re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

Classic

List

Threaded

15 messages Options

SArjuna

re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

Charles wrote:
> 100 % healthy people are not electrosensible.
> Only people with a damaged immune system may become, or are already
> electrosensible.
>
Shivani responds:
Then there are no 100% healthy people on this planet, because everyone
is electrosensible.
Granted that some folks experience more symptoms than others, that
improving general health helps in that regard, and that some folks do not appear to
be affected. However, Homo sapiens who are alive are all affected by EMR, and
the effects are cumulative.
A short exposure to electrical pollution, for instance, has been found
to affect the blood glucose level of everyone tested so far. So far, I have
not found anyone, either, whose GSR does not drop when he/she goes from an
EMR-clean environment to being exposed. It is true that those who are already
stressed are more affected, but if you are alive you cannot help being
affected. EMR is stressful.
When you are stressed (whether by toxins in the body, poor nutrition,
your relationships....), you literally have lower resistance to electricity.
It is a vicious cycle. The more stressed you are, the less resistance you
have to the damaging frequencies, so the more affected you are, making you more
stressed....
Let us not place the burden of cause of ES injury on the injured. It
belongs on the shoulders of the industries that create the exposure.
Regards,
Shivani
Life Energies

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

Marc Martin

Re: re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

Administrator

> Then there are no 100% healthy people on this planet, because everyone
> is electrosensible.

Hmmm, I'm surrounded by people at work who apparently have no negative
reaction to all the florescent lights and computers they sit in front
of everyday, nor the cellphones they talk on. And since the definition
of electrical sensitivity involves some obvious and immediate negative
reaction, I'd say that all of these people are not electrically
sensitive.

What you are referring to is someone's health being negatively affected
over the long run due to continued exposure to EMF. That is different
than ES.

Marc

>

charles-4

Re: re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

In reply to this post by SArjuna

Hello Shivani,

when you quote me, you should quote me correctly.

I wrote that only 25 % of our population are electrosensible.
75 % is not, at this moment.
The reason for that is, that they do not have the agents in their body that
may react.
So, the conclusion is, that mobile phone masts are not sickmaking in
principle, when the RF radiation does not exceed 200-2000 uW/m2 or 0,275 -
0,9 V/m.
For the 25% of the population, which do have agents in their body, exposures
starting at 1 uW/m2 or 0,006 V/m may have desastrous health effects.
Then the radiation may work like a catalyst, and makes everything worse.

So 75 % is still not electrosensible, and is using their mobile phones,
their DECT phones and wireless modems and laptops without any complaints.
But be aware that the RF radiation of these things are exceeding the 2000
uW/m2 or 0,9 V/m mark, so they are slowly eating on your immune system.

So, 75 % are not affected by elektrosmog.
The body can cope with the (limited) exposures, while 25 % cannot.

As long as one does not fall dead instantly by elektrosmog exposure, the WHO
states that there is no danger at all.
They claim, that when you feel sick after elektrosmog exposure, the real
reason may be that you drank a Coca Cola or eaten a Hamburger.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 21:51
Subject: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

> Charles wrote:
>> 100 % healthy people are not electrosensible.
>> Only people with a damaged immune system may become, or are already
>> electrosensible.
>>
> Shivani responds:
> Then there are no 100% healthy people on this planet, because everyone
> is electrosensible.
> Granted that some folks experience more symptoms than others, that
> improving general health helps in that regard, and that some folks do not
> appear to
> be affected. However, Homo sapiens who are alive are all affected by EMR,
> and
> the effects are cumulative.
> A short exposure to electrical pollution, for instance, has been found
> to affect the blood glucose level of everyone tested so far. So far, I
> have
> not found anyone, either, whose GSR does not drop when he/she goes from an
> EMR-clean environment to being exposed. It is true that those who are
> already
> stressed are more affected, but if you are alive you cannot help being
> affected. EMR is stressful.
> When you are stressed (whether by toxins in the body, poor nutrition,
> your relationships....), you literally have lower resistance to
> electricity.
> It is a vicious cycle. The more stressed you are, the less resistance
> you
> have to the damaging frequencies, so the more affected you are, making you
> more
> stressed....
> Let us not place the burden of cause of ES injury on the injured.
> It
> belongs on the shoulders of the industries that create the exposure.
> Regards,
> Shivani
> Life Energies
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Ian Kemp

RE: re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence

This correspondence emphasises again that we need a better definition of
"electrosensible", or at any rate a categorisation of the levels of effect.

