More Questions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

More Questions

Lachlan Mudge
Conventional aerials used to receive EM radiation are optimised based on
geometry.... As far as I understand, a general rule for conventional aerials
is that their length should be at least one quarter of the wavelength of the
radiation they are trying to receive. Based on this assumption, the average
human body would act as an aerial for radiation with a wavelength of four times
the size of the body. Assuming that the average human body was 1.8 metres
high, the largest wavelength that could be significantly received by the body
would theoretically be 7.2metres (41.67MHz), though this is dependant on the
orientation of the body with respect to the direction of polarisation of the
radiation. I have heard this value quoted by others as the wavelength with
which the entire body will resonate. Could someone please correct me if I'm
wrong on any of this as I am very keen to gain a correct understanding of all
this and hope to use this understanding productively. The conclusion I drew
from all this was that radiation above 41.67MHz has the potential to induce
resonance in certain body parts, depending on their size and orientation to the
direction of polarisation of the radiation. I would be interested to know if
anyone has ever calculated what frequency of radiation would best be received
by particularly susceptible body parts, such as the pineal gland.

This discussion also deliberately brings me to another recent topic of
conversation on the list, namely the bioprotect card and other such devices.
Could Dietrich, Charles or someone else please clarify the mechanism by which
they operate? Do these devices 'attract' a certain frequency of radiation,
based on their geometry, so that the device resonates rather than any part of
the human anatomy? Furthermore, would this mean that the effectiveness of such
devices is frequency dependant and could this therefore explain why they don't
work for different people experiencing health problems due to different
frequencies of radiation? I hope someone can help me out with these questions.
Thanks
Lachlan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Questions

Drasko Cvijovic
Lachlan,
Your question about frequency is related to a very complicated issue of what
really causes adverse reactions to EMF... Up to now, one thing is for sure -
there is still no simple answer (if any)...

All we know is that ES and other reactions to proximity of EM fields *are
somehow related* to (measurable) physical characteristics of the filled.
(There is no evident and stable cause - reaction relationship.)

Just one of the measurable characteristics is frequency. And regarding
frequency, potential resonance with the body as whole or with smaller parts
like cells are, is just one of the factors involved, there are other
mechanisms of influence of various fields and frequencies.

I, for example, keep using my simple cordless home telephone that operates
exactly at the frequency you pointed out as potentially resonant to the
body, and although I am highly sensitive, it gives me less unpleasant
feeling than a regular table telephone (not to mention the cellular).


Drasko

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lachlan Mudge" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 6:10 PM
Subject: [eSens] More Questions


> Conventional aerials used to receive EM radiation are optimised based on
> geometry.... As far as I understand, a general rule for conventional
aerials
> is that their length should be at least one quarter of the wavelength of
the
> radiation they are trying to receive. Based on this assumption, the
average
> human body would act as an aerial for radiation with a wavelength of four
times
> the size of the body. Assuming that the average human body was 1.8 metres
> high, the largest wavelength that could be significantly received by the
body
> would theoretically be 7.2metres (41.67MHz), though this is dependant on
the
> orientation of the body with respect to the direction of polarisation of
the
> radiation. I have heard this value quoted by others as the wavelength
with
> which the entire body will resonate. Could someone please correct me if
I'm
> wrong on any of this as I am very keen to gain a correct understanding of
all
> this and hope to use this understanding productively. The conclusion I
drew
> from all this was that radiation above 41.67MHz has the potential to
induce
> resonance in certain body parts, depending on their size and orientation
to the
> direction of polarisation of the radiation. I would be interested to know
if
> anyone has ever calculated what frequency of radiation would best be
received
> by particularly susceptible body parts, such as the pineal gland.
>
> This discussion also deliberately brings me to another recent topic of
> conversation on the list, namely the bioprotect card and other such
devices.
> Could Dietrich, Charles or someone else please clarify the mechanism by
which
> they operate? Do these devices 'attract' a certain frequency of
radiation,
> based on their geometry, so that the device resonates rather than any part
of
> the human anatomy? Furthermore, would this mean that the effectiveness of
such
> devices is frequency dependant and could this therefore explain why they
don't
> work for different people experiencing health problems due to different
> frequencies of radiation? I hope someone can help me out with these
questions.

