Interesting link and more...

Hi,

I found these link when browsing around on my computer:
"Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Humans in the Frequency
Range of 0 bis 3 GHz" (It is on english!)
http://www.reach.net/~scherer/wma/test/emfde/e/isfe_001.htm#top
(At the bottom of the side you have arrows so you can access the material!)

-----

Out of my own and my friend's experience regarding ES I would say that
there are at least two categories of ES people, A) those suffering from
direct effects from electromagnetic fields and B) those people who
"believe" that they are ES!

Sufferer in category A) needs "real" stuff like shielding, filtering
etc. to coop with the situation.

Sufferer in category B) coops with their situations through "New Age
Stuff" and other nonscientific things!

The problems for "B)-people" is tough enough, I am aware of that! They
do react on something for sure. But I guess it is some sort of subtle
energies not known by science of today.

Many ES people suffer from both type A) and type B) problems!

As if it wasn't enough we have the amalgam (mercury) problem that seems
to be relevant for a great deal of ES-sufferers.
Other chemicals that affect us is flame inhibiting compounds, compounds
containing chlorine, pesticides etc.

-----

I know for sure that stress hormones in my body is directly influenced
by electromagnetic fields. I get exactly the same response from low
level, low frequency noise.

I guess that I will be asked to leave the list as a result of my
statements above (;-))!

greetings

Anders Eriksson

> I guess that I will be asked to leave the list as a result of my
> statements above (;-))!

Well, you stated your opinion, and you weren't rude about it, so
there's nothing wrong with that.

However, I don't agree with your opinion. I've done many
experiments on myself over the past 3 years under controlled
circumstances, which I think is far more scientific than you
stating your beliefs without the data to back it up. I also
began this journey as skeptical as you (my profession is an
Aerospace Engineer -- aka "Rocket Scientist"), but through my
own repeatable experiences I could not deny the obvious truth
of the matter.

Others find it easier to live in a state of denial and ignorance.
Perhaps by staying subscribed to this list, someday we'll be
able to educate you. :-)

Marc

> Out of my own and my friend's experience regarding ES I would say that
> there are at least two categories of ES people, A) those suffering from
> direct effects from electromagnetic fields and B) those people who
> "believe" that they are ES!

I suppose rather than having some vague reaction to your post, I should
focus on the part I find the most objectionable.

One of the biggest problems an ES person has is that nobody believes
you. Your doctor won't believe you, your boss won't believe you,
your friends and coworker won't believe you.

I would think that on an *ES discussion group*, people would be safe
from being told that they don't really have ES. And yet, we've
already had two people on this group making accusations that others
on the list aren't really ES. To me, this is really irresponsible
behavior. Especially when these list members haven't even tried the
things they are criticizing!

And yes, if this sort of thing continues, then perhaps I will start
moderating such people. But I would hope that such people would
wise up and be more respectful towards their fellow list members.

Marc

The differentiation is other

a. people exposed to EMF, but feel nothing
b. people exposed to EMF, feeling it, but do not have reactions
c. people exposed to EMF, feeling it, and reacting slightly. They can
*manage*.
d. people exposed to EMF, feeling it, reacting to it, have difficulty in
*managing*
e. people exposed to EMF, feeling it, reacting heavily, and cannot *manage*.

in MHO.

The church is the place for *believers*.

EMF is based on facts.
The Pro-mobile phone people suggest, that everybody believes in ES, and that
it is *something between the ears*.
But hundreds of studies have proved that EMF can cause biological effects,
*without warming-up*.
Also it is said, that people already had symptoms of ES, before the antennas
were set in working.
But that is not true. In many cases they were running already, in testing
phase or other.
Electrical billings proved that.

On the other hand antennas, like many metal surfaces, can react like a
secondair antenna.
So they transmit EMF, coming from other antennas.

And I have found, that stone can do the same.
In our appartment building, I walk in the corridor.
On one wall I measure the DECT phone of an neighbour opposite of our home,
145 uW/m2.
When I turn 180 degrees and measure our wall, I measure 85 uW/m2 EMF, coming
from my appartment.
I know very, very sure, that I do not have a DECT phone (cordless phone
according the DECT/GAP principle).

My wife had some trouble in the staircase corridors, at some places.
I went measuring, and yes, 190 uW/m2, from a DECT phone.