If people read "25% of the population are electrosensible", they think, "Ah,
so this is very unimportant, because that means a quarter of the people
around me have it and evidently it is a very very minor effect, they lead
normal lives, can do normal jobs, it's not worth bothering about - just
another health fad".

This sort of statistic completely undermines the cause of the small
proportion who have SEVERE electrosensitivity, who can't use a computer or a
normal telephone (let alone a mobile or cordless phone), can't stand for
even a minute under a fluorescent light, have no chance at all of doing any
sort of paid job, can't use public transport or most cars, and whose life is
completely disrupted by it. But this is a very small percentage of the
population. In the whole of Britain I do not think there can be more than
1000 people (out of 60 million) who have this level of ES. In the Oxford
area (150,000) we know of just two, including Sue. This could be called
"Level 3" or "severe" ES.

Then there are the in-between people, who get definite effects but where it
is not totally life-disrupting. These could be described as "Level 2" or
"moderate" ES. Maybe 1% of the population, maybe more, maybe less. Swedish
figures suggest higher. On the other hand among the dozens of people I've
worked with in offices, using computers all the time, I've never met even
one who had any significant symptoms e.g skin rashes, or was at all worried
about any possible effects.

Then we have the people who are mildly affected - possibly not attributing
it to ES. The "25%" might apply to this "Level 1" or "mild" ES.

People can of course move between levels as their health changes. It
sounds, Marc, as if you have been able to go from Level 3 to Level 2 with
much treatment and hard work, which is a great hope for all sufferers and
their families! Conversely, continued high exposure or a weakened immune
system could make a Level 1 person go to Level 2 or 3. But in Sue's case,
she went from no symptoms at all to Level 2/3 in an hour - but her very weak
immune system was what made her susceptible.

The big danger of quoting high prevalence figures without definition of the
level of symptoms is that it undermines credibility or makes the general
public treat the subject less seriously.

Ian

_____

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
charles
Sent: 26 October 2006 21:41
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

Hello Shivani,

when you quote me, you should quote me correctly.

I wrote that only 25 % of our population are electrosensible.
75 % is not, at this moment.
The reason for that is, that they do not have the agents in their body that
may react.
So, the conclusion is, that mobile phone masts are not sickmaking in
principle, when the RF radiation does not exceed 200-2000 uW/m2 or 0,275 -
0,9 V/m.
For the 25% of the population, which do have agents in their body, exposures

starting at 1 uW/m2 or 0,006 V/m may have desastrous health effects.
Then the radiation may work like a catalyst, and makes everything worse.

So 75 % is still not electrosensible, and is using their mobile phones,
their DECT phones and wireless modems and laptops without any complaints.
But be aware that the RF radiation of these things are exceeding the 2000
uW/m2 or 0,9 V/m mark, so they are slowly eating on your immune system.

So, 75 % are not affected by elektrosmog.
The body can cope with the (limited) exposures, while 25 % cannot.

As long as one does not fall dead instantly by elektrosmog exposure, the WHO

states that there is no danger at all.
They claim, that when you feel sick after elektrosmog exposure, the real
reason may be that you drank a Coca Cola or eaten a Hamburger.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <SArjuna@aol. <mailto:SArjuna%40aol.com> com>
To: <eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 21:51
Subject: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

> more
> stressed....
> Let us not place the burden of cause of ES injury on the injured.
> It
> belongs on the shoulders of the industries that create the exposure.
> Regards,
> Shivani
> Life Energies
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

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

Marc Martin

RE: re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence

Administrator

> People can of course move between levels as their health changes. It
> sounds, Marc, as if you have been able to go from Level 3 to Level 2 with
> much treatment and hard work

Well, in a sense, I am cheating -- I would still be (I think) a "level
3"
if you took away all my fancy supplements and devices... I'm still in
the process of finding a "cure", that wouldn't require me to do anything
special (and I agree with Charles that detoxification is probably the
key)

Marc

charles-4

Re: re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence

In reply to this post by Ian Kemp

Hello Ian,

you wouldn't have a better definition of electrosensibility.