> Thanks
> Lachlan
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Questions

charles-2
Hello,

to put it bluntly: it is impossible for simple mortals to understand exactly
what is going on.

Sure, it is frequency dependant. But it is not determind which ones.

The high frequencies react to the body, but also the low frequencies.
Especially the low frequent modulations added to the high frquencies for
mobile phone.
The go like 17.3 Hz, 100 Hz and 217 Hz, even 15000 Hz with UMTS.

Do not fortget, that we speak about normal transversal waves AND
longitudinal or Tesla waves.
The latter we cannot measure directly, so we cannot discuss them according
theory.

A simple cordless home telephone according the DECT/GAP principle is killing
you!
Not directly, but in a few months. Its pulsed signals are emitted 14 hours a
day.
A simple cordless home telephone according an analogue principle is not
pulsed, and radiates only when you phone.

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


----- Original Message -----
From: "Drasko Cvijovic" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 22:51
Subject: Re: [eSens] More Questions


> Lachlan,
> Your question about frequency is related to a very complicated issue of
what
> really causes adverse reactions to EMF... Up to now, one thing is for
sure -
> there is still no simple answer (if any)...
>
> All we know is that ES and other reactions to proximity of EM fields *are
> somehow related* to (measurable) physical characteristics of the filled.
> (There is no evident and stable cause - reaction relationship.)
>
> Just one of the measurable characteristics is frequency. And regarding
> frequency, potential resonance with the body as whole or with smaller
parts

> like cells are, is just one of the factors involved, there are other
> mechanisms of influence of various fields and frequencies.
>
> I, for example, keep using my simple cordless home telephone that operates
> exactly at the frequency you pointed out as potentially resonant to the
> body, and although I am highly sensitive, it gives me less unpleasant
> feeling than a regular table telephone (not to mention the cellular).
>
>
> Drasko
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lachlan Mudge" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 6:10 PM
> Subject: [eSens] More Questions
>
>
> > Conventional aerials used to receive EM radiation are optimised based on
> > geometry.... As far as I understand, a general rule for conventional
> aerials
> > is that their length should be at least one quarter of the wavelength of
> the
> > radiation they are trying to receive. Based on this assumption, the
> average
> > human body would act as an aerial for radiation with a wavelength of
four
> times
> > the size of the body. Assuming that the average human body was 1.8
metres

> > high, the largest wavelength that could be significantly received by the
> body
> > would theoretically be 7.2metres (41.67MHz), though this is dependant on
> the
> > orientation of the body with respect to the direction of polarisation of
> the
> > radiation. I have heard this value quoted by others as the wavelength
> with
> > which the entire body will resonate. Could someone please correct me if
> I'm
> > wrong on any of this as I am very keen to gain a correct understanding
of
> all
> > this and hope to use this understanding productively. The conclusion I
> drew
> > from all this was that radiation above 41.67MHz has the potential to
> induce
> > resonance in certain body parts, depending on their size and orientation
> to the
> > direction of polarisation of the radiation. I would be interested to
know

> if
> > anyone has ever calculated what frequency of radiation would best be
> received
> > by particularly susceptible body parts, such as the pineal gland.
> >
> > This discussion also deliberately brings me to another recent topic of
> > conversation on the list, namely the bioprotect card and other such
> devices.
> > Could Dietrich, Charles or someone else please clarify the mechanism by
> which
> > they operate? Do these devices 'attract' a certain frequency of
> radiation,
> > based on their geometry, so that the device resonates rather than any
part
> of
> > the human anatomy? Furthermore, would this mean that the effectiveness
of

> such
> > devices is frequency dependant and could this therefore explain why they
> don't
> > work for different people experiencing health problems due to different
> > frequencies of radiation? I hope someone can help me out with these
> questions.
> > Thanks
> > Lachlan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Questions

Marc Martin
Administrator
In reply to this post by Drasko Cvijovic
> Your question about frequency is related to a very complicated issue of
> what really causes adverse reactions to EMF... Up to now, one thing
> is for sure - there is still no simple answer (if any)...

