soil and concrete are a kind of a shield, there I don't have much problem. Also, that is not a full cage, as there is no much concrete overhead. > Stephen, as I said, my stay underground matches your experience, I have this room for almost 10 years, and it is acceptable although not perfect. There are issues regarding humidity, ventilation etc. but that can be fixed... Also, re your inquiry, I had once made a very small experimental cage made of bottled water packages (still I have to drink some of them :-) ), but the effect was very similar to classic conductive cages. > > So as I keep pointing out, we must have in mind that we can not solely relate our discomfort to meter readings. That doesn't mean I stand for some non measurable "scalar waves", although that is one of rather possible hypothesis. Just I want to say that naive relating to meter readings is a mislead. > > Yesterday I tried a metal halide lamp, > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_halide_lamp ) > to see how it feels. Classic incandescent bulbs are the best for me, but if not beaming directly to body. Also, I can tolerate LED lightning. CFL and classic fluorescent tubes are a big problem, even in another room. But this MH is a nightmare! I felt it two rooms away! The issue is that there is nothing significant measurable coming out from that lamp even at a close distance... I say all this to support my standpoint that meter is just an orientation and sometimes misleading. By the way, how others of you rank different lightning technologies? > > Also, you might not be familiar with IR heaters, > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater ) > but they are one of the worst things even for non-sensitive. They are terrible even hidden behind some object... So again there is an issue what do they emit in such horrific extent. Not EMFs anyway, EMFs are rather small at a meter away. > > Not to mention that our "gadgets" do make effect, while most of them are not changing any field... By the way, I discovered a new "gadget" - plants! There was some discussion on the list regarding cacti as a way of protection, but none had supported such finding much, me neither. I myself had had some cacti, but never I was so happy like when I recently put a pine and two tropic trees in the room. Possibly - the bigger the better... Anyway, even my non-sensitive wife finds it soothing... That could be attributed to classic effects like air cleaning, but I think there is more to it... > > One more contemplation: > Once I put on ceiling of that my underground room - a shield, to make the mitigation even better, but that was bad, and I removed it, despite it made the room additionally quiet at the meters. So it remained uncertain to me whether the conductive layers overhead, such as the one I put, themselves make discomfort, or that was due to some Faraday cage effect as mentioned above... Particularly, I suspect that shieldings might work if the top would be missing. That is still an unsupported and weird assumption, based only on subjective intuition, but hope to make such experiment soon... > > Looking forward to some reactions to my statements! > > Drasko > |
|
|
In reply to this post by stephen_vandevijvere
stephen_vandevijvere wrote:
> (other than humidity,...), concrete doesn't reflect much (it rather blocks I suppose) compared with shielding material used in Faraday cages... > Just remember concrete has rebar reinforcement in it, so it can be prone to ground loops, carrying current = magnetic field, so I don't recommend touching the concrete or getting too close. In our house foundation, when I measured body voltage because of walking on the concrete floor, I tried to ground the rebar, but all I did was create a ground loop instead. I have plywood on 3 sides of my bed, Perhaps I should add wood to 2 more sides, instead of just using the silver canopy material and microwave absorber fabric. The idea is sound, just as getting "in the cellar" or "downstairs" makes a significant difference, so too would surrounding the bed with wood makes a great idea. Stewart |
|
|
In reply to this post by Drasko Cvijovic-2
Puk replies, I thought I was fortunate to find about 20 full size survival
blankets thrown in a skip, I took them home and lined my loft space, after 3 months I had to rip it down as I suffered chronic sleep disruption, I agree shielding is a very complicated business largely derived from military applications not concerning itself with biological implications, that said looks like NASA have a grasp on this. I would opt for deflection of primary sources based on line of site interuption. In a message dated 18/02/2011 20:54:16 GMT Standard Time, [hidden email] writes: Drasko wrote: Particularly, I suspect that shieldings might work if the top would be missing. That is still an unsupported and weird assumption, based only on subjective intuition, Stephen writes: What Bill just posted made me think of this, Not shielding the ceiling (in case you don't shield the floor) would have 2 benefits: -no reflection from the earth/Schumann waves -less reflection from outside emf Disadvantage: -less shielding from outside emf ! Well it always seems the more you shield with metal (or similar reflective material) the more you have to absorb on the inside... --- In _eSens@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:[hidden email]) , "cvijovic" <cvijovic@...