Garth, I have more now...

Hello Garth, I thought I would send this link off to you. These are military projects that are
measuring EMF (emittance frequecy) for application across a wide variety ofareas.

If I could suggest, you write for information from you city's Public Works Department. You
can ask for all relevant public data for health and safety issues for EMF emittance through
fluoridation processes (water treatment).

In additon, you can ask for all health reported incidents to Health and Safety related to
your symptoms of electrical sensativity. Don't mention the eSens in the letter. Just state
your symptoms...for example, hypo-hyperthyrodism, or degenerative bone disease, dental
fluorosis, luekemia, reproduction...anything for which you can address a symptom. Ask
them to report any findings from THEIR regulatory agencies.

You can also request what the plans are for Disaster Recovery in the event of an accident
of an EMF type accident caused by the fluocculation process. For example, there is a
fluorosilic accident at your water treatment facility, like there was in Calgary, Alberta in
1991, where there has been death or injury. In Calgary, two water works employees died.
The city was overfluoridated. I don't know the period.

The City of Calgary had a press release after the accident....page whatever, in the back
section of the paper. Two paragraphs. No emergency response instructions for our water.
Nothing.

The affects of this fluoridation accident causing electrical sensativity condition of
spontaeous abortion would be seen in our cities birht/death records. The Rockyview
hospital experience, for example, three still births in one day. Pregnancies, all well
gestationally developed, no reason for fetal demise. No results found on autopsy.

One of those babies was mine. Burned purple from the electrical emittance of a chemical.

Information, it is yours if you know what to ask for.

Hope this can help you draw some strings around this purse.

Regards,

Karen

Then I forget the link. My recovery is slow but I am getting there.

http://www.dodsbir.net/selections/alld981.htm

--- In [hidden email], "tayloka_40" <tayloka_40@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Garth, I thought I would send this link off to you. These are military projects that
are
> measuring EMF (emittance frequecy) for application across a wide variety of areas.
>
> If I could suggest, you write for information from you city's Public Works Department.
You
> can ask for all relevant public data for health and safety issues for EMFemittance
through
> fluoridation processes (water treatment).
>
> In additon, you can ask for all health reported incidents to Health and Safety related to
> your symptoms of electrical sensativity. Don't mention the eSens in the letter. Just state
> your symptoms...for example, hypo-hyperthyrodism, or degenerative bone disease,
dental
> fluorosis, luekemia, reproduction...anything for which you can address a symptom. Ask
> them to report any findings from THEIR regulatory agencies.
>
> You can also request what the plans are for Disaster Recovery in the event of an
accident
> of an EMF type accident caused by the fluocculation process. For example,there is a
> fluorosilic accident at your water treatment facility, like there was in Calgary, Alberta in
> 1991, where there has been death or injury. In Calgary, two water works employees
died.
> The city was overfluoridated. I don't know the period.
>
> The City of Calgary had a press release after the accident....page whatever, in the back
> section of the paper. Two paragraphs. No emergency response instructions for our
water.
> Nothing.
>
> The affects of this fluoridation accident causing electrical sensativity condition of
> spontaeous abortion would be seen in our cities birht/death records. The Rockyview
> hospital experience, for example, three still births in one day. Pregnancies, all well
> gestationally developed, no reason for fetal demise. No results found on autopsy.
>
> One of those babies was mine. Burned purple from the electrical emittanceof a
chemical.
>
> Information, it is yours if you know what to ask for.
>
> Hope this can help you draw some strings around this purse.
>
> Regards,
>
> Karen
>

> Hello Garth, I thought I would send this link off to you. These are
> military projects that are
> measuring EMF (emittance frequecy) for application across a wide
> variety of areas.

Thanks Karen, I did review the link you sent. I looked at every
occurrence of the word "frequency" or "EMF". Unfortunately, I
didn't see any abstracts that even mentioned the notion that
chemicals or materials emit electromagnetic fields. The phrase
"emittance frequency" didn't appear anywhere in the document, and
"EMF" only appeared in a system for measuring vibration in propellers
rotating in water.

At this point, I would respectfully repeat my assertion that although
chemicals such as fluorine or halides may be toxic, there is no
evidence for the claim that they 'emit' EMF.

I understand the your contention now, Garth. My apology. Instead of giving abstracts, I
found millions, since you have the background in chemistry and physics I thought I would
send you two sites for standards and practices for measuring electromagnetic frequencies
of organic and inorganic mass (animal, plants, space, humans etc).

The basis of this technology is applied in pharmocology research and derrivation of
chemical compounds targeting bioprocesses.

The two processes for scientifcally measuring Electromagnetic frequency arespectroscopy
and thermagraphy.

There is an excellent educational site that provides information about all elements having
electromagnetic frequency emission measured in Infrared. Everyone might find this
interesting....I am kind of nerd with this stuff http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Outreach/Edu/
Spectra/irspec.html

The next technique for measuring the emission of electromagnetic elements, including
those that make up electricity, is thermology, these techniques are better used in organic
(animal or human) measures of EM, or status of electrical sensativity. Within the
Engineering webnet, I found this for you, and everyone really, to take a look at.

http://www.temperatures.com/tiapps.html

Then, since standards organisations such as the UN, know of EMF emissions from
smelting, and other manufacturing operations, they have emission controls. I used a
search phrase such as....UN Standards for EMF Gas Emission.

This is directly related to elevated earth temperatures and the Green HouseModel for
atmospheric elevations in temperature. I believe the gas frequency they measure, by units
of temperature, is CO2.

I hope this helps. Thanks for giving me this opportunity.

Karen

--- In [hidden email], Garth Hitchens <garth@...> wrote:

> I understand the your contention now, Garth. My apology. Instead of
> giving abstracts, I found millions, since you have the background
> in chemistry and physics I thought I would send you two sites for
> standards and practices for measuring electromagnetic frequencies
> of organic and inorganic mass (animal, plants, space, humans etc).

