My computer situation (update, w/ "recommended" computer)

>
>
> www.downtoearthhome.com/
>  
> Try this one, or type in: downtoearthhome  *(down to earth home )
> organic mattresses, michigan.
> Pretty sure they can ship anywhere in the US, if I remember correctly, this woman
> orders  from the company that makes them. She says she goes "on site" to an Amish
> farm that actually makes the futons, not sure if this is total truth.
> In any case, the one we got was perfect...although pricey.
> Lizzie
>
>  
>
>
> To: [hidden email]
> From: torch369@...
> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:49:00 +0000
> Subject: [eSens] Re: My computer situation (update, w/ "recommended" computer)
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> I can't seem to get the website to come up for some reason
>
> --- In [hidden email], Elizabeth thode <lizt777@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey, I got one for my daughter from the below place. And didn't need a dr's note.
> > Check it out!
> > Natural and Organic Mattresses : Futons
> >
> > Providing natural and organic mattresses, furniture, cribs, bedding and other products to Michigan and Northern Ohio. Located in Farmington Hills not far ...www.downtoearthhome.com/Products/?category...futons - Cached - Similar
> >
> > Lizzie
> >
> >
> > To: [hidden email]
> > From: emraware@
> > Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 00:45:16 +0000
> > Subject: [eSens] Re: My computer situation (update, w/ "recommended" computer)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good choice of wool. All-cotton ones have flame retardants these days. You can smell it. I think you have to get a dr's note to buy an organic cotton mattress.
> >
> > --- In [hidden email], "torch369" <torch369@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bed wise I am thinking of getting an organic futon that has wool in it so no fire retardant is needed on top of a wooden bed
> > > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>      
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>
> Great info! thanks!
>
> On windows machines you might want to try
> the google chrome browser instead of firefox.
>
> Seems to use less resources?
>
> For latex the dulop process is nasty, but the
> other one, talalay, is not bad (but costs more).
>
> How far from the eMachines can you pick up
> radio static or buzz?  I think some run linux,
> but yours is Windows right?  Which Windows?
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:05 AM, svetaswan <svetaswan@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Long time no see. I just thought I'd post an email (with a few
> > omissions/modifications) that I just got finished sending someone in the
> > group. I'm sorry that it's so long-winded - but maybe, just maybe, there is
> > a morsel or two in my autistic narrative that might be helpful to someone.
> > As I say in the email, I really regret not telling you guys about a laptop
> > computer that I had known about for months that seemed relatively benign (at
> > least to me). What a big "D'OH" on my part. I guess my "reasoning", if you
> > can call it that - for not mentioning it is that I had sort-of dismissed it
> > in my mind as an "el cheapo" brand computer that wasn't a viable long-term
> > option. But so far, this laptop is working for me - well, as much as a
> > computer can "work" for someone with esens. It might work for other eSens
> > sufferers. The email follows:
> >
> > I just wanted to update you on my computer situation. In February/March, I
> > finally started making some moves on buying a new computer. At first I
> > bought an ASUS A52F-XA1 (15.6") laptop, but I returned it to amazon.comwithout even opening the box because when I later went to "test" the
> > computer at Best Buy, it seemed like it would be pretty bothersome (I felt
> > "forced" to make a quick purchase on amazon.com because it was showing one
> > of those "Only 2 Left in Stock" type of messages). Then, a few weeks later,
> > I took the plunge again; I was intrigued with ULV processors - so I bought
> > an ASUS UL50-XA1 - this computer:
> >
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/UL50AT-X1-Processor-Notebook-Windows-Premium/dp/B003DZCPL6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1306059154&sr=1-1
> >
> > Well, it was pretty bad! I started feeling quite "fried" about as soon as I
> > turned on the computer. In many ways, it was considerably worse than the
> > laptop that I was trying to get away from. The low-power, "battery" settings
> > made it somewhat better - but not "better" enough. Within hours, I pretty
> > much knew that it wasn't something I should keep - there just had to be
> > something better. The ultra-low-voltage 1.3 GHz SU7300 Core 2 Duo processor
> > just didn't "do the trick" as far as making that thing a tolerable machine.
> > Oh, I still have faith that ULV processors can contribute greatly to a
> > relatively pain-free computing experience - but in that particular computer,
> > it wasn't nearly enough to make it eSens-friendly (at least based on my
> > experience). I guess this just reinforces the "theory" (or fact) that there
> > must be a lot more involved in computer emissions than just the
> > processor/graphics card.
> >
> > (I was focusing on ASUS computers because I had read that they have one of
> > the best track records as far as durability/reliability - Dell's poor
> > reputation for longevity steered me away from Dells. I need for my
> > investment to last a long time.)
> >
> > So after this experience, I just said "f - it". I was tired of the
> > "buying-and-returning" merry-go-round. I was tired of the "research" and the
> > self-conscious store expeditions. Luckily for me, I knew of a computer that
> > was relatively benign on my eSens -- the eMachines e725-4520. For several
> > months, I eschewed buying an eMachines in favor of searching for my notion
> > of a "better option". (The eMachines brand just didn't have a positive image
> > in my mind for quality/durability – and I thought that I might find an even
> > more eSens-friendly computer. Besides, I wasn't sure whether I wanted a
> > desktop or a laptop.) Sometime early last year, without doing any "research"
> > - my brother bought this computer at Walmart. (My brother does not have
> > electrosensitivity.) His decision-making "process" was basically, "My laptop
> > died - I need a new computer fast - oh, this eMachines is very inexpensive."