Everybody, who *believes* that they have ES, should go to a place where
there is less EMF, and see if the symptoms diminish.
If you do have symptoms, where the doctors cannot find a reasonable cause,
then you may consider ES.
The symptoms are described in the *Freiburger Appell*



Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
http://members.rott.chello.nl/cclaessens/
http://www.hese-project.org
checked by Norton Antivirus


----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Martin" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 20:04
Subject: Re: [eSens] Interesting link and more...


> > Out of my own and my friend's experience regarding ES I would say that
> > there are at least two categories of ES people, A) those suffering from
> > direct effects from electromagnetic fields and B) those people who
> > "believe" that they are ES!
>

>
> I guess that I will be asked to leave the list as a result of my
> statements above (;-))!
>

I, particularly, would prefer that you stay at the list and tell us more
about your standpoints. I would appreciate knowing the following:

1. Why do you think that somebody who is really disturbed would not wish
even to try to feel New Age stuff, the same way he feels the ES disturbance?
(None of us, I suppose, found himself ES on the basis of some measurement,
but merely believing his senses!?)

2. How do you know *you* are (really) ES?! (I am especially interested in
the hormonal reaction measurement, as I am myself concerned with objective
ways to monitor the reaction.)

3. Don't you believe that I can tell whether there is a New Age device in a
box? Also, don't you believe that there are objectively measurable effects
of such devices?!
(For example with a kind of "lie - detector", similarly to what Dr. Dietrich
explained previously, also have you seen the http://www.emf.com/biochip.html
that cites *peer reviewed* works of Dr. Litovitz showing protective effects
of a device that has nothing to do with shielding - that effects are
observed at chicken embryos, it is hard to believe that are your "B" type
:-)) ?

I am always questioning myself whether my observation is a
result of a suggestion, and try to make both objectiive (what is extremely
difficult - but I've succesfully done EEG testing according to Dr. Klitzing)
and *blind tests* (try to guess what happens) whenever possible - it is for
practical purposes the biggest "science" available to us...

By the way, how old are you? I don't remember you told us you story (sorry
if I am wrong)?

Drasko

Drasko

> I am always questioning myself whether my observation is a
> result of a suggestion, and try to make both objectiive

Yes, I don't make my observations lightly either. I find it
amusing when someone suggests that a "placebo effect" is taking
place, when on numerous occasions I have forgotten to use a
device (but *thought* I was using it) and started suffering
ill effects from EMF.

Also, what exactly is the definition of a "New Age Device"?
Anything that is not an EMF filter or shield? Sounds like this
is simply a derogatory term from someone who is knowledgeable
about electrically engineering (hey, I subscribe to the "EE
TIMES" magazine myself), but not much else.

For example, the Quantum Products device were invented by
an electrical engineer, and are based on the discoveries
of Quantum Physics. Also, it is supposed to reduce the
high frequency noise in the power lines. And yet this
is a "new age device"??? If the critics were really
interested in the truth, they'd get one (I'd be happy
to loan them one for free), and use their oscilliscope
and see the results for themselves.

Also, the Springlife Polarizers I'm using a based on
the principles of life force energy, or "chi". Is "chi"
a new age concept, even though it's the basis of yoga,
chinese medicine, acupuncture, and the martial arts?
Things which have been used for hundreds (thousands?)
of years by millions (billions?) of people? And
again, we've got a Springlife Polarizers being lent
out to group members for free, and yet I don't see
these people asking to try it out...

Marc

----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Martin
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [eSens] Interesting link and more...


> I am always questioning myself whether my observation is a
> result of a suggestion, and try to make both objectiive

Yes, I don't make my observations lightly either. I find it
amusing when someone suggests that a "placebo effect" is taking
place, when on numerous occasions I have forgotten to use a
device (but *thought* I was using it) and started suffering
ill effects from EMF.

Also, what exactly is the definition of a "New Age Device"?
Anything that is not an EMF filter or shield? Sounds like this
is simply a derogatory term from someone who is knowledgeable
about electrically engineering (hey, I subscribe to the "EE
TIMES" magazine myself), but not much else.

For example, the Quantum Products device were invented by
an electrical engineer, and are based on the discoveries
of Quantum Physics. Also, it is supposed to reduce the
high frequency noise in the power lines. And yet this
is a "new age device"??? If the critics were really
interested in the truth, they'd get one (I'd be happy
to loan them one for free), and use their oscilliscope
and see the results for themselves.

