Re: Stetzerizer Meter

>
> Yes, they got it all wrong.
>
> 1. Most disturbing frequencies are around 30 kHz.
>
> 2. What are the boudaries of sensibility of electrosensible people?
> Under *harmful* it is understood, that the person shopuld drop dead
> instantly, which is not the case.
>
> Electrosensible people may react to very tiny levels of radiation.
> It is my experience, that for electrosensibles the GS readings of 50 are
> not
> sufficient.
> A reading of 35 is a level where electrosensibles can live with.
>
> 3. As I have found out after several hundreds of building biological house
>
> investigations, pulsed high frequency fields between 200 and 2000 uW/m2 (
> or
> 0.275 and 0.9 V/m) may cause electrosensibility.
> But, and that is something most *scientists* do not realize, once one has
> become electrosensible, one may react to levels of 1 uW/m2 (or 0.006 V/m).
> And those are levels, which are even hard to measure.
>
> So, electrosensibles may react to more than 50 GS units, aalthough those
> *scientists* do not understand why.
> And nobody wants to study what make electrosensibles *tick*.
>
> Greetings,
> Charles Claessens
> member Verband Baubiologie
> www.milieuziektes.nl
> www.milieuziektes.be
> www.hetbitje.nl
> checked by Bitdefender
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[hidden email] <SArjuna%40aol.com>>
> To: <[hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Cc: <[hidden email] <rowanc%40webprophets.net.au>>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 04:39
> Subject: [eSens] Re: Stetzerizer Meter
>
> The Health Canada "study" of the GS filters is not science, and was
> done
> with the sole intention of discrediting the filters.
>
> Dr. Havas's letter to Health Canada:
>
> GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email] <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 1/5
> Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D.
> Environmental & Resource Studies
> TRENT UNIVERSITY, PETERBOROUGH, ONTARIO, CANADA, K9J 7B8
> Phone: (705) 748-1011 ext. 1232, FAX: (705) 748-1569, e-mail
> [hidden email] <mhavas%40trentu.ca>
>
> Open letter to Health Canada
> Response to: Evaluation of the Stetzer Filters1
> October 10, 2006
>
> The Honorable Tony Clement,
> Minister of Health,
> Health Canada.
> [hidden email] <clement.j%40parl.gc.ca>
>
> I raise a serious concern about a document1 written by six scientists at
> Health Canada's Consumer and
> Clinical Protection Bureau that was recently posted on the BC Centre for
> Disease Control2 web site. The
> Health Canada scientists purport to test the effectiveness of the
> Graham/Stetzer filters to reduce dirty
> electricity. This document does not appear on the Health Canada web site
> and
> has not been published in a
> peer-reviewed journal. Had it been peer reviewed it would not have been
> accepted for the obvious errors
> I mention below. This document is more concerned in protecting the
> electric
> utility than it is in protecting
> the health of Canadians. It surprises me that Health Canada would approve
> release of this document with
> so many fundamental errors.
> It is my understanding that this document has been circulated widely yet
> the
> Health Canada authors did
> not have the courtesy to send a copy of their report to the designers of
> this
> filter, Professor Martin Graham
> (UC Berkeley) and Mr. Dave Stetzer (President of Stetzer Electric).
> I ask you to look into this matter. Dave Stetzer has agreed to demonstrate
> how the filters work using appropriate equipment and I ask you to
> encourage
> your
> scientists at Health Canada to take him up on his
> offer.
> What follows is my evaluation of and response to the Health Canada
> document1.
> Sincerely,
> Magda Havas
> 1 Gajda, G., A. Thansandote, E. Lemay, D. Lecuyer, W. Gorman, and J.
> McNamee.
> 2006.
> Report on Evaluation of Stetzer Filters, Consumer and Clinical Radiation
> Protection Bureau, Health Canada.
> 2 BCCDC web site: www.bccdc.org/content.php?.item=62 NOTE: This agency
> states
> the following:
> Cell Phones: Scientific evidence to date has not presented convincing
> evidence from either animal, cellular,
> laboratory studies or epidemiology to implicate electromagnetic radiation
> exposure from portable phones as
> a cause of cancer.
> Cellular Transmitting Towers: Most research studies conducted to date have
> not shown that electromagnetic
> fields surrounding a cellular transmitter site cause cancer or other
> adverse
> health effects in the population.
> Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: Therefore the available
> scientific evidence to date does not
> support the assumption that adverse health effects from exposure to these
> fields at levels normally
> encountered in our homes, schools and offices pose a risk to human health.
> GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email] <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 2/5
> Havas, M. 2006. Response to: Evaluation of the Stetzer Filters. Open
> letter
> to Health
> Canada, October 10, 2006.
> Many products are now available to help people who suffer from exposure to
> electromagnetic energy and
> it is right for Health Canada to take these claims seriously and to test
> the
> products to see if they do indeed
> accomplish what they claim. Obviously this is what Health Canada had in
> mind
> when they decided to test
> the GS filters. I applaud them for this but am deeply disturbed by some of
> the fundamental errors they
> made during the testing of these filters and in the flawed document they
> produced.
> Health Canada used equipment that neither had the appropriate range of
> frequencies nor had the needed
> sensitivity to test the GS filters? Health Canada inappropriately applied
> equations intended for linear
> loads to non-linear loads? Health Canada claimed that the GS filters
> produce
> dirty electricity that may be
> harmful to human health when they previously denied any harmful effects of
> dirty electricity? Health
> Canada seems more concerned about the impact these filters might have on
> the
> electricity providers rather
> than the impact dirty electricity might have on the health of Canadians,
> as
> their name implies?
> This open letter is intended to set the record straight and to offer
> Health
> Canada a demonstration
> of what the GS filters do using appropriate equipment.
> I will deal with some of the more blatant errors in the Health Canada
> document and try to keep it as
> concise and non-technical as possible so that others will see what Health
> Canada has done or failed to do.
> I understand that Dr. Don Hillman (Michigan State University) responded
> earlier this year to statements
> made in this document concerning biological effects of dirty electricity
> and
> that Dr. Martin Graham (UC
> Berkeley) plans to respond to the electrical engineering aspects based on
> the
> Health Canada study design
> and execution.
> 1. The GS filters remove dirty electricity within the frequency range of 4
>
> to
> 100 kHz (4,000 and 100,000
> cycles per second) and their ability to reduce microsurges above and below
> this range falls off
> rapidly. This was clearly stated in the Havas and Stetzer (2004) document
> cited by Health Canada.
> So why did Health Canada use equipment that covered the range of 50 Hz to
> 5
> kHz? There was an
> overlap of 1 kHz and this tested 1% of the effective frequency range of
> the
> filters. Clearly
> inappropriate instrumentation was used and hence Health Canada can make no
> claims as to whether
> or not the filters work because they were unable to test the filters
> properly. This alone makes the
> entire document worthless as a test of the effectiveness of the GS filters
>
> to
> reduce dirty electricity in
> the 4 to 100 kHz frequency range (Figure 1).
> overlap 4 to 5 kHz (1% effective range of GS filters)
> instrument used by Health Canada 50 Hz to 5 kHz
> effective range of GS filters 4 kHz to 100 kHz
> frequency (kHz)
> 10
> 20
> 30
> 40
> 50
> 60
> 70
> 80
> 90
> 100
> Figure 1. Frequency range for GS filter, frequency range for equipment
> Health
> Canada
> used to test the GS filters, overlapping frequencies.
> 0
> GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email] <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 3/5
> 2. The dirty electricity rides on top of the 60 Hz sine wave yet Health
> Canada made no attempt to
> separate the 60 Hz cycle from the high frequencies. They could have used a
> ubiquitous filter and thus
> had more accuracy for the higher frequencies for at least 1 kHz of the
> overlap between the
> instrumentation and the filter's effective range.
> Health Canada admits their equipment did not have the appropriate
> sensitivity
> because, when the GS
> filter was plugged in, the microsurge meter measured reductions in dirty
> electricity that their
> equipment failed to detect.
> 3. Health Canada states that the filters have no effect at low frequencies
>
> in
> reducing harmonics. They
> provide evidence of this up to the 7th harmonic or 420 Hz. No one ever
> claimed the GS filters worked
> at these low frequencies. They work for the frequency range of 4,000 to
> 100,000 Hz and 420 Hz is no
> within that range. This is a red herring meant to discredit the filters by
> stating they don't work but for
> a frequency range they were not intended for. This lower frequency has
> less
> energy and is less likely
> to be as biologically active as higher frequencies (Riley 1998). See Item
> 5
> below.
> 4. Health Canada erroneously claims that low levels of dirty electricity
> have
> no biological effects, but
> they provide no documentation to support their claim.
> Studies show that people who have multiple sclerosis, type 1 and type 2
> diabetics, chronic fatigue,
> tinnitus, and symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity have benefited
> when the filters were used
> to clean up their home or work environment (Havas and Stetzer 2004). We
> have
> empirical evidence
> that these filters work both in the sense of reducing dirty electricity
> and
> improving health.