> > During a couple of occasions last year, I spent hours "trying out" his
> > computer - and it seemed relatively gentle on my esens. I even felt
> > comfortable with using his computer on my lap – and it had been a long time
> > since I could do that with the Dell. I was worried about the
> > quality/durability - but when I checked the reviews of the laptop, it seemed
> > to get as good (or better) reviews than a lot of the more "reputed brands"
> > out there. And my brother's laptop was still going strong after a year, it
> > seemed. So I searched around and bought one. Here it is:
> >
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/Acer-Emachines-E725-4520-250GBDVD%C2%B1RW-Wireless/dp/B003AG7N4C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1270241710&sr=8-1
> >
> > I'm not saying things are "perfect" with this computer (there is rarely a
> > such thing as "perfect"). But my symptoms are a LOT less "active" with this
> > eMachines than they were with the ASUS ULV monstrosity, and this computer
> > just seems considerably more "gentle" than a lot of laptops out there. There
> > are a lot of times when I hardly notice any symptoms at all. Funny - this
> > "journey" I went on to find a good eSens computer - all of the so-called
> > "research" I did - leads me back to my brother's eMachines, a "Walmart"
> > computer that I had known about for many months. I wish I had "the good
> > sense" to buy this computer last year - when I could have bought it more
> > easily and for at least $100 cheaper.
> >
> > I also really regret that I didn't tell the eSens group about this computer
> > as soon as I determined that it was a "tolerable" computer (at least for me)
> > - especially in light of the lack of recommended brands/models of computers
> > on eSens. It might have provided some helpful "lead" to someone. Now - since
> > this computer is "last year's model", it is harder to find - and people may
> > more likely have to go through less "mainstream" vendors .
> >
> > I'm just knocking on wood that this computer lasts.
> >
> > I'm not sure if there is a current-model eMachines being sold - I think
> > there may be. Hopefully - whatever eMachines did (or didn't do) to make this
> > computer relatively-benign - they have replicated in subsequent models. I'd
> > like to know what it is that makes this computer better than a lot of the
> > others - is it something about the screen-technology, or what? It could be
> > that some of the same factors that make this computer less expensive than
> > others (last year, it was selling for two-hundred-something dollars at
> > Walmart), makes it more tolerable. This experience leads me to conclude that
> > it may be fruitful for eSens folks to search for cheap, "low-end" computers
> > being sold at Walmart or Target or somewhere.
> >
> > Also – it is worth mentioning that Acer bought eMachines a few years back -
> > so this computer was actually manufactured by Acer, I think. So maybe there
> > are some Acer models that share certain characteristics with this eMachines.
> > An "extreme" example of this is the possibility that this particular Acer
> > computer is the *exact same* computer as my eMachines - it just has an
> > "Acer" label instead of an "eMachines" label:
> >
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/Acer-AS5732Z-4867-15-6-Inch-Display-Laptop/dp/B00358XT5W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1270242214&sr=8-1
> >
> > I've also realized more than ever that software issues - at least for me -
> > play an important role in computer tolerability. If the "wrong" software,
> > spyware, or "bloatware" gets installed on this computer - it can become
> > bothersome. For ex., when I installed the version of Malwarebytes that has
> > real-time protection, I thought I noticed this computer immediately becoming
> > bothersome - thankfully, I could disable the real-time protection. I also
> > notice that using Mozilla Firefox is significantly less bothersome than
> > using Internet Explorer: I guess it's a less "bloated", resource-hogging
> > browser. One reason seems to be that Mozilla gives you the option of
> > deleting individual cookies (I swear I sometimes notice an immediate
> > difference when I delete cookies). I was nervous about the latest version of
> > Firefox having "hardware acceleration" (the latest IE has this as well) - it
> > just sounds like something that would increase emf. So I avoided upgrading -
> > until circumstances sort-of "forced" me to upgrade. Fortunately, there is an
> > option in the new Firefox where you can turn hardware-acceleration off.
> >
> > Looking back, I wonder if the worsening/progression of my
> > electrosensitivity - when my symptoms really started "screaming" - was due
> > to an accumulation of cookies/malware/crapware dumped on my computer
> > harddrive. I really do believe this played a definite role. Maybe there was
> > some "poorly scripted" crapware that put a particular strain on my
> > resources/harddrive. More and more unwanted "stuff" kept getting dumped on
> > my harddrive. I admit that I was lazy/naiive about installing an
> > anti-virus/anti-spyware program - not that it would have made *too* much of
> > a difference in the long run . I'm very skeptical about these anti-malware
> > programs truly keeping rogue junk from eventually accumulating on people's
> > computers.
> >
> > Another thing I did with this eMachines (I also did it on the Dell) that
> > made a positive difference is change the monitor display settings from the
> > default 32-bit color to 16-bit color...it seems to either decrease emf,
> > and/or lead to eye-strain relief. There may be things I can do to further
> > "tweak" the graphics to decrease computer stress, but I currently don't feel
> > any urgent need to do them.