Also, the Springlife Polarizers I'm using a based on
the principles of life force energy, or "chi". Is "chi"
a new age concept, even though it's the basis of yoga,
chinese medicine, acupuncture, and the martial arts?
Things which have been used for hundreds (thousands?)
of years by millions (billions?) of people? And
again, we've got a Springlife Polarizers being lent
out to group members for free, and yet I don't see
these people asking to try it out...

Marc


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eSens/

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

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



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

Marc.

Being one of the sceptics that maybe should be
moderated..................... ( in a democratic way of course ).

I want to ask a short question on the subject of frequency.
Frequency seems to be a confusion for many participants of the list.

When you write about high-frequency noise in connection with power lines.
What do you consider to be high-frequency?

Myself i, ( when talking about power-lines ), say that low frequency is
up to some hundred hertz.
Hi-frequency is up to about some hundred Khz to maybe 1 Mhz.

I found schematics for the Steltzer filters and they seemed very
straight low-freq. nothing to really write home about.
If they are expensive it is good for Mr. Steltzer.

On the subject of chi i don´t no first thing, which i admitt, but
because it is old it does not have to work.
It is quite boring to hear that something is old and hence is beyond
critizism.


Wille Borlin
SWEDEN





Marc Martin wrote:


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

Charles

On the instrument you use to measure DECT-radiation, is the antenna so
perfect that it can completely reject signals that come in of center?
I ask this because you make the sensational statement that stone can
reflect radio-waves.
If that is true it could also be a quite fantastic and cheap shielding
material.
Which leads to the question how your neighbors DECT-signal could get out
in the corridor in the first place, through the shielding stone.

Wille Borlin
SWEDEN


charles wrote:


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

>When you write about high-frequency noise in connection with power lines.
>What do you consider to be high-frequency?

On this subject, I only repeat the literature which comes with the
products. However, I refer to products which had a clear, repeatable, and
dramatic impact on my health and ability to tolerate EMF, which is the only
thing which is important to me. I don't really care what the frequencies
are. I just care that I am able to tolerate them!

>On the subject of chi i don´t no first thing, which i admitt, but
>because it is old it does not have to work.
>It is quite boring to hear that something is old and hence is beyond
>critizism.

Well, of course. But again, I only mention this because I have tried it,
and it has worked for me. There is also an energy healing performed by
practitioners called "Reiki". This also claims to use "chi". This is also
pretty popular these days, but of course, being popular does not mean that
it works. However, I have paid for some sessions in this, and could feel
the energy during the sessions. And what I felt is exactly the same as
what I feel when using the Springlife polarizers. So my conclusion is that
what I'm feeling is the effects of "chi". (and the Springlife polarizers
are a cheaper alternative to Reiki, as going to a Reiki practitioner costs
$60 for an hour of chi, while a $90 Springlife Polarizer will provide you
with years of it -- well, at least 6 months worth, which is how long I've
had them... :-)

Marc

Hello Wille Borlin,

firstly let me explain the matter of frequencies.
We call from 0 Hz up to about 1 Mhz low frequency, where from 0Hz to 20 Hz
we call extreme low frequency.
from 1 MHz up to in the 1 Ghz we call high frequency.
One of the reasons is, that in the low frequency field, the electrical and
the magnetical alternating field are separate, so they must be measured with
separate meters.
In the high frequency field, the electrical and the magnetic alternating
field are interwoven into each other. By measuring one field, the other can
be calculated.
Mostly we only measure the electrical field.
The building biologists speak in terms of uW/m2 (micro Watts per square
meter), the elctrical engineers speak about V/m, or Volts per meter.

DECT signals do have a special characteristic in sound (coming from a
meter), so it is very easy to distinguish it from other signals.
A number of high frequency meters do find it easily.
The cheapest is the Aaronia HF Detektor II (see *het bitje* september 2002,
on
http://members.rott.chello.nl/cclaessens/Pagina37.html)
Its sound quality is not so good, but with the earpeace it is better.
Then there is the Endotronic Esmog Spion.
(See *het bitje* april 2003) Extremely well in sound.
I use the Endotronic HF Digitmeter II, with a logarithmic periodic
directional antenna.
(pictures in *het bitje* juli 2003, and september 2002).
With it, I can locate DECT phones 3 houses away.
The above mentioned meters do have an AGC, automatic gain control.
They reinforce the weak signals to an audible level, which is NOT in
accordance to its signal strength.