As long as most physicians refuse to diagnose and admit the existance of
electrosensibility, no reliable figures will be known.

My personal estimate is 10 %.
Dr Gerd Oberfeld as an epidemiologist came to 19 %.
Many German doctors speak about 25 %.

But if we look at the latest swiss UMTS or 3G study, they claimed, that 0 %
exist.
However, I published the fact, that from the 117 participants, only 4
persons have reported, outside the ETH Study, heavy health complaints, after
45 minutes of UMTS exposure.
So, 4 people of 117 makes a 3.4 %.

Calculated on the population of the Netherlands, we speak about 555000
people!

Be aware, that many people do have vague health complaints, but do not know
what the source is.

Now, judges in Switzerland have ruled, that the precautionay principle for
all is not necessary.
Only what is economically acceptable and a calculated risk inhibits is
accepted.

So your *In the Oxford area (150,000) we know of just two*, that is a
negligible factor.
That is not a percent, but a promille.
That is an amount that does not count at all.
Those two persons are *affordable risks.*

So my 25 % makes more impression.

But at the moment, electrosensibles do not have any credibility at all!

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: Friday, October 27, 2006 00:29
Subject: RE: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence

> This correspondence emphasises again that we need a better definition of
> "electrosensible", or at any rate a categorisation of the levels of
> effect.
>
> If people read "25% of the population are electrosensible", they think,
> "Ah,
> so this is very unimportant, because that means a quarter of the people
> around me have it and evidently it is a very very minor effect, they lead
> normal lives, can do normal jobs, it's not worth bothering about - just
> another health fad".
>
> This sort of statistic completely undermines the cause of the small
> proportion who have SEVERE electrosensitivity, who can't use a computer or
> a
> normal telephone (let alone a mobile or cordless phone), can't stand for
> even a minute under a fluorescent light, have no chance at all of doing
> any
> sort of paid job, can't use public transport or most cars, and whose life
> is
> completely disrupted by it. But this is a very small percentage of the
> population. In the whole of Britain I do not think there can be more than
> 1000 people (out of 60 million) who have this level of ES. In the Oxford
> area (150,000) we know of just two, including Sue. This could be called
> "Level 3" or "severe" ES.
>
> Then there are the in-between people, who get definite effects but where
> it
> is not totally life-disrupting. These could be described as "Level 2" or
> "moderate" ES. Maybe 1% of the population, maybe more, maybe less.
> Swedish
> figures suggest higher. On the other hand among the dozens of people I've
> worked with in offices, using computers all the time, I've never met even
> one who had any significant symptoms e.g skin rashes, or was at all
> worried
> about any possible effects.
>
> Then we have the people who are mildly affected - possibly not attributing
> it to ES. The "25%" might apply to this "Level 1" or "mild" ES.
>
> People can of course move between levels as their health changes. It
> sounds, Marc, as if you have been able to go from Level 3 to Level 2 with
> much treatment and hard work, which is a great hope for all sufferers and
> their families! Conversely, continued high exposure or a weakened immune
> system could make a Level 1 person go to Level 2 or 3. But in Sue's case,
> she went from no symptoms at all to Level 2/3 in an hour - but her very
> weak
> immune system was what made her susceptible.
>
> The big danger of quoting high prevalence figures without definition of
> the
> level of symptoms is that it undermines credibility or makes the general
> public treat the subject less seriously.
>
> Ian
>
> _____
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> charles
> Sent: 26 October 2006 21:41
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity
>
>
>
> Hello Shivani,
>
> when you quote me, you should quote me correctly.
>
> I wrote that only 25 % of our population are electrosensible.
> 75 % is not, at this moment.
> The reason for that is, that they do not have the agents in their body
> that
> may react.
> So, the conclusion is, that mobile phone masts are not sickmaking in
> principle, when the RF radiation does not exceed 200-2000 uW/m2 or 0,275 -
> 0,9 V/m.
> For the 25% of the population, which do have agents in their body,
> exposures
>
> starting at 1 uW/m2 or 0,006 V/m may have desastrous health effects.
> Then the radiation may work like a catalyst, and makes everything worse.
>
> So 75 % is still not electrosensible, and is using their mobile phones,
> their DECT phones and wireless modems and laptops without any complaints.
> But be aware that the RF radiation of these things are exceeding the 2000
> uW/m2 or 0,9 V/m mark, so they are slowly eating on your immune system.
>
> So, 75 % are not affected by elektrosmog.
> The body can cope with the (limited) exposures, while 25 % cannot.
>
> As long as one does not fall dead instantly by elektrosmog exposure, the
> WHO
>
> states that there is no danger at all.
> They claim, that when you feel sick after elektrosmog exposure, the real
> reason may be that you drank a Coca Cola or eaten a Hamburger.
>
> Greetings,
> Charles Claessens
> member Verband Baubiologie
> www.milieuziektes.nl
> www.milieuziektes.be
> www.hetbitje.nl
> checked by Norton Antivirus
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <SArjuna@aol. <mailto:SArjuna%40aol.com> com>
> To: <eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 21:51
> Subject: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity
>
>> Charles wrote:
>>> 100 % healthy people are not electrosensible.
>>> Only people with a damaged immune system may become, or are already
>>> electrosensible.
>>>
>> Shivani responds:
>> Then there are no 100% healthy people on this planet, because everyone
>> is electrosensible.
>> Granted that some folks experience more symptoms than others, that
>> improving general health helps in that regard, and that some folks do not
>> appear to
>> be affected. However, Homo sapiens who are alive are all affected by EMR,
>> and
>> the effects are cumulative.
>> A short exposure to electrical pollution, for instance, has been found
>> to affect the blood glucose level of everyone tested so far. So far, I
>> have
>> not found anyone, either, whose GSR does not drop when he/she goes from
>> an
>> EMR-clean environment to being exposed. It is true that those who are
>> already
>> stressed are more affected, but if you are alive you cannot help being
>> affected. EMR is stressful.
>> When you are stressed (whether by toxins in the body, poor nutrition,
>> your relationships....), you literally have lower resistance to
>> electricity.
>> It is a vicious cycle. The more stressed you are, the less resistance
>> you
>> have to the damaging frequencies, so the more affected you are, making
>> you
>
>> more
>> stressed....
>> Let us not place the burden of cause of ES injury on the injured.
>> It
>> belongs on the shoulders of the industries that create the exposure.
>> Regards,
>> Shivani
>> Life Energies
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Ian Kemp