> Diabetics had lower fasting glucose levels and required less insulin. Our
> studies with diabetics were
> independently replicated in Japan with similar results. According to
> Health
> Canada an estimated two
> million Canadians have diabetes and the cost of diabetes in Canada is
> estimated to be up to $9 billion
> annually. If even a small percentage of these diabetics could benefit by
> cleaning up the dirty
> electricity in their home/work/school environment, the savings in health
> care
> could be considerable.
> Multiple sclerosis patients had reduced tremors and some were able to walk
> unassisted within a few
> days to weeks after filters were installed in their homes. No other
> changes
> were made in their diet or
> medication during this period to account for these changes. We have
> video-documented evidence of
> these improvements. How does Health Canada explain this and what evidence
> do
> they have to the
> contrary to support the claims that dirty electricity is not biological
> active? According to the Multiple
> Sclerosis Society of Canada (2002) Canada has one of the highest rates of
> MS
> in the world. An
> estimated 50,000 Canadians have MS and 70% of people with MS are unable to
> work 5-10 years after
> they are diagnosed. A number of people with MS who have used the GS
> Filters
> were able to continue
> work or return to work after they reduced the dirty electricity in their
> home/work environment. Their
> improved quality of life, the reduced stress on family members, and their
> ability to remain productive
> members of society should be of enormous interest to Health Canada.
> 5. Health Canada claims that the GS filters produce dirty electricity at
> the
> low frequency range and that
> this dirty electricity may be harmful. How can they argue it both ways? At
> first they claim that the
> levels of dirty electricity are so low that they are not biologically
> active
> and then they claim that the
> filters produce low levels of dirty electricity that are harmful to
> health.
> Energy is related to frequency and the higher the frequency the greater
> the
> energy. Sixty kHz (60,000
> Hz) has 1000 times more energy than 60 Hz. Also, frequencies above 1.7 kHz
> begin to penetrate the
> body (Riley 1998). Yet Health Canada claims that the lower frequencies,
> purportedly generated by
> the GS filters, have a greater biological effect with less energy and less
> penetrating power. This is
> GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email] <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 4/5
> contrary to logic. Dr. Don Hillman addresses this in greater detail in his
> letter to Health Canada sent
> earlier this year (2006).
> 6. Health Canada claims that the filters would increase our demand for
> electricity requiring more
> transmission facilities. The electricity provider will have additional
> transmission losses due to the
> continuous nature of this load in their distribution lines and
> transformers.
> However, if manufacturers
> of electronic equipment properly filtered their equipment and if the
> utility
> distributed clean electricity
> these filters would not be necessary.
> Poor Power Quality
> Dirty electricity is a serious utility concern. It costs industry in the
> United States between 4 and 6 billion
> dollars each year for dirty power (Fortune, June 5, 1999) and this does
> not
> include the health costs.
> Industry has long recognized this and they use large capacitors (filters)
> because they require clean
> electricity for proper functioning of their equipment. Power surges are
> costly if they stop production and
> damage equipment. Surge suppressors are used in homes and offices to
> protect
> computers and other
> sensitive equipment for the same reason.
> The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) has long
> recognized the problems associated
> with spurious radio frequencies (RF) and the electric utilities have
> filters
> to mitigate this problem,
> although they tend not to use them as often as they should (see Ontario
> Hydro's own document, Power
> Quality Reference Guide (1998).
> According to the IEEE 519-1992, “Since most electronic equipment is
> located
> at a low voltage level of is
> associated power distribution system, it is frequently exposed to the
> effects
> of voltage notching. Voltage
> notches frequently introduce frequencies, both harmonic and nonharmonic,
> that
> are much higher than
> normally exhibited in 5 kV and higher voltage distribution systems. These
> frequencies can be in the radio
> frequency (RF) range, and as such, can introduce harmful effects
> associated
> with spurious RF (page 39).â€
> Poor power quality is a serious problem and both industry and the
> utilities
> have filters to improve power
> quality. Now a filter that plugs into an outlet and doesn't require an
> electrician has been designed for the
> home. The GS filter is a smaller version of the capacitors used by
> industry.
> The GS filter protects
> equipment from power surges and research shows that it helps people who
> are
> sensitive to this form of
> energy (Havas and Stetzer 2004). Surely the novel information here is not
> that a filter can reduce dirty
> electricity but that dirty electricity affects health. Isn't this what
> Health
> Canada should be testing?
> Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
> People, who are genuinely suffering from what they describe as electrical
> hypersensitivity (EHS)3,
> contact me from all over North America. We have been able to help a few of
> those individuals who have
> participated in studies. Countless others have also benefited from the
> filters. They can't all be wrong. I
> encourage Health Canada to test the health claims we make in our studies
> because that is what is of
> primary importance.
> 3 The World Health Organization (2004) describes electromagnetic
> hypersensitivity (EHS) as: “ . . . a phenomenon
> where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being
> in
> the vicinity of devices emanating electric,
> magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Whatever its cause, EHS is a
> real
> and sometimes a debilitating problem
> for the affected persons . . . “
> GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email] <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 5/5
> Estimates show that 3% of the population has electrical hypersensitivity
> (EHS) and that an addition 35%
> have symptoms of EHS (Philips and Philips 2006). That range accounts for
> between 980,000 and 11
> million Canadians who may be adversely affected by electromagnetic
> pollution
> in its various forms. So
> this is potentially a very serious health concern in Canada.
> Dirty electricity is ubiquitous and getting worse because of the
> electronic
> equipment we use and because
> of the inadequacy of some of our power lines. Eventually the utility will
> have to deal with this pollutant
> and we hope it will be sooner rather than later so that fewer lives will
> be
> destroyed because of the
> insensitivity of the industry and their failure to adhere to their own
> guidelines.
> Health Canada should take a more proactive role in dealing with
> electromagnetic pollution and electrical
> hypersensitivity by informing doctors about the symptoms of EHS, testing
> the
> products that claim to
> work, establishing monitoring programs for electromagnetic pollution in
> schools and elsewhere, and
> providing Canadians with solutions through legislation to ensure that our
> environment is as clean, safe,
> and healthy as possible.
> An offer to demonstrate how the filters work
> Dave Stetzer, one of the co-inventors of the GS filter, would be willing
> to
> demonstrate to Health Canada
> how the filters work using the appropriate equipment. He makes this offer
> because it is important for
> Health Canada to be aware of the seriousness of this problem and to
> understand how the filters work,
> especially if they later decide to do some studies with human subjects.
> I look foreword to a favorable response to Dave Stetzer's offer because I
> assume that we are
> interested in the same thing--the health of Canadians.
> References
> IEEE 1992. IEEE Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic
> Control
> in Electrical Power
> Systems. Sponsors: Transmission and distribution committee of the IEEE
> Power
> Engineering Society
> and Static Power Converter Committee of the IEE Industry Applications
> Society; Approved June 18,
> 1992 IEEE Standards Board; Approved January 4, 1993 American National
> Standards Institute.
> Gajda, G., A. Thansandote, E. Lemay, D. Lecuyer, W. Gorman, and J.
> McNamee.
> 2006. Report on
> Evaluation of Stetzer Filters Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection
> Bureau, Health Canada.
> available at: www.bccdc.org/content.php?.item=62
> Havas M and Stetzer D. 2004. Dirty Electricity and Electrical
> Hypersensitivity: Five Case Studies,
> World Health Organization Workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity, 25-26
> October, Prague, Czech
> Republic.
> Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. 2002. On The Path to a Cure: From
> Diagnosis to Chronic Disease
> Management Brief Submitted to the Commission on the Future of Health Care
> in
> Canada, March
> 2002, 7 pp http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca
> Ontario Hydro. 1998. Power Quality Reference Guide, 3rd Edition, Ontario
> Hydro.
> Philips A and Philips J. 2006. The Power Watch Handbook. Piatkus Books
> Ltd.,
> London. 294 pp.
> Reilly, J.P. 1998. Applied Bioelectricity. Springer-Verlag, NY, 561 pp.
> Stahlkopf, Karl. 1999. Cost of Dirty Power. Fortune, June 5, 1999.
>
> ----------
>
> On 1/30/07, Alasdair Philips < [hidden email]<alasdair%40powerwatch.org.uk>>
> wrote:
>
> That Health Canada (Gajda et al, 2006) Stezer Filter test report is
> appalling - I am surprised that Health Canada put their name to it. It is
> a
> very poor piece of work and the researchers didn't use appropriate testing
> equipment or methods of testing to actually test the Stetzer filter
> specifications. I would grade it a "fail" at final year undergraduate
> electronics project level.
>
> ----------------
>
> On 1/30/07, K Byrne < [hidden email] <kbyrne%40ca.inter.net>> wrote
> to a man who used the
> Health
> Canada study to put down Stetzer's work:
>
> I'm truly surprised how a man who claims to be an EMF expert can get
> things
> so wrong.
>
> The Stetzer filter is a capacitor, and any capacitor draws reactive
> current
> and does not increase one's electrical bills. The filter does not create
> higher frequencies either, it's designed to remove the higher frequencies
> between 4 kHz to 100 kHz - frequencies in the dangerous radio frequency (3
> kHz or greater) range. This is confirmed in the Heath Canada report you
> noted in your email. I quote from the Health Canada report: "The Stetzer
> filter is probably effective in attenuating high frequency (4 kHz to
> 100kHz)
> noise on the AC power lines..."