I'm still wondering what all this has to do with electrical
sensitivity? Sure, everything puts out some sort of electromagnetic
field, but I don't think this group is for people who are having
a hypersensitive reaction to the EMF produced by a blade of grass.
This is more for people having problems with computers, power lines,
cell phones, transmission towers, etc.

Marc

Marc,

I fully agree with you.

These discussions, however interesting, should not be held in this group.

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.milieuziektes.be
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus




----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Martin" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 18:42
Subject: Re: [eSens] Re: Garth, I have more now...

>> Marc Says:
>> I'm still wondering what all this has to do with electrical
>> sensitivity? Sure, everything puts out some sort of electromagnetic
>> field, but I don't think this group is for people who are having
>> a hypersensitive reaction to the EMF produced by a blade of grass.
>> This is more for people having problems with computers, power lines,
>> cell phones, transmission towers, etc.

> Charles Says:
> I fully agree with you.
> These discussions, however interesting, should not be held in this
> group.

I fully agree too.

That was my point in challenging the claim that chemicals (like
flourides, halides) emitted EMF. I maintain that sensitivity to
these chemicals is chemical sensitivity, not due to some mysterious
EMF that they emit.

In a final response to the last post, neither thermography nor
spectroscopy would show that a bucket of sodium fluoride emits more
EMF (or light, or infrared, for that matter) than the bucket of
water. It may absorb different frequencies of light, as measured
in spectroscopy, but it wouldn't emit any more EMF.

I guess I feel I've made my point, and won't post further on this
matter.

Wow, I'm offline a few days, and a whole book to read,lol. Very
interesting one though.

I'd like to try and put my two cents in, I hope it is one of my clearer
posts. :)

Some time ago we did a bit of a poll to see what might be in common
that started our problems. A number of us know it was radiation and or
chemical exposures.

For those who aren't yet certain, I'm suspecting it will be the same
when you are finally able to put the pieces together as you keep
looking back over what has happened, and results of them afterwards.  
For instance how many dental x-rays have you had during your life and
were not given a lead apron? The majority of mine. The radiation
causes genetic damage, and the effects are cumulative.
 
Or did you ever move into a new apt. and/or have new carpeting and
experience a gradual worsening of symptoms, like frequent urination,
weakness, fatigue, etc.? I did. Not even counting the glues, and all,
the carpets can be highly toxic, and loaded with? you guessed it,
fluoride.  

I said I'd felt close to figuring something out around then too. I
maybe haven't posted it clearly yet, but I believe that the above,
radiation of many types, chemical exposure, and then heavy metal
toxicity is the cause, for all of us. If we had none of that, and
still had the problem we would need to look at the genetic damage
passed to us by our parents/grandparents. Although we would still be
in the radiation soup, so that could be difficult.

I don't know if anyone read much in links I've posted at
fluoridealert.org, or the one recently about radiation sickness being
the real name for CFS, MCS, environmental illness, etc., because that
IS what it is.

As Evie said; "AHA". So this info. has been useful and helpful for some
here. I feel this group, if we will read and apply the things Tayloka
has put here, has just gone from about a 2nd grade level up to junior
high. :)

What we have been doing, and it is necessary, trying to protect
ourselves from the immediate detrimental effects is important.  
However, the big picture, keeps getting bigger when you look at what
all is going on in the world.

Garth, I think it was you said you'd like to know what could measure
the emf of certain things? Isn't that possible with a Rife? There is
also a gadget by Patrick Flanagan that measures this with foods at
least, I don't know what all else.
(Here's a link to a page with the Hz frequencies for many of the
elements:  
http://www.electroherbalism.com/Bioelectronics/FrequenciesandAnecdotes/N
on-ConsolidatedFrequencyList.htm

Fluorine itself is radioactive, as are other elements.
I realize we usually think of the problematic emf's being man made, and
so mainly they are, but isn't it perhaps a matter of degree that this
is being looked at?

Quartz can be a problem, it is for me at times. Yet it's very useful
in clocks, radios, laser, etc. As are other gemstones because of their
frequencies, vibration, emf, whatever you want to call it.

Even these small ones can be felt. A group I belonged to in the past
where many semiprecious stones were used to make orgone items, could
say that. The stone sodalite for example just "didn't go" with any
other combination of rocks for some reason, that none of us knew at the
time.

I have a nice chunk and tried it with turquoise, etc. It doesn't. Why
does it feel bad? It's radiation. It contains a high amount of
fluorine, if I'm not confusing it. Although many others contain some
as well, this one is high. So is it the radiaton of the chemical we
feel, or the element's own emf field, or both?  

If anyone recalls, I've said it's been found, and personally
experienced, that the symptoms of being exposed to radiation (emf's)
and chemicals are similar in the way the body makes us feel, and
exhibits them. Problems with one is going to allow problems with the
other, our body only has so many pathways to deal with things, and in
this case the two are often intertwined.

Now about the wind.

Perhaps maybe the weather warnings aren't helpful to those in other
countries, but having observed the wind patterns across southern Canada
and the northern U.S. for maybe 3yrs. now, I can see how it could be
useful to know what is coming. Friend's on the west coast will be here
in a couple days. Out to Wisconsin in 2-3 days from here, etc.

Is the wind itself an emf? I'm not a weather person, so I will only
guess on it's own it is not, but we can't separate it from what it
carries.

Probably many of you know that wind from different directions can bring
different ions. From the east is usually positive and makes people
ill, or cranky. There's a neat little poem in an old primary reader
from maybe the 1930's, I've hoped to find again for years that teaches
this. Anyone know it?

Along with the ions we also have whatever else may have been added,
naturally or not: Nitrogen -cold, brrr, foot freezing cold, hydrfluoric
acid (fluoride),hot, hot feet, barium, aluminum, quartz, pathogens, and
on it goes. All these are going to cause biological reactions in how
we feel, and in how strong we react to the environment around us.