RE: re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence

Very interesting points Charles. On the other hand, a tiny proportion of
people have severe nut allergy, but because it affects their lives (or
deaths) severely, now all food in the UK has nut descriptions on it.

So even a rare condition, like the severe ES, can evetually gain credibility
and action.

Ian

_____

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
charles
Sent: 27 October 2006 11:55
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence

Hello Ian,

you wouldn't have a better definition of electrosensibility.

As long as most physicians refuse to diagnose and admit the existance of
electrosensibility, no reliable figures will be known.

My personal estimate is 10 %.
Dr Gerd Oberfeld as an epidemiologist came to 19 %.
Many German doctors speak about 25 %.

But if we look at the latest swiss UMTS or 3G study, they claimed, that 0 %
exist.
However, I published the fact, that from the 117 participants, only 4
persons have reported, outside the ETH Study, heavy health complaints, after

45 minutes of UMTS exposure.
So, 4 people of 117 makes a 3.4 %.

Calculated on the population of the Netherlands, we speak about 555000
people!

Be aware, that many people do have vague health complaints, but do not know
what the source is.

Now, judges in Switzerland have ruled, that the precautionay principle for
all is not necessary.
Only what is economically acceptable and a calculated risk inhibits is
accepted.

So your *In the Oxford area (150,000) we know of just two*, that is a
negligible factor.
That is not a percent, but a promille.
That is an amount that does not count at all.
Those two persons are *affordable risks.*

So my 25 % makes more impression.

But at the moment, electrosensibles do not have any credibility at all!