I don't think any of us here can state with any certainty that there is
no simple explanation for EMF sensitivity. All we can really state is
that *we* have not figured it out. Someone may very well have the answer
right now. But either we don't know know about it... or we don't believe
it... :-)

> I, for example, keep using my simple cordless home telephone that
> operates exactly at the frequency you pointed out as potentially
> resonant to the body, and although I am highly sensitive, it gives
> me less unpleasant feeling than a regular table telephone (not to
> mention the cellular).

Certainly frequency is a factor -- for example, I have a different
reaction to my computer monitor running at 800x600 resolution than 1024x
768 resolution. The only change there is the frequency...

Marc

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Questions

charles-2
Hello Marc,

but that I do not understand.

The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency.
You may run 800x600 or 1024x768, as long as your refreh rate is the same.
With a good monitor, it can be adjusted to 85 Hz.
So, than 800x600 or 1024x768 is still running at 85 Hz. or higher, as you
videocard allows it.

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: Thursday, March 04, 2004 19:21
Subject: Re: [eSens] More Questions


> Certainly frequency is a factor -- for example, I have a different
> reaction to my computer monitor running at 800x600 resolution than 1024x
> 768 resolution. The only change there is the frequency...
>
> Marc
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Questions

Marc Martin
Administrator
> The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency.

Hmmm, nevertheless, I react more negatively to a CRT computer monitor if
I either increase the resolution or increase the refresh rate. It seems
to me that a monitor operating at 1024x768 is sending more information
than a monitor operating at 800x600. That may not be a change in
"frequency" as it is commonly defined, but it is certainly a change in
*something*.

Marc

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Questions

charles-2
Hello Marc,

which refresh rates do you use?

When I buy a Flight Simulator, there is a card in the package that warns me
for *epilepsy*.
It is the flickering of the images on the monitor that are the cause for it.
When I play a game, where I have to move through long tunnels, I get also
feelings of nausea, when I play too long.
The very fast moving pixels, with their contrasting colors, do have that
effect.

In Japan, a number of children watching TV fell sideways because of this
epilepsy. There was a special film, with a lot of flickering images.

So, it is quite understandable, that you may feel uncomfortable with certain
refresh rates.
Normally, it is, that as high as possible gives the best relaxing view.
But it is possible, that you, as an eSens people, just gets irritated at
certain refresh rates.

Perhaps you should test all of them, just to know which ones you can not
bear.

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: Thursday, March 04, 2004 20:30
Subject: Re: [eSens] More Questions


> > The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency.
>
> Hmmm, nevertheless, I react more negatively to a CRT computer monitor if
> I either increase the resolution or increase the refresh rate. It seems
> to me that a monitor operating at 1024x768 is sending more information
> than a monitor operating at 800x600. That may not be a change in
> "frequency" as it is commonly defined, but it is certainly a change in
> *something*.
>
> Marc
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Questions

Marc Martin
Administrator
> which refresh rates do you use?

I use 75 Hz. And I don't play videogames. :-)

But for me, it's the resolution of the monitor that's the bigger
factor, not the refresh rate.

Certainly you must have a meter which registers differently with
different CRT monitor resolutions? :-)

Marc

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Questions

WILLE BÖRLIN
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
Marc.

You use a cordless telephone without any problems?
You don´t mind use a computer with a CRT - screen.

Have you ever considered the fact that You are actually NOT
electrosensitive ?

Wille Borlin
SWEDEN



Marc Martin wrote:

>>The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency.
>>    
>>
>
>Hmmm, nevertheless, I react more negatively to a CRT computer monitor if
>I either increase the resolution or increase the refresh rate. It seems
>to me that a monitor operating at 1024x768 is sending more information
>than a monitor operating at 800x600. That may not be a change in
>"frequency" as it is commonly defined, but it is certainly a change in
>*something*.
>
>Marc
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Questions

WILLE BÖRLIN
In reply to this post by Drasko Cvijovic
Drasco.

I sent almost the same text to Marc a few minutes ago.

What makes you electrosensitive?

You use a cordless telephone and obviously do a lot with computers.
I think you have other problems than electrosensitiver ones.