For instance if we know that cold, cold wind is coming, we can "shield"
ourselves by as much as possible doing what needs done outdoors and
about town previous to that. Or, if we have to go out, we can know
infrared garments may be more appropriate that day...
Somehow I am not making this about the wind as clear as I would like,
but really, it all comes down to ionization.

I think that is at least in part what Tayloka is trying to get across,
that the ROOT CAUSE to our problems lies in exposure to fluorine,
(which really is everywhere now, if you read about it), radiation, and
my own addition, the heavy metals, -being conductors, and also impeding
the bodies natural balance.

We need to know what to do, above and beyond what we are doing now to
avoid the "regular" exposures, as our NEW regular exposure to radiation
has multiplied in huge amounts. Here the wind again; it carries the
radiation from the wars in the mideast here. You may know from
watching weather for example on the NASA site, dirt from dust storms in
Africa will be carried over to Florida.  

The DU that is being used over there contains guess what? Fluoride
again. So we get radiation from electric fields, magnetic fields, and
chemical exposure, all in one, they may just arrive at different times.

(If you're not familiar with the things they put in the chemtrails
worldwide now, that is something else to read on, and observe your
skies.)

A huge part of the problem in this being recognized, is we are getting
dosed in small amounts daily over years, so we may be diagnosed with
this, and then a couple years later, we are diagnosed with that, and
on, and on, and on. If it happened all at once, then it wouldn't be so
hard to figure out. It took me a couple years as it was to link
certain of my problems to the radiation overdose because outside of the
burning bones, I didn't see other effects immediately to hit me on the
head, so it went out of my head. :) They did start showing up in the
next month or so gradually, but I didn't recall it all till later.

Then as I get looking back, as I've referred to, I can see now how many
incidents go hand in hand, cause and effect.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: Yes, we need to keep doing what
we're doing to try and be more comfortable, but without learning how to
protect ourselves more, and better, it will in the long run be a futile
battle. Radiation poisoning will win. (Radiation meters around the
world by the way have been pulled, as they are measuring 8-10x the
normal amounts.)

Anyway, I think everyone has been very nice in this conversation, and
it sure has been interesting. I do go with Tayloka, that the things
she says are emf's are. It just may be out of what our current thought
of it is, but it all comes down to ionization. (The give and take of
electrons in every little electrical transaction we, and all nature are
involved in daily.)  

So there ya go. :)

~ Snoshoe


--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote:

--- In [hidden email], Garth Hitchens <garth@...> wrote:
I also agree with you, Garth.

Presented below are three discussion topics that may help to finish
the discussion.

1) Electromagnetic radiation emitted by mass
2) Chemical sensitivity and electrical sensitivity
3) On the use of the acronym EMF


Electromagnetic radiation emitted by mass
-----------------------------------------

As far as standard physics has observed, any physical mass

* that is a solid, liquid or dense gas
* that has a temperature above absolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin)

radiates a continuous thermal spectrum covering all wavelengths
measurable to date where the intensities are above or at the threshold
of our current sensing instruments. (For more, look up discussions
and explorations of Wien's "Law".)

Since all masses observed so far are above 0 deg K (and quantum
mechanics predicts that no mass can be at 0 deg K) we can extend the
observed results with some sense that the rest of the untested
material masses locally residing around us behave the same as their
tested counterparts. With this in mind, all dense bodies on Earth
possibly radiate electromagnetic energy at all types of wavelengths.
This is kind of surprising!

However, the issue is intensity, like both you and Marc have
mentioned. For example, the microwave emissions from our bodies' mass
constituents is *extremely* small compared to the emission of a cell
phone. So for all intents and purposes we don't consider most masses
as microwave emitters compared with wireless emissions. And the
statement about a bucket of sodium flouride emitting the same amount
of EMR as a bucket of water is thought to be accurate if both masses
are the same temperature since the thermal electromagnetic spectrum of
the EMR emission only depends on temperature.

Chemical sensitivity and electrical sensitivity
-----------------------------------------------

Chemical sensitivity symptoms are very similar - and for some people
the same - as electrical sensitivity symptoms. Maybe this is leading
some to think that chemicals and electromagnetic radiation are somehow
identical. Though the symptoms can be the same, the natures of the
incitants are not identical.

For chemical sensitivity, usually very close proximity interaction
with some amount of a chemical is needed to provoke reaction. For
most this usually means skin contact interaction or absorption into
the body. But some people do react to chemicals just in proximity in
a hermetically sealed container, no mass contact involved. The nature
of this interaction is not well understood, but it could be due to the
energetic emissions of the substances involved. However, the
presently measurable electromagnetic radiation emitted most likely
isn't a factor here because the spectrum shape is only a function of
temperature and not what type of substance is involved. But some type
of energetic signature interaction seems plausible since people can
react to holding a homeopathic remedy made from a chemical even if
their is no longer any of the chemical present, say like in a 200C
preparation.

In the case of electrical sensitivity, the symptom trigger is the
presence of an electromagnetic field whether it be in radiative form
like radio waves, non-radiative form as is the case for electrostatic
and magnetostatic fields, or a combination like the presence of an AC
field and its attendant EMR. The interaction mode is not externally
introduced chemicals interacting with chemicals in the body. It seems
to be some kind of bodily reaction to the properties of the EMR or
EMF, namely its frequency and intensity, or in the case of a static
field the amount of energy stored in the field. And the distance from
a measurable field can be substantial while provoking symptoms.

On the use of the acronym EMF
-----------------------------

The acronym "EMF" does sees usage in the area of gas emissions, i.e.,
emission of gaseous substances not electromagnetic radiation. There
are references made in this context to the Energy Modeling Forum at
Stanford University which studies the environmental impact of chemical
pollution (like greenhouse gases) from energy generation like the
burning of coal, oil & gasoline, and natural gas.

