Posted by richsurf77 on
URL: https://www.es-forum.com/Electrohypersensitivity-State-of-the-Art-of-a-Functional-Impairment-tp1543252p1543267.html

--- In [hidden email], "S. Andreason" <sandreas41@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
>


Yeah I think you are right about it having to affect alot of people
personally before they take notice, but I'm amazed that with science
being taken so seriously these days, that the evidence that mobiles
are dangerous isn't taken alot more seriously.


> >
> > 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
>