Wille Borlin
SWEDEN



Drasko Cvijovic wrote:

>Lachlan,
>Your question about frequency is related to a very complicated issue of what
>really causes adverse reactions to EMF... Up to now, one thing is for sure -
>there is still no simple answer (if any)...
>
>All we know is that ES and other reactions to proximity of EM fields *are
>somehow related* to (measurable) physical characteristics of the filled.
>(There is no evident and stable cause - reaction relationship.)
>
>Just one of the measurable characteristics is frequency. And regarding
>frequency, potential resonance with the body as whole or with smaller parts
>like cells are, is just one of the factors involved, there are other
>mechanisms of influence of various fields and frequencies.
>
>I, for example, keep using my simple cordless home telephone that operates
>exactly at the frequency you pointed out as potentially resonant to the
>body, and although I am highly sensitive, it gives me less unpleasant
>feeling than a regular table telephone (not to mention the cellular).
>
>
>Drasko
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Lachlan Mudge" <[hidden email]>
>To: <[hidden email]>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 6:10 PM
>Subject: [eSens] More Questions
>
>
>
>
>>Conventional aerials used to receive EM radiation are optimised based on
>>geometry.... As far as I understand, a general rule for conventional
>>
>>
>aerials
>
>
>>is that their length should be at least one quarter of the wavelength of
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>radiation they are trying to receive. Based on this assumption, the
>>
>>
>average
>
>
>>human body would act as an aerial for radiation with a wavelength of four
>>
>>
>times
>
>
>>the size of the body. Assuming that the average human body was 1.8 metres
>>high, the largest wavelength that could be significantly received by the
>>
>>
>body
>
>
>>would theoretically be 7.2metres (41.67MHz), though this is dependant on
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>orientation of the body with respect to the direction of polarisation of
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>radiation. I have heard this value quoted by others as the wavelength
>>
>>
>with
>
>
>>which the entire body will resonate. Could someone please correct me if
>>
>>
>I'm
>
>
>>wrong on any of this as I am very keen to gain a correct understanding of
>>
>>
>all
>
>
>>this and hope to use this understanding productively. The conclusion I
>>
>>
>drew
>
>
>>from all this was that radiation above 41.67MHz has the potential to
>>
>>
>induce
>
>
>>resonance in certain body parts, depending on their size and orientation
>>
>>
>to the
>
>
>>direction of polarisation of the radiation. I would be interested to know
>>
>>
>if
>
>
>>anyone has ever calculated what frequency of radiation would best be
>>
>>
>received
>
>
>>by particularly susceptible body parts, such as the pineal gland.
>>
>>This discussion also deliberately brings me to another recent topic of
>>conversation on the list, namely the bioprotect card and other such
>>
>>
>devices.
>
>
>>Could Dietrich, Charles or someone else please clarify the mechanism by
>>
>>
>which
>
>
>>they operate? Do these devices 'attract' a certain frequency of
>>
>>
>radiation,
>
>
>>based on their geometry, so that the device resonates rather than any part
>>
>>
>of
>
>
>>the human anatomy? Furthermore, would this mean that the effectiveness of
>>
>>
>such
>
>
>>devices is frequency dependant and could this therefore explain why they
>>
>>
>don't
>
>
>>work for different people experiencing health problems due to different
>>frequencies of radiation? I hope someone can help me out with these
>>
>>
>questions.
>
>
>>Thanks
>>Lachlan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Questions

Marc Martin
Administrator
In reply to this post by WILLE BÖRLIN
> You use a cordless telephone without any problems?

I've never used a cordless telephone. I don't know where
you got that idea.

> Have you ever considered the fact that You are actually NOT
> electrosensitive ?

Ha! You obviously haven't read my introductory message
to the mailing list. Three years ago I could not use
a regular CORDED telephone, watch TV, stand near power lines,
use a computer (CRT or LCD), use a cellphone, use audio
headphones, or go into the store because of the fluorescent
lights. I could even feel the electricity in the walls
when I standing next to them. I was on medical disability
from work for many months because I could not tolerate
being in the building for longer than 20 minutes.

In other words, I was VERY electrically sensitive.

Today, with the help of food, supplements, "new age
devices", and having my mercury fillings removed, I can
now use a corded telephone, I can watch TV, I can stand
near power lines, I can use a computer for 8 hours/day,
I can go to the store, and I'm working full time.
I don't use cellphones or audio earphones, but the
last time I checked they still caused pain in my head.