Maybe this has contributed to some confusion around the issue of gas
and the term EMF that this group uses to refer to electromagnetic
fields or electromotive force.

b

Regardless of how the person is injured, if the person has pain around
EMF that to me qualifies as ES.
Andrew

On May 8, 2006, at 10:14 AM, bbin37 wrote:

>>>> This is more for people having problems with computers, power lines,
>>>> cell phones, transmission towers, etc.

Or, does this group want to be exclusively oriented towards those that
believe their causative factor for their ES be only from electronic
wiring and radio/microwave towers? We need a name change then from
esens to "computers, power lines, cell phones, etc. related injuries."

If someone can prove that their condition has been cause ONLY by
electronics and not a complex relationship including radiation,
chemicals, viruses, bacteria, DNA, astrological birth chart,
emotionally trauma based and past life/other dimensional experiences,
I'd like to see that proven.
I am well aware of every groups natural process of "storming and
norming" and I welcome this conversation.
I personally would rather have more information than less.
Andrew

On May 8, 2006, at 10:14 AM, bbin37 wrote:

>>>> computers, power lines,
>>>> cell phones, transmission towers, etc.

Yes, I know, I said I wouldn't write any more about this, but my name
keeps appearing in the subject line, and it >IS< an important topic,
and Marc solicited opinions on this issue, and there is
misrepresentation of what I said, again...

Andrew wrote...
> Regardless of how the person is injured, if the person has pain around
> EMF that to me qualifies as ES.
> ...
> Or, does this group want to be exclusively oriented towards those that
> believe their causative factor for their ES be only from electronic
> wiring and radio/microwave towers? We need a name change then from
> esens to "computers, power lines, cell phones, etc. related
> injuries."

I personally tried to make it very clear that I considered various
causes (including chemical causes) for ES are acknowledged and are
good for discussion. You might go back and re-read the posts.

At issue was the claim that "EMF is radiated by chemicals" or "EMF is
radiated by carbon". I made the point, which I stand by, that EMF
is not inherently emitted by chemicals nor by carbon*, and thus
unless there are true electromagnetic fields around we are talking
about chemical sensitivity, or some other kind of sensitivity, but
not electromagnetic sensitivity.

I do think people should offer their experience and knowledge, but I
was concerned that something is being offered as 'scientific fact'
from a reliable, knowledgeable source that is in fact just plain
wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, because we are talking about
things represented as scientific fact, and well-defined scientific
terms like "radiation of electromagnetic fields".

This is IMPORTANT, because the error was taken by others on the list
as "fact" and then repeated numerous times. This leads to people
with ES (but not CS) making decisions that based on misinformation
(such as avoiding halogen bulbs themselves, thinking they produce
high EMF, rather than avoiding fixtures with transformers, which >DO<
produce high EMF).

Beau did a great job of clarifying the scientific issues in his
(lengthy and very technically accurate) post earlier today. I agree
with what Beau said 100%, by the way. Thanks Beau.

Just to be super clear, I also have NO PROBLEM with people who
believe that there are chemical, spiritual or other causes for ES, or
who believe that they have some unique "mysterious energy" that
interrelates with electrical devices (or chemicals) in unusual ways.
I personally believe that some of my ES symptoms became much more
acute after some intense spiritual experiences I had last summer. I
also don't claim to be able to explain, define or quantify any of
that. I'm surprisingly open-minded about that.

But the fact that we have aspects of ES which we can't explain,
doesn't in my mind, justify our declaring as "scientific fact" things
which are clearly contrary any current scientific theory or
understanding. Or, if we do, I think we should expect to be
challenged on it.

It's one thing to say "I get these symptoms when exposed to this
substance, and they seem like ES symptoms, so maybe there's a
commonality to discuss". It's another to say "this substance
radiates an electromagnetic field, so all ES people should avoid
it". The first is clearly helpful, the second one is misinformation.

Ok, now I really will stay quiet on this (unless someone uses my name
in the subject line again again!)

Garth

Footnote: *except for blackbody radiation, which Beau described, and
which all substances emit equally assuming equal temperatures.

Andrew McAfee wrote:
> Regardless of how the person is injured, if the person has pain around
> EMF that to me qualifies as ES.
>
> On May 8, 2006, at 10:14 AM, bbin37 wrote:
>
>>>>> This is more for people having problems with computers, power lines,
>>>>> cell phones, transmission towers, etc.

Actually, it was I that wrote that, not bbin37, and it was
in reference to the fact that I didn't think it was appropriate
to blame EMF if someone is reacting to chemicals.

I agree with your statement that "pain around EMF" qualifies
to me as ES, and the causative factor is irrelevant.

Marc

Well put I think Bbin. (And Garth too.) If it seemed I was confusing
emf and chemicals, that is not the case, although again it depends on
the level you look at it, in energy or "just" solid matter.

"But some people do react to chemicals just in proximity in
> a hermetically sealed container, no mass contact involved. The
nature > of this interaction is not well understood, but it could be
due to the > energetic emissions of the substances involved. But some
type > of energetic signature interaction seems plausible since
people can > react to holding a homeopathic remedy made from a
chemical even if > their is no longer any of the chemical present,
say like in a 200C> preparation."  

This rather proves the point right here don't you think? Look at how
unaccepted things like scalar waves have been, and Tesla's info. and
just how far technology and science have advanced in the last 30
years from so many things that "were not" at that time, because it
was not familiar, not necessarily unknown.

I was just listening to part of a show I caught about quantum physics
and current experiments earlier this week. They were talking about
it, and how things can be affected from a distance. It boils down to
frequencies and resonance. Also stated that the world's biggest
pollution now is electrosmog. (Anybody familiar with black boxes from
20 years ago? Emits the the frequency of the enclosed item, having
it's vibrational effects on it's target- or sometimes unintended
target. Effects good or bad depending. There was no direct contact
between the original source and the recipient.)