> >
> > Of course, the computer offers a variety of power-management settings - I
> > think most late-model, Windows 7 laptops do. One thing that's good is that
> > you can configure the computer to run on low, "battery"-type power settings
> > - even when the computer is plugged in. But so far, I choose not to do this.
> > I'm running the computer on the default "balanced" settings when it is
> > plugged in.
> >
> > I just think it helps to keep the harddrive as "clean" and as "empty" as
> > possible. In addition to trying to keep cookies/spyware/adware etc. off the
> > harddrive, I think I'm going to try to minimize the amount of files I put on
> > it.
> >
> > Another thing that I finally started doing was dialing down the power
> > output of our satanic AT&T WiFry router. I remember you telling me that I
> > could do this, but I was too lethargic/green-thumbed to pursue the matter.
> > In the back of my mind, I thought there would be a lot involved...that it
> > wasn't for the novice. But one day in desperation (after a confrontation
> > with my father in which he ordered me to stop turning off the WiFi router,
> > since it also turns off our landline phone service) - I stumbled upon the
> > way to do this. I logged into our router settings. The power output is
> > adjustable from Level 1 to Level 10 - of course, our WiFi was operating at
> > the maximum level of 10 (which is the default). Each time I adjusted the
> > power downward, I noticed relief - i.e., from 10 to 5, from 5 to 3, etc..
> > Eventually, I decided to keep it at 1 - our computers seem to be dealing
> > with the weaker signal fine. I also noticed a positive difference when I
> > changed the setting to stop the router from cranking out both "b" and "g"
> > signals. Now it only outputs "g" signals.
> >
> > Sorry for the loong novella. I just thought I'd update you on the status of
> > things - just in case you thought I had died or something, lol. No, the
> > radiation hasn't claimed me quite yet. Thanks to an improved computer and
> > WiFi situation, things are better than they were a year ago. Oh, make no
> > mistake - I'm still very much eSens. I still fear that I've suffered
> > considerable mental and physical damage. I fear that this computer may
> > become more and more bothersome as the "surreptitious files" start to
> > accumulate. I can still "feel" the WiFi in the air sometimes - though not
> > nearly as much as I could. Even with the WiFi power at one, laying on my
> > innerspring mattress bed was still very bothersome. I recently replaced my
> > "wire-antenna" bed with a "wireless" latex one - although this situation is
> > still in flux because I may have to return the latex bed (the
> > offgassing/fumes have been a big problem for me).
> >
> > ~Svetaswan
> >
> >  
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>
> Bed wise I am thinking of getting an organic futon that has wool in it so no fire retardant is needed on top of a wooden bed
> Steve
>
> --- In [hidden email], "svetaswan" <svetaswan@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Long time no see.  I just thought I'd post an email (with a few omissions/modifications) that I just got finished sending someone in the group.  I'm sorry that it's so long-winded - but maybe, just maybe, there is a morsel or two in my autistic narrative that might be helpful to someone.  As I say in the email, I really regret not telling you guys about a laptop computer that I had known about for months that seemed relatively benign (at least to me).  What a big "D'OH" on my part.  I guess my "reasoning", if you can call it that - for not mentioning it is that I had sort-of dismissed it in my mind as an "el cheapo" brand computer that wasn't a viable long-term option.  But so far, this laptop is working for me - well, as much as a computer can "work" for someone with esens.  It might work for other eSens sufferers.  The email follows:
> >
> > I just wanted to update you on my computer situation.  In February/March, I finally started making some moves on buying a new computer.  At first I bought an ASUS A52F-XA1 (15.6") laptop, but I returned it to amazon.com without even opening the box because when I later went to "test" the computer at Best Buy, it seemed like it would be pretty bothersome (I felt "forced" to make a quick purchase on amazon.com because it was showing one of those "Only 2 Left in Stock" type of messages).  Then, a  few weeks later, I took the plunge again; I was intrigued with ULV processors - so I bought an ASUS UL50-XA1 - this computer:
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/UL50AT-X1-Processor-Notebook-Windows-Premium/dp/B003DZCPL6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1306059154&sr=1-1
> >
> > Well, it was pretty bad!  I started feeling quite "fried" about as soon as I turned on the computer.  In many ways, it was considerably worse than the laptop that I was trying to get away from.  The low-power, "battery" settings made it somewhat better - but not "better" enough.  Within hours, I pretty much knew that it wasn't something I should keep - there just had to be something better.  The ultra-low-voltage 1.3 GHz SU7300 Core 2 Duo processor just didn't "do the trick" as far as making that thing a tolerable machine.  Oh, I still have faith that ULV processors can contribute greatly to a relatively pain-free computing experience - but in that particular computer, it wasn't nearly enough to make it eSens-friendly (at least based on my experience).  I guess this just reinforces the "theory" (or fact) that there must be a lot more involved in computer emissions than just the processor/graphics card.
> >
> > (I was focusing on ASUS computers because I had read that they have one of the best track records as far as durability/reliability - Dell's poor reputation for longevity steered me away from Dells.  I need for my investment to last a long time.)