So technically, while I'm still electrically sensitive,
in practical terms I've found solutions so that the
it has no impact on the things I want to do.

And I plan on getting over the ES entirely, so that
I do not need to depend on the food, supplements,
and devices. But at my rate of improvement, I'd
say that this is at least or year or more away.

Marc

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Questions

Marc Martin
Administrator
In reply to this post by WILLE BÖRLIN
> You use a cordless telephone and obviously do a lot with computers.
> I think you have other problems than electrosensitiver ones.

Drasko has already posted on this group several times that
he has to stay a long distance away from his computer
monitor, and uses binoculars to read the screen (I think
he also has a metal barrier as well).

On the other hand, I don't recall *you* ever posting what makes
*you* electrosensitive. Perhaps you could share with us
some accurate information about yourself, rather than make
inaccurate statements about others?

Marc

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Questions

WILLE BÖRLIN
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
Marc.

I am sorry for the false accusations !
I obviously read your answer sloppy, i interpreted this text as coming
from you;

"I, for example, keep using my simple cordless home telephone that
> operates exactly at the frequency you pointed out as potentially
> resonant to the body, and although I am highly sensitive, it gives
> me less unpleasant feeling than a regular table telephone (not to
> mention the cellular)."

When checking back i see that the text is mixed question / answer,
which i always find a bit confusing.

Yours

Wille Borlin
SWEDEN




Marc Martin wrote:

>>You use a cordless telephone without any problems?
>>
>>
>
>I've never used a cordless telephone. I don't know where
>you got that idea.
>
>
>
>>Have you ever considered the fact that You are actually NOT
>>electrosensitive ?
>>
>>
>
>Ha! You obviously haven't read my introductory message
>to the mailing list. Three years ago I could not use
>a regular CORDED telephone, watch TV, stand near power lines,
>use a computer (CRT or LCD), use a cellphone, use audio
>headphones, or go into the store because of the fluorescent
>lights. I could even feel the electricity in the walls
>when I standing next to them. I was on medical disability
>from work for many months because I could not tolerate
>being in the building for longer than 20 minutes.
>
>In other words, I was VERY electrically sensitive.
>
>Today, with the help of food, supplements, "new age
>devices", and having my mercury fillings removed, I can
>now use a corded telephone, I can watch TV, I can stand
>near power lines, I can use a computer for 8 hours/day,
>I can go to the store, and I'm working full time.
>I don't use cellphones or audio earphones, but the
>last time I checked they still caused pain in my head.
>
>So technically, while I'm still electrically sensitive,
>in practical terms I've found solutions so that the
>it has no impact on the things I want to do.
>
>And I plan on getting over the ES entirely, so that
>I do not need to depend on the food, supplements,
>and devices. But at my rate of improvement, I'd
>say that this is at least or year or more away.
>
>Marc
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Questions

Anders Eriksson
In reply to this post by charles-2
Hi Charles, Marc,

I guess that this issue is solved already, but if not:

Marc is compleatly correct when he say that the frequency alter with
altered resolution!

If you have a resolution of 800x600 at 85Hz, then you have to update
800x600=480.000 pixels 85 times each second, that gives a bit-rate of
40800000 per sec.
The line scan frequency is 600x85=51000Hz (51kHz).

As for 1025x768 you get a bit-rate of 1024x768x85=66846720 per sec.
The line scan frequency is 768x85=65280Hz (65.28kHz).


greetings

Anders Eriksson



charles wrote:

> Hello Marc,
>
> but that I do not understand.
>
> The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency.
> You may run 800x600 or 1024x768, as long as your refreh rate is the same.
> With a good monitor, it can be adjusted to 85 Hz.
> So, than 800x600 or 1024x768 is still running at 85 Hz. or higher, as you
> videocard allows it.
>
> 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: Thursday, March 04, 2004 19:21
> Subject: Re: [eSens] More Questions
>
>
>
>>Certainly frequency is a factor -- for example, I have a different
>>reaction to my computer monitor running at 800x600 resolution than 1024x
>>768 resolution. The only change there is the frequency...
>>
>>Marc
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>