shielding re cordless phones, wireless computers etc.

Hi,

I am an electrosensitive person. I have been reading this site and
have already gotten lots of helpful information from it. If anybody
could help in clarifying re the following, I would really appreciate
it:

- if a neighbour has a cordless phone or computer with wireless
broadband on the other side of the wall in an adjoining house, is
there any point in trying to just shield that particular wall to
block the radiation to my house ( or at least to decrease it to a
lower level), or does the radiation also usually come in through the
front and back walls of the house at an equally high level?  

-also if the neighbours phone and computer are downstairs and the
downstairs dividing wall was shielded, would the upstairs dividing
wall also need to be shielded to reduce the radiation?

-even if both upstairs and downstairs divding walls were shielded,
would the radiation come through the solid parts that can't be
shielded e.g. the couple of inches of upstairs floor i.e the space
between upstairs floor and downstairs ceiling ?

I hope these questions make sense, it is hard to describe what I mean
clearly. Thanks very much foer your help.

Josephine

Hi Josephine,

A good way to understand where you need shielding, think of microwave radiation as if it was light. Think that it
will bounce (reflect) off all surfaces, and will be blocked only by shielded and conductive surfaces. This is a
rough approximation, but useful. Remember: when you are in direct sunlight and you have an umbrella overhead, you
get shade... not complete darkness!

Emil

----- Original Message -----
From: "xyzjmt" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 8:16 AM
Subject: [eSens] shielding re cordless phones, wireless computers etc.

The radiation is much worse in a direct line and shielding that should give
a big improvement. The electrosmog detector is a good check if it can pick
up your neighbour's particular type of wi-fi or emissions. That being said,
Emil is right, there is some "spread" as well (otherwise mobile phones
couldn't work, the waves do bend round corners a bit), but it's not as bad
as the direct line. You're right to watch for floorboards/ceilings as well.
We hung a metallised net across the bedroom wall to block the emissions from
our neighbour's cordless phone but we also had to put some kitchen foil in
some spots on the floor near the wall where the signal was coming through at
an angle.
Ian

_____  

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
xyzjmt
Sent: 06 June 2007 13:17
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [eSens] shielding re cordless phones, wireless computers etc.



Hi,

I am an electrosensitive person. I have been reading this site and
have already gotten lots of helpful information from it. If anybody
could help in clarifying re the following, I would really appreciate
it:

- if a neighbour has a cordless phone or computer with wireless
broadband on the other side of the wall in an adjoining house, is
there any point in trying to just shield that particular wall to
block the radiation to my house ( or at least to decrease it to a
lower level), or does the radiation also usually come in through the
front and back walls of the house at an equally high level?

-also if the neighbours phone and computer are downstairs and the
downstairs dividing wall was shielded, would the upstairs dividing
wall also need to be shielded to reduce the radiation?

-even if both upstairs and downstairs divding walls were shielded,
would the radiation come through the solid parts that can't be
shielded e.g. the couple of inches of upstairs floor i.e the space
between upstairs floor and downstairs ceiling ?

I hope these questions make sense, it is hard to describe what I mean
clearly. Thanks very much foer your help.

Josephine



 


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

In a message dated 6/7/2007 12:09:39 AM GMT Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:

The radiation is much worse in a direct line and shielding that should give
a big improvement. The electrosmog detector is a good check if it can pick
up your neighbour's particular type of wi-fi or emissions. That being said,
Emil is right, there is some "spread


Paul uk writes -

I am not so sure about the direct beam or evan intensityof beam. It seems
plausible to me that when in the main beam wether its dect, telemast,wifi, the
body knows instantly that its being challenged and so initiates a purposeful
response and puts up a sheild. This may be effective for a while, but rather
like a soiledr using his sheild to block hundreds of arrows/stones raining
down on him the sheild will eventually breakdown or he will tire. So short term
response viable but if we look at the side lobe radiations, stray and
reflected waves, we may be more subject to whole body subtle irradiation, and its
my feeling that the waxing and waning of these more subtle waves will cuase
more neurological upset to ES rather like the effects of the Full moon and
gravitational pull on water. Of course when your neighbour has a dect you will
be exposed to both direct hit and the more subtle smog. Its a no win
situation, best way is to get your neighbours to ditch the phone, as I said in my
last post I have bought a new analogue phone for my neighbours to replace thier
DECT, I am awaiting this but so far so good. PS I am able to pick up dect
with the electrosmog detector but WIFI unless very close seems it seems less
sensative ? Lets not forget that these devices have a range of 300m so just
when you thought you had sussed it out the family over the raod discover the
joys of DECT !

Paul uk






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

Paul, i'm pretty sure that wi-fi is about half as powerful as DECT
phones, which may be why you're not picking it up on your Acousti com

I worked as a cleaner for a bit in ppls homes and my 'clients' had
all the mod cons, dects, wifi, etc... What I noticed was that one
DECT wld penetrate thru the whole house, but the wi-fi would barely
reach beyond the room it was in (ok a slight exaggeration, but its
range was a fraction of that of DECT). Which is why DECTS remain the
big-daddy of microwave emissions in my opinion, yet they continue to
receive the least publicity :(  