>
> Furthermore, in this biased piece of work Health Canada actually measured
> the wrong frequency range, measuring only the less harmful 50 Hz to 5 kHz
> frequeicies, as opposed to the higher more dangerous 4 kHz to 100 kHz
> frequencies. An overlay totaling only 1% of the filters capability. They
> also measured the input to the filter not the actual output. They didn't
> measure the actual "result" of the filtration.
>
> As far as creating a strong magnetic fields this is also wrong. Yes a GS
> filter will produce a locally increased magnetic field that drops off
> quickly with distance, but they do not produce high frequency radiation.
> During your EMF workshop last year I let you borrow a Stetzer filter and
> meter and your wife Monique conducted a demonstration that showed the
> magnetic field dropped to all the way zero only 10 inches from the filter.
> So, unless you're sitting on it I doubt it would be much of an issue.
>
> In your email you also state: "after we had mitigated in the entire house
> electromagnetic pollution levels to safe ones." Can you tell me what
> levels
> of electromagnetic pollution is "safe?" Dr. Neil Cherry state the safe
> level
> to RF is "zero".
>
> You state: "It is indeed cheaper and more health beneficial to simply
> solve
> the wiring errors." How exactly are you going to remove noise from a
> circuit
> by correcting net current problems? Is there some secret wiring technique
> you would like to share with us? Perhaps you're implying arcing is causing
> all of this high frequency noise? This is not the case, it's caused
> primarily by electronic devices that transform AC current to low-voltage
> DC
> and by things like dimmer switches and devices that have variable speed
> motors.
>
> I suggest you speak with Dave Stetzer, you need to become better informed
> on
> this important topic.
>
> Kevin Byrne
> www.EMFSolutions.ca
> 877 987-5185
>
>  
>

>
> Yes, they got it all wrong.
>
> 1. Most disturbing frequencies are around 30 kHz.
>
> 2. What are the boudaries of sensibility of electrosensible people?
> Under *harmful* it is understood, that the person shopuld drop dead
> instantly, which is not the case.
>
> Electrosensible people may react to very tiny levels of radiation.
> It is my experience, that for electrosensibles the GS readings of 50 are
> not
> sufficient.
> A reading of 35 is a level where electrosensibles can live with.
>
> 3. As I have found out after several hundreds of building biological house
>
> investigations, pulsed high frequency fields between 200 and 2000 uW/m2 (
> or
> 0.275 and 0.9 V/m) may cause electrosensibility.
> But, and that is something most *scientists* do not realize, once one has
> become electrosensible, one may react to levels of 1 uW/m2 (or 0.006 V/m).
> And those are levels, which are even hard to measure.
>
> So, electrosensibles may react to more than 50 GS units, aalthough those
> *scientists* do not understand why.
> And nobody wants to study what make electrosensibles *tick*.
>
> Greetings,
> Charles Claessens
> member Verband Baubiologie
> www.milieuziektes.nl
> www.milieuziektes.be
> www.hetbitje.nl
> checked by Bitdefender
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[hidden email] <SArjuna%40aol.com>>
> To: <[hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Cc: <[hidden email] <rowanc%40webprophets.net.au>>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 04:39
> Subject: [eSens] Re: Stetzerizer Meter
>
> The Health Canada "study" of the GS filters is not science, and was
> done
> with the sole intention of discrediting the filters.
>
> Dr. Havas's letter to Health Canada:
>
> GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email]
> <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 1/5
> Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D.
> Environmental & Resource Studies
> TRENT UNIVERSITY, PETERBOROUGH, ONTARIO, CANADA, K9J 7B8
> Phone: (705) 748-1011 ext. 1232, FAX: (705) 748-1569, e-mail
> [hidden email] <mhavas%40trentu.ca>
>
> Open letter to Health Canada
> Response to: Evaluation of the Stetzer Filters1
> October 10, 2006
>
> The Honorable Tony Clement,
> Minister of Health,
> Health Canada.
> [hidden email] <clement.j%40parl.gc.ca>
>
> I raise a serious concern about a document1 written by six scientists at
> Health Canada's Consumer and
> Clinical Protection Bureau that was recently posted on the BC Centre for
> Disease Control2 web site. The
> Health Canada scientists purport to test the effectiveness of the
> Graham/Stetzer filters to reduce dirty
> electricity. This document does not appear on the Health Canada web site
> and
> has not been published in a
> peer-reviewed journal. Had it been peer reviewed it would not have been
> accepted for the obvious errors
> I mention below. This document is more concerned in protecting the
> electric
> utility than it is in protecting
> the health of Canadians. It surprises me that Health Canada would approve
> release of this document with
> so many fundamental errors.
> It is my understanding that this document has been circulated widely yet
> the
> Health Canada authors did
> not have the courtesy to send a copy of their report to the designers of
> this
> filter, Professor Martin Graham
> (UC Berkeley) and Mr. Dave Stetzer (President of Stetzer Electric).
> I ask you to look into this matter. Dave Stetzer has agreed to demonstrate
> how the filters work using appropriate equipment and I ask you to
> encourage
> your
> scientists at Health Canada to take him up on his
> offer.
> What follows is my evaluation of and response to the Health Canada
> document1.
> Sincerely,
> Magda Havas
> 1 Gajda, G., A. Thansandote, E. Lemay, D. Lecuyer, W. Gorman, and J.
> McNamee.
> 2006.
> Report on Evaluation of Stetzer Filters, Consumer and Clinical Radiation
> Protection Bureau, Health Canada.
> 2 BCCDC web site: www.bccdc.org/content.php?.item=62 NOTE: This agency
> states
> the following:
> Cell Phones: Scientific evidence to date has not presented convincing
> evidence from either animal, cellular,
> laboratory studies or epidemiology to implicate electromagnetic radiation
> exposure from portable phones as
> a cause of cancer.
> Cellular Transmitting Towers: Most research studies conducted to date have
> not shown that electromagnetic
> fields surrounding a cellular transmitter site cause cancer or other
> adverse
> health effects in the population.
> Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: Therefore the available
> scientific evidence to date does not
> support the assumption that adverse health effects from exposure to these
> fields at levels normally
> encountered in our homes, schools and offices pose a risk to human health.
> GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email]
> <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 2/5
> Havas, M. 2006. Response to: Evaluation of the Stetzer Filters. Open
> letter
> to Health
> Canada, October 10, 2006.
> Many products are now available to help people who suffer from exposure to
> electromagnetic energy and
> it is right for Health Canada to take these claims seriously and to test
> the
> products to see if they do indeed
> accomplish what they claim. Obviously this is what Health Canada had in
> mind
> when they decided to test
> the GS filters. I applaud them for this but am deeply disturbed by some of
> the fundamental errors they
> made during the testing of these filters and in the flawed document they
> produced.
> Health Canada used equipment that neither had the appropriate range of
> frequencies nor had the needed
> sensitivity to test the GS filters? Health Canada inappropriately applied
> equations intended for linear
> loads to non-linear loads? Health Canada claimed that the GS filters
> produce
> dirty electricity that may be
> harmful to human health when they previously denied any harmful effects of
> dirty electricity? Health
> Canada seems more concerned about the impact these filters might have on
> the
> electricity providers rather
> than the impact dirty electricity might have on the health of Canadians,
> as
> their name implies?
> This open letter is intended to set the record straight and to offer
> Health
> Canada a demonstration
> of what the GS filters do using appropriate equipment.
> I will deal with some of the more blatant errors in the Health Canada
> document and try to keep it as
> concise and non-technical as possible so that others will see what Health
> Canada has done or failed to do.
> I understand that Dr. Don Hillman (Michigan State University) responded
> earlier this year to statements
> made in this document concerning biological effects of dirty electricity
> and
> that Dr. Martin Graham (UC
> Berkeley) plans to respond to the electrical engineering aspects based on
> the
> Health Canada study design
> and execution.
> 1. The GS filters remove dirty electricity within the frequency range of 4
>
> to
> 100 kHz (4,000 and 100,000
> cycles per second) and their ability to reduce microsurges above and below
> this range falls off
> rapidly. This was clearly stated in the Havas and Stetzer (2004) document
> cited by Health Canada.
> So why did Health Canada use equipment that covered the range of 50 Hz to
> 5
> kHz? There was an
> overlap of 1 kHz and this tested 1% of the effective frequency range of
> the
> filters. Clearly
> inappropriate instrumentation was used and hence Health Canada can make no
> claims as to whether
> or not the filters work because they were unable to test the filters
> properly. This alone makes the
> entire document worthless as a test of the effectiveness of the GS filters
>
> to
> reduce dirty electricity in
> the 4 to 100 kHz frequency range (Figure 1).
