Reply to canary

> Canary wrote?
> the only query i have to raise with martin weatherall regarding his
> powerful and eloquent article is why, when in nearly every case he
> cites he discovered that wireless RF microwaves were the main cause
> of illness, why does he put RF emmissions at No.5 on his list of
> possible causes of ES.  Surely they should be at No. 1. 
>
Shivani replies:
I have no contact info. for Weatherall, so I can only theorize. RF is
they culprit in every case, it's just a question of the source. In his own
case, the source was the utility current. In the other cases he mentionshe
found wireless sources. If he is activley involved in remediation I am
sure he could have mentioned many other cases of utility current RF causing
illness, but chose the cases he did because they demonstrate a variety of sources,
which people should be aware of.  
>
> Canary wrote:
> I beleive that ES sufferers would save themselves alot of time and
> misery if they were to thoroughly check their RF exposure before
> looking for other causes, as I believe that particularly with new
> cases of ES that this is the most likely ROOT cause of illness.
>      
> Shivani replies:
The way you put this, it sounds as if you think RF only comes from
wireless sources. This is not so. It is particularly the RF in utility
current/ground current that causes it to create health symptoms. It doesnot
matter what the source is. ES people need to look for and identify all the
sources they are exposed to, then address them.
Not everyone will be exposed to wireless RF, even in today's blue world,
but very few indeed will not be exposed to RF via their wiring. At our
home, for instance, we have no wireless exposure to speak of, but plenty ofRF
via the utility.  
In addition, some recent remediations have demonstrated that in
buildings near MW towers, filtering what is in the wiring has indeed reduced symptoms
that began when the tower exposures began. Research on this needs to be
done. The theory is that the ground currents created by the support equipment
for the towers deliver RF to the buildings that ends up on their wiring.
Regards,
Shivani
     
     
     




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

When i talk about RF I mean pulsed microwave RF as emitted from
wireless devices. I do not know how to refer to this so that it is
not confused with other types of RF....will microwave RF do? or
pulsed RF?

In Canada, with its big open spaces, i'm sure it is still possible to
get away from wireless technology, but Britain is COOKING. I believe
it is probably the worst country in the world for wireless RF
emissions, being so small, overcrowded and heavily industrialised.

This is why i think that when a person suspects they are sensitive to
EMFs, the first thing they should investigate is the RF coming from
wireless devices into their home, and their microwave RF exposure
generally.

jane

--- In [hidden email], SArjuna@a... wrote:
>
>
> > Canary wrote?
> > the only query i have to raise with martin weatherall regarding
his
> > powerful and eloquent article is why, when in nearly every case he
> > cites he discovered that wireless RF microwaves were the main
cause
> > of illness, why does he put RF emmissions at No.5 on his list of
> > possible causes of ES.  Surely they should be at No. 1. 
> >
> Shivani replies:
> I have no contact info. for Weatherall, so I can only
theorize. RF is
> they culprit in every case, it's just a question of the source.  
In his own
> case, the source was the utility current. In the other cases he
mentions he
> found wireless sources. If he is activley involved in
remediation I am
> sure he could have mentioned many other cases of utility current RF
causing
> illness, but chose the cases he did because they demonstrate a
variety of sources, from
> wireless sources. This is not so. It is particularly the RF
in utility
> current/ground current that causes it to create health symptoms.  
It does not
> matter what the source is. ES people need to look for and
identify all the
> sources they are exposed to, then address them.
> Not everyone will be exposed to wireless RF, even in today's
blue world,
> but very few indeed will not be exposed to RF via their wiring.  
At our
> home, for instance, we have no wireless exposure to speak of, but
plenty of RF
> via the utility.  
> In addition, some recent remediations have demonstrated that
in
> buildings near MW towers, filtering what is in the wiring has
indeed reduced symptoms
> that began when the tower exposures began. Research on this
needs to be
> done. The theory is that the ground currents created by the
support equipment
> for the towers deliver RF to the buildings that ends up on their
wiring.

I don't want to seem pedantic, but there is a point here which might be
significant. Radiofrequency (RF) and microwave (MW) are not technically the
same thing. They are both electromagnetic waves, and adjacent to each other
in the spectrum, but MW have wavelengths typically 100 times shorter and
therefore frequencies 100 times higher. This means that microwaves have a
higher power density, and therefore more potential for heating (and
damaging) anything they impinge on. This has long been recognized by the
safety standards for shielding MW equipment being much more rigorous than
for RF.



A reason for drawing this distinction is that people can say "how can radio
waves be harmful, they've been around in our atmosphere for 100+ years and
nobody has suffered", which is probably true of the AM and FM radio bands
and small amounts of microwaves (e.g. from radar). However, the situation
in the last 10 years with large amounts of MW, rather than RF, radiation
being around is completely new. Even a sceptic (as I once was) can see that
it is plausible that there could be new and damaging health effects from
this completely untried situation.