Because all things, ALL things, have an inherent emf. That is one of
the laws of radiation. "All things emit radiation." Looking at Dr.
Carey Reams' work again; he figured out the frequency for humans. The
further out it goes, the finer tuned it gets, till it is uniquely us
as an individual. If our large earth has it's own, and us, why not
the smaller things?

Let's go back to the beginnings a bit. That all things have an emf is
one of the first things you'll learn about electromagnetism. Heck,
this is being taught in highschool physics now. Every one of those
frequencies has it's own wavelength, sound, and it's own color.

I don't know if anyone noticed I posted a link with a list of the
frequency in Hz for many elements?  

The frequency of each of them can also be found on a table of
elements here: BIG FAT Sigh. It's not any of the ones I thought, so
I'll have to look some more. I'll try and find it. Okay, my
connection is tryint to drop, this is not the one I wanted, but it
may be useful: http://www.chem.tamu.edu/services/NMR/periodic/

Wikipedia has a nice definition and outline of the spectrum. The
wavelengths, frequencies, and electrical energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

If you have the frequency, wavelength, color, or sound, you can find
out the rest of these about any item. There are converters like the
one on this page or others:
http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.
htm

Wien's law just says that the wavelength can be manipulated. It
doesn't mean there isn't one. (Leading to possible transmutation?
That's something else though.)

Chemistry and physics,as much as I dislike it myself, can't be
entirely separated. What is a chemical reaction anyway? A shift of
substance, or electrical energy, an exchanging of ions. What is
electricity? Same thing isn't it?

When incoming radiation fields from phones, x-rays come to us, what
is happening but the same thing? Ionization.

So on the surface, yes, chemicals may not seem the same, because we
haven't ususally been taught past that. But under the surface, there
is all kinds of electrical exchanges going on. It's what makes us
go.  

We live in a cake batter world, with flour electricity, sugar
chemicals, a pinch salt for some separate magnetism, all mixed
together, and we really can't separate them entirely, although
somewhat. I strongly suspect that as the earth's magnetic field
continues to decrease, and our electrosmog increase, the way we are
use to things normally working, will no longer be the norm.

~ Snoshoe :)



--- In [hidden email], "bbin37" <netfarer2@...> wrote: threshold
> of our current sensing instruments. (For more, look up discussions
> and explorations of Wien's "Law".)
>
> Since all masses observed so far are above 0 deg K (and quantum
> mechanics predicts that no mass can be at 0 deg K) we can extend the
> observed results with some sense that the rest of the untested
> material masses locally residing around us behave the same as their
> tested counterparts. With this in mind, all dense bodies on Earth
> possibly radiate electromagnetic energy at all types of
wavelengths.
> This is kind of surprising!
>
> However, the issue is intensity, like both you and Marc have
> mentioned. For example, the microwave emissions from our bodies'
mass
> constituents is *extremely* small compared to the emission of a cell
> phone. So for all intents and purposes we don't consider most
masses
> as microwave emitters compared with wireless emissions. And the
> statement about a bucket of sodium flouride emitting the same amount
> of EMR as a bucket of water is thought to be accurate if both masses
> are the same temperature since the thermal electromagnetic spectrum
of
> the EMR emission only depends on temperature.
>
> Chemical sensitivity and electrical sensitivity
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Chemical sensitivity symptoms are very similar - and for some people
> the same - as electrical sensitivity symptoms. Maybe this is
leading
> some to think that chemicals and electromagnetic radiation are
somehow
> identical. Though the symptoms can be the same, the natures of the
> incitants are not identical.
>
> For chemical sensitivity, usually very close proximity interaction
> with some amount of a chemical is needed to provoke reaction. For
> most this usually means skin contact interaction or absorption into
> the body. But some people do react to chemicals just in proximity
in
> a hermetically sealed container, no mass contact involved. The
nature
> of this interaction is not well understood, but it could be due to
the
> energetic emissions of the substances involved. However, the
> presently measurable electromagnetic radiation emitted most likely
> isn't a factor here because the spectrum shape is only a function of
> temperature and not what type of substance is involved. But some
type
> of energetic signature interaction seems plausible since people can
> react to holding a homeopathic remedy made from a chemical even if
> their is no longer any of the chemical present, say like in a 200C
> preparation.
>
> In the case of electrical sensitivity, the symptom trigger is the
> presence of an electromagnetic field whether it be in radiative form
> like radio waves, non-radiative form as is the case for
electrostatic
> and magnetostatic fields, or a combination like the presence of an
AC
> field and its attendant EMR. The interaction mode is not externally
> introduced chemicals interacting with chemicals in the body. It
seems
> to be some kind of bodily reaction to the properties of the EMR or
> EMF, namely its frequency and intensity, or in the case of a static
> field the amount of energy stored in the field. And the distance
from
> a measurable field can be substantial while provoking symptoms.
>
> On the use of the acronym EMF
> -----------------------------
>
> The acronym "EMF" does sees usage in the area of gas emissions,
i.e.,
> emission of gaseous substances not electromagnetic radiation. There
> are references made in this context to the Energy Modeling Forum at
> Stanford University which studies the environmental impact of
chemical
> pollution (like greenhouse gases) from energy generation like the
> burning of coal, oil & gasoline, and natural gas.
>
> Maybe this has contributed to some confusion around the issue of gas
> and the term EMF that this group uses to refer to electromagnetic
> fields or electromotive force.
>
> b
>

I knew I'd forget something.

Before that, I thought it might be good to add a definition of
radiation, and radioactivity to this as well.

Radiation n.
1.The act or process of radiating: the radiation of heat and light
from a fire.
2.Physics:
Emission and propagation and emission of energy in the form of rays
or waves.
Energy radiated or transmitted as rays, waves, in the form of
particles.
A stream of particles or electromagnetic waves emitted by the atoms
and molecules of a radioactive substance as a result of nuclear decay.
3.a.The act of exposing or the condition of being exposed to such
energy.
b.The application of such energy, as in medical treatment.
4.Anatomy. Radial arrangement of parts, as of a group of nerve fibers
connecting different areas of the brain.
5.The spread of a group of organisms into new habitats.
Adaptive radiation.