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Kemp" <ianandsue.kemp@ <mailto:ianandsue.kemp%40ukgateway.net>
ukgateway.net>
To: <eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 00:29
Subject: RE: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence

> a
> normal telephone (let alone a mobile or cordless phone), can't stand for
> even a minute under a fluorescent light, have no chance at all of doing
> any
> sort of paid job, can't use public transport or most cars, and whose life
> is
> completely disrupted by it. But this is a very small percentage of the
> population. In the whole of Britain I do not think there can be more than
> 1000 people (out of 60 million) who have this level of ES. In the Oxford
> area (150,000) we know of just two, including Sue. This could be called
> "Level 3" or "severe" ES.
>
> Then there are the in-between people, who get definite effects but where
> it
> is not totally life-disrupting. These could be described as "Level 2" or
> "moderate" ES. Maybe 1% of the population, maybe more, maybe less.
> Swedish
> figures suggest higher. On the other hand among the dozens of people I've
> worked with in offices, using computers all the time, I've never met even
> one who had any significant symptoms e.g skin rashes, or was at all
> worried
> about any possible effects.
>
> Then we have the people who are mildly affected - possibly not attributing
> it to ES. The "25%" might apply to this "Level 1" or "mild" ES.
>
> People can of course move between levels as their health changes. It
> sounds, Marc, as if you have been able to go from Level 3 to Level 2 with
> much treatment and hard work, which is a great hope for all sufferers and
> their families! Conversely, continued high exposure or a weakened immune
> system could make a Level 1 person go to Level 2 or 3. But in Sue's case,
> she went from no symptoms at all to Level 2/3 in an hour - but her very
> weak
> immune system was what made her susceptible.
>
> The big danger of quoting high prevalence figures without definition of
> the
> level of symptoms is that it undermines credibility or makes the general
> public treat the subject less seriously.
>
> Ian
>
> _____
>
> From: eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com

[mailto:eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
Of

> charles
> Sent: 26 October 2006 21:41
> To: eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com
> Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity
>
>
>
> Hello Shivani,
>
> when you quote me, you should quote me correctly.
>
> I wrote that only 25 % of our population are electrosensible.
> 75 % is not, at this moment.
> The reason for that is, that they do not have the agents in their body
> that
> may react.
> So, the conclusion is, that mobile phone masts are not sickmaking in
> principle, when the RF radiation does not exceed 200-2000 uW/m2 or 0,275 -
> 0,9 V/m.
> For the 25% of the population, which do have agents in their body,
> exposures
>
> starting at 1 uW/m2 or 0,006 V/m may have desastrous health effects.
> Then the radiation may work like a catalyst, and makes everything worse.
>
> So 75 % is still not electrosensible, and is using their mobile phones,
> their DECT phones and wireless modems and laptops without any complaints.
> But be aware that the RF radiation of these things are exceeding the 2000
> uW/m2 or 0,9 V/m mark, so they are slowly eating on your immune system.
>
> So, 75 % are not affected by elektrosmog.
> The body can cope with the (limited) exposures, while 25 % cannot.
>
> As long as one does not fall dead instantly by elektrosmog exposure, the
> WHO
>
> states that there is no danger at all.
> They claim, that when you feel sick after elektrosmog exposure, the real
> reason may be that you drank a Coca Cola or eaten a Hamburger.
>
> Greetings,
> Charles Claessens
> member Verband Baubiologie
> www.milieuziektes.nl
> www.milieuziektes.be
> www.hetbitje.nl
> checked by Norton Antivirus
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <SArjuna@aol. <mailto:SArjuna%40aol.com> com>
> To: <eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 21:51
> Subject: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity
>
>> Charles wrote:
>>> 100 % healthy people are not electrosensible.
>>> Only people with a damaged immune system may become, or are already
>>> electrosensible.
>>>
>> Shivani responds:
>> Then there are no 100% healthy people on this planet, because everyone
>> is electrosensible.
>> Granted that some folks experience more symptoms than others, that
>> improving general health helps in that regard, and that some folks do not
>> appear to
>> be affected. However, Homo sapiens who are alive are all affected by EMR,
>> and
>> the effects are cumulative.
>> A short exposure to electrical pollution, for instance, has been found
>> to affect the blood glucose level of everyone tested so far. So far, I
>> have
>> not found anyone, either, whose GSR does not drop when he/she goes from
>> an
>> EMR-clean environment to being exposed. It is true that those who are
>> already
>> stressed are more affected, but if you are alive you cannot help being
>> affected. EMR is stressful.
>> When you are stressed (whether by toxins in the body, poor nutrition,
>> your relationships....), you literally have lower resistance to
>> electricity.
>> It is a vicious cycle. The more stressed you are, the less resistance
>> you
>> have to the damaging frequencies, so the more affected you are, making
>> you
>
>> more
>> stressed....
>> Let us not place the burden of cause of ES injury on the injured.
>> It
>> belongs on the shoulders of the industries that create the exposure.
>> Regards,
>> Shivani
>> Life Energies
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