For quantitative measurement I use the Gigahertz Solutions HF Analyser
HF58B, which has a special logarithmic periodic antenna.
(see *het bitje* October/Februari 2004)
Here the signals are proportional in strength as in audible level.
My statement that stone can reflect radio-waves is certainly not
sensational.
In fact it is quite common, and one has to take this into account when one
measures the HF radiation.
Around antennas and buildings, one has to look for reflections and take this
into account.
There the HF Digitmeter II is a very handy instrument (see the picture in
*het bitje* september 2002, where on page 13 a magnetic *Hotspot* antenna is
shown.
With it, I find socalled *hot-spots* in rooms. They have commonly the size
of a small football.
It is a spot where several HF radiation beams are coming together (from
phones, radio, television, radar, data, fax, etc.)
The first time I used it, I found a hotspot on the pillow of my wife, and on
the spot, where she always had a cold hip, on the bed. After shielding, it
was over.

Now the stone.
I measure around DECT phones up to 1800 uW/m2.
I do not know how much my neighbours DECT is transmitting.
I wrote: *> >On one wall I measure the DECT phone of an neighbour opposite
of our home,
> >145 uW/m2.
> >When I turn 180 degrees and measure our wall, I measure 85 uW/m2 EMF,
coming
> >from my appartment.*
That means, that through the neighbours wall is coming an amount of 145
uW/m2.
That goes through the corridor (2 meter) against my wall.
With my back against those 145 uW/m2, I measure, coming from my wall 85
uW/m2.
That is reflection coming from my wall. A few months ago, that was zilch!!!!
Inside my appartment I measure 35 uW/m2.
So, the stone brickwall is shielding something, but largely not enough.

What surprises me, is the fact, that now the wall is working like a
secundair antenna.
I know from a german writer, who wrote an interesting book on
electrosensibility, and who described a number of *things*, that worked very
well in the beginning, but later on seemed to absorb the negative influence
of the HF radiation, and started to emit it themselves.
We found this with for instance with the american BioElectrical Shield.
Putting it several days on a Purple Plate *cleaned* and charged it again.

Building materials can shield.
One can see that, when several buildings stand between you and the antenna.
That is the reason, that the swiss people are so mad about their socalled
low official radiation values.
These immission (not emission) values are quite normal with their thick
walls and small windows.

I hope that I answered your questions satisfactory.

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
http://members.rott.chello.nl/cclaessens/
http://www.hese-project.org
checked by Norton Antivirus




----- Original Message -----
From: "WILLE BÖRLIN" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 18:08
Subject: Re: [eSens] Interesting link and more...

*manage*.
> >
> >in MHO.
> >
> >The church is the place for *believers*.
> >
> >EMF is based on facts.
> >The Pro-mobile phone people suggest, that everybody believes in ES, and
that
> >it is *something between the ears*.
> >But hundreds of studies have proved that EMF can cause biological
effects,
> >*without warming-up*.
> >Also it is said, that people already had symptoms of ES, before the
antennas home,
> >145 uW/m2.
> >When I turn 180 degrees and measure our wall, I measure 85 uW/m2 EMF,
coming cause,

Hello Wille Borlin,

with Powerlines, we do generally not speak about frequencies.
It is not the electrical alternating fields that are disturbing us.

It is the magnetic alternating fields that gives the most worry.
We are lulled into oblivion with the remarks that a 100 uT, or microTesla is
not to worry about, but we building biologists speak about nT, or NanoTesla.
100 uT is 100,000 nT.
And we say, one should try to stay under 20 nT, in order not to get sick.

Magnetic fields one can feel.
The TCO norm for computer monitors says 200 nT at 30 cm for the
frequncyrange of 5-2000 Hz and 25 nT for the frequncy range from 2-400 KHz.

The background *noise* for cities is 50-60 nT, while on the countryside this
is 20-30 nT (generally).

For electrosensible people, the combination of magnetic fields and the
accompanying frequency can have another effect.
Tests have shown that a certain person did not react to a strong magnetic
field of 5000 nT at 50 Hz, but heavily on a weak 350 Hz field of only 30 nT.
Also on a 150 and a 550 Hz field.