> >
> > So after this experience, I just said "f - it".  I was tired of the "buying-and-returning" merry-go-round.  I was tired of the "research" and the self-conscious store expeditions.  Luckily for me, I knew of a computer that was relatively benign on my eSens  -- the eMachines e725-4520.  For several months, I eschewed buying an eMachines in favor of searching for my notion of a "better option".  (The eMachines brand just didn't have a positive image in my mind for quality/durability – and I thought that I might find an even more eSens-friendly computer.   Besides, I wasn't sure whether I wanted a desktop or a laptop.)  Sometime early last year, without doing any "research" - my brother bought this computer at Walmart.  (My brother does not have electrosensitivity.) His decision-making "process" was basically, "My laptop died - I need a new computer fast - oh, this eMachines is very inexpensive."   During a couple of occasions last year, I spent hours "trying out" his computer - and it seemed relatively gentle on my esens.  I even felt comfortable with using his computer on my lap – and it had been a long time since I could do that with the Dell.  I was worried about the quality/durability - but when I checked the reviews of the laptop, it seemed to get as good (or better) reviews than a lot of the more "reputed brands" out there.  And my brother's laptop was still going strong after a year, it seemed.  So I searched around and bought one.  Here it is:
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/Acer-Emachines-E725-4520-250GBDVD%C2%B1RW-Wireless/dp/B003AG7N4C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1270241710&sr=8-1
> >
> > I'm not saying things are "perfect" with this computer (there is rarely a such thing as "perfect").  But my symptoms are a LOT less "active" with this eMachines than they were with the ASUS ULV monstrosity, and this computer just seems considerably more "gentle" than a lot of laptops out there.  There are a lot of times when I hardly notice any symptoms at all.  Funny - this "journey" I went on to find a good eSens computer - all of the so-called "research" I did - leads me back to my brother's eMachines, a "Walmart" computer that I had known about for many months.  I wish I had "the good sense" to buy this computer last year - when I could have bought it more easily and for at least $100 cheaper.
> >
> > I also really regret that I didn't tell the eSens group about this computer as soon as I determined that it was a "tolerable" computer (at least for me) - especially in light of the lack of recommended brands/models of computers on eSens.  It might have provided some helpful "lead" to someone.  Now - since this computer is "last year's model",  it is harder to find - and people may more likely have to go through less "mainstream" vendors .
> >
> > I'm just knocking on wood that this computer lasts.
> >
> > I'm not sure if there is a current-model eMachines being sold - I think there may be.  Hopefully - whatever eMachines did (or didn't do) to make this computer relatively-benign - they have replicated in subsequent models.  I'd like to know what it is that makes this computer better than a lot of the others - is it something about the screen-technology, or what?  It could be that some of the same factors that make this computer less expensive than others (last year, it was selling for two-hundred-something dollars at Walmart), makes it more tolerable.  This experience leads me to conclude that it may be fruitful for eSens folks to search for cheap, "low-end" computers being sold at Walmart or Target or somewhere.
> >
> > Also – it is worth mentioning that Acer bought eMachines a few years back - so this computer was actually manufactured by Acer, I think.  So maybe there are some Acer models that share certain characteristics with this eMachines.  An "extreme" example of this is the possibility that this particular Acer computer is the *exact same* computer as my eMachines - it just has an "Acer" label instead of an "eMachines" label:
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/Acer-AS5732Z-4867-15-6-Inch-Display-Laptop/dp/B00358XT5W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1270242214&sr=8-1
> >
> > I've also realized more than ever that software issues - at least for me - play an important role in computer tolerability.  If the "wrong" software, spyware, or "bloatware" gets installed on this computer - it can become bothersome.  For ex., when I installed the version of Malwarebytes that has real-time protection, I thought I noticed this computer immediately becoming bothersome - thankfully, I could disable the real-time protection.  I also notice that using Mozilla Firefox is significantly less bothersome than using Internet Explorer:  I guess it's a less "bloated", resource-hogging browser.  One reason seems to be that Mozilla gives you the option of deleting individual cookies (I swear I sometimes notice an immediate difference when I delete cookies).  I was nervous about the latest version of Firefox having "hardware acceleration" (the latest IE has this as well) - it just sounds like something that would increase emf.  So I avoided upgrading - until circumstances sort-of "forced" me to upgrade.  Fortunately, there is an option in the new Firefox where you can turn hardware-acceleration off.
> >
> > Looking back, I wonder if the worsening/progression of my electrosensitivity - when my symptoms really started "screaming" - was due to an accumulation of cookies/malware/crapware dumped on my computer harddrive.  I really do believe this played a definite role.  Maybe there was some "poorly scripted" crapware that put a particular strain on my resources/harddrive.  More and more unwanted "stuff" kept getting dumped on my harddrive.  I admit that I was lazy/naiive about installing an anti-virus/anti-spyware program - not that it would have made *too* much of a difference in the long run .  I'm very skeptical about these anti-malware programs truly keeping rogue junk from eventually accumulating on people's computers.
> >
> > Another thing I did with this eMachines (I also did it on the Dell) that made a positive difference is change the monitor display settings from the default 32-bit color to 16-bit color...it seems to either decrease emf, and/or lead to eye-strain relief.  There may be things I can do to further "tweak" the graphics to decrease computer stress, but I currently don't feel any urgent need to do them.
> >
> > Of course, the computer offers a variety of power-management settings - I think most late-model, Windows 7 laptops do.  One thing that's good is that you can configure the computer to run on low, "battery"-type power settings - even when the computer is plugged in.  But so far, I choose not to do this.  I'm running the computer on the default "balanced" settings when it is plugged in.
