Posted by
charles-2 on
URL: https://www.es-forum.com/More-Questions-tp1535970p1535986.html
Hello,
to put it bluntly: it is impossible for simple mortals to understand exactly
what is going on.
Sure, it is frequency dependant. But it is not determind which ones.
The high frequencies react to the body, but also the low frequencies.
Especially the low frequent modulations added to the high frquencies for
mobile phone.
The go like 17.3 Hz, 100 Hz and 217 Hz, even 15000 Hz with UMTS.
Do not fortget, that we speak about normal transversal waves AND
longitudinal or Tesla waves.
The latter we cannot measure directly, so we cannot discuss them according
theory.
A simple cordless home telephone according the DECT/GAP principle is killing
you!
Not directly, but in a few months. Its pulsed signals are emitted 14 hours a
day.
A simple cordless home telephone according an analogue principle is not
pulsed, and radiates only when you phone.
Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
http://members.rott.chello.nl/cclaessens/http://www.hese-project.orgchecked by Norton Antivirus
----- Original Message -----
From: "Drasko Cvijovic" <
[hidden email]>
To: <
[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 22:51
Subject: Re: [eSens] More Questions
> 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.
> > Thanks
> > Lachlan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>