> Hi Jean and folks:
>
> And, it might be worthwhile at this point to reiterate what I have
> written before: the fact of the matter is that no so-called EMF
> meter, even if it is billed as a trifield meter or portable EMF
> survey spectrum analyzer, can realy measure more than a tiny
> percentage of the manmade EM fields, magnetic fields, and electrical
> fields present in an environment. This is not due to some kind of
> conspiracy, nor is it due to deception or penny-pinching on the part
> of the manufacturers and vendors, but rather due to the incredible
> engineering feat it would take to sense and measure acurately even
> 60% of such fields, particularly in a portable meter, and, if it
> could be done, such a meter would, of necessity, likely cost upwards
> of $90,000 and would likely weight six pounds!
>
> with care,
> --Vinny
>
> At 08:49 AM 9/4/2006, you wrote:
>>--- In [hidden email], "charles" <charles@...> wrote:
>>...
>> >
>> > But mark, electrosensibles may react starting at levels if 1 uW/m2;
>>some
>> > even at 0,1 uW/m2.
>> > When they encounter 100 uW/m2, life is hell for them.
>> > And recovery of illnesses is nearly impossible.
>>
>>
>>I agree with that. I have a spectran (I know it's not that reliable).
>>And I ended up to the conclusion that as long as it is higher than
>>1uW/m2 this is a problem for me, and better if it is below 0.5uW/m2.
>>20 to 40 uW/m2 is already a difficult area for me.
>>
>>I want to move out of this place, but not possible at the moment. And
>>then there are so many places with EMF smog nowadays, it's getting
>>difficult.
>>
>>Also I read the post about memory problems. It rings a bell.
>>
>>jean.
>
>
> Vinny Pinto
> [hidden email]
>
> phone 301-694-1249
>
> To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:
> http://www.vinnypinto.us
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>