> >
> > I just think it helps to keep the harddrive as "clean" and as "empty" as possible.  In addition to trying to keep cookies/spyware/adware etc. off the harddrive, I think I'm going to try to minimize the amount of files I put on it.
> >
> > Another thing that I finally started doing was dialing down the power output of our satanic AT&T WiFry router.  I remember you telling me that I could do this, but I was too lethargic/green-thumbed to pursue the matter.  In the back of my mind, I thought there would be a lot involved...that it wasn't for the novice.  But one day in desperation (after a confrontation with my father in which he ordered me to stop turning off the WiFi router, since it also turns off our landline phone service) - I stumbled upon the way to do this.  I logged into our router settings.  The power output is adjustable from Level 1 to Level 10 - of course, our WiFi was operating at the maximum level of 10 (which is the default).  Each time I adjusted the power downward, I noticed relief - i.e., from 10 to 5, from 5 to 3, etc..  Eventually, I decided to keep it at 1 - our computers seem to be dealing with the weaker signal fine.  I also noticed a positive difference when I changed the setting to stop the router from cranking out both "b" and "g" signals.  Now it only outputs "g" signals.
> >
> > Sorry for the loong novella.  I just thought I'd update you on the status of things - just in case you thought I had died or something, lol.  No, the radiation hasn't claimed me quite yet.  Thanks to an improved computer and WiFi situation, things are better than they were a year ago.  Oh, make no mistake - I'm still very much eSens.  I still fear that I've suffered considerable mental and physical damage.  I fear that this computer may become more and more bothersome as the "surreptitious files" start to accumulate.  I can still "feel" the WiFi in the air sometimes - though not nearly as much as I could.  Even with the WiFi power at one, laying on my innerspring mattress bed was still very bothersome.  I recently replaced my "wire-antenna" bed with a "wireless" latex one - although this situation is still in flux because I may have to return the latex bed (the offgassing/fumes have been a big problem for me).
> >
> > ~Svetaswan
> >
>

>
>
>
> Just wanted to clarify the 6th paragraph below a little.  When I say I can "command the wireless adapter to operate on lower power" - I'm talking about the wireless adapter within the computer, not the router.  (I'm clarifying for the novices who may come across this message at some point - not for the experts like Emraware.)  In Windows 7, you can do this by going into "Control Panel", then choosing "System and Security", then choosing "Power Options".  You can choose a "Power Plan", and can further tweak power options if you click on "Change Plan Settings".  Then you can click on "Change Advanced Power Settings" - then you can click on the specific device that you want to change.  Among other things, you can make changes under the "Wireless Adapter Settings", the "Processor Power Management", or the "Multimedia Settings".  
>
> In my experience, making changes to these settings can really make a difference in how the computer "feels" - it's apparent emf.  For example, I just changed the Wireless Adapter Settings from "Low Power Saving" to "Medium Power Saving" and felt an immediate difference.
>
> ~Svetaswan
>
> --- In [hidden email], "svetaswan" <svetaswan@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Emraware,
> >
> > You seem to have assumed that I was referring to you.  I wasn't addressing that to you - unless you post under several different screenames that I'm not aware of?  It was someone else who once suggested that I could disable the wireless router remotely, through software or via the Internet.
> >
> > And like I've said several times before, I'm in a living situation where I don't have the power to make the household decisions that many of you may take for granted.  So it's not that I don't know about the dangers of wireless - which is what you seem to have presumed - it's just that I can't do much about it.  If I had the authority, I would have gotten rid of WiFi a long time ago.  As it is, I have to do what is within my power - which isn't as much as you or a lot of other people can do.
> >
> > I may not be able to get rid of WiFi - but at least I can make it a little more "comfortable".  It's a good thing that I can do this much - or I would probably be in a *very* bad place now (not that my situation is exactly good or safe now).
> >
> > It's a good thing that my parents are in some ways even less computer savvy than I am - they didn't even realize that I had made those changes to the WiFi settings.  They wouldn't have ever had to know....but I did end up mentioning it to them on a couple of occasions. They still may not fully understand what I did.  Apparently they don't even care that much - as long as the router remains on and the computers can still access the Internet.
> >
> > Our router is located in the basement - so we're not exactly at "ground zero"...but it seems to be a very strong router - much stronger than our old Comcast router (which was the white, Netgear router).  I don't remember feeling the Comcast router, unless I was at ground zero.
> >
> > There appears to be an option where you can command the wireless adapter to operate on lower power. There are 4 settings for the wireless adapter:  "maximum performance", "low power saving", "medium power saving", & "maximum power saving".  Apparently, the wireless adapter is on the "maximum performance" when it's plugged in - then goes to "low power saving" on battery.  I guess I should try to lower these settings and see how my computer does - I've never tried "medium power saving" or "maximum power saving".  
> >
> > There is even a button on the computer itself where if you press it, it turns off the wireless adapter.  But I don't really have the option of turning it completely off - I pretty much have to use wireless.
> >
> > In the manual for this computer - it is recommended that you remain at least 8 inches from the wireless antenna - which is located inside of the upper margin of the screen, apparently.  Supposedly you are within the government's "safe" exposure limits when you are 8 inches away - although that's probably not saying much...
