Posted by Drasko Cvijovic on
URL: https://www.es-forum.com/More-Questions-tp1535970p1535985.html

Lachlan,
Your question about frequency is related to a very complicated issue of what
really causes adverse reactions to EMF... Up to now, one thing is for sure -
there is still no simple answer (if any)...

All we know is that ES and other reactions to proximity of EM fields *are
somehow related* to (measurable) physical characteristics of the filled.
(There is no evident and stable cause - reaction relationship.)

Just one of the measurable characteristics is frequency. And regarding
frequency, potential resonance with the body as whole or with smaller parts
like cells are, is just one of the factors involved, there are other
mechanisms of influence of various fields and frequencies.

I, for example, keep using my simple cordless home telephone that operates
exactly at the frequency you pointed out as potentially resonant to the
body, and although I am highly sensitive, it gives me less unpleasant
feeling than a regular table telephone (not to mention the cellular).


Drasko

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lachlan Mudge" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 6:10 PM
Subject: [eSens] More Questions


> Conventional aerials used to receive EM radiation are optimised based on
> geometry.... As far as I understand, a general rule for conventional
aerials
> is that their length should be at least one quarter of the wavelength of
the
> radiation they are trying to receive. Based on this assumption, the
average
> human body would act as an aerial for radiation with a wavelength of four
times
> the size of the body. Assuming that the average human body was 1.8 metres
> high, the largest wavelength that could be significantly received by the
body
> would theoretically be 7.2metres (41.67MHz), though this is dependant on
the
> orientation of the body with respect to the direction of polarisation of
the
> radiation. I have heard this value quoted by others as the wavelength
with
> which the entire body will resonate. Could someone please correct me if
I'm
> wrong on any of this as I am very keen to gain a correct understanding of
all
> this and hope to use this understanding productively. The conclusion I
drew
> from all this was that radiation above 41.67MHz has the potential to
induce
> resonance in certain body parts, depending on their size and orientation
to the
> direction of polarisation of the radiation. I would be interested to know
if
> anyone has ever calculated what frequency of radiation would best be
received
> by particularly susceptible body parts, such as the pineal gland.
>
> This discussion also deliberately brings me to another recent topic of
> conversation on the list, namely the bioprotect card and other such
devices.
> Could Dietrich, Charles or someone else please clarify the mechanism by
which
> they operate? Do these devices 'attract' a certain frequency of
radiation,
> based on their geometry, so that the device resonates rather than any part
of
> the human anatomy? Furthermore, would this mean that the effectiveness of
such
> devices is frequency dependant and could this therefore explain why they
don't
> work for different people experiencing health problems due to different
> frequencies of radiation? I hope someone can help me out with these
questions.