> overlap 4 to 5 kHz (1% effective range of GS filters)
> instrument used by Health Canada 50 Hz to 5 kHz
> effective range of GS filters 4 kHz to 100 kHz
> frequency (kHz)
> 10
> 20
> 30
> 40
> 50
> 60
> 70
> 80
> 90
> 100
> Figure 1. Frequency range for GS filter, frequency range for equipment
> Health
> Canada
> used to test the GS filters, overlapping frequencies.
> 0
> GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email]
> <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 3/5
> 2. The dirty electricity rides on top of the 60 Hz sine wave yet Health
> Canada made no attempt to
> separate the 60 Hz cycle from the high frequencies. They could have used a
> ubiquitous filter and thus
> had more accuracy for the higher frequencies for at least 1 kHz of the
> overlap between the
> instrumentation and the filter's effective range.
> Health Canada admits their equipment did not have the appropriate
> sensitivity
> because, when the GS
> filter was plugged in, the microsurge meter measured reductions in dirty
> electricity that their
> equipment failed to detect.
> 3. Health Canada states that the filters have no effect at low frequencies
>
> in
> reducing harmonics. They
> provide evidence of this up to the 7th harmonic or 420 Hz. No one ever
> claimed the GS filters worked
> at these low frequencies. They work for the frequency range of 4,000 to
> 100,000 Hz and 420 Hz is no
> within that range. This is a red herring meant to discredit the filters by
> stating they don't work but for
> a frequency range they were not intended for. This lower frequency has
> less
> energy and is less likely
> to be as biologically active as higher frequencies (Riley 1998). See Item
> 5
> below.
> 4. Health Canada erroneously claims that low levels of dirty electricity
> have
> no biological effects, but
> they provide no documentation to support their claim.
> Studies show that people who have multiple sclerosis, type 1 and type 2
> diabetics, chronic fatigue,
> tinnitus, and symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity have benefited
> when the filters were used
> to clean up their home or work environment (Havas and Stetzer 2004). We
> have
> empirical evidence
> that these filters work both in the sense of reducing dirty electricity
> and
> improving health.
> Diabetics had lower fasting glucose levels and required less insulin. Our
> studies with diabetics were
> independently replicated in Japan with similar results. According to
> Health
> Canada an estimated two
> million Canadians have diabetes and the cost of diabetes in Canada is
> estimated to be up to $9 billion
> annually. If even a small percentage of these diabetics could benefit by
> cleaning up the dirty
> electricity in their home/work/school environment, the savings in health
> care
> could be considerable.
> Multiple sclerosis patients had reduced tremors and some were able to walk
> unassisted within a few
> days to weeks after filters were installed in their homes. No other
> changes
> were made in their diet or
> medication during this period to account for these changes. We have
> video-documented evidence of
> these improvements. How does Health Canada explain this and what evidence
> do
> they have to the
> contrary to support the claims that dirty electricity is not biological
> active? According to the Multiple
> Sclerosis Society of Canada (2002) Canada has one of the highest rates of
> MS
> in the world. An
> estimated 50,000 Canadians have MS and 70% of people with MS are unable to
> work 5-10 years after
> they are diagnosed. A number of people with MS who have used the GS
> Filters
> were able to continue
> work or return to work after they reduced the dirty electricity in their
> home/work environment. Their
> improved quality of life, the reduced stress on family members, and their
> ability to remain productive
> members of society should be of enormous interest to Health Canada.
> 5. Health Canada claims that the GS filters produce dirty electricity at
> the
> low frequency range and that
> this dirty electricity may be harmful. How can they argue it both ways? At
> first they claim that the
> levels of dirty electricity are so low that they are not biologically
> active
> and then they claim that the
> filters produce low levels of dirty electricity that are harmful to
> health.
> Energy is related to frequency and the higher the frequency the greater
> the
> energy. Sixty kHz (60,000
> Hz) has 1000 times more energy than 60 Hz. Also, frequencies above 1.7 kHz
> begin to penetrate the
> body (Riley 1998). Yet Health Canada claims that the lower frequencies,
> purportedly generated by
> the GS filters, have a greater biological effect with less energy and less
> penetrating power. This is
> GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email]
> <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 4/5
> contrary to logic. Dr. Don Hillman addresses this in greater detail in his
> letter to Health Canada sent
> earlier this year (2006).
> 6. Health Canada claims that the filters would increase our demand for
> electricity requiring more
> transmission facilities. The electricity provider will have additional
> transmission losses due to the
> continuous nature of this load in their distribution lines and
> transformers.
> However, if manufacturers
> of electronic equipment properly filtered their equipment and if the
> utility
> distributed clean electricity
> these filters would not be necessary.
> Poor Power Quality
> Dirty electricity is a serious utility concern. It costs industry in the
> United States between 4 and 6 billion
> dollars each year for dirty power (Fortune, June 5, 1999) and this does
> not
> include the health costs.
> Industry has long recognized this and they use large capacitors (filters)
> because they require clean
> electricity for proper functioning of their equipment. Power surges are
> costly if they stop production and
> damage equipment. Surge suppressors are used in homes and offices to
> protect
> computers and other
> sensitive equipment for the same reason.
> The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) has long
> recognized the problems associated
> with spurious radio frequencies (RF) and the electric utilities have
> filters
> to mitigate this problem,
> although they tend not to use them as often as they should (see Ontario
> Hydro's own document, Power
> Quality Reference Guide (1998).
> According to the IEEE 519-1992, “Since most electronic equipment is
> located
> at a low voltage level of is
> associated power distribution system, it is frequently exposed to the
> effects
> of voltage notching. Voltage
> notches frequently introduce frequencies, both harmonic and nonharmonic,
> that
> are much higher than
> normally exhibited in 5 kV and higher voltage distribution systems. These
> frequencies can be in the radio
> frequency (RF) range, and as such, can introduce harmful effects
> associated
> with spurious RF (page 39).â€
> Poor power quality is a serious problem and both industry and the
> utilities
> have filters to improve power
> quality. Now a filter that plugs into an outlet and doesn't require an
> electrician has been designed for the
> home. The GS filter is a smaller version of the capacitors used by
> industry.
> The GS filter protects
> equipment from power surges and research shows that it helps people who
> are
> sensitive to this form of
> energy (Havas and Stetzer 2004). Surely the novel information here is not
> that a filter can reduce dirty
> electricity but that dirty electricity affects health. Isn't this what
> Health
> Canada should be testing?
> Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
> People, who are genuinely suffering from what they describe as electrical
> hypersensitivity (EHS)3,
> contact me from all over North America. We have been able to help a few of
> those individuals who have
> participated in studies. Countless others have also benefited from the
> filters. They can't all be wrong. I
> encourage Health Canada to test the health claims we make in our studies
> because that is what is of
> primary importance.
> 3 The World Health Organization (2004) describes electromagnetic
> hypersensitivity (EHS) as: “ . . . a phenomenon
> where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being
> in
> the vicinity of devices emanating electric,
> magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Whatever its cause, EHS is a
> real
> and sometimes a debilitating problem
> for the affected persons . . . “
> GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email]
> <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 5/5
> Estimates show that 3% of the population has electrical hypersensitivity
> (EHS) and that an addition 35%
> have symptoms of EHS (Philips and Philips 2006). That range accounts for
> between 980,000 and 11
> million Canadians who may be adversely affected by electromagnetic
> pollution
> in its various forms. So
> this is potentially a very serious health concern in Canada.
> Dirty electricity is ubiquitous and getting worse because of the
> electronic
> equipment we use and because
> of the inadequacy of some of our power lines. Eventually the utility will
> have to deal with this pollutant
> and we hope it will be sooner rather than later so that fewer lives will
> be
> destroyed because of the
> insensitivity of the industry and their failure to adhere to their own
> guidelines.
> Health Canada should take a more proactive role in dealing with
> electromagnetic pollution and electrical
> hypersensitivity by informing doctors about the symptoms of EHS, testing
> the
> products that claim to
> work, establishing monitoring programs for electromagnetic pollution in
> schools and elsewhere, and
> providing Canadians with solutions through legislation to ensure that our
> environment is as clean, safe,
> and healthy as possible.
> An offer to demonstrate how the filters work
> Dave Stetzer, one of the co-inventors of the GS filter, would be willing
> to
> demonstrate to Health Canada
> how the filters work using the appropriate equipment. He makes this offer
> because it is important for
> Health Canada to be aware of the seriousness of this problem and to
> understand how the filters work,
> especially if they later decide to do some studies with human subjects.
> I look foreword to a favorable response to Dave Stetzer's offer because I
> assume that we are
> interested in the same thing--the health of Canadians.
> References
> IEEE 1992. IEEE Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic
> Control
> in Electrical Power
> Systems. Sponsors: Transmission and distribution committee of the IEEE
> Power
> Engineering Society
> and Static Power Converter Committee of the IEE Industry Applications
> Society; Approved June 18,
> 1992 IEEE Standards Board; Approved January 4, 1993 American National
> Standards Institute.
> Gajda, G., A. Thansandote, E. Lemay, D. Lecuyer, W. Gorman, and J.
> McNamee.
> 2006. Report on
> Evaluation of Stetzer Filters Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection
> Bureau, Health Canada.
> available at: www.bccdc.org/content.php?.item=62
> Havas M and Stetzer D. 2004. Dirty Electricity and Electrical
> Hypersensitivity: Five Case Studies,
> World Health Organization Workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity, 25-26
> October, Prague, Czech
> Republic.
> Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. 2002. On The Path to a Cure: From
> Diagnosis to Chronic Disease
> Management Brief Submitted to the Commission on the Future of Health Care
> in
> Canada, March
> 2002, 7 pp http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca
> Ontario Hydro. 1998. Power Quality Reference Guide, 3rd Edition, Ontario
> Hydro.
> Philips A and Philips J. 2006. The Power Watch Handbook. Piatkus Books
> Ltd.,
> London. 294 pp.
> Reilly, J.P. 1998. Applied Bioelectricity. Springer-Verlag, NY, 561 pp.
> Stahlkopf, Karl. 1999. Cost of Dirty Power. Fortune, June 5, 1999.
>
> ----------
>
> On 1/30/07, Alasdair Philips <
> [hidden email]<alasdair%40powerwatch.org.uk>>
> wrote:
>
> That Health Canada (Gajda et al, 2006) Stezer Filter test report is
> appalling - I am surprised that Health Canada put their name to it. It is
> a
> very poor piece of work and the researchers didn't use appropriate testing
> equipment or methods of testing to actually test the Stetzer filter
> specifications. I would grade it a "fail" at final year undergraduate
> electronics project level.
>
> ----------------
>
> On 1/30/07, K Byrne < [hidden email] <kbyrne%40ca.inter.net>> wrote
> to a man who used the
> Health
> Canada study to put down Stetzer's work:
>
> I'm truly surprised how a man who claims to be an EMF expert can get
> things
> so wrong.
>
> The Stetzer filter is a capacitor, and any capacitor draws reactive
> current
> and does not increase one's electrical bills. The filter does not create
> higher frequencies either, it's designed to remove the higher frequencies
> between 4 kHz to 100 kHz - frequencies in the dangerous radio frequency (3
> kHz or greater) range. This is confirmed in the Heath Canada report you
> noted in your email. I quote from the Health Canada report: "The Stetzer
> filter is probably effective in attenuating high frequency (4 kHz to
> 100kHz)
> noise on the AC power lines..."
>
> Furthermore, in this biased piece of work Health Canada actually measured
> the wrong frequency range, measuring only the less harmful 50 Hz to 5 kHz
> frequeicies, as opposed to the higher more dangerous 4 kHz to 100 kHz
> frequencies. An overlay totaling only 1% of the filters capability. They
> also measured the input to the filter not the actual output. They didn't
> measure the actual "result" of the filtration.
>
> As far as creating a strong magnetic fields this is also wrong. Yes a GS
> filter will produce a locally increased magnetic field that drops off
> quickly with distance, but they do not produce high frequency radiation.
> During your EMF workshop last year I let you borrow a Stetzer filter and
> meter and your wife Monique conducted a demonstration that showed the
> magnetic field dropped to all the way zero only 10 inches from the filter.
> So, unless you're sitting on it I doubt it would be much of an issue.
>
> In your email you also state: "after we had mitigated in the entire house
> electromagnetic pollution levels to safe ones." Can you tell me what
> levels
> of electromagnetic pollution is "safe?" Dr. Neil Cherry state the safe
> level
> to RF is "zero".
>
> You state: "It is indeed cheaper and more health beneficial to simply
> solve
> the wiring errors." How exactly are you going to remove noise from a
> circuit
> by correcting net current problems? Is there some secret wiring technique
> you would like to share with us? Perhaps you're implying arcing is causing
> all of this high frequency noise? This is not the case, it's caused
> primarily by electronic devices that transform AC current to low-voltage
> DC
> and by things like dimmer switches and devices that have variable speed
> motors.
>
> I suggest you speak with Dave Stetzer, you need to become better informed
> on
> this important topic.
>
> Kevin Byrne
> www.EMFSolutions.ca
> 877 987-5185
>
>
>

>
> Science does not want to look into these matters.
> Certainly not the governments, because, when they do, they have to pay.
>
> In the netherlands, the government is going to spend 16.6 million Euro
> into
> research of EMF and health, but they only want to know how to suss the
> people and lulling them into the believe that there is no harm.
>
> My numbers are from praxis, and what several institutions claim, like f.i.
> the Ecolog Handbook.
>
> Greetings,
> Charles Claessens
> member Verband Baubiologie
> www.milieuziektes.nl
> www.milieuziektes.be
> www.hetbitje.nl
> checked by Bitdefender
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Bruno" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 16:29
> Subject: Re: [eSens] Re: Stetzerizer Meter
>
>
> Charles,
> Thanks for the insightful info. Are there any scientific papers to
> back up the numbers you give? Have you been doing blind tests?
>
> Bill
>
> On 8/7/07, charles <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, they got it all wrong.
> >
> > 1. Most disturbing frequencies are around 30 kHz.
> >
> > 2. What are the boudaries of sensibility of electrosensible people?
> > Under *harmful* it is understood, that the person shopuld drop dead
> > instantly, which is not the case.
> >
> > Electrosensible people may react to very tiny levels of radiation.
> > It is my experience, that for electrosensibles the GS readings of 50 are
> > not
> > sufficient.
> > A reading of 35 is a level where electrosensibles can live with.
> >
> > 3. As I have found out after several hundreds of building biological
> house
> >
> > investigations, pulsed high frequency fields between 200 and 2000 uW/m2
> (
> > or
> > 0.275 and 0.9 V/m) may cause electrosensibility.
> > But, and that is something most *scientists* do not realize, once one
> has
> > become electrosensible, one may react to levels of 1 uW/m2 (or 0.006V/m).
> > And those are levels, which are even hard to measure.
> >
> > So, electrosensibles may react to more than 50 GS units, aalthough those
> > *scientists* do not understand why.
> > And nobody wants to study what make electrosensibles *tick*.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Charles Claessens
> > member Verband Baubiologie
> > www.milieuziektes.nl
> > www.milieuziektes.be
> > www.hetbitje.nl
> > checked by Bitdefender
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <[hidden email] <SArjuna%40aol.com>>
> > To: <[hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Cc: <[hidden email] <rowanc%40webprophets.net.au>>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 04:39
> > Subject: [eSens] Re: Stetzerizer Meter
> >
> > The Health Canada "study" of the GS filters is not science, and was
> > done
> > with the sole intention of discrediting the filters.
> >
> > Dr. Havas's letter to Health Canada:
> >
> > GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email]
> > <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 1/5
> > Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D.
> > Environmental & Resource Studies
> > TRENT UNIVERSITY, PETERBOROUGH, ONTARIO, CANADA, K9J 7B8
> > Phone: (705) 748-1011 ext. 1232, FAX: (705) 748-1569, e-mail
> > [hidden email] <mhavas%40trentu.ca>
> >
> > Open letter to Health Canada
> > Response to: Evaluation of the Stetzer Filters1
> > October 10, 2006
> >
> > The Honorable Tony Clement,
> > Minister of Health,
> > Health Canada.
> > [hidden email] <clement.j%40parl.gc.ca>
> >
> > I raise a serious concern about a document1 written by six scientists at
> > Health Canada's Consumer and
> > Clinical Protection Bureau that was recently posted on the BC Centre for
> > Disease Control2 web site. The
> > Health Canada scientists purport to test the effectiveness of the
> > Graham/Stetzer filters to reduce dirty
> > electricity. This document does not appear on the Health Canada web site
> > and
> > has not been published in a
> > peer-reviewed journal. Had it been peer reviewed it would not have been
> > accepted for the obvious errors
> > I mention below. This document is more concerned in protecting the
> > electric
> > utility than it is in protecting
> > the health of Canadians. It surprises me that Health Canada would
> approve
> > release of this document with
> > so many fundamental errors.
> > It is my understanding that this document has been circulated widely yet
> > the
> > Health Canada authors did
> > not have the courtesy to send a copy of their report to the designers of
> > this
> > filter, Professor Martin Graham
> > (UC Berkeley) and Mr. Dave Stetzer (President of Stetzer Electric).
> > I ask you to look into this matter. Dave Stetzer has agreed to
> demonstrate
> > how the filters work using appropriate equipment and I ask you to
> > encourage
> > your
> > scientists at Health Canada to take him up on his
> > offer.
> > What follows is my evaluation of and response to the Health Canada
> > document1.
> > Sincerely,
> > Magda Havas
> > 1 Gajda, G., A. Thansandote, E. Lemay, D. Lecuyer, W. Gorman, and J.
> > McNamee.
> > 2006.
> > Report on Evaluation of Stetzer Filters, Consumer and Clinical Radiation
> > Protection Bureau, Health Canada.
> > 2 BCCDC web site: www.bccdc.org/content.php?.item=62 NOTE: This agency
> > states
> > the following:
> > Cell Phones: Scientific evidence to date has not presented convincing
> > evidence from either animal, cellular,
> > laboratory studies or epidemiology to implicate electromagnetic
> radiation
> > exposure from portable phones as
> > a cause of cancer.
> > Cellular Transmitting Towers: Most research studies conducted to date
> have
> > not shown that electromagnetic
> > fields surrounding a cellular transmitter site cause cancer or other
> > adverse
> > health effects in the population.
> > Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: Therefore the available
> > scientific evidence to date does not
> > support the assumption that adverse health effects from exposure to
> these
> > fields at levels normally
> > encountered in our homes, schools and offices pose a risk to human
> health.
> > GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email]
> > <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 2/5
> > Havas, M. 2006. Response to: Evaluation of the Stetzer Filters. Open
> > letter
> > to Health
> > Canada, October 10, 2006.
> > Many products are now available to help people who suffer from exposure
> to
> > electromagnetic energy and
> > it is right for Health Canada to take these claims seriously and to test
> > the
> > products to see if they do indeed
> > accomplish what they claim. Obviously this is what Health Canada had in
> > mind
> > when they decided to test
> > the GS filters. I applaud them for this but am deeply disturbed by some
> of
> > the fundamental errors they
> > made during the testing of these filters and in the flawed document they
> > produced.
> > Health Canada used equipment that neither had the appropriate range of
> > frequencies nor had the needed
> > sensitivity to test the GS filters? Health Canada inappropriately
> applied
> > equations intended for linear
> > loads to non-linear loads? Health Canada claimed that the GS filters
> > produce
> > dirty electricity that may be
> > harmful to human health when they previously denied any harmful effects
> of
> > dirty electricity? Health
> > Canada seems more concerned about the impact these filters might have on
> > the
> > electricity providers rather
> > than the impact dirty electricity might have on the health of Canadians,
> > as
> > their name implies?
> > This open letter is intended to set the record straight and to offer
> > Health
> > Canada a demonstration
> > of what the GS filters do using appropriate equipment.
> > I will deal with some of the more blatant errors in the Health Canada
> > document and try to keep it as
> > concise and non-technical as possible so that others will see what
> Health
> > Canada has done or failed to do.
> > I understand that Dr. Don Hillman (Michigan State University) responded
> > earlier this year to statements
> > made in this document concerning biological effects of dirty electricity
> > and
> > that Dr. Martin Graham (UC
> > Berkeley) plans to respond to the electrical engineering aspects based
> on
> > the
> > Health Canada study design
> > and execution.
> > 1. The GS filters remove dirty electricity within the frequency range of
> 4
> >
> > to
> > 100 kHz (4,000 and 100,000
> > cycles per second) and their ability to reduce microsurges above and
> below
> > this range falls off
> > rapidly. This was clearly stated in the Havas and Stetzer (2004)
> document
> > cited by Health Canada.
> > So why did Health Canada use equipment that covered the range of 50 Hz
> to
> > 5
> > kHz? There was an
> > overlap of 1 kHz and this tested 1% of the effective frequency range of
> > the
> > filters. Clearly
> > inappropriate instrumentation was used and hence Health Canada can make
> no
> > claims as to whether
> > or not the filters work because they were unable to test the filters
> > properly. This alone makes the
> > entire document worthless as a test of the effectiveness of the GS
> filters
> >
> > to
> > reduce dirty electricity in
> > the 4 to 100 kHz frequency range (Figure 1).
> > overlap 4 to 5 kHz (1% effective range of GS filters)
> > instrument used by Health Canada 50 Hz to 5 kHz
> > effective range of GS filters 4 kHz to 100 kHz
> > frequency (kHz)
> > 10
> > 20
> > 30
> > 40
> > 50
> > 60
> > 70
> > 80
> > 90
> > 100
> > Figure 1. Frequency range for GS filter, frequency range for equipment
> > Health
> > Canada
> > used to test the GS filters, overlapping frequencies.
> > 0
> > GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email]
> > <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 3/5
> > 2. The dirty electricity rides on top of the 60 Hz sine wave yet Health
> > Canada made no attempt to
> > separate the 60 Hz cycle from the high frequencies. They could have used
> a
> > ubiquitous filter and thus
> > had more accuracy for the higher frequencies for at least 1 kHz of the
> > overlap between the
> > instrumentation and the filter's effective range.
> > Health Canada admits their equipment did not have the appropriate
> > sensitivity
> > because, when the GS
> > filter was plugged in, the microsurge meter measured reductions in dirty
> > electricity that their
> > equipment failed to detect.
> > 3. Health Canada states that the filters have no effect at low
> frequencies
> >
> > in
> > reducing harmonics. They
> > provide evidence of this up to the 7th harmonic or 420 Hz. No one ever
> > claimed the GS filters worked
> > at these low frequencies. They work for the frequency range of 4,000 to
> > 100,000 Hz and 420 Hz is no
> > within that range. This is a red herring meant to discredit the filters
> by
> > stating they don't work but for
> > a frequency range they were not intended for. This lower frequency has
> > less
> > energy and is less likely
> > to be as biologically active as higher frequencies (Riley 1998). See
> Item
> > 5
> > below.
> > 4. Health Canada erroneously claims that low levels of dirty electricity
> > have
> > no biological effects, but
> > they provide no documentation to support their claim.
> > Studies show that people who have multiple sclerosis, type 1 and type 2
> > diabetics, chronic fatigue,
> > tinnitus, and symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity have
> benefited
> > when the filters were used
> > to clean up their home or work environment (Havas and Stetzer 2004). We
> > have
> > empirical evidence
> > that these filters work both in the sense of reducing dirty electricity
> > and
> > improving health.
> > Diabetics had lower fasting glucose levels and required less insulin.
> Our
> > studies with diabetics were
> > independently replicated in Japan with similar results. According to
> > Health
> > Canada an estimated two
> > million Canadians have diabetes and the cost of diabetes in Canada is
> > estimated to be up to $9 billion
> > annually. If even a small percentage of these diabetics could benefit by
> > cleaning up the dirty
> > electricity in their home/work/school environment, the savings in health
> > care
> > could be considerable.
> > Multiple sclerosis patients had reduced tremors and some were able to
> walk
> > unassisted within a few
> > days to weeks after filters were installed in their homes. No other
> > changes
> > were made in their diet or
> > medication during this period to account for these changes. We have
> > video-documented evidence of
> > these improvements. How does Health Canada explain this and what
> evidence
> > do
> > they have to the
> > contrary to support the claims that dirty electricity is not biological
> > active? According to the Multiple
> > Sclerosis Society of Canada (2002) Canada has one of the highest rates
> of
> > MS
> > in the world. An
> > estimated 50,000 Canadians have MS and 70% of people with MS are unable
> to
> > work 5-10 years after
> > they are diagnosed. A number of people with MS who have used the GS
> > Filters
> > were able to continue
> > work or return to work after they reduced the dirty electricity in their
> > home/work environment. Their
> > improved quality of life, the reduced stress on family members, and
> their
> > ability to remain productive
> > members of society should be of enormous interest to Health Canada.
> > 5. Health Canada claims that the GS filters produce dirty electricity at
> > the
> > low frequency range and that
> > this dirty electricity may be harmful. How can they argue it both ways?
> At
> > first they claim that the
> > levels of dirty electricity are so low that they are not biologically
> > active
> > and then they claim that the
> > filters produce low levels of dirty electricity that are harmful to
> > health.
> > Energy is related to frequency and the higher the frequency the greater
> > the
> > energy. Sixty kHz (60,000
> > Hz) has 1000 times more energy than 60 Hz. Also, frequencies above 1.7kHz
> > begin to penetrate the
> > body (Riley 1998). Yet Health Canada claims that the lower frequencies,
> > purportedly generated by
> > the GS filters, have a greater biological effect with less energy and
> less
> > penetrating power. This is
> > GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email]
> > <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 4/5
> > contrary to logic. Dr. Don Hillman addresses this in greater detail in
> his
> > letter to Health Canada sent
> > earlier this year (2006).
> > 6. Health Canada claims that the filters would increase our demand for
> > electricity requiring more
> > transmission facilities. The electricity provider will have additional
> > transmission losses due to the
> > continuous nature of this load in their distribution lines and
> > transformers.
> > However, if manufacturers
> > of electronic equipment properly filtered their equipment and if the
> > utility
> > distributed clean electricity
> > these filters would not be necessary.
> > Poor Power Quality
> > Dirty electricity is a serious utility concern. It costs industry in the
> > United States between 4 and 6 billion
> > dollars each year for dirty power (Fortune, June 5, 1999) and this does
> > not
> > include the health costs.
> > Industry has long recognized this and they use large capacitors
> (filters)
> > because they require clean
> > electricity for proper functioning of their equipment. Power surges are
> > costly if they stop production and
> > damage equipment. Surge suppressors are used in homes and offices to
> > protect
> > computers and other
> > sensitive equipment for the same reason.
> > The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) has long
> > recognized the problems associated
> > with spurious radio frequencies (RF) and the electric utilities have
> > filters
> > to mitigate this problem,
> > although they tend not to use them as often as they should (see Ontario
> > Hydro's own document, Power
> > Quality Reference Guide (1998).
> > According to the IEEE 519-1992, “Since most electronic equipment is
> > located
> > at a low voltage level of is
> > associated power distribution system, it is frequently exposed to the
> > effects
> > of voltage notching. Voltage
> > notches frequently introduce frequencies, both harmonic and nonharmonic,
> > that
> > are much higher than
> > normally exhibited in 5 kV and higher voltage distribution systems.
> These
> > frequencies can be in the radio
> > frequency (RF) range, and as such, can introduce harmful effects
> > associated
> > with spurious RF (page 39).â€
> > Poor power quality is a serious problem and both industry and the
> > utilities
> > have filters to improve power
> > quality. Now a filter that plugs into an outlet and doesn't require an
> > electrician has been designed for the
> > home. The GS filter is a smaller version of the capacitors used by
> > industry.
> > The GS filter protects
> > equipment from power surges and research shows that it helps people who
> > are
> > sensitive to this form of
> > energy (Havas and Stetzer 2004). Surely the novel information here is
> not
> > that a filter can reduce dirty
> > electricity but that dirty electricity affects health. Isn't this what
> > Health
> > Canada should be testing?
> > Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
> > People, who are genuinely suffering from what they describe as
> electrical
> > hypersensitivity (EHS)3,
> > contact me from all over North America. We have been able to help a few
> of
> > those individuals who have
> > participated in studies. Countless others have also benefited from the
> > filters. They can't all be wrong. I
> > encourage Health Canada to test the health claims we make in our studies
> > because that is what is of
> > primary importance.
> > 3 The World Health Organization (2004) describes electromagnetic
> > hypersensitivity (EHS) as: “ . . . a phenomenon
> > where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being
> > in
> > the vicinity of devices emanating electric,
> > magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Whatever its cause, EHS is a
> > real
> > and sometimes a debilitating problem
> > for the affected persons . . . “
> > GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email]
> > <mhavas%40trentu.ca>page 5/5
> > Estimates show that 3% of the population has electrical hypersensitivity
> > (EHS) and that an addition 35%
> > have symptoms of EHS (Philips and Philips 2006). That range accounts for
> > between 980,000 and 11
> > million Canadians who may be adversely affected by electromagnetic
> > pollution
> > in its various forms. So
> > this is potentially a very serious health concern in Canada.
> > Dirty electricity is ubiquitous and getting worse because of the
> > electronic
> > equipment we use and because
> > of the inadequacy of some of our power lines. Eventually the utility
> will
> > have to deal with this pollutant
> > and we hope it will be sooner rather than later so that fewer lives will
> > be
> > destroyed because of the
> > insensitivity of the industry and their failure to adhere to their own
> > guidelines.
> > Health Canada should take a more proactive role in dealing with
> > electromagnetic pollution and electrical
> > hypersensitivity by informing doctors about the symptoms of EHS, testing
> > the
> > products that claim to
> > work, establishing monitoring programs for electromagnetic pollution in
> > schools and elsewhere, and
> > providing Canadians with solutions through legislation to ensure that
> our
> > environment is as clean, safe,
> > and healthy as possible.
> > An offer to demonstrate how the filters work
> > Dave Stetzer, one of the co-inventors of the GS filter, would be willing
> > to
> > demonstrate to Health Canada
> > how the filters work using the appropriate equipment. He makes this
> offer
> > because it is important for
> > Health Canada to be aware of the seriousness of this problem and to
> > understand how the filters work,
> > especially if they later decide to do some studies with human subjects.
> > I look foreword to a favorable response to Dave Stetzer's offer because
> I
> > assume that we are
> > interested in the same thing--the health of Canadians.
> > References
> > IEEE 1992. IEEE Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic
> > Control
> > in Electrical Power
> > Systems. Sponsors: Transmission and distribution committee of the IEEE
> > Power
> > Engineering Society
> > and Static Power Converter Committee of the IEE Industry Applications
> > Society; Approved June 18,
> > 1992 IEEE Standards Board; Approved January 4, 1993 American National
> > Standards Institute.
> > Gajda, G., A. Thansandote, E. Lemay, D. Lecuyer, W. Gorman, and J.
> > McNamee.
> > 2006. Report on
> > Evaluation of Stetzer Filters Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection
> > Bureau, Health Canada.
> > available at: www.bccdc.org/content.php?.item=62
> > Havas M and Stetzer D. 2004. Dirty Electricity and Electrical
> > Hypersensitivity: Five Case Studies,
> > World Health Organization Workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity, 25-26
> > October, Prague, Czech
> > Republic.
> > Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. 2002. On The Path to a Cure: From
> > Diagnosis to Chronic Disease
> > Management Brief Submitted to the Commission on the Future of Health
> Care
> > in
> > Canada, March
> > 2002, 7 pp http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca
> > Ontario Hydro. 1998. Power Quality Reference Guide, 3rd Edition, Ontario
> > Hydro.
> > Philips A and Philips J. 2006. The Power Watch Handbook. Piatkus Books
> > Ltd.,
> > London. 294 pp.
> > Reilly, J.P. 1998. Applied Bioelectricity. Springer-Verlag, NY, 561 pp.
> > Stahlkopf, Karl. 1999. Cost of Dirty Power. Fortune, June 5, 1999.
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > On 1/30/07, Alasdair Philips <
> > [hidden email]<alasdair%40powerwatch.org.uk>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > That Health Canada (Gajda et al, 2006) Stezer Filter test report is
> > appalling - I am surprised that Health Canada put their name to it. It
> is
> > a
> > very poor piece of work and the researchers didn't use appropriate
> testing
> > equipment or methods of testing to actually test the Stetzer filter
> > specifications. I would grade it a "fail" at final year undergraduate
> > electronics project level.
> >
> > ----------------
> >
> > On 1/30/07, K Byrne < [hidden email] <kbyrne%40ca.inter.net>> wrote
> > to a man who used the
> > Health
> > Canada study to put down Stetzer's work:
> >
> > I'm truly surprised how a man who claims to be an EMF expert can get
> > things
> > so wrong.
> >
> > The Stetzer filter is a capacitor, and any capacitor draws reactive
> > current
> > and does not increase one's electrical bills. The filter does not create
> > higher frequencies either, it's designed to remove the higher
> frequencies
> > between 4 kHz to 100 kHz - frequencies in the dangerous radio frequency
> (3
> > kHz or greater) range. This is confirmed in the Heath Canada report you
> > noted in your email. I quote from the Health Canada report: "The Stetzer
> > filter is probably effective in attenuating high frequency (4 kHz to
> > 100kHz)
> > noise on the AC power lines..."
> >
> > Furthermore, in this biased piece of work Health Canada actually
> measured
> > the wrong frequency range, measuring only the less harmful 50 Hz to 5
> kHz
> > frequeicies, as opposed to the higher more dangerous 4 kHz to 100 kHz
> > frequencies. An overlay totaling only 1% of the filters capability. They
> > also measured the input to the filter not the actual output. They didn't
> > measure the actual "result" of the filtration.
> >
> > As far as creating a strong magnetic fields this is also wrong. Yes a GS
> > filter will produce a locally increased magnetic field that drops off
> > quickly with distance, but they do not produce high frequency radiation.
> > During your EMF workshop last year I let you borrow a Stetzer filter and
> > meter and your wife Monique conducted a demonstration that showed the
> > magnetic field dropped to all the way zero only 10 inches from the
> filter.
> > So, unless you're sitting on it I doubt it would be much of an issue.
> >
> > In your email you also state: "after we had mitigated in the entire
> house
> > electromagnetic pollution levels to safe ones." Can you tell me what
> > levels
> > of electromagnetic pollution is "safe?" Dr. Neil Cherry state the safe
> > level
> > to RF is "zero".
> >
> > You state: "It is indeed cheaper and more health beneficial to simply
> > solve
> > the wiring errors." How exactly are you going to remove noise from a
> > circuit
> > by correcting net current problems? Is there some secret wiring
> technique
> > you would like to share with us? Perhaps you're implying arcing is
> causing
> > all of this high frequency noise? This is not the case, it's caused
> > primarily by electronic devices that transform AC current to low-voltage
> > DC
> > and by things like dimmer switches and devices that have variable speed
> > motors.
> >
> > I suggest you speak with Dave Stetzer, you need to become better
> informed
> > on
> > this important topic.
> >
> > Kevin Byrne
> > www.EMFSolutions.ca
> > 877 987-5185
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

>
> Science does not want to look into these matters.
> Certainly not the governments, because, when they do, they have to pay.
>
> In the netherlands, the government is going to spend 16.6 million Euro
> into
> research of EMF and health, but they only want to know how to suss the
> people and lulling them into the believe that there is no harm.
>
> My numbers are from praxis, and what several institutions claim, like f.i.
> the Ecolog Handbook.
>
> Greetings,
> Charles Claessens
> member Verband Baubiologie
> www.milieuziektes.nl
> www.milieuziektes.be
> www.hetbitje.nl
> checked by Bitdefender
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Bruno" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 16:29
> Subject: Re: [eSens] Re: Stetzerizer Meter
>
>
> Charles,
> Thanks for the insightful info. Are there any scientific papers to
> back up the numbers you give? Have you been doing blind tests?
>
> Bill
>

>
> The problem with all those tests is, that they want to prove that nothing
> may happen.