> wrote: > > > A short update from me, inspired by recent posts regarding Faraday cage, cellar, etc.: > > Bill, I am unable to recall, but wasn't it you who a year back defended Faraday cages when I stated they don't work at subjective level, and that they even make worse, unbearable feeling?! Anyway... my experience with different cages matches other experiences and even peer reviewed experiments with mice (mice also avoid such cages, and have immediate massive neurological effects inside). Therefore before investing in cages (including canopies) please think twice. The issue is not related to reflection nor such stuff, as I have just demolished a cage room made of non-reflective material, preferring being radiated to staying inside. Indeed, as some say, one gets used to such cages, but the price is neurological depression... > Andrew, as you have already experienced, there is no much use of shielding, it's a waste of money and energy until we have some revolutionary understanding of the circumstances. But that apparently applies just to classic Faraday cages, as we had spoken, I have a room 4 meters underground, where soil and concrete are a kind of a shield, there I don't have much problem. Also, that is not a full cage, as there is no much concrete overhead. > Stephen, as I said, my stay underground matches your experience, I have this room for almost 10 years, and it is acceptable although not perfect. There are issues regarding humidity, ventilation etc. but that can be fixed... Also, re your inquiry, I had once made a very small experimental cage made of bottled water packages (still I have to drink some of them :-) ), but the effect was very similar to classic conductive cages. > > So as I keep pointing out, we must have in mind that we can not solely relate our discomfort to meter readings. That doesn't mean I stand for some non measurable "scalar waves", although that is one of rather possible hypothesis. Just I want to say that naive relating to meter readings is a mislead. > > Yesterday I tried a metal halide lamp, > (_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_halide_lamp_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_halide_lamp) ) > to see how it feels. Classic incandescent bulbs are the best for me, but if not beaming directly to body. Also, I can tolerate LED lightning. CFL and classic fluorescent tubes are a big problem, even in another room. But this MH is a nightmare! I felt it two rooms away! The issue is that there is nothing significant measurable coming out from that lamp even at a close distance... I say all this to support my standpoint that meter is just an orientation and sometimes misleading. By the way, how others of you rank different lightning technologies? > > Also, you might not be familiar with IR heaters, > (_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater) ) > but they are one of the worst things even for non-sensitive. They are terrible even hidden behind some object... So again there is an issue what do they emit in such horrific extent. Not EMFs anyway, EMFs are rather small at a meter away. > > Not to mention that our "gadgets" do make effect, while most of them are not changing any field... By the way, I discovered a new "gadget" - plants! There was some discussion on the list regarding cacti as a way of protection, but none had supported such finding much, me neither. I myself had had some cacti, but never I was so happy like when I recently put a pine and two tropic trees in the room. Possibly - the bigger the better... Anyway, even my non-sensitive wife finds it soothing... That could be attributed to classic effects like air cleaning, but I think there is more to it... > > One more contemplation: > Once I put on ceiling of that my underground room - a shield, to make the mitigation even better, but that was bad, and I removed it, despite it made the room additionally quiet at the meters. So it remained uncertain to me whether the conductive layers overhead, such as the one I put, themselves make discomfort, or that was due to some Faraday cage effect as mentioned above... Particularly, I suspect that shieldings might work if the top would be missing. That is still an unsupported and weird assumption, based only on subjective intuition, but hope to make such experiment soon... > > Looking forward to some reactions to my statements! > > Drasko > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Drasko Cvijovic-2
puk replies - or perhaps a non scientific reason, they simply put nature
back into the environment, we are nothing without its maternal and perennial companionship. In a message dated 18/02/2011 15:19:03 GMT Standard Time, [hidden email] writes: Drasko wrote: By the way, I discovered a new "gadget" - plants! There was some discussion on the list regarding cacti as a way of protection, but none had supported such finding much, me neither. I myself had had some cacti, but never I was so happy like when I recently put a pine and two tropic trees in the room. Possibly - the bigger the better... Anyway, even my non-sensitive wife finds it soothing... That could be attributed to classic effects like air cleaning, but I think there is more to it... Stephen writes: Maybe these plants are great microwave absorbers? I'm curious to what big plants like that could do in Faraday cages or shielded rooms, wouldn't they be great absorbers there and althus compensating the negative side effects from the reflection inside? A bit in the same way as to what the wood canopy may have done in SmithandJones room? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
«
Return to ES
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |