shielding (was: new member)

Hello Sarah,

I have measured that with a RF meter.

My walls did not emit anything, because the appartment was shielded.
The DECT phone of a neighbour radiated through his wall through the corridor
against my wall.
At a certain time my wall did nothing emit.
Then it started to emit and the amount grew.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Benson, Sarah (Sen L. Allison)" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 08:16
Subject: RE: [eSens] shielding (was: new member)

Charles,
Could you please be more specific on that, regarding bricks??!!
Bricks are really almost no protection against RF (while concrete gives some
1dB attenuation per cm = 10 times less for 10 cm concrete wall).
But this is the first time I hear that something reemits radiation?!? I must
say I don't think you are right..

Drasko




----- Original Message -----
From: "charles" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [eSens] shielding (was: new member)


> Hello Sarah,
>
> I do not agree.
> I have found that bricks are sucking up RF radiation and start emitting
them

Hello Drasko,

you may think what you want.

I measured around 200 uW/m2 comiong from ther neighbours wall, coming into
the corridor.
I measured that against this wall.
Then I turnded 180 degrees and measured against my wall in the corridir.
In the beginning I measured nothing.
And then I started to measure, from 50 to 80 to 120 uW/m2.
Ans I am quite sure, I do not have a DECT phone in my appartment.

I came to that, because my appartement was shielded from the outside windows
and walls.
I used to show that to visitors.
First I directed my logarithmic periodic antenna against my walls, with
practically no sound.
Then I went to the wall of my neighbour aside my appartment, where nothing
was shielded, and stark sounds were heard.
Next I then turned 180 degrees to let them hear the DECT phone of my
neighbour opposite.

This is not the first time I mentioned this.

To make this more horrible, I tell you the following.
Againt the glass of my windows, I had placed these special transparent
anti-RF films.
They did their work for some time, but at a certain moment, i had to place
these GE-S glassfibers before it, as an extra neccessary shielding.

Now you do have something to think about.

I don't like it either, but those are my findings.

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





----- Original Message -----
From: "Drasko Cvijovic" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 18:34
Subject: [eSens] bricks


> Charles,
> Could you please be more specific on that, regarding bricks??!!
> Bricks are really almost no protection against RF (while concrete gives
some
> 1dB attenuation per cm = 10 times less for 10 cm concrete wall).
> But this is the first time I hear that something reemits radiation?!? I
must Of I've
> > > noticed myself that one side of my house is much worse than the other.
> > >
> > > It sounds like the only EMF protection devices you've tried
> > > are the Q-Links and Clarus Clocks, is that right Sue? From
> > > all the reports I've read, these are the least effective EMF
protection
> > > devices out there. You might want to experiment with some others,
> > > although I don't think we've reached a consensus here about what is
most
> > > likely to be effective. I personally like Springlife Polarizers from
> > > Bioharmonics.com and Quantum Products from QuantumProducts.com
(website
> > > currently down, instead try AdvancedLiving.com). Combining the
> > > lesser-powered devices together works for me in a variety
> > > of situations (e.g, an OM Springlife Pendant plus a Quantum power
> > > strip). But I had to go through *many* devices and combinations
before
> > > I came up with something that worked this well for me. And others
have

But Charles,
All that could have had different explanations from yours that bricks are
becoming different...
I am ready to believe interesting phenomena, but if that what you suppose
was real, you could have got a documented physical phenomenon (independent
from ES etc.) that would have made much scentists interested to make an
issue and a possible change in theoretical views... At least some of them
would have noticed it... But nothing is impossible!

Drasko




----- Original Message -----
From: "charles" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [eSens] bricks

windows emitting other.

Drasko,

it is the same as with many cristals.
They suck up and start emitting.

As was found by Silvio Hellemann, who wrote a very good *Handbook for
Electrosensibles*, (but it is in German).
He also found, that a lot of things, that worked in the beginning, after
some time started to radiate the negative information.

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



----- Original Message -----
From: "Drasko Cvijovic" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 20:22
Subject: Re: [eSens] bricks

into nothing place gives
> > some
> > > 1dB attenuation per cm = 10 times less for 10 cm concrete wall).
> > > But this is the first time I hear that something reemits radiation?!?
I magnetic
> > > > > fields that go right through.
> > > > >
> > > > > sarah
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf idea... is
> > most
> > > > > likely to be effective. I personally like Springlife Polarizers
from (if

> He also found, that a lot of things, that worked in the beginning, after
> some time started to radiate the negative information.

Have you noticed if the Springlife Polarizers do the same thing? It seems
to me that they are still working after 2 years, although I rarely put them
in the sunshine to "recharge" them.

Marc

Hi,

not sure if can give any useful input here. i do know that one of the worse things when i was in the crazy pain and more state in the start was the bus (maybe cellphones in it) i was incapable of standing on the metal of it, i thought it was the metal, the pain was unbareble, could not walk/ stand on it/

another thing was i had to keep moving and putting this metal/rubber tape used to patch roofs under my shoes helped me, as did an insolation blanket (also metallic on the out-side.. kicked myself for not knowing the laws of physics, what it was to do to ground myself, also bought two meters of rubber, but could not get myself safe)

Not sure about bricks, but tile floors and walls seemed to make things a lot worse (but i even seemed to feel the wood house, which iam told is impossible) but that may have been the bot moving part..

crystals can be cleared by sunlight (and i think moonlight and salt) think there may be a parallel there with the crystal body (and not sure why it should be crystal technology affecting us??)

well,,

that was then, know i feel i have been pulled up enough and have faith i am safe.

Love and Light

Marc Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> He also found, that a lot of things, that worked in the beginning, after
> some time started to radiate the negative information.

Have you noticed if the Springlife Polarizers do the same thing? It seems
to me that they are still working after 2 years, although I rarely put them
in the sunshine to "recharge" them.

Marc


---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "eSens" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[hidden email]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------




---------------------------------
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.

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

But Charles,
Eventual reemission of subtle energy (information etc.) of crystals is not
testable by objective methods. We can believe or not in dowsing and personal
reports etc. that tell us about crystal reemission, but there is NO WAY to
verify such reemission by the methods of physics. So a physicist won't pay
any attention to such statements, despites be they true or not.
Potential reemission of MW (i.e... a physical value) that is observable by
objective instruments as you have found, is something that classical physics
would have been much, concerned with.
So there are just two options:
1. Give up that explanation (bricks reemitting) and try finding what
objectively changed in your neighborhood or with your instrument etc.
2. If the bricks are really objectively reemiting, than apply for a Nobel
prize in physics. :-)

Now really, I hope you don't mind a bit of humor, all I want to say is that
this is impossible and that we should be most cautious not to disseminate
unproven facts without some reserve... Otherwise industry people would take
the advantage of such our mistakes. (And they keep doing this!)

Drasko


----- Original Message -----
From: "charles" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [eSens] bricks

Hello Drasko,

do you want to play the scientist?

What I mentioned about Silvio Hellemann is of course the findings of
electrosensible people, the most sensitive measurement meters, created by
nature. Not by some company.

But about the bricks, it is something I measured.
See my other posting the same day.
Or do you think I am not capable of measuring?


Concerning you other posting about the questions "So, how dangerous is it?"
that made you crazy, you obviously did not do your homework. It is all on
http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Pagina100.html

I have found, that people can become electrosensible at RF radiations
starting from 200 to 2.000 uW/m2.
When they do have become electrosensible, they may start reacting from 1
uW/m2.
So, there is your answer *how dangerous it is*.
Note, that for becoming electrosenible, one need to have some parameters.
They are listed also on the mentioned website.
After a while the sensitivity for high frequency may lessen a bit, but then
the sensibility for lowfrequency will raise.

Seen these figures, it does not matter if one is radiated by 20.000 or
200.000 or 2.000.000 uW/m2.
It is all very bad.
(It is only important to know regarding shielding measures)

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Drasko Cvijovic" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 19:27
Subject: Re: [eSens] bricks


>
> But Charles,
> Eventual reemission of subtle energy (information etc.) of crystals is not
> testable by objective methods. We can believe or not in dowsing and
personal
> reports etc. that tell us about crystal reemission, but there is NO WAY to
> verify such reemission by the methods of physics. So a physicist won't pay
> any attention to such statements, despites be they true or not.
> Potential reemission of MW (i.e... a physical value) that is observable by
> objective instruments as you have found, is something that classical
physics
> would have been much, concerned with.
> So there are just two options:
> 1. Give up that explanation (bricks reemitting) and try finding what
> objectively changed in your neighborhood or with your instrument etc.
> 2. If the bricks are really objectively reemiting, than apply for a Nobel
> prize in physics. :-)
>
> Now really, I hope you don't mind a bit of humor, all I want to say is
that
> this is impossible and that we should be most cautious not to disseminate
> unproven facts without some reserve... Otherwise industry people would
take
> the advantage of such our mistakes. (And they keep doing this!)
>
> Drasko
>

I find this discussion very interesting - I know that a protective
device that I used once relies on the isotapes of certain minerals
(silica? Quortz?) being changed in a laboratory process I order that the
substance (granite?) is changed to emit very frequencies...does this
make any sense? Unfortunately the manufacturers are rather secretive
about the actual science etc involved - but I guess there would be other
devices that would use a similar type of technology.

I also know that granite tends to radiate a lot of geopathic energies -
amplifies them. I guess this is beause it contains quartz?

I think you might have made an interesitng point here Charles - I don't
know about a Nobel Prize - but at least I think that this is something
that could be explored/writen about more widely....

Sarah

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
Drasko Cvijovic
Sent: Monday, 11 July 2005 3:28 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [eSens] bricks



But Charles,
Eventual reemission of subtle energy (information etc.) of crystals is
not testable by objective methods. We can believe or not in dowsing and
personal reports etc. that tell us about crystal reemission, but there
is NO WAY to verify such reemission by the methods of physics. So a
physicist won't pay any attention to such statements, despites be they
true or not. Potential reemission of MW (i.e... a physical value) that
is observable by objective instruments as you have found, is something
that classical physics would have been much, concerned with. So there
are just two options: 1. Give up that explanation (bricks reemitting)
and try finding what objectively changed in your neighborhood or with
your instrument etc. 2. If the bricks are really objectively reemiting,
than apply for a Nobel prize in physics. :-)

Now really, I hope you don't mind a bit of humor, all I want to say is
that this is impossible and that we should be most cautious not to
disseminate unproven facts without some reserve... Otherwise industry
people would take the advantage of such our mistakes. (And they keep
doing this!)

Drasko


----- Original Message -----
From: "charles" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [eSens] bricks


> Drasko,
>
> it is the same as with many cristals.
> They suck up and start emitting.
>
> As was found by Silvio Hellemann, who wrote a very good *Handbook for
> Electrosensibles*, (but it is in German). He also found, that a lot of




 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 

Well, Charles, although I don't hold any Ph.D., I know a bit of science... I
don't think you are incapable of measuring, just that suh a thing with
bricks is impossible, so that it certainly has some explanation...
But instead of telling my refferences, I am thinking about offering you a
bet...
If you prove bricks reemit anything measurable by a physical instrument (not
man!) under controlled conditions, you win, say, 10.000 Euros?! (And than I
would have repaied it from Nobel prize, if in any case it really proves
right! :-) ;-))
In the case it proves wrong you would have owed me just a dinner (plane
tickets included)....
What do you think?

Drasko

----- Original Message -----
From: "charles" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [eSens] bricks

it?" then not
> > testable by objective methods. We can believe or not in dowsing and
> personal
> > reports etc. that tell us about crystal reemission, but there is NO WAY
to
> > verify such reemission by the methods of physics. So a physicist won't
pay
> > any attention to such statements, despites be they true or not.
> > Potential reemission of MW (i.e... a physical value) that is observable
by
> > objective instruments as you have found, is something that classical
> physics
> > would have been much, concerned with.
> > So there are just two options:
> > 1. Give up that explanation (bricks reemitting) and try finding what
> > objectively changed in your neighborhood or with your instrument etc.
> > 2. If the bricks are really objectively reemiting, than apply for a
Nobel
> > prize in physics. :-)
> >
> > Now really, I hope you don't mind a bit of humor, all I want to say is
> that
> > this is impossible and that we should be most cautious not to
disseminate

Hello Drasko,

I can only duplicate my earlier posting of July 9th:
***********
Hello Drasko,

you may think what you want.

I measured around 200 uW/m2 comiong from ther neighbours wall, coming into
the corridor.
I measured that against his wall in the corridor.
Then I turnded 180 degrees and measured against my wall in the corridor.
In the beginning I measured nothing.
And then I started to measure, from 50 to 80 to 120 uW/m2.
And I am quite sure, I do not have a DECT phone in my appartment.

I came to that, because my appartement was shielded from the outside windows
and walls.
I used to show that to visitors.
First I directed my logarithmic periodic antenna against my walls, with
practically no sound.
Then I went to the wall of my neighbour aside my appartment, where nothing
was shielded, and stark sounds were heard.
Next I then turned 180 degrees to let them hear the DECT phone of my
neighbour opposite.

This is not the first time I mentioned this.

To make this more horrible, I tell you the following.
Againt the glass of my windows, I had placed these special transparent
anti-RF films.
They did their work for some time, but at a certain moment, i had to place
these GE-S glassfibers before it, as an extra neccessary shielding.

Now you do have something to think about.

I don't like it either, but those are my findings.
*********
I measured that with my HF58B.
The same meter, our National Antenna Bureau checked me and measured the same
values I measured.

And, Drasko, I am not after your money, although I am a very poor man.
No, I just wanted to make a point.
Because measuring is now my profession, and I do know a lot about that, and
about reflections (which can play a very difficult part) and other stuff,
that I am quite sure about what I found out.
Other people felt such things, I just measured it.

I do have my reference measuring points, where I intentionally go from time
to time, just to see if something has changed, and to learn.
Because I learn everyday.

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





----- Original Message -----
From: "Drasko Cvijovic" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 18:12
Subject: Re: [eSens] bricks


>
> Well, Charles, although I don't hold any Ph.D., I know a bit of science...
I
> don't think you are incapable of measuring, just that suh a thing with
> bricks is impossible, so that it certainly has some explanation...
> But instead of telling my refferences, I am thinking about offering you a
> bet...
> If you prove bricks reemit anything measurable by a physical instrument
(not
> man!) under controlled conditions, you win, say, 10.000 Euros?! (And than
I
> would have repaied it from Nobel prize, if in any case it really proves
> right! :-) ;-))
> In the case it proves wrong you would have owed me just a dinner (plane
> tickets included)....
> What do you think?
>
> Drasko