>
> I want to start from the opposite site, and start with electrosensibnle
> people.
> Therefore I want to produce soem sort of classification system.
>
> It is nonsense to place a person who thinks that he will feel something,
> when he is close to an sending mast, next to a person who will go awol
> when
> somebody near him has a mobile in his pocket.
>
> First the test persons have to be examined for which sort of fields they
> are
> *sensible*.
> After that, the strenght of those fields have to be determind.
>
> The reactions of the test persons should not be with a formular: *do you
> feel something when I press a button*, but measured on the persons
> itsself.
> There is nice equipment, which can registrate what is happening inside the
> body when exposed.
> (When exposed to a DECT phone, for instance the stomach and liver do react
> instantly and can be monitored.)
>
> That equipment will cost about 20-30.000 Euro, which I do not have.
> All other measuring equipment I already have.
> (And I have measuring equipment, nobody else in the Benelux posesses.
> About the latest developments I am writing the next issue of *het bitje*.
> It
> takes much time, because I have to learn how to handle those meters and
> antennas, because I am not allowed to write nonsense. But I can reveal
> now,
> that I now find signals, which I could not find before, and on the display
> of my laptop, I can see which provider is busy at the moment! The
> frequency-hopping of DECT phones I can see 3-dimensional!)
>
> Of course, the pre-conditioning of the persons must be considered, as well
> as the involved time-factor.
> People may today have reactions from what they were exposed to yesterday.
>
> So it is nonsense to expose people, and ask them if they feel something
> directly.
>
> I know for instance, that cordless DECT phones may give an instant
> reaction,
> while GSM senders may do that later, sometimes hours later with some
> persons.
>
> Without some classification system, and serious acceptance that some
> people
> may be electrosensible, no serious research is possible.
>
> Regarding the spilling of 16.6 millions, I have written in the 1/2 October
> 2006 and December 2006 english versions of *het bitje* an number of
> remarks
> about this.
> (In short, they want to know how *crowd control* can be manipulated.)
>
> Greetings,
> Charles Claessens
> member Verband Baubiologie
> www.milieuziektes.nl
> www.milieuziektes.be
> www.hetbitje.nl
> checked by Bitdefender
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Bruno" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 20:33
> Subject: Re: [eSens] Re: Stetzerizer Meter
>
>
> I heard about the Netherlands EMF money. I think they have some real
> concerns or they would not be spending that much, but I'm sure they're
> going to be pretty conservative in what they fund.
>
> I noticed that their webpage says they have some money set aside
> for international collaborations. I happen to know a Dutch computational
> biologist; I tried to get him interested but he said it was too far from
> his expertise. But it sounds like it is right in yours.
>
> I don't know if he (Martijn Huynen) would be more interested if you
> were involved, or if you would be interested in trying to do something
> with me (unclear what exactly). Probably they are expecting people
> with university appointments, etc. If you don't have that I think
> it's not a problem as long as we can find someone at a Dutch university
> or research lab to also be involved.
>
> I do have some ideas on experiments that could show conclusively
> the kind of stuff you already know. The numbers you give are
> extremely valuable, especially if they can be reproduced elsewhere.
>
> Ideally a spectrum analyzer should be used as well.
>
> I hope I can interest you in trying for some money although I can't
> even promise that my employer will allow it (but I think they will,
> if they have not fired me for other reasons). Please let me know.
>
> Bill
>
> On 8/7/07, charles <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Science does not want to look into these matters.
> > Certainly not the governments, because, when they do, they have to pay.
> >
> > In the netherlands, the government is going to spend 16.6 million Euro
> > into
> > research of EMF and health, but they only want to know how to suss the
> > people and lulling them into the believe that there is no harm.
> >
> > My numbers are from praxis, and what several institutions claim, like
> f.i.
> > the Ecolog Handbook.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Charles Claessens
> > member Verband Baubiologie
> > www.milieuziektes.nl
> > www.milieuziektes.be
> > www.hetbitje.nl
> > checked by Bitdefender
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Bruno" <[hidden email]>
> > To: <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 16:29
> > Subject: Re: [eSens] Re: Stetzerizer Meter
> >
> >
> > Charles,
> > Thanks for the insightful info. Are there any scientific papers to
> > back up the numbers you give? Have you been doing blind tests?
> >
> > Bill
> >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

> Hi Charles,
> I did read one of your issues on the 16.6 million. Still hoping it is not
> hopeless.
>
> Meanwhile, I would like to ask what instrument (ideally affordable) can
> measure down to 6 mV/m? Or can this be done with a standard spectrum
> analyzer?
>
> Bill
>
> On 8/7/07, charles <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> The problem with all those tests is, that they want to prove that nothing
>> may happen.
>>
>> I want to start from the opposite site, and start with electrosensibnle
>> people.
>> Therefore I want to produce soem sort of classification system.
>>
>> It is nonsense to place a person who thinks that he will feel something,
>> when he is close to an sending mast, next to a person who will go awol
>> when
>> somebody near him has a mobile in his pocket.
>>
>> First the test persons have to be examined for which sort of fields they
>> are
>> *sensible*.
>> After that, the strenght of those fields have to be determind.
>>
>> The reactions of the test persons should not be with a formular: *do you
>> feel something when I press a button*, but measured on the persons
>> itsself.
>> There is nice equipment, which can registrate what is happening inside
>> the
>> body when exposed.
>> (When exposed to a DECT phone, for instance the stomach and liver do
>> react
>> instantly and can be monitored.)
>>
>> That equipment will cost about 20-30.000 Euro, which I do not have.
>> All other measuring equipment I already have.
>> (And I have measuring equipment, nobody else in the Benelux posesses.
>> About the latest developments I am writing the next issue of *het bitje*.
>> It
>> takes much time, because I have to learn how to handle those meters and
>> antennas, because I am not allowed to write nonsense. But I can reveal
>> now,
>> that I now find signals, which I could not find before, and on the
>> display
>> of my laptop, I can see which provider is busy at the moment! The
>> frequency-hopping of DECT phones I can see 3-dimensional!)
>>
>> Of course, the pre-conditioning of the persons must be considered, as
>> well
>> as the involved time-factor.
>> People may today have reactions from what they were exposed to yesterday.
>>
>> So it is nonsense to expose people, and ask them if they feel something
>> directly.
>>
>> I know for instance, that cordless DECT phones may give an instant
>> reaction,
>> while GSM senders may do that later, sometimes hours later with some
>> persons.
>>
>> Without some classification system, and serious acceptance that some
>> people
>> may be electrosensible, no serious research is possible.
>>
>> Regarding the spilling of 16.6 millions, I have written in the 1/2
>> October
>> 2006 and December 2006 english versions of *het bitje* an number of
>> remarks
>> about this.
>> (In short, they want to know how *crowd control* can be manipulated.)
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Charles Claessens
>> member Verband Baubiologie
>> www.milieuziektes.nl
>> www.milieuziektes.be
>> www.hetbitje.nl
>> checked by Bitdefender
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bill Bruno" <[hidden email]>
>> To: <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 20:33
>> Subject: Re: [eSens] Re: Stetzerizer Meter
>>
>>
>> I heard about the Netherlands EMF money. I think they have some real
>> concerns or they would not be spending that much, but I'm sure they're
>> going to be pretty conservative in what they fund.
>>
>> I noticed that their webpage says they have some money set aside
>> for international collaborations. I happen to know a Dutch computational
>> biologist; I tried to get him interested but he said it was too far from
>> his expertise. But it sounds like it is right in yours.
>>
>> I don't know if he (Martijn Huynen) would be more interested if you
>> were involved, or if you would be interested in trying to do something
>> with me (unclear what exactly). Probably they are expecting people
>> with university appointments, etc. If you don't have that I think
>> it's not a problem as long as we can find someone at a Dutch university
>> or research lab to also be involved.
>>
>> I do have some ideas on experiments that could show conclusively
>> the kind of stuff you already know. The numbers you give are
>> extremely valuable, especially if they can be reproduced elsewhere.
>>
>> Ideally a spectrum analyzer should be used as well.
>>
>> I hope I can interest you in trying for some money although I can't
>> even promise that my employer will allow it (but I think they will,
>> if they have not fired me for other reasons). Please let me know.
>>
>> Bill
>>

>
> Science does not want to look into these matters.
> Certainly not the governments, because, when they do, they have to pay.
>
> In the netherlands, the government is going to spend 16.6 million Euro
> into
> research of EMF and health, but they only want to know how to suss the
> people and lulling them into the believe that there is no harm.
>
> My numbers are from praxis, and what several institutions claim, like f.i.
> the Ecolog Handbook.
>
> Greetings,
> Charles Claessens
> member Verband Baubiologie
> www.milieuziektes.nl
> www.milieuziektes.be
> www.hetbitje.nl
> checked by Bitdefender
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Bruno" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 16:29
> Subject: Re: [eSens] Re: Stetzerizer Meter
>
>
> Charles,
> Thanks for the insightful info. Are there any scientific papers to
> back up the numbers you give? Have you been doing blind tests?
>
> Bill
>