> >
> > ~Svetaswan
> >
> > --- In [hidden email], "emraware" <emraware@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Another thing that I finally started doing was dialing down the power output of our satanic AT&T WiFry router.  I remember you telling me that I could do this
> > >
> > > Svetaswan,  
> > >
> > > I don't remember ever suggesting this.  I use a wired router w/ ethernet cables instead of a wireless router.
> > >
> > > Even if you lower your Wi-Fi router's power, that's only half of the equation.  Your dominant exposure is probably from Wi-Fi on your laptop-- which would be right next to you...  Does your laptop have a similar "dial-down" option?
> > >
> > > One acquaintance of mine tested a wi-fi router and found at a distance of 1 meter, the radiation was the same as that of a cell phone held directly to the head.  I think some laptops might be similar?  IMO, one should "disable" Wi-Fi on the laptop via the control panel, network settings.  That's the best.
> > >
> >
>

>
> I'm not sure if it's Dunlop or something unique to their company... you'd have to ask them...
>
> I just notice that it had no offgassing, which was a welcome surprise.  They also have
> quite a variety of "hardness/softness" options, although after trying two options, I think
> my ideal would be somewhere between "hard" and "extra hard".  :-)
>
> Marc
>
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 00:36 +0000, "svetaswan" <svetaswan@...> wrote:
> > Thanks so much for the link Marc - depending on what direction I decide to go in, your link may prove to be a lifesaver.  I haven't yet looked at the site very closely, but from what I gather, this is 100% natural Dunlop latex?
>

>
> So you are saying that you HAVE to stay somewhere that has Wi-Fi and you cannot turn it off because the social order is such that it is better to have it on than suffer the emotions/relationship problems to turn it off?
>
> That pisses me off that you would allow that condition in your life and not value yourself enough to take care of your self either by leaving or waking these people up to your reality.
>
> You can see this triggers my emotions and so obviously has nothing to do with you.
>
> Get creative with your solutions. Simply remove/unscrew the antennas from the Wi-Fi router and use cables/cords to the computers. They have 50-100 foot long cables that can run all over the house to where ever people think they need to have computer access. Download speed will be much higher and access to your computer much more secure.
>
> You may still need to wrap the router in silver mesh to stop the residual emissions but this is a hell of a lot better than being radiated 24/7.
>
> At night, get a timer to shut off the router from 11-6am unless someone is looking at porn all night and doesn't want it off.
>
> Don't settle for this crap. Do something to change your situation.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 23, 2011, at 6:13 AM, svetaswan wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Emraware,
> >
> > You seem to have assumed that I was referring to you.  I wasn't addressing that to you - unless you post under several different screenames that I'm not aware of?  It was someone else who once suggested that I could disable the wireless router remotely, through software or via the Internet.
> >
> > And like I've said several times before, I'm in a living situation where I don't have the power to make the household decisions that many of you may take for granted.  So it's not that I don't know about the dangers of wireless - which is what you seem to have presumed - it's just that I can't do much about it.  If I had the authority, I would have gotten rid of WiFi a long time ago.  As it is, I have to do what is within my power - which isn't as much as you or a lot of other people can do.
> >
> > I may not be able to get rid of WiFi - but at least I can make it a little more "comfortable".  It's a good thing that I can do this much - or I would probably be in a *very* bad place now (not that my situation is exactly good or safe now).
> >
> > It's a good thing that my parents are in some ways even less computer savvy than I am - they didn't even realize that I had made those changes to the WiFi settings.  They wouldn't have ever had to know....but I did end up mentioning it to them on a couple of occasions. They still may not fully understand what I did.  Apparently they don't even care that much - as long as the router remains on and the computers can still access the Internet.
> >
> > Our router is located in the basement - so we're not exactly at "ground zero"...but it seems to be a very strong router - much stronger than our old Comcast router (which was the white, Netgear router).  I don't remember feeling the Comcast router, unless I was at ground zero.
> >
> > There appears to be an option where you can command the wireless adapter to operate on lower power. There are 4 settings for the wireless adapter:  "maximum performance", "low power saving", "medium power saving", & "maximum power saving".  Apparently, the wireless adapter is on the "maximum performance" when it's plugged in - then goes to "low power saving" on battery.  I guess I should try to lower these settings and see how my computer does - I've never tried "medium power saving" or "maximum power saving".  
> >
> > There is even a button on the computer itself where if you press it, it turns off the wireless adapter.  But I don't really have the option of turning it completely off - I pretty much have to use wireless.
> >
> > In the manual for this computer - it is recommended that you remain at least 8 inches from the wireless antenna - which is located inside of the upper margin of the screen, apparently.  Supposedly you are within the government's "safe" exposure limits when you are 8 inches away - although that's probably not saying much...
> >
> > ~Svetaswan
> >
> > --- In [hidden email], "emraware" <emraware@> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Another thing that I finally started doing was dialing down the power output of our satanic AT&T WiFry router.  I remember you telling me that I could do this
> >>
> >> Svetaswan,  
> >>
> >> I don't remember ever suggesting this.  I use a wired router w/ ethernet cables instead of a wireless router.
> >>
> >> Even if you lower your Wi-Fi router's power, that's only half of the equation.  Your dominant exposure is probably from Wi-Fi on your laptop-- which would be right next to you...  Does your laptop have a similar "dial-down" option?