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

PUK

Re: re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

In reply to this post by SArjuna

In a message dated 26/10/2006 21:05:05 GMT Standard Time, [hidden email]
writes:

Shivani responds:
Then there are no 100% healthy people on this planet, because everyone
is electrosensible.
Granted that some folks experience more symptoms than others, that
improving general health helps in that regard, and that some folks do not
appear to
be affected. However, Homo sapiens who are alive are all affected by EMR,
and
the effects are cumulative.
A short exposure to electrical pollution, for instance, has been found
to affect the blood glucose level of everyone tested so far. So far, I have
not found anyone, either, whose GSR does not drop when he/she goes from an
EMR-clean environment to being exposed. It is true that those who are
already

Paul enquires -

Well said - The issue of stress is definately a big player in ES, but is
there some kind of chem reaction going on here when you have high quants of
cortisol etc... If you take some drug that reduces your reaction to anxiety does
this help etc..

What do you think

Paul

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

charles-4

Re: re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence

In reply to this post by Ian Kemp

Hello Ian,

I am afraid that such will not be the case.

Nut descriptions is something where somebody will have a profit from.

ES is something, when it gains credibility, that will decrease enormous
profits.

And because the government is up to its neck into this, by having shares in
the telecom industry and having obtained the 3G licence money, they are not
prone to do something that harms the milk cow.
Despite some sick people.

Our problem is, that ES is not acknowledged as a real disease.

The only thing to do at the moment is to alarm as many people as possible.

What is impressive is letting them hear the modulations of the different HF
signals.
I have special equipment for that.
It is the only argument people may get convinced.

Concerning DECT phones, I use bold statements.
When I say to women, that they may get headaches, they can imagine that.
But when I say that to men, they always deny that; it is coming from work,
from work-stress, and they waver it away.
So for men, I say, that if they do nothing, their *dick* will fall off.
Now I get their attention, and they sit on the tip of the chair.
I say that I mean that literally.
Infertility has been proven by several studies.
Overhere every sixth couple cannot have children.
In Austria a sperm company checked 600 men for good sperm; only 6% was
usable!
In Germany, when young men are checked for military service, it is reported,
that so many have testicle cancer.
Many german therapists tell on symposia, that many of their clients do have
erection problems, due to mobile phones.
Now I have real attention.

I am sorry, but for harsh situations, harsh measures are necessary.

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: Friday, October 27, 2006 18:43
Subject: RE: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence

> Very interesting points Charles. On the other hand, a tiny proportion of
> people have severe nut allergy, but because it affects their lives (or
> deaths) severely, now all food in the UK has nut descriptions on it.
>
> So even a rare condition, like the severe ES, can evetually gain
> credibility
> and action.
>
> Ian
>
> _____
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> charles
> Sent: 27 October 2006 11:55
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence
>
>
>
> Hello Ian,
>
> you wouldn't have a better definition of electrosensibility.
>
> As long as most physicians refuse to diagnose and admit the existance of
> electrosensibility, no reliable figures will be known.
>
> My personal estimate is 10 %.
> Dr Gerd Oberfeld as an epidemiologist came to 19 %.
> Many German doctors speak about 25 %.
>
> But if we look at the latest swiss UMTS or 3G study, they claimed, that 0
> %
> exist.
> However, I published the fact, that from the 117 participants, only 4
> persons have reported, outside the ETH Study, heavy health complaints,
> after
>
> 45 minutes of UMTS exposure.
> So, 4 people of 117 makes a 3.4 %.
>
> Calculated on the population of the Netherlands, we speak about 555000
> people!
>
> Be aware, that many people do have vague health complaints, but do not
> know
> what the source is.
>
> Now, judges in Switzerland have ruled, that the precautionay principle for
> all is not necessary.
> Only what is economically acceptable and a calculated risk inhibits is
> accepted.
>
> So your *In the Oxford area (150,000) we know of just two*, that is a
> negligible factor.
> That is not a percent, but a promille.
> That is an amount that does not count at all.
> Those two persons are *affordable risks.*
>
> So my 25 % makes more impression.
>
> But at the moment, electrosensibles do not have any credibility at all!
>
> Greetings,
> Charles Claessens
> member Verband Baubiologie
> www.milieuziektes.nl
> www.milieuziektes.be
> www.hetbitje.nl
> checked by Norton Antivirus
>