We've recently bought an Acousticom meter from Powerwatch and have certainly
been surprised by how many "hot spots" we found in our neighbourhood, often
due to being in line-of-sight from various masts, but also getting
noticeable signals outside houses with cordless phones! (And, of course,
huge signals inside.) One encouraging thing however was that even in SE
England, we have been able to find local places in woodland, by lakes or
even some parts of built-up areas where there is no detectable signal on the
Acousticom (although, since mobile phones still work, there must be some
level .)



Ian



_____

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
canaryyuk
Sent: 20 November 2005 20:42
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [eSens] Reply to Shivani



When i talk about RF I mean pulsed microwave RF as emitted from
wireless devices. I do not know how to refer to this so that it is
not confused with other types of RF....will microwave RF do? or
pulsed RF?

In Canada, with its big open spaces, i'm sure it is still possible to
get away from wireless technology, but Britain is COOKING. I believe
it is probably the worst country in the world for wireless RF
emissions, being so small, overcrowded and heavily industrialised.

This is why i think that when a person suspects they are sensitive to
EMFs, the first thing they should investigate is the RF coming from
wireless devices into their home, and their microwave RF exposure
generally.

jane

--- In [hidden email], SArjuna@a... wrote:
>
>
> > Canary wrote?
> > the only query i have to raise with martin weatherall regarding
his
> > powerful and eloquent article is why, when in nearly every case he
> > cites he discovered that wireless RF microwaves were the main
cause
> > of illness, why does he put RF emmissions at No.5 on his list of
> > possible causes of ES. Surely they should be at No. 1.
> >
> Shivani replies:
> I have no contact info. for Weatherall, so I can only
theorize. RF is
> they culprit in every case, it's just a question of the source.
In his own
> case, the source was the utility current. In the other cases he
mentions he
> found wireless sources. If he is activley involved in
remediation I am
> sure he could have mentioned many other cases of utility current RF
causing
> illness, but chose the cases he did because they demonstrate a
variety of sources, from
> wireless sources. This is not so. It is particularly the RF
in utility
> current/ground current that causes it to create health symptoms.
It does not
> matter what the source is. ES people need to look for and
identify all the
> sources they are exposed to, then address them.
> Not everyone will be exposed to wireless RF, even in today's
blue world,
> but very few indeed will not be exposed to RF via their wiring.
At our
> home, for instance, we have no wireless exposure to speak of, but
plenty of RF
> via the utility.
> In addition, some recent remediations have demonstrated that
in
> buildings near MW towers, filtering what is in the wiring has
indeed reduced symptoms
> that began when the tower exposures began. Research on this
needs to be
> done. The theory is that the ground currents created by the
support equipment
> for the towers deliver RF to the buildings that ends up on their
wiring.







_____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



* Visit your group "eSens <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eSens> " on
the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[hidden email]
<mailto:[hidden email]?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



_____



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

I believe there is data that supports the claim that FM and TV towers
increase skin cancer.
Andrew
On Nov 21, 2005, at 5:43 PM, Ian Kemp wrote:

> they've been around in our atmosphere for 100+ years and
> nobody has suffered", which is probably true of the AM and FM radio
> bands
> and small amounts of microwaves (e.g. from radar).

Interesting, well it's quite possible. The point I was making however is
that most people see radio/TV as low/acceptable risk (compared with the
perceived benefits). Like petrol for cars, smoking and drinking alcohol!



Unfortunately we may have got to the point where so many people see their
mobiles as indispensable that it will be extremely difficult to reduce their
use, even if a health link is proved. Never mind about big business - once
the general public has accepted something, it is very difficult to reverse,
even by legislation (as shown by the Puritans in Britain in the 1650's and
Prohibition in the USA in the 1930's). I guess however that the gradual
growth of smoking legislation shows that limits can be achieved if there's
general agreement about the risk.



Ian



_____

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
Andrew McAfee
Sent: 22 November 2005 03:18
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [eSens] RF and MW



I believe there is data that supports the claim that FM and TV towers
increase skin cancer.
Andrew
On Nov 21, 2005, at 5:43 PM, Ian Kemp wrote:

> they've been around in our atmosphere for 100+ years and
> nobody has suffered", which is probably true of the AM and FM radio
> bands
> and small amounts of microwaves (e.g. from radar).




_____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



* Visit your group "eSens <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eSens> " on
the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[hidden email]
<mailto:[hidden email]?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



_____



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

Hello,

you may have a look at:
http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Pagina100.html
under Elektrosmog and Symptoms.

It is all High Frequency.

However, many studies have shown, that when those high frequency signals are
not pulsed, the damage to our body is much less, than in the case, that the
HF signals ate pulsed.

In comparison, Radio and TV signals are not pulsed.
There the strenght of the signals is important.

The pulsed signals of the mobile phones and masts do not need to be in
strenght, in order to achieve damage.
Very, very low levels of their radiation are sufficient in order to make
people sick.

Also, low levels of low frequency signals, like the *dirt* in our mains
voltage cables, can be devastating as well.

Even the normal 50 or 60 Hz may make the mercury come out of our amalgam
tooth fillings much faster than normal.


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





----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Kemp" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 12:24
Subject: RE: [eSens] RF and MW