--- In [hidden email], paulpjc@... wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 6/7/2007 12:09:39 AM GMT Daylight Time,  
> ianandsue.kemp@... writes:
>
> The radiation is much worse in a direct line and shielding that
should give
> a big improvement. The electrosmog detector is a good check if it
can pick
> up your neighbour's particular type of wi-fi or emissions. That
being said,
> Emil is right, there is some "spread
>
>
> Paul uk writes -
>  
> I am not so sure about the direct beam or evan intensityof beam.  
It seems
> plausible to me that when in the main beam wether its dect,
telemast,wifi, the
> body knows instantly that its being challenged and so initiates a
purposeful  
> response and puts up a sheild. This may be effective for a while,
but rather  
> like a soiledr using his sheild to block hundreds of arrows/stones
raining
> down on him the sheild will eventually breakdown or he will tire.
So short term
> response viable but if we look at the side lobe radiations, stray
and
> reflected waves, we may be more subject to whole body subtle
irradiation, and its
> my feeling that the waxing and waning of these more subtle waves
will cuase
> more neurological upset to ES rather like the effects of the Full
moon and  
> gravitational pull on water. Of course when your neighbour has a
dect you will
> be exposed to both direct hit and the more subtle smog. Its a no
win  
> situation, best way is to get your neighbours to ditch the phone,
as I said in my
> last post I have bought a new analogue phone for my neighbours to
replace thier
> DECT, I am awaiting this but so far so good. PS I am able to pick
up dect
> with the electrosmog detector but WIFI unless very close seems it  
seems less
> sensative ? Lets not forget that these devices have a range of  
300m so just
> when you thought you had sussed it out the family over the raod  
discover the

In a message dated 6/7/2007 11:14:47 PM GMT Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:

Paul, i'm pretty sure that wi-fi is about half as powerful as DECT
phones, which may be why you're not picking it up on your Acousti com

I worked as a cleaner for a bit in ppls homes and my 'clients' had
all the mod cons, dects, wifi, etc... What I noticed was that one
DECT wld penetrate thru the whole house, but the wi-fi would barely
reach beyond the room it was in (ok a slight exaggeration, but its
range was a fraction of that of DECT). Which is why DECTS remain


pAUL uk replies

Not forgetting that some dect phones and wifi are in the 5 gig region
outside the sensitivity level of the electrosmog detector. Also we must not look
at the offending devices in isolation. I understand now that the HPA have
produced prototype Dosimeters which will work up to 6 gig to monitor total body
exposure over time. They cost 2.5k out of my price range but a good move,
depending on who sets the min safety does standards. But yeah getting as many of
the known devices out of your personal equation makes sense.

I have now bought an analogue cordless phone for my neighbour to replace his
dect, I will give it time to see if I have any improvement (the tin foil hat
I have on right now seems to help a little- if you could only see me, I look
like judge dredd !)







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

Talking about analogue cordless phones as oppossed to dect. I dropped the
use of these 5 yrs ago when I began to realise that they gave me the same
sensations that I was suffering when sat at a CRT display unit.

Having just given my neighbour a cordless analogue to replace his dect, I
was setting it up and I can catagorically say that within 15 mins of close
exposure I developed one or two septic spots within the skin of my left cheek/eye
orbit. I think for me the lefthandside of my head is most suseptible to the
effects of EMR or perhaps more sensitive and prone to manifest symptoms.

Paul UK






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

paul: i just hope your neighbour sticks with it (and doesn't learn of
the security issues with analogue!). Did the analogue phone look
fairly modern or a bit primitive? Just hope your neighbour won't
want all the special features of DECTs.
Then again, I think he'll probably decide that he'd rather spare
himself the grief of having you knocking on his door every 5 minutes,
even if the new phone is a bit inferior to his old one!
Fingers crossed.

--- In [hidden email], paulpjc@... wrote:
>
> Talking about analogue cordless phones as oppossed to dect. I
dropped the
> use of these 5 yrs ago when I began to realise that they gave me
the same  
> sensations that I was suffering when sat at a CRT display unit.
>  
> Having just given my neighbour a cordless analogue to replace his
dect, I  
> was setting it up and I can catagorically say that within 15 mins
of close  
> exposure I developed one or two septic spots within the skin of my
left cheek/eye
> orbit. I think for me the lefthandside of my head is most  
suseptible to the
> effects of EMR or perhaps more sensitive and prone to manifest  
symptoms.

In a message dated 6/9/2007 1:07:16 AM GMT Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:

paul: i just hope your neighbour sticks with it (and doesn't learn of
the security issues with analogue!). Did the analogue phone look
fairly modern or a bit primitive? Just hope your neighbour won't
want all the special features of DECTs.
Then again, I think he'll probably decide that he'd rather spare
himself the grief of having you knocking on his door every 5 minutes,
even if the new phone is a bit inferior to his old one!
Fingers crossed.




It wasnt a bad one and has a security feature built in plus a digital answer
machine, to suppliment this I also gave him a handsfree landline phone, and
cut his hedge down with my big mother of a chainsaw ! Yes he knows that it
is a weapon against me and could try to piss me off if I upset him, that of
course is moving into the realms of E harassment but I would need good evidence
to show this ? I am still not 100% happy though as he and his sons use
wifi, I might offer to wire up a fixed bt plug for them instead. The seed is
planted re the potential hazzards to them re Wireless tech, so we will see.

Paul

My observations so far being 24 hrs free of the dect - seems that I can
tolerate my pc that bit longer having removed this offending layer of rad at such
close quarters. I can almost say that it has caused me so much distress
over the past year that it derranged my whole being. That makes me ANGRY !






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