Radioactivity n.
1.Spontaneous emission of radiation, either directly from unstable
atomic nuclei or as a consequence of a nuclear reaction.
2.The radiation, including alpha particles, nucleons, electrons, and
gamma rays, emitted by a radioactive substance.

So the part I forgot. Whether the pails have water, fluoride and they
sit together open, I don't know if the pails previously mentioned are
open? Although from the below, it doesn't really matter entirely.

They are both going to radiate something, even if just through
evaporation. But which more? I'm sure most of us have done the
experiments in early school years and know the scent will radiate and
fill up the room in a short time. Or added dye to water and watched
the color spread. I realize that is not quite the same, but I think
it gives the same picture.

Another way to look at it; I am water. A hyper little first grader is
fluorine. :)
Fluorine is the most electronegative, or very active element there is.

We are both assigned to sit side by side in chairs. Just
sitting "still", one of us is vibrating at a much higher level, even
though we are in the same room, at the same temp. One is less
stable. :)
Who do you think is going to be that little electron that finally
loses it, going from static to kinetic energy and spins out of
control off it's home base the chair and off to zooming around the
room as a free radical until it finds something preferable to occupy
it? Fluorine? You got it. :) Chemical electricity in motion. (We
already know you can't have electricity w/o a magnetic field.)

~ Snoshoe

--- In [hidden email], "snoshoe_2" <nonengbunny@...> wrote:
>
> Well put I think Bbin. (And Garth too.) If it seemed I was
confusing
> emf and chemicals, that is not the case, although again it depends
on
> the level you look at it, in energy or "just" solid matter.
>
> "But some people do react to chemicals just in proximity in
> > a hermetically sealed container, no mass contact involved. The
> nature > of this interaction is not well understood, but it could
be
> due to the > energetic emissions of the substances involved. But
some
> type > of energetic signature interaction seems plausible since
> people can > react to holding a homeopathic remedy made from a
> chemical even if > their is no longer any of the chemical present,
> say like in a 200C> preparation."  
>
> This rather proves the point right here don't you think? Look at
how
> unaccepted things like scalar waves have been, and Tesla's info.
and
> just how far technology and science have advanced in the last 30
> years from so many things that "were not" at that time, because it
> was not familiar, not necessarily unknown.
>
> I was just listening to part of a show I caught about quantum
physics
> and current experiments earlier this week. They were talking about
> it, and how things can be affected from a distance. It boils down
to
> frequencies and resonance. Also stated that the world's biggest
> pollution now is electrosmog. (Anybody familiar with black boxes
from
> 20 years ago? Emits the the frequency of the enclosed item, having
> it's vibrational effects on it's target- or sometimes unintended
> target. Effects good or bad depending. There was no direct contact
> between the original source and the recipient.)
>
> Because all things, ALL things, have an inherent emf. That is one
of
> the laws of radiation. "All things emit radiation." Looking at Dr.
> Carey Reams' work again; he figured out the frequency for humans.
The
> further out it goes, the finer tuned it gets, till it is uniquely
us
> as an individual. If our large earth has it's own, and us, why not
> the smaller things?
>
> Let's go back to the beginnings a bit. That all things have an emf
is
> one of the first things you'll learn about electromagnetism. Heck,
> this is being taught in highschool physics now. Every one of those
> frequencies has it's own wavelength, sound, and it's own color.
>
> I don't know if anyone noticed I posted a link with a list of the
> frequency in Hz for many elements?  
>
> The frequency of each of them can also be found on a table of
> elements here: BIG FAT Sigh. It's not any of the ones I thought,
so
> I'll have to look some more. I'll try and find it. Okay, my
> connection is tryint to drop, this is not the one I wanted, but it
> may be useful: http://www.chem.tamu.edu/services/NMR/periodic/
>
> Wikipedia has a nice definition and outline of the spectrum. The
> wavelengths, frequencies, and electrical energy.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
>
> If you have the frequency, wavelength, color, or sound, you can
find
> out the rest of these about any item. There are converters like
the
> one on this page or others:
>
http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared. there

Well I apologize if my latest posts have been too off topic. I've been
responding mainly to others. It wasn't my intention. I just don't have all
that much to talk about lately about EMF. I've made so many adjustments in
my living arrangement that I am so very little exposed to it anymore and am
doing so much better. I will try to stay on topic more from now on. I have
no comment on Tayloka40's (spelling?)situation. I have no idea what any of
it means. Take Care.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Martin" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [eSens] Re: Garth, I have more now...


Andrew McAfee wrote:
> Regardless of how the person is injured, if the person has pain around
> EMF that to me qualifies as ES.
>
> On May 8, 2006, at 10:14 AM, bbin37 wrote:
>
>>>>> This is more for people having problems with computers, power lines,
>>>>> cell phones, transmission towers, etc.

Actually, it was I that wrote that, not bbin37, and it was
in reference to the fact that I didn't think it was appropriate
to blame EMF if someone is reacting to chemicals.

I agree with your statement that "pain around EMF" qualifies
to me as ES, and the causative factor is irrelevant.

Marc




Yahoo! Groups Links

Andrew, I so agree with you!
Diane

Andrew McAfee <[hidden email]> wrote:

Or, does this group want to be exclusively oriented towards those that
believe their causative factor for their ES be only from electronic
wiring and radio/microwave towers? We need a name change then from
esens to "computers, power lines, cell phones, etc. related injuries."

If someone can prove that their condition has been cause ONLY by
electronics and not a complex relationship including radiation,
chemicals, viruses, bacteria, DNA, astrological birth chart,
emotionally trauma based and past life/other dimensional experiences,
I'd like to see that proven.
I am well aware of every groups natural process of "storming and
norming" and I welcome this conversation.
I personally would rather have more information than less.
Andrew

On May 8, 2006, at 10:14 AM, bbin37 wrote:

>>>> computers, power lines,
>>>> cell phones, transmission towers, etc.