Some examples:
Television when running: 50 cm 3500 nT
idem when on standby; 50 cm 300 nT
TL light: 50 cm 1100 nT
Small trafo: 20 cm > 3000 nT
El radio alarm clock: 20 cm 1000-2000 nT
idem :5 cm 30,000 nT
El heating blanket: 1 cm up to 10,000 nT

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
http://members.rott.chello.nl/cclaessens/
http://www.hese-project.org
checked by Norton Antivirus



----- Original Message -----
From: "WILLE BÖRLIN" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 17:59
Subject: Re: [eSens] Interesting link and more...


Marc.

Being one of the sceptics that maybe should be
moderated..................... ( in a democratic way of course ).

I want to ask a short question on the subject of frequency.
Frequency seems to be a confusion for many participants of the list.

When you write about high-frequency noise in connection with power lines.
What do you consider to be high-frequency?

Myself i, ( when talking about power-lines ), say that low frequency is
up to some hundred hertz.
Hi-frequency is up to about some hundred Khz to maybe 1 Mhz.

I found schematics for the Steltzer filters and they seemed very
straight low-freq. nothing to really write home about.
If they are expensive it is good for Mr. Steltzer.

On the subject of chi i don´t no first thing, which i admitt, but
because it is old it does not have to work.
It is quite boring to hear that something is old and hence is beyond
critizism.


Wille Borlin
SWEDEN





Marc Martin wrote:


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




Yahoo! Groups Links

Marc, Charles

I am well informed about frequency and radiation and don´t need a course
on that.
Why i asked is because the discussion was about mains-line cabling.
These cables has a very limited capacity to spread ( really )
high-frequency signals.
Thats why i want to define what we talk about.
High is relative.
High on mains cables is 1 Mhz.
High in radio and radar has no real limits.

Marc,s attitude is that nothing matters as long as it helps.
Fine.
But it is impossible to spread knowledge this way.
Nobody can draw conclusions if the phenomena is not well specified and
the "cure" equally well described.

Charles try to make these kind of measures even if i doubt a lot of his
conclusions.

My conclusion is that i don´t get any knowledge from this list, only a
lot of mails................
To be to nosy and curious also irritates others which is an unnecessary
waste of energy.
I will therefore leave the list.

Thank you for you time gentlemen.

Wille Borlin
SWEDEN


Marc Martin wrote:


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

Hello members,

I am sorry, that Wille Borlin did not find here, what he is looking for.

On the other hand, this list is for electrosensible people, who do hope in
finding here solutions for their problems.
It is not important if all equations are right, and if the theories behind
everything match the momentary going ones.

Electrosensibles do not care about that.
They are only interested in working solutions.
Even if they come from the Moon.
As long as they work.

My explanations are not meant to be courses, but only to bring a bit more
understanding about what we are talking here.
Normal civilians do not know what the difference is between low and high
frequencies.
They only know that they get a headache from it.
Most electricians do not know what magnetic fields are!!
They can not measure them.
They only have a Voltmeter, but not a Gauss- or Tesla meter.

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
http://members.rott.chello.nl/cclaessens/
http://www.hese-project.org
checked by Norton Antivirus



----- Original Message -----
From: "WILLE BÖRLIN" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>; "Cindy Sage" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 23:07
Subject: Re: [eSens] Interesting link and more...


Marc, Charles

I am well informed about frequency and radiation and don´t need a course
on that.
Why i asked is because the discussion was about mains-line cabling.
These cables has a very limited capacity to spread ( really )
high-frequency signals.
Thats why i want to define what we talk about.
High is relative.
High on mains cables is 1 Mhz.
High in radio and radar has no real limits.

Marc,s attitude is that nothing matters as long as it helps.
Fine.
But it is impossible to spread knowledge this way.
Nobody can draw conclusions if the phenomena is not well specified and
the "cure" equally well described.

Charles try to make these kind of measures even if i doubt a lot of his
conclusions.

My conclusion is that i don´t get any knowledge from this list, only a
lot of mails................
To be to nosy and curious also irritates others which is an unnecessary
waste of energy.
I will therefore leave the list.

Thank you for you time gentlemen.

Wille Borlin
SWEDEN


Marc Martin wrote:


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





Yahoo! Groups Links

>Marc,s attitude is that nothing matters as long as it helps.
>Fine.
>But it is impossible to spread knowledge this way.
>Nobody can draw conclusions if the phenomena is not well specified and
>the "cure" equally well described.

It seems that some people joined this list for some sort of theoretical
discussion of EMF fields and frequencies. This was not the purpose of this
list. This list is to help electrically sensitive people improve or
overcome their condition. This does not require any sort of engineering
background or knowledge about EMF frequencies and fields. Just some
practical advice from others about what has worked for them and what hasn't.