> >>
> >> One acquaintance of mine tested a wi-fi router and found at a distance of 1 meter, the radiation was the same as that of a cell phone held directly to the head.  I think some laptops might be similar?  IMO, one should "disable" Wi-Fi on the laptop via the control panel, network settings.  That's the best.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

>
> The mattress i was thinking about is actually a thick cotton futon with a layer of wool in it to make it softer and flame proof.
> Steve
>
> --- In [hidden email], "svetaswan" <svetaswan@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Steve - is the organic futon you're considering comprised of 100% wool?  Or are you talking about a latex or foam futon with a wool topper or cover?
> >
> > I was vaguely thinking about a wool mattress (if there is such a thing) in light of my latex troubles - but I have my doubts about how comfortable or how much support a wool mattress would provide.  I wish wool mattresses had published ILD ratings like latex (and foam) mattresses do.
> >
> > ~Svetaswan
>

>
>
>
> I take it that you mean well (or that's what other people assumed), but you obviously don't understand everything about my situation.  And did you read where I cannot shut the router off, because it is inextricably connected to our phone service?  If I shut the router off, I shut our landline phones down - and my parents won't tolerate that.
>
> And our router doesn't have an antenna to unscrew.  It's an evil contraption designed to trap me in a 24/7 bloodbath.
>
> ~Svetaswan
>
>
> --- In [hidden email], Andrew McAfee <amcafeerr@> wrote:
> >
> > So you are saying that you HAVE to stay somewhere that has Wi-Fi and you cannot turn it off because the social order is such that it is better to have it on than suffer the emotions/relationship problems to turn it off?
> >
> > That pisses me off that you would allow that condition in your life and not value yourself enough to take care of your self either by leaving or waking these people up to your reality.
> >
> > You can see this triggers my emotions and so obviously has nothing to do with you.
> >
> > Get creative with your solutions. Simply remove/unscrew the antennas from the Wi-Fi router and use cables/cords to the computers. They have 50-100 foot long cables that can run all over the house to where ever people think they need to have computer access. Download speed will be much higher and access to your computer much more secure.
> >
> > You may still need to wrap the router in silver mesh to stop the residual emissions but this is a hell of a lot better than being radiated 24/7.
> >
> > At night, get a timer to shut off the router from 11-6am unless someone is looking at porn all night and doesn't want it off.
> >
> > Don't settle for this crap. Do something to change your situation.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 23, 2011, at 6:13 AM, svetaswan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Emraware,
> > >
> > > You seem to have assumed that I was referring to you.  I wasn't addressing that to you - unless you post under several different screenames that I'm not aware of?  It was someone else who once suggested that I could disable the wireless router remotely, through software or via the Internet.
> > >
> > > And like I've said several times before, I'm in a living situation where I don't have the power to make the household decisions that many of you may take for granted.  So it's not that I don't know about the dangers of wireless - which is what you seem to have presumed - it's just that I can't do much about it.  If I had the authority, I would have gotten rid of WiFi a long time ago.  As it is, I have to do what is within my power - which isn't as much as you or a lot of other people can do.
> > >
> > > I may not be able to get rid of WiFi - but at least I can make it a little more "comfortable".  It's a good thing that I can do this much - or I would probably be in a *very* bad place now (not that my situation is exactly good or safe now).
> > >
> > > It's a good thing that my parents are in some ways even less computer savvy than I am - they didn't even realize that I had made those changes to the WiFi settings.  They wouldn't have ever had to know....but I did end up mentioning it to them on a couple of occasions. They still may not fully understand what I did.  Apparently they don't even care that much - as long as the router remains on and the computers can still access the Internet.
> > >
> > > Our router is located in the basement - so we're not exactly at "ground zero"...but it seems to be a very strong router - much stronger than our old Comcast router (which was the white, Netgear router).  I don't remember feeling the Comcast router, unless I was at ground zero.
> > >
> > > There appears to be an option where you can command the wireless adapter to operate on lower power. There are 4 settings for the wireless adapter:  "maximum performance", "low power saving", "medium power saving", & "maximum power saving".  Apparently, the wireless adapter is on the "maximum performance" when it's plugged in - then goes to "low power saving" on battery.  I guess I should try to lower these settings and see how my computer does - I've never tried "medium power saving" or "maximum power saving".  
> > >
> > > There is even a button on the computer itself where if you press it, it turns off the wireless adapter.  But I don't really have the option of turning it completely off - I pretty much have to use wireless.
> > >
> > > In the manual for this computer - it is recommended that you remain at least 8 inches from the wireless antenna - which is located inside of the upper margin of the screen, apparently.  Supposedly you are within the government's "safe" exposure limits when you are 8 inches away - although that's probably not saying much...
> > >
> > > ~Svetaswan
> > >
> > > --- In [hidden email], "emraware" <emraware@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Another thing that I finally started doing was dialing down the power output of our satanic AT&T WiFry router.  I remember you telling me that I could do this
> > >>
> > >> Svetaswan,  
> > >>
> > >> I don't remember ever suggesting this.  I use a wired router w/ ethernet cables instead of a wireless router.
> > >>
> > >> Even if you lower your Wi-Fi router's power, that's only half of the equation.  Your dominant exposure is probably from Wi-Fi on your laptop-- which would be right next to you...  Does your laptop have a similar "dial-down" option?
