Posted by Stewart A. on
URL: https://www.es-forum.com/Electrohypersensitivity-State-of-the-Art-of-a-Functional-Impairment-tp1543252p1543265.html

richsurf77 wrote:
> This is an interesting paper. I don't understand why mobile phones
> and their masts are allowed to keep being used and put up when there
> is so much evidence that they are not safe. If there is evidence that
> 5 or more years of regular use increases the chances of a brain
> tumour, I'm amazed that so many people use them.
>

Because the "evidence" is just becoming conclusive enough to turn heads.
It takes time for dangers to be recognized, especially when it takes
Years to Feel any effect.

Because they can't feel anything when using them.
It's only amazing after it affects 'you' personally.

>
> BTW I've posted part of an article below and I was wondering what is
> causing his symptoms from the battery operated near infrared device.
> Is it the frequency of the device? The reason I'm asking is because
> i'm guessing a battery operated device would not have a magnetic
> field and would not have a very powerful electric field.
I disagree. Battery powered devices can include cel-phones, etc. But
you're asking about a magnetic field... I would point out that batteries
themselves can cause discomfort, expecially car batteries. They put out
a large DC magnetic field. The only battery type that is bio-compatible
is lithium batteries.

DC motors do put out magnetic fields. A battery operated electric shaver
certainly puts out a field.


> Update as of Aug.2006: I have just started experimenting with NEAR
> INFRA-RED LED pocket-size massager. It operates on two AA batteries,
> & it's potent at 60,000 mcd total, and 660 nanometers. Interestingly,
> it causes my teeth to throb, as well as eye irritation & dryness,
> despite that I shut my eyes tight & keep them covered with my arm.
> So... what's my point? My point is: This is proof that LIGHT is the
> culprit, rather than Alternating Current, Refresh Rates, etc.
>
What about devices on the 'other' side of a wall? By definition, visible
light doesn't go through walls.
I think there is more to the picture, but your point is well taken.
Certain light may be a causative factor.

Stewart