Wille's approach seems to be that the first step to a solution is having a
sound theory and scientific studies to back it up. But that's not how
things always work in science and real life. Sometimes you find something
that works, and then you go back and try and understand *why* it works.

When I first got ES, I looked for the most scientific-sounding solutions.
I moved EMF sources away from me, which helped a little. I bought a glass
grounding shield on my computer monitor, which helped a little. I bought
an LCD monitor, which helped a little. I bought some EMF shielding
materials, bought some gauss meters, etc. But even with all that, I could
still not enter my place of work, and I could still not stand being in a
grocery store longer than a few minutes.

So then I tried an EMF protection device. Of the ones I looked at, the
Q-Link pendant sounded the most scientific and had good testimonials, so I
tried that. It didn't help at all. So then I tried the Bioelectric
shield. Didn't help. Then Tachyon energy discs. I noticed something from
this, but not enough to make any practical difference. Eventually I found
the Quantum Products, which were the first of several useful things I
found. But their website didn't sound scientific at all. In fact, they
had a piece of software to helped with computer EMF, which sounded
absolutely crazy to me! I eventually concluded that there was no
correlation between how good something sounds scientifically and how well
it actually works. In fact, I was seeing almost the opposite trend -- the
crazier something sounded, the more likely it was to help!

So, even though I'm engineer, and even though several years ago I demanded
to know how things worked, in the end the only thing which really mattered
was that it works! Now I'm able to go into my workplace and go into a
grocery store, and that's all that matters to me.

I think if one looks up the history of aspirin, you will also find that
nobody knew how it worked originally, even though it was commonly
prescribed and used. People just knew that it worked. It didn't really
matter to them why/how it worked. Eventually I think someone figured out
how it worked, but at that point it was pretty irrelevant to the millions
of people who already knew that it worked.

Marc

I agree with all this - but I also think that a list such as this can do
more than help us find good solutions to our problems - it could, in the
long run, mean that ES becomes more widely known, especially in medical
circles. In my opinion, there can never be too much high quality
communication!  

The more widely known ES is, the more people can be diagnosed who don't
know what's wrong with them - and helped. I also see the process of
understanding why something either works or doesn't work as aprt of the
process, perhaps not at the top of the agenda, but nevertheless still an
item on it.

I think this is a very good list and I'm learning heaps. Also love
talking to people about a condition that so many don't even realise
exists, and which can be quite scary.

Sarah

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Martin [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, 15 March 2004 12:48 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [eSens] Interesting link and more...


>Marc,s attitude is that nothing matters as long as it helps. Fine.
>But it is impossible to spread knowledge this way.
>Nobody can draw conclusions if the phenomena is not well specified and
>the "cure" equally well described.

It seems that some people joined this list for some sort of theoretical
discussion of EMF fields and frequencies. This was not the purpose of
this list. This list is to help electrically sensitive people improve
or overcome their condition. This does not require any sort of
engineering background or knowledge about EMF frequencies and fields.
Just some practical advice from others about what has worked for them
and what hasn't.

Wille's approach seems to be that the first step to a solution is having
a sound theory and scientific studies to back it up. But that's not how
things always work in science and real life. Sometimes you find
something that works, and then you go back and try and understand *why*
it works.

When I first got ES, I looked for the most scientific-sounding
solutions. I moved EMF sources away from me, which helped a little. I
bought a glass grounding shield on my computer monitor, which helped a
little. I bought an LCD monitor, which helped a little. I bought some
EMF shielding materials, bought some gauss meters, etc. But even with
all that, I could still not enter my place of work, and I could still
not stand being in a grocery store longer than a few minutes.

So then I tried an EMF protection device. Of the ones I looked at, the
Q-Link pendant sounded the most scientific and had good testimonials, so
I tried that. It didn't help at all. So then I tried the Bioelectric
shield. Didn't help. Then Tachyon energy discs. I noticed something
from this, but not enough to make any practical difference. Eventually
I found the Quantum Products, which were the first of several useful
things I found. But their website didn't sound scientific at all. In
fact, they had a piece of software to helped with computer EMF, which
sounded absolutely crazy to me! I eventually concluded that there was
no correlation between how good something sounds scientifically and how
well it actually works. In fact, I was seeing almost the opposite trend
-- the crazier something sounded, the more likely it was to help!