> > >>
> > >> One acquaintance of mine tested a wi-fi router and found at a distance of 1 meter, the radiation was the same as that of a cell phone held directly to the head.  I think some laptops might be similar?  IMO, one should "disable" Wi-Fi on the laptop via the control panel, network settings.  That's the best.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

>
> > Can this mattress be plopped on top of a wooden frame without a boxspring base?
> > Which Model did you buy?
>
> Actually, I've only purchased a 3" topper from this company, but I didn't notice any
> offgassing from the latex.  Since we are now talking about this here, yesterday
> I unzipped the cotton casing and put my nose against the latex and tried to smell
> anything.  At zero distance away from it, I could detect a slight smell, but
> it was not a bothersome "chemical" smell that I'd try to avoid.  And nothing
> that I've noticed when it's got a cotton casing, matress pad, and sheet on top of it.
>
> I think with any latex mattress, it needs to be put onto a solid wood platform,
> otherwise they tend to sag (although this is based on my experience with
> a latex mattress from another manufacturer).
>
> I'd like to buy one of their full-blown mattresses using the Natural Sense latex, but
> my wife insists that she must sleep on a metal springs due to back problems, so
> the best compromise I've come up with so far is for me to have a 3" topper on top
> of the metal spring mattress.  (and yes, it would certainly be better for me if we
> could eliminate the metal springs altogether, but based on our experiences with
> a previous latex mattress, my wife is now convinced that all latex mattresses are
> bad for her back)
>
> Marc
>

>
> Does one thin layer of wool provide enough fire resistance that flame retardants are not added to the cotton part?
> I thought you'd have to have it the other way around (wool futon with layer of cotton on the outside for texture) ?
>
> --- In [hidden email], "torch369" <torch369@> wrote:
> >
> > The mattress i was thinking about is actually a thick cotton futon with a layer of wool in it to make it softer and flame proof.
> > Steve
> >
> > --- In [hidden email], "svetaswan" <svetaswan@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Steve - is the organic futon you're considering comprised of 100% wool?  Or are you talking about a latex or foam futon with a wool topper or cover?
> > >
> > > I was vaguely thinking about a wool mattress (if there is such a thing) in light of my latex troubles - but I have my doubts about how comfortable or how much support a wool mattress would provide.  I wish wool mattresses had published ILD ratings like latex (and foam) mattresses do.
> > >
> > > ~Svetaswan
> >
>

>
>
> Emraware,
>
> You seem to have assumed that I was referring to you. I wasn't addressing that to you - unless you post under several different screenames that I'm not aware of? It was someone else who once suggested that I could disable the wireless router remotely, through software or via the Internet.
>
> And like I've said several times before, I'm in a living situation where I don't have the power to make the household decisions that many of you may take for granted. So it's not that I don't know about the dangers of wireless - which is what you seem to have presumed - it's just that I can't do much about it. If I had the authority, I would have gotten rid of WiFi a long time ago. As it is, I have to do what is within my power - which isn't as much as you or a lot of other people can do.
>
> I may not be able to get rid of WiFi - but at least I can make it a little more "comfortable". It's a good thing that I can do this much - or I would probably be in a *very* bad place now (not that my situation is exactly good or safe now).
>
> It's a good thing that my parents are in some ways even less computer savvy than I am - they didn't even realize that I had made those changes to the WiFi settings. They wouldn't have ever had to know....but I did end up mentioning it to them on a couple of occasions. They still may not fully understand what I did. Apparently they don't even care that much - as long as the router remains on and the computers can still access the Internet.
>
> Our router is located in the basement - so we're not exactly at "ground zero"...but it seems to be a very strong router - much stronger than our old Comcast router (which was the white, Netgear router). I don't remember feeling the Comcast router, unless I was at ground zero.
>
> There appears to be an option where you can command the wireless adapter to operate on lower power. There are 4 settings for the wireless adapter: "maximum performance", "low power saving", "medium power saving", & "maximum power saving". Apparently, the wireless adapter is on the "maximum performance" when it's plugged in - then goes to "low power saving" on battery. I guess I should try to lower these settings and see how my computer does - I've never tried "medium power saving" or "maximum power saving".
>
> There is even a button on the computer itself where if you press it, it turns off the wireless adapter. But I don't really have the option of turning it completely off - I pretty much have to use wireless.
>
> In the manual for this computer - it is recommended that you remain at least 8 inches from the wireless antenna - which is located inside of the upper margin of the screen, apparently. Supposedly you are within the government's "safe" exposure limits when you are 8 inches away - although that's probably not saying much...
>
> ~Svetaswan
>
> --- In [hidden email], "emraware" <emraware@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Another thing that I finally started doing was dialing down the power output of our satanic AT&T WiFry router. I remember you telling me that I could do this
>>
>> Svetaswan,
>>
>> I don't remember ever suggesting this. I use a wired router w/ ethernet cables instead of a wireless router.
>>
>> Even if you lower your Wi-Fi router's power, that's only half of the equation. Your dominant exposure is probably from Wi-Fi on your laptop-- which would be right next to you... Does your laptop have a similar "dial-down" option?
>>
>> One acquaintance of mine tested a wi-fi router and found at a distance of 1 meter, the radiation was the same as that of a cell phone held directly to the head. I think some laptops might be similar? IMO, one should "disable" Wi-Fi on the laptop via the control panel, network settings. That's the best.
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>