Ian Kemp

RE: re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

In reply to this post by PUK

Very interesting question Paul - it can cut both ways I suggest. Stress and
high cortisol definitely weaken the immune system and so can increase
susceptibility to ES. But anxiety-reducing drugs can also affect people. In
Sue's case she got more and more physically ill after taking
antidepressants, and eventually developed ES. Later tests have shown that
her liver chemicals were badly run down and therefore couldn't break down
the drug molecules effectively, and the buildup in her body damaged the
immune system further.
Ian

_____

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
[hidden email]
Sent: 27 October 2006 17:56
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

Paul enquires -

Well said - The issue of stress is definately a big player in ES, but is
there some kind of chem reaction going on here when you have high quants of
cortisol etc... If you take some drug that reduces your reaction to anxiety
does
this help etc..

What do you think
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=11979304/grpspId=1705062215/msgI
d=7143/stime=1161968401/nc1=3848642/nc2=3848500/nc3=4025321>

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

pete robinson

RE: re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

In reply to this post by SArjuna

ian

who has you're wife being seeing in the uk regarding es. I developed about
2 years ago sensitivity to uva, my skin burns on my face when i go outside
especially when it is sunny. Computers also effect me badly, i know that i
have problems with rf as my homeopath has had me on the quantum machine
and it said i was sensitive to radio frequencies. My skin has become very
damaged and i become very ill mentally due to all this and staying indoors
that i had to go on tranqulisers and anti-depressants and also i now have
to go outside cause if i don't its the end game for me emotionally staying
indoors.

best
pete

n Mon, 30 October, 2006 10:19 pm, Ian Kemp wrote:

> Very interesting question Paul - it can cut both ways I suggest. Stress
> and high cortisol definitely weaken the immune system and so can increase
> susceptibility to ES. But anxiety-reducing drugs can also affect people.
> In
> Sue's case she got more and more physically ill after taking
> antidepressants, and eventually developed ES. Later tests have shown that
> her liver chemicals were badly run down and therefore couldn't break
> down the drug molecules effectively, and the buildup in her body damaged
> the immune system further. Ian
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> [hidden email] Sent: 27 October 2006 17:56
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity
>
>
>
> Paul enquires -
>
>
> Well said - The issue of stress is definately a big player in ES, but is
> there some kind of chem reaction going on here when you have high quants
> of cortisol etc... If you take some drug that reduces your reaction to
> anxiety does this help etc..
>
> What do you think
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=11979304/grpspId=1705062215/ms
> gI d=7143/stime=1161968401/nc1=3848642/nc2=3848500/nc3=4025321>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

Marc Martin

RE: sun sensitivity

Administrator

Pete - regarding your sun sensitivity, have you tried antioxidants
(especially Vitamin A or maybe carrot juice?) or essential fatty
acids (especially things that contain omega-3, like fish oils
or flax oil?). Being outside and getting sunshine is supposed
to be *good* for you, so I'm thinking you may be having problems
with excess free radical damage or excess Vitamin D (to which
essential fatty acids counteracts). Finding ways to increase
your tolerance to the sun would be a better idea than trying
to find ways to completely avoid it.