So, even though I'm engineer, and even though several years ago I
demanded to know how things worked, in the end the only thing which
really mattered was that it works! Now I'm able to go into my workplace
and go into a grocery store, and that's all that matters to me.

I think if one looks up the history of aspirin, you will also find that
nobody knew how it worked originally, even though it was commonly
prescribed and used. People just knew that it worked. It didn't really
matter to them why/how it worked. Eventually I think someone figured
out how it worked, but at that point it was pretty irrelevant to the
millions of people who already knew that it worked.

Marc



 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 

Hello Charles,

i do disagree with you! I have had truble from 50Hz E-fields (they give
me burns on my neck (a few minutes E-fields gieves the same reaction as
if i had been burned by the sun for houers).

Hello Marc,

I have to clear one thing up: "placebo effect" for me is the same as
getting your internal "healing system" acting in your body (you can read
a little about it in: "Cross Currents" by Robert O. Becker, ISBN 0 87477
609 0).

charles wrote:

Hello Anders Eriksson,

so you do disagree with me.
That is fine, but I do not quite understand with what exactly you disagree.

So you got trouble with a 50 Hz field.
What kind of field?

Was it just a wiring, or on an apparatus?
Was the current runing or not?

If it was not, than ther only was a (higher) electrical field.
If it was, than a magnetic field is also there.

An E-field only, exists only when no current is flowing.
As soon as current is flowing, when an apparatus is put on, a magnetic field
is also there.
Of course an electric field can do harm, but in my opinion, the magnetic
fields are much more harming us.
For that reason, 3D Tesla meters are developed, with a build-in logger, in
order to see, how the fluctuations over time are, because they can vary
enormously.

If you disagree with me, does that mean, that you are more sensible to
electrical fields than to magnetic fields?

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
http://members.rott.chello.nl/cclaessens/
http://www.hese-project.org
checked by Norton Antivirus





----- Original Message -----
From: "Anders Eriksson" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 17:03
Subject: Re: [eSens] Interesting link and more...

microTesla is
> > not to worry about, but we building biologists speak about nT, or
NanoTesla.
> > 100 uT is 100,000 nT.
> > And we say, one should try to stay under 20 nT, in order not to get
sick.
> >
> > Magnetic fields one can feel.
> > The TCO norm for computer monitors says 200 nT at 30 cm for the
> > frequncyrange of 5-2000 Hz and 25 nT for the frequncy range from 2-400
KHz.
> >
> > The background *noise* for cities is 50-60 nT, while on the countryside
this
> > is 20-30 nT (generally).
> >
> > For electrosensible people, the combination of magnetic fields and the
> > accompanying frequency can have another effect.
> > Tests have shown that a certain person did not react to a strong
magnetic
> > field of 5000 nT at 50 Hz, but heavily on a weak 350 Hz field of only 30
nT.

Hello Charles!

As I said in my posting: 50Hz E-field!

The magnetic fields from a common 60W/230V lamp is very low at distances
of about 1m (a rough guess gives 1-10nT).
As I usually use 60W/24V DC (ripple about 2-3V, I know it is high!)
lamps for reading in my apartment and get less problems from those than
the ones powered directly from 230V, even when the current is about 10
times higher.

The same phenomena (burnt skin), I do get it from cables that are
powered but not necessary carrying any current!

I am quite aware of the physics (real stuff, not "New Age"), so you do
not have to give me any lessons (ash! maybe you can teach me some
english...(;-)).

Regarding Tesla-meters: my personal opinion is that they often is of no
use as they usually gives only RMS-values. I find that the Peek-values
are more interesting.

A Tesla-meter that i would find useful would have the following functions:
- A dynamic range of at least 110dB for each A/D-converter (covering at
least 5nT to 10mT in one range) .
- Simultaneous sampling of all three coils (X,Y,Z).
- FFT-capabilities so i can get a spectrogram with field strength as a
function of the frequency.
- 0-1MHz (divided into 2-5 band).

I guess that I will build one one day...

greetings

Anders Eriksson

charles wrote:

>The same phenomena (burnt skin), I do get it from cables that are
>powered but not necessary carrying any current!

I used to get that burnt skin symptom all the time, from a variety
of things. I hardly ever get it these days. I'm not exactly sure
what I did to eliminate that problem, although I think it might
have to do with antioxidant or mineral supplementation.

Marc