SPONSORED LINKS
Health and wellness Health wellness product Health and wellness program Health promotion and wellness Health and wellness promotion Business health wellness

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "eSens" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[hidden email]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Garth,

I think you have misunderstood something somewhere. We have not embraced any representation of the term EMF, either way. I do not know enough technically to say whether Karen is correct or not in saying that everything has an EMF. That to untechnical me is meaningless, as it does not address my health issues. Nor do I take your word that Karen is wrong! I don't know! And I cannot see why you say others here are supporting this idea of Karen's (that everything emits EMFs) as I have seen no evidence of this and have not done so myself. What I HAVE said is (and I stand by this, btw) I react to various things--they create toxins or toxic reactions--which in turn cause ES symptoms as you all here know them. I have not ascribed these things as emitting EMFs. I ascribe these things as causing toxins. The toxins then cause me to react to EMFs. I see others like Snoshoe and Andrew saying the same thing. To be honest, I am not even sure that Karen ascribed everything as
emitting EMFs! But you say here that this was taken by others here as fact and reiterated numerous times. Maybe I missed something, but I did not reiterate this and I didn't see Andrew or Snoshoe or anyone else saying this, personally.

Diane

Garth Hitchens <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes, I know, I said I wouldn't write any more about this, but my name
keeps appearing in the subject line, and it >IS< an important topic,
and Marc solicited opinions on this issue, and there is
misrepresentation of what I said, again...

Andrew wrote...
> Regardless of how the person is injured, if the person has pain around
> EMF that to me qualifies as ES.
> ...
> Or, does this group want to be exclusively oriented towards those that
> believe their causative factor for their ES be only from electronic
> wiring and radio/microwave towers? We need a name change then from
> esens to "computers, power lines, cell phones, etc. related
> injuries."

I personally tried to make it very clear that I considered various
causes (including chemical causes) for ES are acknowledged and are
good for discussion. You might go back and re-read the posts.

At issue was the claim that "EMF is radiated by chemicals" or "EMF is
radiated by carbon". I made the point, which I stand by, that EMF
is not inherently emitted by chemicals nor by carbon*, and thus
unless there are true electromagnetic fields around we are talking
about chemical sensitivity, or some other kind of sensitivity, but
not electromagnetic sensitivity.

I do think people should offer their experience and knowledge, but I
was concerned that something is being offered as 'scientific fact'
from a reliable, knowledgeable source that is in fact just plain
wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, because we are talking about
things represented as scientific fact, and well-defined scientific
terms like "radiation of electromagnetic fields".

This is IMPORTANT, because the error was taken by others on the list
as "fact" and then repeated numerous times. This leads to people
with ES (but not CS) making decisions that based on misinformation
(such as avoiding halogen bulbs themselves, thinking they produce
high EMF, rather than avoiding fixtures with transformers, which >DO<
produce high EMF).

Beau did a great job of clarifying the scientific issues in his
(lengthy and very technically accurate) post earlier today. I agree
with what Beau said 100%, by the way. Thanks Beau.

Just to be super clear, I also have NO PROBLEM with people who
believe that there are chemical, spiritual or other causes for ES, or
who believe that they have some unique "mysterious energy" that
interrelates with electrical devices (or chemicals) in unusual ways.
I personally believe that some of my ES symptoms became much more
acute after some intense spiritual experiences I had last summer. I
also don't claim to be able to explain, define or quantify any of
that. I'm surprisingly open-minded about that.

But the fact that we have aspects of ES which we can't explain,
doesn't in my mind, justify our declaring as "scientific fact" things
which are clearly contrary any current scientific theory or
understanding. Or, if we do, I think we should expect to be
challenged on it.

It's one thing to say "I get these symptoms when exposed to this
substance, and they seem like ES symptoms, so maybe there's a
commonality to discuss". It's another to say "this substance
radiates an electromagnetic field, so all ES people should avoid
it". The first is clearly helpful, the second one is misinformation.

Ok, now I really will stay quiet on this (unless someone uses my name
in the subject line again again!)

Garth

Footnote: *except for blackbody radiation, which Beau described, and
which all substances emit equally assuming equal temperatures.













SPONSORED LINKS
Health and wellness Health wellness product Health and wellness program Health promotion and wellness Health and wellness promotion Business health wellness

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "eSens" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[hidden email]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------





---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi, Snoshoe and All,
   
Ok, maybe I was wrong about others supporting the idea that EMFs emit from everything! lol I at least can now relate a little better to what this means since reading your cake batter explanation. Hey, not all of us can be rocket scientists! ;)
   
Thanks, Snoshoe,
Diane

snoshoe_2 <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well put I think Bbin. (And Garth too.) If it seemed I was confusing
emf and chemicals, that is not the case, although again it depends on
the level you look at it, in energy or "just" solid matter.

"But some people do react to chemicals just in proximity in
> a hermetically sealed container, no mass contact involved. The
nature > of this interaction is not well understood, but it could be
due to the > energetic emissions of the substances involved. But some
type > of energetic signature interaction seems plausible since
people can > react to holding a homeopathic remedy made from a
chemical even if > their is no longer any of the chemical present,
say like in a 200C> preparation."  

This rather proves the point right here don't you think? Look at how
unaccepted things like scalar waves have been, and Tesla's info. and
just how far technology and science have advanced in the last 30
years from so many things that "were not" at that time, because it
was not familiar, not necessarily unknown.

I was just listening to part of a show I caught about quantum physics
and current experiments earlier this week. They were talking about
it, and how things can be affected from a distance. It boils down to
frequencies and resonance. Also stated that the world's biggest
pollution now is electrosmog. (Anybody familiar with black boxes from
20 years ago? Emits the the frequency of the enclosed item, having
it's vibrational effects on it's target- or sometimes unintended
target. Effects good or bad depending. There was no direct contact
between the original source and the recipient.)

