> How is this relevant to what the engineer said on the PDF book?
>
> I suggest you attempt to contact him directly - via feb.se - if you
> seek the absolute truth.
>
> Because as I've said, there's theory, and then there's real-life
> experience which debunks science.
>
> Some people choose to remain die-hard scientists - it's their choice.
>
> Minni
>
>
> --- In [hidden email], "charles" <charles@...> wrote:
>>
>> Measuring is a profession in itsself.
>>
>> Not many people do know for instance that a good spectrumanalyser
> is a
>> source for a lot of radiation.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Charles Claessens
>> member Verband Baubiologie
>> www.milieuziektes.nl
>> www.milieuziektes.be
>> www.hetbitje.nl
>> checked by Norton Antivirus
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "minnimall" <minnimall@...>
>> To: <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 10:00
>> Subject: [eSens] Re: Anyone consider whether LED cellphones are
> worse?
>>
>>
>> > All I can say is that I have no doubt many people are like me and
> the
>> > engineer in the PDF book Black On White (page 114 by Granlund-
> Lind).
>> >
>> > That engineer's job was to check out fields via Holaday meter. But
>> > (as is the case with so many others who debunked science when
>> > disproven by REAL-LIFE) he discovered the scientific instruments
> to
>> > be white elephants. Why?
>> > Because he was much more able to tolerate a smelting plant EVEN
>> > THOUGH the smelting plant registered high on his professional
> meter,
>> > yet he was MUCH LESS able to tolerate office environments which
>> > registered negligible on his meter.
>> >
>> > So - what do offices have that smelting plants don't?
>> > Fluoresent lights & fluoresent monitors.
>> > That's what!
>> >
>> > Thus my point - that FLUORESCENT LEDs on cellphones, i.m.h.o are
> what
>> > *exacerbate* cellphone dangers multifold.
>> >
>> > I'm not concerned because I don't use cellphones.
>> > Just consider me similar to the boy in the Emperor's New Clothes.
>> > Pointing out something which may not have occured to anyone.
>> > I thought it appropriate to warn people here, since that's what
> the
>> > group is about.
>> > End of story.
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In [hidden email], "S. Andreason" <sandreas41@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Minni,
>> >>
>> >> I would think the emissions from the device to be as likely a
>> > source of
>> >> problems. Do you have a Electromagnetic Radiation Meter, like the
>> > Zap
>> >> Checker? <a href="http://www.lessemf.com/rf.html#445"> It is
> much
>> > more
>> >> sensitive than the Trifield meter. Almost as sensitive as I am.
>> >>
>> >> Just like using a Gauss meter to measure magnetic fields, it is
>> > equally
>> >> revealing to measure the wireless range of emissions.
>> >> It also allows you to compare different models and manufacturers,
>> > as
>> >> each device IS different.
>> >> Stewart
>> >>
>> >> minnimall wrote:
>> >> > Maybe the fluorescense emitted from cellphone LED panels may
> make
>> > those
>> >> > cellphones way more harmful than the older cellphones? Because
>> > LIGHT
>> >> > itself is radiation.
>> >> >
>> >> > While I myself am not a cellphone user, yet I *do* find the LED
>> > on my
>> >> > digital camera VERY irritating.
>> >> >
>> >> > P.S. Take this as a rhetorical post - over & out ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Minni
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>