Marc

Ian Kemp

RE: re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

In reply to this post by pete robinson

Hi Pete

We've tried a fair number of people but over the past 2 years have mainly
been to Breakspear Hospital in Hemel Hempstead, however this is private and
not cheap. They seem to have got at a lot of the underlying causes of MCS
etc and helped Sue a lot in that way, but it has only given a slight easing
of the ES. The biggest help we've had on the ES side has been finding other
sufferers to compare stories with and try to battle through the tough times
together - best wishes to you in that.
Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
[hidden email]
Sent: 31 October 2006 17:43
To: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

ian

who has you're wife being seeing in the uk regarding es. I developed about
2 years ago sensitivity to uva, my skin burns on my face when i go outside
especially when it is sunny. Computers also effect me badly, i know that i
have problems with rf as my homeopath has had me on the quantum machine and
it said i was sensitive to radio frequencies. My skin has become very
damaged and i become very ill mentally due to all this and staying indoors
that i had to go on tranqulisers and anti-depressants and also i now have to
go outside cause if i don't its the end game for me emotionally staying
indoors.

best
pete

n Mon, 30 October, 2006 10:19 pm, Ian Kemp wrote:
> Very interesting question Paul - it can cut both ways I suggest.
> Stress and high cortisol definitely weaken the immune system and so
> can increase susceptibility to ES. But anxiety-reducing drugs can also
affect people.

> In
> Sue's case she got more and more physically ill after taking
> antidepressants, and eventually developed ES. Later tests have shown
> that her liver chemicals were badly run down and therefore couldn't
> break down the drug molecules effectively, and the buildup in her body
> damaged the immune system further. Ian
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
> Of [hidden email] Sent: 27 October 2006 17:56
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity
>
>
>
> Paul enquires -
>
>
> Well said - The issue of stress is definately a big player in ES, but
> is there some kind of chem reaction going on here when you have high
> quants of cortisol etc... If you take some drug that reduces your
> reaction to anxiety does this help etc..
>
> What do you think
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=11979304/grpspId=170506221
> 5/ms gI d=7143/stime=1161968401/nc1=3848642/nc2=3848500/nc3=4025321>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

Yahoo! Groups Links

johnlankes

Re: re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

In reply to this post by SArjuna

High cortisol levels have been proven to cause memory loss in the
hippocampus area of the brain so is presumably neurotoxic.

I have elevated cortisol from autoimmune problem (Crohn's Disease)
for which I was prescribed prednisone (cortisol in pill form).

I think this "double dose" of cortisol contributed to my ES, but to
what extent is hard to say.

John Lankes

> n Mon, 30 October, 2006 10:19 pm, Ian Kemp wrote:
> > Very interesting question Paul - it can cut both ways I suggest.
> > Stress and high cortisol definitely weaken the immune system and
so
> > can increase susceptibility to ES. But anxiety-reducing drugs can
also
> affect people.
> > In
> > Sue's case she got more and more physically ill after taking
> > antidepressants, and eventually developed ES. Later tests have
shown
> > that her liver chemicals were badly run down and therefore
couldn't
> > break down the drug molecules effectively, and the buildup in her
body
> > damaged the immune system further. Ian
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >
> > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf

> > Of paulpjc@... Sent: 27 October 2006 17:56
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul enquires -
> >
> >
> > Well said - The issue of stress is definately a big player in ES,

but
> > is there some kind of chem reaction going on here when you have
high
> > quants of cortisol etc... If you take some drug that reduces your
> > reaction to anxiety does this help etc..
> >
> > What do you think
> > <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?
s=97359714/grpId=11979304/grpspId=170506221
> > 5/ms gI
d=7143/stime=1161968401/nc1=3848642/nc2=3848500/nc3=4025321>

> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

dunn_kb

Re: sun sensitivity

In reply to this post by Marc Martin

--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote:

>
> Pete - regarding your sun sensitivity, have you tried antioxidants
> (especially Vitamin A or maybe carrot juice?) or essential fatty
> acids (especially things that contain omega-3, like fish oils
> or flax oil?). Being outside and getting sunshine is supposed
> to be *good* for you, so I'm thinking you may be having problems
> with excess free radical damage or excess Vitamin D (to which
> essential fatty acids counteracts). Finding ways to increase
> your tolerance to the sun would be a better idea than trying
> to find ways to completely avoid it.
>
> Marc
>

I know of an excellent fish oil product and a wealth of info from the
doc on DrDavesBest.com . He has the highest quality pharmaceutical
grade fish oil, and you can search his site for related articles that
he's written, and even e-mail him. His address is at the bottom of
his pages, so you can draft him a letter if you don't find help
otherwise.
KBD