Because all things, ALL things, have an inherent emf. That is one of
the laws of radiation. "All things emit radiation." Looking at Dr.
Carey Reams' work again; he figured out the frequency for humans. The
further out it goes, the finer tuned it gets, till it is uniquely us
as an individual. If our large earth has it's own, and us, why not
the smaller things?

Let's go back to the beginnings a bit. That all things have an emf is
one of the first things you'll learn about electromagnetism. Heck,
this is being taught in highschool physics now. Every one of those
frequencies has it's own wavelength, sound, and it's own color.

I don't know if anyone noticed I posted a link with a list of the
frequency in Hz for many elements?  

The frequency of each of them can also be found on a table of
elements here: BIG FAT Sigh. It's not any of the ones I thought, so
I'll have to look some more. I'll try and find it. Okay, my
connection is tryint to drop, this is not the one I wanted, but it
may be useful: http://www.chem.tamu.edu/services/NMR/periodic/

Wikipedia has a nice definition and outline of the spectrum. The
wavelengths, frequencies, and electrical energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

If you have the frequency, wavelength, color, or sound, you can find
out the rest of these about any item. There are converters like the
one on this page or others:
http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.
htm

Wien's law just says that the wavelength can be manipulated. It
doesn't mean there isn't one. (Leading to possible transmutation?
That's something else though.)

Chemistry and physics,as much as I dislike it myself, can't be
entirely separated. What is a chemical reaction anyway? A shift of
substance, or electrical energy, an exchanging of ions. What is
electricity? Same thing isn't it?

When incoming radiation fields from phones, x-rays come to us, what
is happening but the same thing? Ionization.

So on the surface, yes, chemicals may not seem the same, because we
haven't ususally been taught past that. But under the surface, there
is all kinds of electrical exchanges going on. It's what makes us
go.  

We live in a cake batter world, with flour electricity, sugar
chemicals, a pinch salt for some separate magnetism, all mixed
together, and we really can't separate them entirely, although
somewhat. I strongly suspect that as the earth's magnetic field
continues to decrease, and our electrosmog increase, the way we are
use to things normally working, will no longer be the norm.

~ Snoshoe :)



--- In [hidden email], "bbin37" <netfarer2@...> wrote: threshold
> of our current sensing instruments. (For more, look up discussions
> and explorations of Wien's "Law".)
>
> Since all masses observed so far are above 0 deg K (and quantum
> mechanics predicts that no mass can be at 0 deg K) we can extend the
> observed results with some sense that the rest of the untested
> material masses locally residing around us behave the same as their
> tested counterparts. With this in mind, all dense bodies on Earth
> possibly radiate electromagnetic energy at all types of
wavelengths.
> This is kind of surprising!
>
> However, the issue is intensity, like both you and Marc have
> mentioned. For example, the microwave emissions from our bodies'
mass
> constituents is *extremely* small compared to the emission of a cell
> phone. So for all intents and purposes we don't consider most
masses
> as microwave emitters compared with wireless emissions. And the
> statement about a bucket of sodium flouride emitting the same amount
> of EMR as a bucket of water is thought to be accurate if both masses
> are the same temperature since the thermal electromagnetic spectrum
of
> the EMR emission only depends on temperature.
>
> Chemical sensitivity and electrical sensitivity
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Chemical sensitivity symptoms are very similar - and for some people
> the same - as electrical sensitivity symptoms. Maybe this is
leading
> some to think that chemicals and electromagnetic radiation are
somehow
> identical. Though the symptoms can be the same, the natures of the
> incitants are not identical.
>
> For chemical sensitivity, usually very close proximity interaction
> with some amount of a chemical is needed to provoke reaction. For
> most this usually means skin contact interaction or absorption into
> the body. But some people do react to chemicals just in proximity
in
> a hermetically sealed container, no mass contact involved. The
nature
> of this interaction is not well understood, but it could be due to
the
> energetic emissions of the substances involved. However, the
> presently measurable electromagnetic radiation emitted most likely
> isn't a factor here because the spectrum shape is only a function of
> temperature and not what type of substance is involved. But some
type
> of energetic signature interaction seems plausible since people can
> react to holding a homeopathic remedy made from a chemical even if
> their is no longer any of the chemical present, say like in a 200C
> preparation.
>
> In the case of electrical sensitivity, the symptom trigger is the
> presence of an electromagnetic field whether it be in radiative form
> like radio waves, non-radiative form as is the case for
electrostatic
> and magnetostatic fields, or a combination like the presence of an
AC
> field and its attendant EMR. The interaction mode is not externally
> introduced chemicals interacting with chemicals in the body. It
seems
> to be some kind of bodily reaction to the properties of the EMR or
> EMF, namely its frequency and intensity, or in the case of a static
> field the amount of energy stored in the field. And the distance
from
> a measurable field can be substantial while provoking symptoms.
>
> On the use of the acronym EMF
> -----------------------------
>
> The acronym "EMF" does sees usage in the area of gas emissions,
i.e.,
> emission of gaseous substances not electromagnetic radiation. There
> are references made in this context to the Energy Modeling Forum at
> Stanford University which studies the environmental impact of
chemical
> pollution (like greenhouse gases) from energy generation like the
> burning of coal, oil & gasoline, and natural gas.
>
> Maybe this has contributed to some confusion around the issue of gas
> and the term EMF that this group uses to refer to electromagnetic
> fields or electromotive force.
>
> b
>







SPONSORED LINKS
Health and wellness Health wellness product Health and wellnessprogram Health promotion and wellness Health and wellness promotion Business health wellness
   
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   
Visit your group "eSens" on the web.
   
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[hidden email]
   
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

   
---------------------------------
 



               
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]